No, you're not the only one who is scared by this trailer!

[Stag]

I just don't understand where are all these noobs are coming from and posting threads bashing the movie because it doesn't not meet some arcane point in TREK canon.

I really don't care - TREK is always about telling the story and the characters involved in that story. ships, SFX, outfits, all were means to an end. That's all.

This sort of geekish obsession with cannon and minutia is what makes TREK fans the object of ridicule and parody - last week uniform hats, this week land or space built ships - Get a grip- it is furkin fiction, not a documentary.

 

[JoeZhang]

shipped into orbit with anti-gravity tugs

And why couldn't those tugs just lift the ship? Why wouldn't the ship just lift itself - there is nothing providing "thrust" in the episode cited above, so how is it flying? must be anti-gravity...

 

[JuanBolio]

shipped into orbit with anti-gravity tugs

And why couldn't those tugs just lift the ship? Why wouldn't the ship just lift itself - there is nothing providing "thrust" in the episode cited above, so how is it flying? must be anti-gravity...

*shrugs* Maybe there are limits on the amount of mass tugs at this time can haul.

 

[ancient]

shipped into orbit with anti-gravity tugs

And why couldn't those tugs just lift the ship? Why wouldn't the ship just lift itself - there is nothing providing "thrust" in the episode cited above, so how is it flying? must be anti-gravity...

Yep, if it lifts off like VOYAGER, or the BOP, or the shuttles, then it will be consistent with established Trek. I don't think we've ever seen the need for 'tugs' or whatnot before.

JuanBolio, I still think you're making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[JuanBolio]

JuanBolio, I still think you're making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

Just trying to adhere to Gene's ideas. I'll gladly change my mind if I see the Enterprise lifting off. If not, I'll keep them. At this point, we don't know.

 

[JoeZhang]

shipped into orbit with anti-gravity tugs

And why couldn't those tugs just lift the ship? Why wouldn't the ship just lift itself - there is nothing providing "thrust" in the episode cited above, so how is it flying? must be anti-gravity...

Yep, if it lifts off like VOYAGER, or the BOP, or the shuttles, then it will be consistent with established Trek. I don't think we've ever seen the need for 'tugs' or whatnot before.

JuanBolio, I still think you're making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

It would be hilarious if we see an Enterprise launch ceremony and it's on those leg things that voyager had and they retract and it takes off into space.

or at the end, they go "take her home" and we see the enterprise land in the middle of a welcome home parade.

 

[JoeD80]

The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface.

...

It isn't aerodynamic, has no lift surfaces...

If you go faster than 11.2 km/s you'll be off the planet aerodynamics or no. Just aim over the ocean and you're good as long as your acceleration gets you going before you hit a mountain on the next continent. I imagine the Enterprise would easily have the power for that. Just because you never land the ship again doesn't mean it wasn't launched from ground initially.

 

[ancient]

JuanBolio, I still think you're making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be.

Just trying to adhere to Gene's ideas. I'll gladly change my mind if I see the Enterprise lifting off. If not, I'll keep them. At this point, we don't know.

I see.

Well, my attitude is, if one of Gene's ideas wasn't important enough to make it on screen after 40 years and 600+ episodes, then it's not important enough to obsess over.

 

[JuanBolio]

I'm not obsessing. I'm just pointing out to the OP that:

A) Building on the ground has its advantages.

B) We don't know if its bossted into orbit in one piece or not. If it isn't, its perfectly in line with both Gene's ideas and modern examples of major space constructions (the ISS).

 

[Peter the Younger]

Batman is open to reintrepretation, so is James Bond - lots of things are. This is mostly because they are being set in a different time period. 2008 James Bond is different from 1960's James Bond. That works. Star Trek isn’t open to significant reintrepretation, because it defines its own universe and the time period it takes place in is not changing.

I don't follow your reasoning here, on either end. How can any fictional creation not be open to reinterpretation? The only time period that matters is the one in which the art is being created. The inability to change, to speak to the current time instead of a time long gone, that is what calcifies art, that's what makes it irrelevant.

I can understand the resistance to someone taking what you loved and making it into something incomprehensible to you. If this is your emotional reaction - that Star Trek should not be reinterpreted - that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But feelings aren't facts.

 

[Dark Gilligan]

It only makes sense to build it in orbit. The reason is exactly why the International Space Station was assembled in orbit. You can't do it on the ground and then transport it up there. It would be too big, and too expensive. The Enterprise has no system or power source that can get it down to or off of a planet surface.

Wrong. Gravity-control was fully realized in TOS. Nobody exactly floated mid-air along the Big E's corridors, now did they? You have no idea how much power that took. (Hint: matter-antimatter annihilation, also fully realized in TOS). And consider the floating city of Stratos. A floating city. I'll bet that massed a helluva lot more than a single starship.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I haven't read this whole thread, as I don't need a migraine, but in regards to a starship surviving in earth's atmosphere, I cite this:

"Tomorrow is Yesterday", TOS

J.

Also these ships can travel faster than light, and then come to a sudden stop.

If they can survive the fucking inertia of coming to a complete stop from 95,376,587.264 miles per second, surviving the Earth's gravity without falling apart should be pretty fucking easy.

 

[Ghrakh]

sheesh, it's a flurry of snippets, it tells me little about the movie. All this talking about how great or how teh suxor the film will be, and no one really knows much if anything. It all depends on two things: if it's put together well enough to keep you interested in the story, and if the story was worth telling to begin with.

I will say I'm just as excited for ST XI as I was for The Phantom Menace.

 

[JuanBolio]

If they can survive the fucking inertia of coming to a complete stop from 95,376,587.264 miles per second, surviving the Earth's gravity without falling apart should be pretty fucking easy.

You're a little off here. Warp drive does not impart any inertia. It is non-Newtonian propulsion. Space gets compressed in front of the ship, and expanded behind. The bubble the ship rests in is relatively still.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...Are you the Winston Churchill of Star Trek and we're all just a bunch of Neville Chamberlains?...

What does the King of England and the dude who invented basketball have to do with this?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

 

[Peter the Younger]

As for the "science" of Star Trek, I think folks need to step back and take a good, honest look at our beloved franchise. Let me be clear up front: I love Star Trek, I grew up with it, I watched every incarnation. But this it exists in a universe where thousands of alien species look suspiciously like humans with pieces of latex stuck on their heads, where half a dozen extraordinarily improbable technologies are taken for granted, where time travel is somehow not the most important technology in existence, where gangsters and Romans and other alternate Earths are explained away with somewhat silly "parallel development" theories. Getting upset about the technical details is like... well, it's a lot like getting upset that a story about giant transforming robots with silly code names isn't "serious enough."

And no, I am not Robert Orci.

 

[Awesome Possum]

If they can survive the fucking inertia of coming to a complete stop from 95,376,587.264 miles per second, surviving the Earth's gravity without falling apart should be pretty fucking easy.

You're a little off here. Warp drive does not impart any inertia. It is non-Newtonian propulsion. Space gets compressed in front of the ship, and expanded behind. The bubble the ship rests in is relatively still.

Being fictional helps as well.

 

[Awesome Possum]

As for the "science" of Star Trek, I think folks need to step back and take a good, honest look at our beloved franchise. Let me be clear up front: I love Star Trek, I grew up with it, I watched every incarnation. But this it exists in a universe where thousands of alien species look suspiciously like humans with pieces of latex stuck on their heads, where half a dozen extraordinarily improbable technologies are taken for granted, where time travel is somehow not the most important technology in existence, where gangsters and Romans and other alternate Earths are explained away with somewhat silly "parallel development" theories. Getting upset about the technical details is like... well, it's a lot like getting upset that a story about giant transforming robots with silly code names isn't "serious enough."

And no, I am not Robert Orci.

Repeat to yourself that it's just a show/movie. I really should relax.

 

[ancient]

I'm not obsessing. I'm just pointing out to the OP that:

A) Building on the ground has its advantages.

B) We don't know if its bossted into orbit in one piece or not. If it isn't, its perfectly in line with both Gene's ideas and modern examples of major space constructions (the ISS).

I was just sayin is all.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything like that, you certainly don't fall into the too-obsessed category.

I still don't get this, but it is funny.