Well, they built the Xindi superweapon underwater, why couldn't they build the Enterprise on the ground?
Getting the Enterprise into space - with vids!
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Because fanboys get their knickers in a twist. If we've seen something done one way, then that's the ONLY way it's EVER allowed to be done agan. Otherwise it's "all wrong".
Does Starfleet build exploration cruisers in Newport News?
Saquist
Commodore
The idea of constructing something of this size and design on Earth is a logistical nightmare. Abrams did it for hero flare. The reality is no one would do it. Even if weather weren't a factor, I flinch at the tolerances you would have to maintain in a variable temperature environment with something this complex. At least in space you don't have to worry about that with the right orbit or how level your assembly site is. Nor do you need a truss system to support all the crazy parts that simply can't support themselves.
...where a gust of wind or expanding metal can screw up your alignments...
You'd need every magic field in the book working with you 24/7 without fail.
...where a gust of wind or expanding metal can screw up your alignments...
You'd need every magic field in the book working with you 24/7 without fail.
Obvious fact is obvious: They build today's spaceships on earth. Therefore they may very well build tomorrow's spaceships on earth, too.
Well saucer sections are designed to land (or at least the TMP reflt had landing struts on the schematics) so I don't think that there should be any bar to building that on Earth. The whole of Voyager could land I think but she was a much smaller ship wasn't she?
I would agree that building engineering sections on Earth would not be sensible for the reasons people have cited. If there is a problem with a warp core assembly it doesn't really help to eject the core in Iowa does it?
Don't ships use thrusters while in atmospheres? Using high impulse or warp drive to leave an atmoshphere also doesn't sound sensible to me. The energy discharge from an impulse engine wouldn't be healthy would it? And warping space doesn't sound healthy either - you'd probably take a big chunk of atmosphere with you. According to TMP Starfleet doesn't recommend using warp drive inside a solar system (although it's a rule that seems to be ignored even in non-emergency situations by the time of TNG that was probably just for the sake of a cool visual).
I would agree that building engineering sections on Earth would not be sensible for the reasons people have cited. If there is a problem with a warp core assembly it doesn't really help to eject the core in Iowa does it?
Don't ships use thrusters while in atmospheres? Using high impulse or warp drive to leave an atmoshphere also doesn't sound sensible to me. The energy discharge from an impulse engine wouldn't be healthy would it? And warping space doesn't sound healthy either - you'd probably take a big chunk of atmosphere with you. According to TMP Starfleet doesn't recommend using warp drive inside a solar system (although it's a rule that seems to be ignored even in non-emergency situations by the time of TNG that was probably just for the sake of a cool visual).
^It was always ignored in Enterprise, too.
Heck, in STIV the Klingon Bird-of-Prey jumpes to warp inside earth's atmosphere - without disturbing a cloud!
Heck, in STIV the Klingon Bird-of-Prey jumpes to warp inside earth's atmosphere - without disturbing a cloud!
Lol - yeah but I don't think we can rely on visuals alone in that case. Plus it was an emergency and accidental. I don't think that would be supportive of a general policy of warping from inside atmospheres for sheer convenience when dialogue indicates it's not viewed as a good idea generally.
There was no energency. They were in the past, getting back to the future. They had all the time in the world.
Slingshotting round a sun and aiming to return to a specific time period without destroying yourself sounds like an emergency to me. I don't think that they were intentionally intending to warp inside the atmosphere.
And lets not forget that during the TOS era energy is not quite the near limitless resource that it becomes by the time of TNG. Of course, it's arguable and indeed quite likely, that the NuTrek writers will hand wave away most energy consumption concerns in the same way as the TNG writers. I think there was a desire in the sixties to pitch the science in a way that was fantastical but still scientifically credible as far as possible. It should be obvious that the NuTrek writers are not adhering to that approach!
And lets not forget that during the TOS era energy is not quite the near limitless resource that it becomes by the time of TNG. Of course, it's arguable and indeed quite likely, that the NuTrek writers will hand wave away most energy consumption concerns in the same way as the TNG writers. I think there was a desire in the sixties to pitch the science in a way that was fantastical but still scientifically credible as far as possible. It should be obvious that the NuTrek writers are not adhering to that approach!
This is my thinking too, although the two universes are completely different when it comes to what is and isn't possible. There's no reason why the ships aren't built on the surface. It would certainly be a lot easier logistically.
Possibly, but you might need to invent some new laws of physics to protect the surface of the planet from the energy discharge if you are planning to blast a ship that heavy into space.
The engineering section of the Enterprise was never meant to land. Thus I view it more like the international space station, which was taken into space in pieces to be fully assembles up there. No reason why the saucer section couldn't be assembled on Earth but a fully assembled ship looks a bit silly to me. It was just done for a visual effect, not common sense.
Lol - yeah, they just need the eqivalent of Heisenberg Compensators to overcome the laws of aerodynamics and they are sorted! Saying a wizard did it doesn't cut it for most trekkies.
Saquist
Commodore
A very child like reasoning for the epic problems involved.
Using today's NASA as a template for what should be will lead you exactly where NASA has gone in 50 years. But if you actually believe it was possible for NASA to lead you to where Star Trek ends up in the 23rd century doing things their way would have been discarded by the 1990's.
Saquist
Commodore
That's non nonsensical. NASA existed in the Trek Universe.
By the 23rd century many of the materials that these starships are made of won't come from Earth which by that time would have a population of 15 Billion at least. Effectively where those materials are harvested will be the shaping and manufacturing plants. Mercury is 70% metals.
True or not, like many things in Trek 09' it's extremely ridiculous.
