Getting the Enterprise into space - with vids!

[NSTrekfan]

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).

Scotty did mention that the engines hadn't even been tested at warp power. Probably a good idea to test them as far away from traffic and planets as possible. If the wormhole had formed near Earth who knows what would have happened.

It was to set up a cool effect but at least there was some foreshadowing that something could go wrong.

 

[Cyke101]

Does the Navy build aircraft carriers in Iowa?

False analogy though: a starship can fly over Iowa, a Navy cruiser can't sail across it.

...where a gust of wind or expanding metal can screw up your alignments...

If your ship is designed to withstand warp shear, solar winds, phaser blasts, comet trails, and re-entry but a gust of wind or 90-degree heat wave throws off your alignments, you're doing it wrong. Considering the scales of anomalies, battles, and speeds that Starfleet ships have always worked with, a little atmosphere seems *very* trivial. The thing is, we saw the Enterprise built on the ground, and she performed pretty well under the circumstances. Kind of hard to believe that she escaped from a black hole but then has to worry about that summer breeze on Earth.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Using today's NASA as a template for what should be will lead you exactly where NASA has gone in 50 years.

Sadly, if you apply this backward - looking to see if what NASA is doing now matches what and how they were doing things in 1961 - it works.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

True or not, like many things in Trek it's extremely ridiculous.

Fixed that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Actually, conditions in space are even worse. Earth orbital space is a constant flux of ionizing radiation, micrometeoroids, relative extremes of heat and cold. And that's before you factor in the inherent dangers to the construction crews who have to work in space suits and work pods with zero margin for error.

Space is really a less-than-ideal environment for delicate engineering tasks, unless you're building ships in a gigantic zero gravity clean-room. Otherwise, the only real advantage to building a ship in orbit instead of on Earth is in not having to haul it's heavy ass into orbit all at once. If you have the technology to do that (i.e. tractor beams) and if your ship is structurally strong enough to support its own eight at 1G (which Enterprise undoubtedly is) then the utility of orbital construction disappears.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Obvious fact is obvious: They build today's spaceships on earth. Therefore they may very well build tomorrow's spaceships on earth, too.

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.

Not necessarily. I see the ascent as probably involving three or four highly specialized shuttlecraft hauling the ship into orbit altitudes with a tractor beam; at 80km, they light the impulse engine and push themselves into orbit.

Totally speculative here, but I secretly believe a starship of ANY size is capable of landing--sort of--on a planetary surface. I've privately theorized that's one of the purpose of those often-mentioned but rarely explained "mooring beams" that hold the ship in place in space dock. Directed against the surface of a planet, they can be use to hold the entire ship aloft like a tractor-beam landing pad. Smaller ships like Voyager and the Klingon BoP can use physical (and more reliable) landing pads, but that doesn't mean a tractor-beam suspensor isn't available for larger ships.

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.

Why not taken into space as a single piece and mated with the rest of the ship?

But then, if you could lift a piece that large there'd be no reason to assemble them separately.

 

[Saquist]

Actually, conditions in space are even worse.

no they aren't.

Earth orbital space is a constant flux of ionizing radiation, micrometeoroids,

Not as great as the fluxuatons between night and day on earth which you would nearly have no control over. In Space orbital facilities could be locked in orbits on the Night side only. Star trek has deflector fields so the micro-meteoroids wouldn't be an issue.

And that's before you factor in the inherent dangers to the construction crews who have to work in space suits and work pods with zero margin for error.

the bureau of safety sited falls resulting in 212,760 deaths in 2009. No one to date has ever died in EVA.

"The problem is not that the hazards and risks are unknown, it is that they are very difficult to control in a constantly changing work environment."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_site_safety

Space is really a less-than-ideal environment for delicate engineering tasks, unless you're building ships in a gigantic zero gravity clean-room.

Many would not agree with you.
weight issues are a key problems on earth....and size as well. where Transportation of parts and the surfaces they travel on MUST be rated for mass and clearance and confinement of hazadous chemicals. We're dealing with an anti matter reactor....(which many of you think is just a toy) in amounts that could blow a chuck the size of of New York out of the Earth.

The reaction of 1 kg of antimatter with 1 kg of matter would produce 1.8×1017 J (180 petajoules) of energy (by the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc²), or the rough equivalent of 47 megatons of TNT. For comparison, Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated, reacted an estimated yield of 50 Megatons, which required the use of hundreds of kilograms of fissile material (Uranium/Plutonium).~http://www.yousaytoo.com/lyrad2008/anti-matter-more-powerful-than-10-nuclear-bombs/30262

Not to mention space doesn't shake.
Terra Firma is not so firm.
Security issues planet side.
Vulnerability of ground based structures to orbital bombardment.

 

[Pauln6]

I see the ascent as probably involving three or four highly specialized shuttlecraft hauling the ship into orbit altitudes with a tractor beam; at 80km, they light the impulse engine and push themselves into orbit.

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.

But then, if you could lift a piece that large there'd be no reason to assemble them separately.

I rather like it when the writers place sensible limitations and consequences on the technology. Anti-matter reactors are dangerous. Warping space is not natural. These are not things you'd want to expose the inhabitants of a planet to, including plant and animal life, unless you had no choice. Structural integrity fields could be engaged to prevent bits of the ship being damaged on take off. However, the smooth ascent depicted on the second vid would only be possible using some kind if gravity negation ability, which I don't think the Federation has does it?

I don't think a ship that large could escape a planetary atmoshphere using impulse power without causing quite a bit of damage and pollution, although if we're honest, the same holds true of the saucer sections and they are suppose to be capable of landing and taking off using their hydrogen thrusters. Using impulse power in spacedock was considered a bit rebellious and irresponsible according to Star Trek VI and it certainly wasn't standard procedure.

Tractor beams are just tow ropes made of energy so I suppose that a large number of shuttles could indeed tow the ship into orbit but we have to remember that TOS shuttles were not shown to be the impressive multi-purpose vessels we see in TNG. Power output from a shuttle's engines (which also have to keep the shuttle aloft) could be an issue. Specialist shuttle-tugs equipped with tractor beam emitters were shown in TMP spacedock, implying that quite a bit of energy is required to tug a spacecraft, even in zero-g. A powerful tractor beam from an orbiting space station could do the same I suppose. Whether this is more efficient than building in space is questionable. Shipyards could have enclosed artifical atmoshperes with reduced or variable gravity to make building ships easier. Again, whether this is more efficient is questionable.

However, none of this explains why you would build the ship on Earth with its saucer section in place. These are separate parts of the ship that are simply coupled together with mooring clamps and energy linkages. I would have thought that, at best, the superstructures and internal systems would be built separately and tested separately on Earth before being transported and fully assembled in space. You have to test the warp engines in space anyway so installing and testing the nacelles and warp engines in space makes far more sense than building the whole ship and finding out that your nacelles don't work properly.

I can get on board with building the saucer on Earth. The engineering hull is more of a stretch because it isn't designed to land but fair enough. Nacelles - no. Fitting them together on Earth before take off, including the nacelles just seems silly. The issue here is that Trek history had these ships built in space and we were comfortable with that. Changing that for the sake of a brief visual just seemed a bit cheap and ill thought out I suppose.

 

[Deckerd]

We're dealing with an anti matter reactor....(which many of you think is just a toy)

Are you actually serious? It's a fun film.

 

[Saquist]

We're dealing with an anti matter reactor....(which many of you think is just a toy)

Are you actually serious? It's a fun film.

Trek fans are over the top and tend to lack perspective.
They have the mentality that everything in trek is possible and it becomes a substitute for reality. I've never been one to just enable this kind of thing. As a movie it was fun and fluffy like star wars don't read to much into it.

 

[Pauln6]

Are you actually serious? It's a fun film.

Trek fans are over the top and tend to lack perspective.
They have the mentality that everything in trek is possible and it becomes a substitute for reality. I've never been one to just enable this kind of thing. As a movie it was fun and fluffy like star wars don't read to much into it.

Lol - don't think for one second that I take this kind of debate seriously but if Star Trek's destiny was to become 'fluffy like Star Wars' that really would be awful! Star Wars is a children's franchise that many adults enjoy, and a really sexist one at that. Star Trek is an adult franchise that many children enjoy. If Trek was morphing into a children's franchise, I'd certainly view that as a step down. It can be smart AND fun. They aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't think Star Wars started out as a children's franchise.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't think Star Wars started out as a children's franchise.

It's hard to tell, since I only saw the original movies as a child and the prequels as an adult. A lot of the plots were always quite childish, although Empire comes closest to adult because of the decent way the romance plays out. At least we agree that it was sexist.

 

[Cyke101]

We're dealing with an anti matter reactor....(which many of you think is just a toy)

Are you actually serious? It's a fun film.

Trek fans are over the top and tend to lack perspective.
They have the mentality that everything in trek is possible and it becomes a substitute for reality.

Most Trekkies tend to have the ability to separate fact from fiction, as well as fact from speculation. But in these types of threads, what people are asking is how to reconcile known fact with what we see on screen; on screen, anything is possible, but it's silly to say something shouldn't work in Trek when it clearly works for the story. Our science says warp drive is impossible and rightfully so, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't work in the Trekverse, either. Clearly Scotty's making things happen


You're also saying Trek fans lack *your* perspective, too And philosophically speaking, Trek is a substitute for reality, in the same sense that any movie or TV show can be -- no matter how ridiculous it may seem. That's why it's escapist fantasy, but it's the reality of the show, not necessarily yours nor the one we live in, and that's what allows for things that are impossible in the real world to operate in the reality of the Trekverse.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't think Star Wars started out as a children's franchise.

It's hard to tell, since I only saw the original movies as a child and the prequels as an adult. A lot of the plots were always quite childish, although Empire comes closest to adult because of the decent way the romance plays out. At least we agree that it was sexist.

We didn't agree anything of the sort. As far as I recall, the female lead was pretty tough.

 

[Saquist]

We didn't agree anything of the sort. As far as I recall, the female lead was pretty tough.

Considering the plots
ANH: save the girl save the planet
ESB: Run while saving the girl
RotJ: Save the girl save the Rebellion

TPM: Save the girl save the planet
AotC: Save the Girl Start a useless war
RotS: Save the Girl End a the useless war.

He may have a point...

You're also saying Trek fans lack *your* perspective, too

I make a practice of saying exactly what I mean and "lack perspective" is exactly what I meant. They are Trek focused and biased.

And philosophically speaking, Trek is a substitute for reality, in the same sense that any movie or TV show can be -- no matter how ridiculous it may seem.

that's the nature of obsession.
It's just like drug abuse. Which is too an escape from reality. Which tells you how bad reality is. But if we spend more time making reality better than escaping we might like reality a lot more.

That's why it's escapist fantasy, but it's the reality of the show, not necessarily yours nor the one we live in, and that's what allows for things that are impossible in the real world to operate in the reality of the Trekverse.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Nothing against Abrams's Enterprise, but the 1701 in the first video just clicked more for me as being THE Enterprise. Beautiful.

But yeah, having a starship take off under it's own power is a much better visual than sending the parts up in a rocket-platform of some sort... however, what happens if those newly-built and untested engines should falter?

That said, I see no reason why the warp nacelles should need to be powered up for the trip into orbit.

Its not as great of a visual but what about tractoring shuttle/tugs taking the new vessel into orbit where the starship would undergo its trials before commisioning.

 

[Saquist]

Nothing against Abrams's Enterprise, but the 1701 in the first video just clicked more for me as being THE Enterprise. Beautiful.

But yeah, having a starship take off under it's own power is a much better visual than sending the parts up in a rocket-platform of some sort... however, what happens if those newly-built and untested engines should falter?

That said, I see no reason why the warp nacelles should need to be powered up for the trip into orbit.

Its not as great of a visual but what about tractoring shuttle/tugs taking the new vessel into orbit where the starship would undergo its trials before commisioning.

In fact YOU COULDN'T power up the warp engines. You couldn't even fuel the ship until it's in orbit.

And it's suspect that you could even use the impulse engines in the atmosphere that low. For if Impulse engines are like how memory alpha and the manuals potray them as huge fusion power rocket engines then as the TMP book described it "The thunder of hundreds of hydrogen bombs" would really not be a good thing for the launch site. (I think impulse is a field propulsion though)

But all that calls into question how vulnerable launching a ship from earth is than from orbit.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not as great as the fluxuatons between night and day on earth which you would nearly have no control over.

1) Canonically speaking, we know humans have discovered a means to artificially control the weather by the 24th century. It is less certain whether this technology exists--or is reliable--in the 23rd; ymmv.

2) The variation between day and night on Earth is about 30 degrees farenheit at most, and there is are no micrometeors or high-levels of ionizing radiation to contend with. The most an Earthbound construction site would have to deal with--especially in a place like Iowa--is a 30mph wind and an occasional rainstorm.

In Space orbital facilities could be locked in orbits on the Night side only.

That is a physical impossibility.

the bureau of safety sited falls resulting in 212,760 deaths in 2009. No one to date has ever died in EVA.

No one has ever died while base jumping off the Sears Tower either. That doesn't mean parachuting off of a skyscraper is safer than using the elevator.

Many would not agree with you.

I'm pretty sure you mean YOU would not agree with me. Let the many speak for themselves.

Not to mention space doesn't shake.
Terra Firma is not so firm.

When is the last time there was an Earthquake in Iowa?

Vulnerability of ground based structures to orbital bombardment.

And orbital facilities are immune to orbital bombardment?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I see the ascent as probably involving three or four highly specialized shuttlecraft hauling the ship into orbit altitudes with a tractor beam; at 80km, they light the impulse engine and push themselves into orbit.

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.

But then, if you could lift a piece that large there'd be no reason to assemble them separately.

I rather like it when the writers place sensible limitations and consequences on the technology. Anti-matter reactors are dangerous. Warping space is not natural. These are not things you'd want to expose the inhabitants of a planet to, including plant and animal life, unless you had no choice. Structural integrity fields could be engaged to prevent bits of the ship being damaged on take off. However, the smooth ascent depicted on the second vid would only be possible using some kind if gravity negation ability, which I don't think the Federation has does it?

Don't they? They obviously have the technology to induce artificial gravity throughout the entire structure of their ship, they possess tractor beam technology that allows ships to impart gravity-like motion on distant objects. 23rd and 24th century shuttlecraft are fully VTOL capable, despite lacking any big obvious thrust assemblies that would make this possible. So it not antigravs, then some incredibly compact thruster technology.

And even barring that, a couple of specialized tugs with tractor beams and high-thrust engines would be more than up to the task.

Tractor beams are just tow ropes made of energy so I suppose that a large number of shuttles could indeed tow the ship into orbit but we have to remember that TOS shuttles were not shown to be the impressive multi-purpose vessels we see in TNG.

OTOH, we have seen spacedock tug craft operating in Earth's atmosphere from time to time, so they would be more than up to the job.

However, none of this explains why you would build the ship on Earth with its saucer section in place. These are separate parts of the ship that are simply coupled together with mooring clamps and energy linkages.

Only if you assume the saucer section really IS capable of separating. This was never demonstrated in TOS and is unlikely to be true of the NuEnterprise, primarily because the utility of saucer separation is something that TNG alone is known to play with and eventually abandoned anyway.