Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise

[JoeRalat]

Wow its good to see that others feel the same way as I do. Thanks Rick and Andrew.

Just a quick note, the idea for the ship being built on Earth was taken from this photo. The people in the movie said that they used this photo.
Very Little thinking went behind this photo.

 

[Timo]

I rather think JJ Abrams will stick to San Francisco for that reason, too.

There are two ways to look at this starships-perching-on-ground issue. On one hand, every starship worth the name should be perfectly capable of visiting the surface every now and then, or of being born there. Like Rick Sternbach said, that's just a fraction of the capabilities that the ships regularly display in other contexts.

On the other hand, a jet fighter is perfectly capable of rolling along a highway at a hundred miles per hour - this is a small subset of its abilities to take off from a runway and fly through the air. This doesn't mean that USAF would see much tactical need to make its jets roll along highways at a hundred miles per hour. Building starships on the ground might not be done unless there was a good reason to do so, even when the process was entirely possible.

Yet on the third hand (let's remember that this is science fiction!), if it's as trivial to fly starships to and from planetary surfaces as it should be, perhaps it's also trivial where they are built - and Starfleet thus builds them everywhere, both on the surface of Earth, and the orbit of Earth, and the surface of the Moon, and the orbit of the Moon, and so forth. Hauling the materials between various parts of the Sol system might be such a minor logistical effort that other factors would become decisive in where ships are built. Such as where the Congressman sponsoring them happens to live - Iowa, or Lagrange Two. We see a lot of that happening already - Airbus is based on the very concept of logistics costs being irrelevant in comparison with political convenience.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Psion]

The idea of building a "STAR-SHIP" on the ground is ludicrous... especially if it is expected to actually lift off under it's own power.
...

Don't get me wrong, if you look around and find the arguments I've gotten into with Dennis Bailey, you'll see I'm a huge proponent of the "made on Earth, assembled in orbit" approach, but I've started thinking about the Orion project. In George Dyson's "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship", General Atomics had some amazingly Trekkish plans for the vehicle. (In fact, I now assume someone from the project spoke with Roddenberry and company during pre-production of the original show). Before Star Trek was even a script for a pilot, these folks were talking about a spaceship with a crew of up to 150 men and women, most of them scientists, cruising the solar system using nuclear pulse detonation engines and armed with "casaba howitzers" in case of dangerous encounters with hostile Soviet forces.

This enormous spaceship -- which would surely have been close to the size of the Enterprise -- would have lifted off from the desert under its own power; a vision that would surely have gotten any anti-nuke activist breathing heavy!

Is it really ludicrous to assume a starship can't lift off from the ground? Especially if there are anti-gravity systems in place that assist the launch and inertial dampers that reduce the vessel's apparent mass?

 

[Psion]

Ooo! Sorry to double-post, but I just found some old footage of Orion prototype tests using conventional explosives on YouTube. No, not like in YouTube getting blown up by Orion ... the footage is on YouTube!

Oh never mind, here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-OncU3sMTug&NR=1

 

[JoeRalat]

Now if we are going to talk about this a pure scifi, then its more about mythology of the show. The changes are made, could have been fix, if some time would have been taken into look at some of this stuff. Do some research on this. You could have still had the shot of the Enterprise on earth, but don't give the impression that the whole ship could be built on earth. "Hey lets build the Enterprise on Earth" Ok where should we build it.." Well in tons of trek books and hell the ship's plaque(TOS) that it was built in SF. "No forget that...let do it our way!!"

This is what JJ Said "As Abrams has said in previous interviews, he wanted to reach out to potential new fans." Yeah thats cool, but don't turn off the old fans!

DAMN I NEED A DRINK!!! Off to get some Romulan Ale!! LOL

 

[JoeRalat]

The idea of building a "STAR-SHIP" on the ground is ludicrous... especially if it is expected to actually lift off under it's own power.
...

Don't get me wrong, if you look around and find the arguments I've gotten into with Dennis Bailey, you'll see I'm a huge proponent of the "made on Earth, assembled in orbit" approach, but I've started thinking about the Orion project. In George Dyson's "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship", General Atomics had some amazingly Trekkish plans for the vehicle. (In fact, I now assume someone from the project spoke with Roddenberry and company during pre-production of the original show). Before Star Trek was even a script for a pilot, these folks were talking about a spaceship with a crew of up to 150 men and women, most of them scientists, cruising the solar system using nuclear pulse detonation engines and armed with "casaba howitzers" in case of dangerous encounters with hostile Soviet forces.

This enormous spaceship -- which would surely have been close to the size of the Enterprise -- would have lifted off from the desert under its own power; a vision that would surely have gotten any anti-nuke activist breathing heavy!

Is it really ludicrous to assume a starship can't lift off from the ground? Especially if there are anti-gravity systems in place that assist the launch and inertial dampers that reduce the vessel's apparent mass?

Again VOYAGER! The problem is not lifting off the planet, when the ship is done. The problem is why build the whole thing on earth. If you build the parts on earth to test them, then test them and ship them into space, so you can start on another one for another ship.

Again Gene wanted the enterprise to land on a planet, but the budget could not make that happen (That is why we got the transporter)

 

[Rick Sternbach]

EDIT: I originally aimed this at Rick, but I'll ask trevanian too.

What do you think of the extensive use of barcode scanners? Maybe the style is techno-supermarket?

Oh God, it's the found objects syndrome invading the franchise again. Except this time it's a lot more blatant than us on TNG spray-painting gray onto bottles of Wite-Out or using Stabilo markers as med instruments and nacelles on ship models.

Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Oh come on, there's precedence for the Enterprise bridge being a gift shop. At least we've got barcode scanners to go with all those sunglasses racks now

 

[Jimmy_C]

It's nice to know I'm in good company with regard to thinking this redesign is wrong.

Andrew? Where do you stand on the concept of building that monster entirely on the ground in Iowa?

The idea of building a "STAR-SHIP" on the ground is ludicrous... especially if it is expected to actually lift off under it's own power.

Construction and stress requirements for a gravity structure compared to a non-gravity structure are TOTALLY different... which may be why NASA didn't build the International Space Station on the ground. This is all a bunch of too obvious crap designed to manipulate us beyond any normal expectations and I for one take exception to it. Besides, it's kind of a 'Top-Gun' ripoff where the hero races his motorcycle along the flight-line, in a state of ecstasy, being so close to the thing he loves. And then here, to be able to approach a project (reluctantly suspending disbelief) as large as a STARship construction project close enough to fire an RPG into any number of key elements... I mean, give me a friggin' break. But I don't know,... maybe he already has some sort of clearance by this time, but still.

Even the fact that workers are shown fabricating a STARship with 300 year old methods... 'welding' for instance... geeeeze, that really puts the fiction into this science. I can see it now,... the story session where J.J.A. stands up and proclaims: "... and when that baby lifts off, there won't be a dry eye in the house".

Yeah, right.

I hope I'm wrong about that, because realistically the other side of the coin (as well as Star Trek history) says that huge components of a Starship very well might be fabricated on Earth but technology 300 years from now will not require them to actually be assembled here. Those pre-fabricated pieces will be flown (or beamed) into orbit for final assembly... just as the International Space Station is today.

And everyone familiar with Star Trek knows Kirk is from Iowa but the Starship Enterprise was begun in the Naval Shipyards, San Francisco.

Andrew-

Everything inside the ship IS in a gravity structure, when you think about it. The International Space Station isn't stressed the same as the insides of the Enterprise. Once they turn on artificial gravity inside the ship, then everything inside has to be designed to work in that artificial gravity well. Wouldn't a structure inside the artificial gravity of the Enterprise be a lot like a structure in the natural gravity in which it emulates?

Since that structure is the ship itself, couldn't it be designed and built on Earth? Boats even bigger than the Enterprise are built on land then "dropped" into the water.

And even with the ISS, if they could, I'm sure they would want to launch most of the thing in one go. Every launch requires energy lifting the fuel and the launch system in addition to the payload. The less launches that you need, the less energy you waste getting the stuff up there. So if you can lift it off in one go, that would be the best.

As for the San Fransisco Shipyards... There are several "Boston Market" restaurants in my hometown of Pittsburgh. Should they change their names to "Pittsburgh Market" for consistency? I'm not saying they built the thing in Iowa either. The trailer makes it seem like they built it in Iowa, but that's by no means confirmed. As a starfleet kid, Kirk probably moved around a lot with his parents.

 

[JoeRalat]

EDIT: I originally aimed this at Rick, but I'll ask trevanian too.

What do you think of the extensive use of barcode scanners? Maybe the style is techno-supermarket?

Oh God, it's the found objects syndrome invading the franchise again. Except this time it's a lot more blatant than us on TNG spray-painting gray onto bottles of Wite-Out or using Stabilo markers as med instruments and nacelles on ship models.

Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com

I love the Stabilo Makers.

 

[BolianAuthor]

On Trekmovie.com's article for this image, Rick Sternbach expressed that he was disappointed by the design.

That's not actually what Rick said. He offered some initial criticism which he then revised when he was given more information

Well, in one post I admit that i did say I was slightly disappointed, and that really comes from a combination of factors in that single still photo, which I also admit is not a lot to base a final decision on. But they released the picture, so they should expect some reaction.

I don't like the idea of a saucer so very close to the refit design, at least from the edge and below (I have seen some indication that the top surface is quite different). If the film is meant as a parallel history with an overall very different aesthetic, why use something so well known in Trek design? Unless, of course, they pull a time-travel trick as I and others have wondered about, which would make this new ship "valid" as existing before the familiar TOS Ent or the refit, which for all we know won't ever exist. I also can't warm up to the slightly bulbous nature and large size of the nacelles and the odd-looking (to me) plyons. I don't want to leave the impression that I can't stand this version, I just can't say I like it. Plenty of folks don't like my designs, and that's perfectly fine with me. If I could go back and change some proportions or details on some of them, you bet I would, but I have to live with them as they are.

Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com

The thing is, Mr. Sternbach... at least you ad Mister Probert put THOUGHT into your designs.

 

[JoeRalat]

Oh also would Rick and Andrew every do sketches of there versions of an updated TOS. What would be needed to updated TOS?

Would this be a good start of a TOS update? (I love this CGI Model)

 

[Patrickivan]

First off, that is a beautiful picture of the Enterprise above!

As for the ship being built on Earth- EVEN if it was, what the hell is with the mish-mash construction techniques? Today, we build giant sea vessels in sections first, then stick them together. Yes, I am being simplistic here, but compared to what we see in the trailer, we have more advanced building techniques.

I've always thought that the Enterprise was built in sections (warp nacelles/ struts/ sections of hull/ saucer) on Earth (San Fransico), shipped up to an orbital station (via tugs/ beaming/ various methods), and THEN put together.

 

[Timo]

But why? You can save on the expenses of building and maintaining these tugs and whatnot when you just throw everything together down here on Earth and then let it fly to space all on its own.

It's not as if the Trek 23rd century would hinge on the current real-world concept that moving kilograms from Earth to orbit is somehow particularly expensive, so raw materials apparently can flow freely up and down, or across the Sol system. Components probably can, too. But why bother with hauling them around when you can probably do the cheapest sort of assembly down here on Earth (you don't even have to buy spacesuits for your workers)?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

Thats Vektors take on the Enterprise, say Joe, did you ask him if you were allowed to hotllink that picture?

 

[Clawhammer]

I agree with Andrew, building it in space would in terms of engineering be a far better choice. At take off I could see these nacelles snap of their pylons in an instance. If not from the weight then from the upward stress, there are massive and extremely heavy warpcoils in the part of the ship that has the least support.

300 years in the future, I dont think there would be traditional hull plating, more like "casted" composites that are made out of very large pieces.

In fact another benefit of building this in a zero G enviroment is that you could beam a block of composite material in space and let a very large kind of CNC robot fly around it, instead of moving the object you can now let the machine move. Fast and very precise and a lot less welding or fusing parts with for example a laser instead of a blowtorch. After the single shape is cutout it would still benefit from being cut up in smaller (square) parts and be connected together on the spaceframe inside.This way the hull stress would be better divided, and you still have the idea of hull plating. < This is at least the idea I had when I was modeling the USS Spirit.

I think my current ship could also be created using the above method. I must admit this spaceframe has been in drydock like that for 3 years, but construction has finally started.

 

[Unicron]

The Galaxy class parts were seen on the surface in TNG's "Parallels" at Utopia Planitia. However, that does not prove by itself that this means the ship was constructed on the ground. We just saw the parts, no mention of how they were assembled. So while the possibility of ground construction isn't ruled out, I don't think this particular image constitutes proof of it.

 

[Ronald Held]

I would be appreciative, if at the end of the movie, all of the timeline changes are corrected and TOS and their Movies are not altered at all.

 

[David cgc]

...it was fairly likely the warp engines were increased in size and moved closer together to "cheat" the final shot to get a better composition.

Or maybe not. If you look at the head-on image of the ship that's currently in my avatar, you'll see that the pylons rise fairly steeply and that the engines are in fact pretty close together relative to the saucer. And that particular shot from the teaser doesn't really have the ship close enough to the camera for there to be significant perspective distortion.

You know, when I noticed the pylons were were U-shaped instead of V-shaped and the warp engines actually were pushed closer to the centerline, I kicked myself for reiterating my belief that the ship in the teaser wasn't perfectly accurate right before I'd be proven wrong.

As for the ship being built on Earth- EVEN if it was, what the hell is with the mish-mash construction techniques? Today, we build giant sea vessels in sections first, then stick them together. Yes, I am being simplistic here, but compared to what we see in the trailer, we have more advanced building techniques.

Well, it looks like that's something like what's happening. On the right side of the screen, you can see a panel of the saucer's lower hull with one or two decks worth of rooms and piping on top of it being winched up into the hull. It doesn't seem like it's being built wall by wall within the hull.

I would be appreciative, if at the end of the movie, all of the timeline changes are corrected and TOS and their Movies are not altered at all.

So, you want to this to be a one-off exercise that's ultimately pointless as far as any larger narrative goes, and ensures that the next Trek would be another remake?

 

[Captain X]

deg3D's take on an updated version of the 1701 is pretty good too.