It looks like they DO HAVE a Hell of a lot of Massive Structural Supports holding Her up.
I SEE AT LEAST SEVEN......
http://www.joseralat.com/uploads/screen-capture-32.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
Official Trailer Review & Comments Thread!! [Spoilers, of course]
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
It looks like they DO HAVE a Hell of a lot of Massive Structural Supports holding Her up.
I SEE AT LEAST SEVEN......
http://www.joseralat.com/uploads/screen-capture-32.jpg
And if those fail?
And if your suits life support systems fail? If you rip your suit open while fitting a hull plate?
What about space sickness, vertigo, and the difficulty in moving in zero G?
Astronauts have said it is far harder to perform work on space walks, and NASA has built in "down times" after space walk missions that are almost three times the duration of the space walk...
Face it, for every "positive" you list there are three or four negatives to cancel them out.
Like the lady astronaut that dropped her toolbox, and it floated away.
And the seven supports seen look flimsy with minimal surface area at the contact points. It really should be contained within a dense lattice of tritanium to look more authentic from an engineering perspective. But maybe it's supported in a low-grav field. Which hopefully won't ever fail ....
And if main power fails at any point during that ascent, all that anti-matter, and all that structure comes crashing back to earth at nine point eight meters per second squared. At best, Starfleet's lost the work and time that went into building that ship, along with the resources and every soul aboard.
In space, if the systems fail, the ship drifts until an engineering team can rendezvous with it and get the mains back online.
Ultimately, it's much safer and much easier to assemble the ship in orbit.
ADDED AFTER POSTING:
I have one. I've mentioned it before, too. When a complex system is first powered up, it rarely stays on for very long and even more rarely works. Now we see an anti-matter-fueled hunk of tritanium, duranium, and 23rd century composites being built as a complete system on Earth. Its first extended, under-stress test will be during launch. You've seen the results of the early rocket program, right? You've seen Challenger exploding? A starship is vastly more complex. And while there might be some tests prior to launch, no one knows for sure how everything will work under strain until this thing lifts off and raises itself into orbit.
And if main power fails at any point during that ascent, all that anti-matter, and all that structure comes crashing back to earth at nine point eight meters per second squared. At best, Starfleet's lost the work and time that went into building that ship, along with the resources and every soul aboard.
In space, if the systems fail, the ship drifts until an engineering team can rendezvous with it and get the mains back online.
Ultimately, it's much safer and much easier to assemble the ship in orbit.
ADDED AFTER POSTING:
That's what transporters are for ... if it's an immediate risk. If it's just a failed life support, notify your foreman and make your way back to a pressurized compartment.
What about fear of heights in people who build skyscrapers? People prone to those problems don't work there.
Modern space suits are bulky and become even harder to move in once pressurized. They're massive, too, and it takes a lot of energy to move that mass. I'm assuming that in 150 years or so, those issues might be looked at.
The negatives tend to be irrelevant or fanciful.
You are assuming the ship would "launch" under it's own power... It could be "lifted/Tugged" into space by tractor/repulser units, anti gravity fields, and other such tech. For all we know, the ship may be "launched" into space dry and the Warp drive isn't fueled until it gets into space.
You hit a distress beacon and get transported to safety.
You hit a distress beacon and get transported to safety.
(Contrary to popular belief you do NOT explode in a vaccum.)
Meidcines, training, practice, experience.
Astronauts who spend days out of entire careers working space as opposed to people who live and work in space on a far more regular basis.
Same could be said for the opposite.
BTW.
The picture is horrendously stretching the thread.
It needs fixed.
Ooooh, so now instead of one vessel with potential power failures crashing to Earth, you now want to put a bunch of them in? You can put all the tractor-repulser/anti-grav in play and you won't be able to escape one problem: all of that requires power and if you're using tugs, then those tugs need a lot of power to lift that mass. Either with giant engines or giant tractors/anti-gravs. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, Holmes.
Well just like this past summer when a couple of Tower Cranes failed in New York City....
People Die.
And then the Contractors on the job start all over again, learning a valuable lesson the hard way.
If you need a better example that involves Space Tech, just think about the Challenger and the Columbia.
Humans are always going to do thing's the most conventional way, until that WAY is shown to fail.
Building on the ground IS the most conventional way.
'sides Orci (one of the films writers) says there is a good reason for doing it this way.
I did that on purpose, so you could see the details better.
(oops... double post...sorry)
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Doubtful. Once people start living in space, behavior changes. Folks will scamper like monkeys (much as highrise workers do, and have done, on earth already.)
They will be IN their element. We'll see it start to happen this century, assuming anybody has enough guts and dollars to invest in the high frontier the way they should have back in the 70s and 80s. Building solar powersats would be a great step, or mining the asteroid belts.
And tech-wise, microgravity gives you all sorts of manufacturing possibilities that aren't available down here.
If you want starships built on earth, might as well do it at Moffet Field (aka Onizuka air base), they've still got a blimp hangar there (sort of like the mushroom dock in ST3 to my eye.) At least then you've got a dirtside construct to fit the dirtsider vision, one that doesn't really see the stars (or deserve them.)
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Well just like this past summer when a couple of Tower Cranes failed in New York City....
People Die.
And then the Contractors on the job start all over again, learning a valuable lesson the hard way.
If you need a better example that involves Space Tech, just think about the Challenger and the Columbia.
Humans are always going to do thing's the most conventional way, until that WAY is shown to fail.
Building on the ground IS the most conventional way.
'sides Orci (one of the films writers) says there is a good reason for doing it this way.
See my previous post. And because Orci sez so, what does that MEAN? Or better, why should that mean something to me? Based on his track record?
Based on his 'reverence' for the source material?
There probably isn't an image strong enough in the whole film to offset the damage of the slhouetted Kirk-wannabe in front of that concept-art-looking monstrosity sitting on the GROUND. And however you lift it up to space, that isn't going to make up for the prometheian-hating mindset that deigned to put that image on screen.
Orci and Abrams say there's a good reason because they need the Earth's gravity to "balance the warp engines under the stress of Earth's gravity" or some such technobabble. That sounds like a Janeway justification to me.
You'll get very nearly the same gravity in low earth orbit that you do down on the surface. The only reason you don't feel it is because an orbit is essentially the solution to Douglas Adam's old joke about flying: the secret is to throw yourself at the earth and miss.
No, the real reason the Enterprise is being built on the ground is to justify a moving scene where a young, lost and aimless Kirk sees it and suddenly finds the path he wants to follow. And as I've pointed out before, this too can be done in orbit while working in backstory about Tarsus IV.
You'll get very nearly the same gravity in low earth orbit that you do down on the surface. The only reason you don't feel it is because an orbit is essentially the solution to Douglas Adam's old joke about flying: the secret is to throw yourself at the earth and miss.
No, the real reason the Enterprise is being built on the ground is to justify a moving scene where a young, lost and aimless Kirk sees it and suddenly finds the path he wants to follow. And as I've pointed out before, this too can be done in orbit while working in backstory about Tarsus IV.
Well just like this past summer when a couple of Tower Cranes failed in New York City....
People Die.
And then the Contractors on the job start all over again, learning a valuable lesson the hard way.
If you need a better example that involves Space Tech, just think about the Challenger and the Columbia.
Humans are always going to do thing's the most conventional way, until that WAY is shown to fail.
Building on the ground IS the most conventional way.
'sides Orci (one of the films writers) says there is a good reason for doing it this way.
See my previous post. And because Orci sez so, what does that MEAN? Or better, why should that mean something to me? Based on his track record?
Based on his 'reverence' for the source material?
There probably isn't an image strong enough in the whole film to offset the damage of the slhouetted Kirk-wannabe in front of that concept-art-looking monstrosity sitting on the GROUND. And however you lift it up to space, that isn't going to make up for the prometheian-hating mindset that deigned to put that image on screen.
You can complain all ya want and even choose to ignore it if you wish, but once this movie hits the big screens in May '09...
It's an Official Part of Trek Lore.
Sorry Trev, I'm not totally crazy about it either but that's the way it is.
I almost spit my coffee out.
He has to be one of the most ridiculous actors in the world.I almost spit my coffee out.
http://www.empireonline.com/features/jj-abrams-talks-star-trek-trailer/default.asp
JJ discusses each shot in the trailer
JJ discusses each shot in the trailer
There are pluses and minuses to each approach - both have their safe and practical points, and both have their dangerous and undesirable points. They chose one over the other for the benefit of a scene, yes - but there is practicality behind it. Even Gene Roddenberry theorized that the Enterprise components were built on the ground in San Francisco and finalized in space. There's nothing seen in either trailer that contradicts that.
Similar threads
- Poll
