Why not just use the pilot design?

[Captain Robert April]

It's a major credibility violation, along with the Grand Canyon's cousin being nestled in the cornfields of Iowa.

 

[Sci]

Things which strike me:

1. At some level, it is being forgotten here that ship construction by a governmental entity is a political process.

Politics sometimes results in absurd outcomes.

Why might a starship be built in Iowa, not in orbit? Because the key vote for said starship's funding was, I dunno, provided by the Distinguished Gentleman from Earth who happened to have Iowa in his district.

An excellent point. Though I will note that there's no particular reason to think that the part of the trailer featuring the ship being built -- BTW, we don't know for sure that that particular Constitution-class starship is the Enterprise -- is set in Iowa. They could easily have edited together a sequence of Kirk driving in Iowa with a sequence of Kirk driving in San Francisco -- and in fact I'm told that Abrams has said that that portion of the trailer takes place in both Iowa and SanFran.

3. Lest we forget, Star Trek, more than anything else, is a dramatic production. At some level, it just makes better drama for Young Kirk to ride up on a motorcycle, trapped in the Iowa cornfields as he is, and see workers swarming over a starship under construction.

Exactly. As I argued above, it creates a visual metaphor for the idea of longing, of literally wanting to fly but feeling trapped on the ground, that would be lost if the ship was being constructed in space.

 

[Sci]

It's a major credibility violation, along with the Grand Canyon's cousin being nestled in the cornfields of Iowa.

1. Erm, do we know that the opening sequence with Lil' Kirk takes place in Iowa? We see Iowa license plates, but that's all we know. It could easily take place somewhere in the Southwest United States.

2. To you, the ship being built on the ground is a credibility violation. It's not to me -- I mean, hell, they have energy fields capable of canceling out the g-forces that high impulse would entail and of keeping their ships from being crushed by inertia when they go to warp, let alone the fact that they can break the known laws of physics and travel faster than the speed of light. Given that, why shouldn't I buy the idea of them being able to build the ships on the ground?

 

[SonicRanger]

3D Master, we should recognize that Trek has never shown us a space habitat that wasn't a Starfleet facility. There were no space habitats in sight in TMP other than the office complex and the drydock. Nothing. Same for TWOK. Spacedock was almost certainly a Starfleet facility too. Nothing in TNG, DS9, or VOY either to suggest that humans had any number of civilian space habitats.

In fact, the VOY crew seemed to marvel at the the space-borne societies...

http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/7x22/Natural_Law_054.JPG
http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/6x13/Virtuoso_059.JPG

... like you imagine Earth to be. But we see none of this at Earth in Trek.

There were mentions of the Lunar Colonies, but supposedly they had a lake, too, that was visible from Earth, suggesting terraforming... much like how the Mojave Desert in the 23rd century is lush and green.

No space "cruise ships" were mentioned either. Any vacation spots, like Risa or Wriggle's Pleasure Planet, were all planets, and you probably took a "space bus" to get there, like we'd take an airplane to get to France. We heard about transports (like today's commercial airlines or old steamships) and cargo ships (like today's semis or shipping vessels). But nothing like, say, the luxury ship seen in The Fifth Element.

Admit it, 3D, you are filling in the blanks with your own imagination, not evidence from Trek. That's fine, but don't expect us to share your opinions.

 

[ST-One]

It's a major credibility violation, along with the Grand Canyon's cousin being nestled in the cornfields of Iowa.

So much more incredible than a 290 metre starship hurtling across the galaxy with a thousand times the speed of light?

It's a quarry.

 

[Ptrope]

Given what was shown on screen in TOS (the "limitless power" the warp engines, scanning technology, transporter technology, computer power, etc.) it's clear that if they so desired the engineers at Star Fleet could have beamed the Enterprise into existence anywhere they desired. Either in parts or whole.

Oh, let's not even go there! The existence of transporters calls wayyyy too many of Trek's construction techniques into question .

The thing that surprises me about this whole discussion is that I don't see where anyone has asked the question: Why are they building the ship completely in the open? Sure, you can do it with a seafaring (not seafearing ) ship, but would you really want to expose all that technology, not to mention all of the workers (and the precarious scaffolding), to the whims of weather? We build aircraft, spacecraft, even cars in enclosures - why not a starship? (That would be one advantage in space - it's practically a clean room)

 

[SonicRanger]

It's a major credibility violation, along with the Grand Canyon's cousin being nestled in the cornfields of Iowa.

It's not a canyon, that's clearly a quarry.

And here is Bealer Quarry in Cedar Valley, Iowa:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~calvin/image/cpc180.jpg

 

[sebialex]

Seeing as Battlestar Galactica is barely known and even its best ratings couldn't even get close to the ratings of Star Trek's worst show Enterprise. It barely even got half, no, looking at Battlestar Galactica would be a BAD thing indeed.

Battlestar Galactica is a dramatically VERY BAD show, and scientifically as well. All the extremely advanced technologies like lasers, phasers, force fields and such that Moore didn't want to use, are exactly the technologies needed to produce the FTL drive - more advanced that Star Trek's FTL drive - as well sentient, artificial intelligence.

The result is, that Battlestar Galactica to anyone with even a passing knowledge of science and what we've got these days, looks ridiculous. They've got computers less advanced than us, yet artificial intelligence that those computers wouldn't be able to generate in a million years. Massively advanced FTL-drive, with not a shred of the technology needed to build it. In some ways, not just computers, less advanced than we are today.

If you actually watched the show, you should know that Galactica was a very old ship, ready to be decommissioned. That's why it was full of old technology, and that's the only reason they managed to survive the Cylon attack. The topic is repeatedly mentioned throughout the show.

It's ridiculous from start to finish.

Pelase, BSG technology is much more believable than Trek's.

Logic would make transporter technology usable only between two transporter devices.

No, it wouldn't.

Please explain.

Regarding the phaser stuff, I read up on it and it appears to be a fictitious weapon, so I'm willing to give it some slack.

 

[ST-One]

Given what was shown on screen in TOS (the "limitless power" the warp engines, scanning technology, transporter technology, computer power, etc.) it's clear that if they so desired the engineers at Star Fleet could have beamed the Enterprise into existence anywhere they desired. Either in parts or whole.

Oh, let's not even go there! The existence of transporters calls wayyyy too many of Trek's construction techniques into question .

The thing that surprises me about this whole discussion is that I don't see where anyone has asked the question: Why are they building the ship completely in the open? Sure, you can do it with a seafaring (not seafearing ) ship, but would you really want to expose all that technology, not to mention all of the workers (and the precarious scaffolding), to the whims of weather? We build aircraft, spacecraft, even cars in enclosures - why not a starship? (That would be one advantage in space - it's practically a clean room)

She too is full of modern technology, and yet...

 

[Sci]

There were mentions of the Lunar Colonies, but supposedly they had a lake, too, that was visible from Earth, suggesting terraforming... much like how the Mojave Desert in the 23rd century is lush and green.

Actually, DS9's "Valiant" established that Luna has not been terraformed and remains a planetoid devoid of an atmosphere or ecology. The colonies are established to reside inside of pressurized domes -- presumably the same is true of Lake Armstrong.

 

[JuanBolio]

It's a major credibility violation, along with the Grand Canyon's cousin being nestled in the cornfields of Iowa.

Its a damn quarry. Iowa has several.

 

[Ptrope]

She too is full of modern technology, and yet...

.. she's still not a starship. Weird how they're not anything alike, huh?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Do you suppose then that they construct large buildings in Trek's 23rd century in space, where it is "safer" according to you, and then lower them to the ground?

If they construct buildings on the ground, whatever keeps the stuff that's supposed to keep the building up fails, it comes falling down (incidentally not just killing whoever was in place, but also destroying the construction). In space, no such thing happens.

See? We can twist the "logic" around too and make absurd statements.

No, you fail to take in that nothing keeps buildings up. Buildings on the ground are built to be on the ground, their construction is such that it keeps itself up.

Space stations and starbases however, are NOT. The ISS is a string of tubes, beams and compartments, that on the ground would fall apart, but is the best and cheapest way to build to be in space. Similarly, a Federation starbase if you recall, is a cone. It won't stay up on the Earth by its own construction. Nor does the Enterprise.

IF, IF for some reason, they'd be building on the Earth, the construction they'd build would be able to be at rest on the Earth without any power-hungry help. The construction would be VASTLY different that what we see in space stations, or the Enterprise. The construction would either be pyramidal in shape (for a station), maybe a pyramid-like cone or a flat Defiant-like construction - one piece, flat (for a ship).

First of, by the 23rd century people aren't enlightened yet, that that happen until another century later.

As for "staying on a planet, stuck until it get blown to bits by its star", well there's this thing that they didn't, they went out and colonized the moon, mars, they built fleets of starships. And they colonized onward, eventually to the point of forming the Maquis.

But more importantly, people staying on a planet because they are "enlightened" would mean they cared about nothing that existed in the universe except sitting on that planet. These types of folks would not build fleets of starships. They wouldn't go out and explore. And as a result, they would also care nothing about enjoying say, the days with children. They would not let them watch a movie, enjoy a holodeck, a book, a theme park, visit other planets, and go to enjoyable things in place that children would like to do. They emotionless monsters that deny their children everything because it wouldn't be the enlightened thng to do.

What a fantastically optimistic view of the future! (Incidentally, it doesn't seem very enlightened to me either, I hope it doesn't to you the same way.)

Also they would never bring them along on a Galaxy-class starship... oh, wait a minute...



Seeing as Battlestar Galactica is barely known and even its best ratings couldn't even get close to the ratings of Star Trek's worst show Enterprise. It barely even got half, no, looking at Battlestar Galactica would be a BAD thing indeed.

Battlestar Galactica is a dramatically VERY BAD show, and scientifically as well. All the extremely advanced technologies like lasers, phasers, force fields and such that Moore didn't want to use, are exactly the technologies needed to produce the FTL drive - more advanced that Star Trek's FTL drive - as well sentient, artificial intelligence.

The result is, that Battlestar Galactica to anyone with even a passing knowledge of science and what we've got these days, looks ridiculous. They've got computers less advanced than us, yet artificial intelligence that those computers wouldn't be able to generate in a million years. Massively advanced FTL-drive, with not a shred of the technology needed to build it. In some ways, not just computers, less advanced than we are today.

It's ridiculous from start to finish.



No, it wouldn't.

No, they wouldn't be invisible at all. Invisible would only be true for lasers, since they are light only emitting in one direction and frequency. The result is that no light is emitted away from the beam direction, and thus you wouldn't see it ANY medium that doesn't scatter the photons - not just space.

Phasers have no such problem, since they aren't lasers and thus not uni-directional monochromatic light. If phaser beams emit light away from the beam, you could see it.

As for the speed or lack there off, it's one of the major failings - but luckily a minor one that is forgiveable. I would however prefer an instantaneous energy pulse.

Logic would never alow senior officers (especially the captain) to go on away missions, only on diplomatic matters.

All senior officers? I think not. I would say that logically every away mission would require at least one senior officer in order to give the away team to benefit of his/her experience.

Logically, the rules would indeed say that a captain shouldn't go on away missions; but if the captain doesn't obey those rules, and the starship is indeed far away and the captain expected to be diplomet, military, explorer and scientist in one and be the full representative of the Federation, it would mean that he gets to do whatever he wants to while he's out there, and if the outcomes are all good nothing would probably be done about it. Kinda like explorer ships at sea several centuries ago. Those captains also left their ships when they could and felt like it.

I sorta agree with 3D on this part here If the captain has a capable crew who he trusts and can do the job with or without him, he has every right to go on away missions, all the stuff from TOS showed this to be true, so if Kirk had died he had a capable first officer in Spock who could take over, and so on down the line. I thought that was just one of the dumbest rules to have Riker be more Kirk like and Picard be the Diplomatic Captain.

Of course 9 times out of 10 Spock was in the landing party with Kirk. Talk about all your eggs in one basket!

 

[SonicRanger]

There were mentions of the Lunar Colonies, but supposedly they had a lake, too, that was visible from Earth, suggesting terraforming... much like how the Mojave Desert in the 23rd century is lush and green.

Actually, DS9's "Valiant" established that Luna has not been terraformed and remains a planetoid devoid of an atmosphere or ecology. The colonies are established to reside inside of pressurized domes -- presumably the same is true of Lake Armstrong.

Of course, every time Luna has been shown in Trek, we saw no evidence of neither terraforming nor pressurized domes large enough to be seen from Earth.

 

[ST-One]

She too is full of modern technology, and yet...

.. she's still not a starship. Weird how they're not anything alike, huh?

Yeah, she's over 40 metres longer than the TOS-Enterprise. That she was built in the open didn't hurt her, so why would it hurt the new Enterprise?

 

[Captain X]

These ships wouldn't stay upright on the ground by themselves:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_CVN-77_Construction_2005-08_lg.jpg
http://tbn0.google.com/hosted/images/c?q=6ab20e1f9ada10df_large
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/101144689/11000_Dwt_Chemical_Oil_Tanker.jpg

Actually, yeah, they probably would, especially the first one and the last one - provided the surface they were on was flat too.

But the scaffolding and structures around it keep those vessels upright while under construction out of their intended environment.

They help to add support, but they aren't needed. Mostly they're there to help, you know build the ship. You'll notice that there are ladders and stairways in that scaffolding and that they aren't just structural members propping the ship up.

 

[Captain X]

Yeah, she's over 40 metres longer than the TOS-Enterprise. That she was built in the open didn't hurt her, so why would it hurt the new Enterprise?

It's shaped like a brick, and it's going to get launched by sliding backwards basically her own length, or by the area she's in flooding and simply floating out.

 

[ST-One]

Yeah, she's over 40 metres longer than the TOS-Enterprise. That she was built in the open didn't hurt her, so why would it hurt the new Enterprise?

It's shaped like a brick, and it's going to get launched by sliding backwards basically her own length, or by the area she's in flooding and simply floating out.

That's how a ship is launched, yes.

It's not an answer to my question though.

 

[Ptrope]

Yeah, she's over 40 metres longer than the TOS-Enterprise. That she was built in the open didn't hurt her, so why would it hurt the new Enterprise?

You just argue to argue, don't you?

I wonder why airplanes aren't built out in the open? I sure wish some smart guy would explain that to me, if they can build ships outside. Why, that just makes no sense.

 

[sebialex]

Yeah, she's over 40 metres longer than the TOS-Enterprise. That she was built in the open didn't hurt her, so why would it hurt the new Enterprise?

It's shaped like a brick, and it's going to get launched by sliding backwards basically her own length, or by the area she's in flooding and simply floating out.

ST-One was trying to say that if a boat can withstand Earth's weather, there should be no problem for a space ship to do the same thing. I mean the Enterprise is armored for crying out loud. It can withstand explosions, you're telling me it can't take a bit of rain. If it's space proof, it's water proof.