Give and take regarding the younger fans

[ClayHefner]

Those smelly old-timey fans just don't know when to quit.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Which means you build it in space, because that is the most convenient.

They're building the Enterprise on Earth.

This contradicts no previous onscreen continuity.

Clearly there are matters of convenience and practicality that remain unexplained - just as fans have been willing to assume or extrapolate in the case of every illogical and/or unscientific aspect of Star Trek since the very beginning.

 

[Lashmore]

You know to be honest...I had always since I first got into trek heard little things from fans here and there long before even nemesis was made that the Enterprise was built in San-Fran's fleet yards on earth's surface. Can't really confirm or disconfirm that but I do remember hearing it quite often a few years back.

So the concept just seems 'canon' to me.

But everyone acting like experts on the movie based off only...well barely 2 minutes of any released footage of a movie likely to be 2 hours long is just ... stupid and prideful.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

In "Star Trek's" time, human beings have complete control over the effects of mass and inertia. They also have unlimited energy sources.

If either of those things aren't true, Trek's starflight technology can not work as depicted.

So, they can do pretty much anything they like. Case closed.

3d Master --

I agree with Dennis' point here...If you ask an engineer this question:

"without worrying about how to get the ship into space, where would you rather build a spaceship?"
​

the engineer would probably say in the breathable shirtsleeve envoronment -- and even the gravity -- of Earth. If they have control over gravity and can easily lift the Enterprise into space, there is no big advantage in actually building the ship in space.

The advantage of a shirtsleeve and breathable environment are obvious (no bulky space suits -- even the guys at the spacedock in TMP wore spacesuits), but even the gravity of Earth would be helpful. When a construction worker needs to turn a bolt or push something into place, he/she does not need to worry about being attached to a structure -- they are attached to the earth by gravity. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, so in space tightening a bolt would require the worker to be fastened to a rigid structure -- or else the worker will spin in the opposite direction of the turning bolt.

If I had 100 bolts that needed to be tightened, It would be easier just to walk to those bolts and tighten them, rather than always worrying on 100 separate occasions "where can I attach myself to tighten this ONE particular bolt."

I know you will say "but the infrastructure of a future spacedock will have a method of rigidly attaching a worker", and that may be true, but my point is on Earth you don't need the hassle of providing that structure. Gravity is usually enough to counteract the torque.

You may also say "but you can move heavy objects more easily in space", but surely if they have the means to lift the ship using antigrav or tractor beam or whatever, than they also have the means to move heavy ship parts in Earth's gravity.

And the fact that an object that is heavy on earth is "safer" to move in space is a fallacy also -- a large object may be weightless in space, but it still has mass. If a massive hunk of ship component is floating through the spacedock, it could still crush a worker if the worker gets in the way. Mass and momentum are still mass and momentum, even in space.

I'm thinking about our 21st century technology -- there is no way that Engineers would want to build the components for the International Space Station (ISS) in space. It is much easier today to build in a controlled environment on Earth. And if those engineers had unlimited rocket lifting capacity at their disposal, they would definitely rather build the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the ISS on Earth and lift it into space in one launch. So if 23rd century buildiers had the abilty to easily get the ship into space through "antigrav", then I think they would also elect to build on the ground.

...and speaking of controlled environments, the spacedock in ENT where the Columbia was being built did not look that controlled to me -- it looked like open outer space with a little bit of structure around it. That place did not look like it was conducive to building spaceships.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But everyone acting like experts on the movie...is just ... stupid and prideful.

Welcome to the fucking TrekBBS. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm thinking about our 21st century technology -- there is no way that Engineers would want to build the components for the International Space Station (ISS) in space. It is much easier today to build in a controlled environment on Earth. And if those engineers had unlimited rocket lifting capacity at their disposal, they would definitely rather build the whole kit-and-kaboodle of the ISS on Earth and lift it into space in one launch.

Exactly so.

The ISS doesn't look like a few beer cans held together by a spider's web because that's any sort of ideal space structure - it's because that's the best we can do given that we have to get stuff up there at enormous cost and then assemble it in orbit.

 

[thumbtack]

Best thing about having new, younger fans around? Increase the probability of hitting on a fine nice ass.

But the probability of success, sadly, remains unchanged.

 

[Lashmore]

On another note, when considering ship building facilities, I ignore Enterprise existed (the series) completely and look at earth in the TOS-TMP era. You can argue lack of imagination back then or lack of budget for the films to incorporate such, but the stations just didn't seem to be able to support starship construction.

In TMP (which honestly for its time had a great plot-premise) where the enterprise was docked, I don't see that as where it got refitted...just doesn;t seem to handle it. It looks like a petrol station in space to stop, refuel re-crew and tune-up before ehading on its merry.

Then suddenly in the third movie, a whooping big ass station comes out of nowhere. "Wow...that was...quick building..."

 

[M'Sharak]

The. Ship. Is. Built. On. The. Ground. Only for the kewl visual of Kirk riding up to it on is kewl motorcycle.

That pretty much sums up the entire problem with this movie.

For you. Again.

It's not a dramatic moment, it's "What the hell is that shit!? This is ridiculous! Laughing now, totally out of the movie, this is horrible." moment.

Your opinion. Not fact. Again.

...

...

None of those, however, contradict science, let alone logic, or the heart of the show that things will get better. (And quite frankly, they are NOT fantasy, at all, they are SCIENCE FICTION.) Fantasy is an entirely different thing.

A ship built on the ground however, violates all of that indeed.

No, it doesn't. That's just your opinion. Again.

...

...

[a load of the same opinionated stuff we've heard many times before]


And this is the problem; if you had ANY understanding of what space is - and is not - you would understand that it is literally impossible for a ground construction and launch to be more efficient; as a part of that, safer.

....

You're calling other posters stupid.

Again.

I've asked you more than once not to do that.

What I don't understand is why this is even worth discussing in this thread since it has little to do with the OP, and because last time there was an argument about it the thread was locked. 3D Master, do you know when to quit?

No, he does not. This is only the latest of a series of threads which he has derailed with his abusive and Quixotic "the ship can't be built on the ground because it violates Canon and Science" harangue. It's gotten him a warning before and it gets him one now.

Again.

Comments to PM. This thread is closed.