San Francisco or Iowa?

[Dick Whitman]

The people of Riverside, Iowa are going to be thrilled by this.

Their claim as "the future birth place of Captain Kirk" has always been rather dubious. Sure Kirk was from Iowa but no town name was ever given. He could have been from anywhere in the State.

Now not only is the town going to be referred to by name but the Enterprise is actually built there.

They have never been able to even get permission from Paramount to built a Kirk statue before this.

 

[Franklin]

San Joaquin Valley?

Actually that shot represents parts of Iowa better than any other shot we've seen so far.

If it is indeed being built in Iowa, what part of on screen Trek canon is being violated? I've long accepted the Enterprise being built in SF, just as I accepted Kirk being from Iowa long before he said it in TVH. But until TVH, Kirk being from Iowa was just a widely accepted convention, not on screen canon. Hasn't it been the same with the Enterprise being built in SF?
To that end, it seems Orci's "Supreme Court" has spoken on this issue. And, one way or another, we will finally have on screen evidence of where the Enterprise was built.

And, if it turns out the trailer and clip reports were misleading, and it is being built in SF, sobeit. At least there's finally confirmation of that assumption.

 

[M'Sharak]

Because that's where Starfleet Headquarters is.

Exactly. The San Francisco Shipyards could have facilities all over the planet, including orbital. Case in point: most people seem to feel that the Enterprise was built in orbit. Yet its plaque clearly says San Francisco. Unless the city itself was boosted into space, it seems pretty obvious that the Shipyards encompass multiple sites.

Or, you know, the San [space!] Fran[cisco!] ship yards were in synchronous orbit over the city for which it was named.

[bracketed bits mine]

Which, because San Francisco is not located on the Equator, would be impossible anyway.

 

[ST-One]

Exactly. The San Francisco Shipyards could have facilities all over the planet, including orbital. Case in point: most people seem to feel that the Enterprise was built in orbit. Yet its plaque clearly says San Francisco. Unless the city itself was boosted into space, it seems pretty obvious that the Shipyards encompass multiple sites.

Or, you know, the San [space!] Fran[cisco!] ship yards were in synchronous orbit over the city for which it was named.

[bracketed bits mine]

Which, because San Francisco is not located on the Equator, would be impossible anyway.

Call me ignorant, but why does some place have to be on the Equator to have a structure in an synchronous orbit above it?

 

[Trekker4747]

Or, you know, the San [space!] Fran[cisco!] ship yards were in synchronous orbit over the city for which it was named.

[bracketed bits mine]

Which, because San Francisco is not located on the Equator, would be impossible anyway.

Call me ignorant, but why does some place have to be on the Equator to have a structure in an synchronous orbit above it?

Without getting technichal and stuff, things "stick" better in synchronous orbit over the equator better than anywhere else.

To be in synchronous orbit anywhere else is with today's technology is "impossible" as -if I understand correctly- it would require the object to apply some kind of thrust to hold its position. Something that may be possible in Trek's time.

If not the orbital San Francisco Shipyards could simply be on the same longitudinal plane as San Francisco on the equator (granted it'd be on the same line as many other cities) which would still make far more sense than San Francisco's shipyards having a offshoot built in freaking Iowa!

"The San Francisco Shipyard - Iowa". Makes zero sense to me.

 

[ST-One]

To be in synchronous orbit anywhere else is with today's technology "impossible" as -if I understand correctly- it would require the object to apply some kind of thrust to hold its position. Something that may be possible in Trek's time.

That is actually how I thought it would be done.

 

[M'Sharak]

Call me ignorant, but why does some place have to be on the Equator to have a structure in an synchronous orbit above it?

I should clarify that. What's often meant here by "synchronous orbit" is really a geostationary one, in which the orbiting item remains in a fixed position relative to the point on the ground below it, and that is possible only if the point on the ground lies on the Equator.

There are other kinds of synchronous orbits, though. From here:

A satellite in a synchronous orbit that is both equatorial and circular will appear to be suspended motionless above a point on the orbited planet's equator. However, a synchronous orbit need not be equatorial; nor circular. A body in a non-equatorial synchronous orbit will appear to oscillate north and south above a point on the planet's equator, while a body in an elliptical orbit will appear to oscillate eastward and westward. As seen from the orbited body the combination of these two motions produces a figure-8 pattern called an analemma.

So, if there were a San Francisco Orbital Shipyard, it could be in synchronous orbit but it could not be directly above the city of San Francisco at all times. Orbital mechanics says so.

Edit:

Trekker posted while I was writing mine. He's correct in that applying thrust can result in maintaining a stationary position above a point on the surface not situated on the equator, but that would more properly be called "station-keeping".

 

[Dark Gilligan]

"The San Francisco Shipyard - Iowa". Makes zero sense to me.

No different than locating U.S. military bases on foreign soil.

No different than nations establishing embassies inside other nations, independent of the political jurisdiction of said nations.

No different than Hawaii and Alaska being two of the United States of America.

 

[JuanBolio]

"The San Francisco Shipyard - Iowa". Makes zero sense to me.

No different than locating U.S. military bases on foreign soil.

No different than nations establishing embassies inside other nations, independent of the political jurisdiction of said nations.

No different than Hawaii and Alaska being two of the United States of America.

San Francisco, Calif.

...from the plaque on the bridge of the Enterprise.

 

[Trekker4747]

"The San Francisco Shipyard - Iowa". Makes zero sense to me.

No different than locating U.S. military bases on foreign soil.

Do we name them American cities?

No different than nations establishing embassies inside other nations, independent of the political jurisdiction of said nations.

Are they named after cities of their country of origin?

No different than Hawaii and Alaska being two of the United States of America.

Are they...

Wait.

What?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

San Francisco, Calif.

...from the plaque on the bridge of the Enterprise.

It has the city's name, yes. But it doesn't elaborate. Does it mean the ship was *built* in SF? Or simply launched from there? We all know Starfleet Command is in San Francisco; maybe that's why that city's name is on the plaque. The ship could have been built in Riverside (or anywhere else) but formally launched on its shakedown cruise from Starfleet Command.

 

[Trekker4747]

San Francisco, Calif.

...from the plaque on the bridge of the Enterprise.

It has the city's name, yes. But it doesn't elaborate. Does it mean the ship was *built* in SF? Or simply launched from there? We all know Starfleet Command is in San Francisco; maybe that's why that city's name is on the plaque. The ship could have been built in Riverside (or anywhere else) but formally launched on its shakedown cruise from Starfleet Command.

The Enterprise-D plaque says "Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards, Mars" on it.

Establishing, perhaps, a precedent of the plaque having the name of the shipyard it was built in (TNG: Booby Trap), which makes sense, on it -considering we know the E-D was launched from Earth (TNG:All Good Things).

The Excelsior's plaque says "San Francisco Fleet Yards" on it.

Why would the plaque, for that matter, have the name of the launch point on it? What's more important? Who built the ship or where it left from?

When you buy a car the Monroney sticker on new cars don't list on them the name of where the car is being sold but where the car was built.

Because that information is more important and relevant to quality of the build and thus the "character" of the ship. You look at a plaque on the ship and it tells you where it was launched. Tells you nothing.

It tells you where it was built that can tell you a lot, presuming you know or look up the history and quality of that location and those who staff it.

 

[DaveyNY]

Not sure if anybody cares, but.....

The Sign in the lower right hand corner of the pic of the Starship Construction site, DOES NOT indicate that it's IOWA...

It shows a funny slash or a ONE with the Enterprise Delta Symbol.

Just in case... anybody cares...

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Lets not forget the novel also had the Federation mass delete all of its stored data everywhere for little or no reason to stop V'ger getting it...

Could you give me the page number and edition where that is described? I honestly don't recall any such event occurring in the novelization.

I thought not.

I'm a Californian myself, but I've always thought the idea of Starfleet being centered in San Francisco of all places as kind of silly. It's a cool place, but a little hard to take all that seriously. It doesn't have nearly the weight or importance of a NY or DC.

San Francisco is a vastly more scenic city than any east coast urban shithole, which is all that really matters particularly if one is making a movie set three centuries in the future.

TGT (Part-time denizen of Russian Hill)

 

[Franklin]

Not sure if anybody cares, but.....

The Sign in the lower right hand corner of the pic of the Starship Construction site, DOES NOT indicate that it's IOWA...

It shows a funny slash or a ONE with the Enterprise Delta Symbol.

Just in case... anybody cares...

12/03/74, maybe? Someone's birthday? An anniversary of some kind? I did a quick Google myself and found Marvel's Joe Madureira's birthday is December 3, 1974. Is he a big friend of any of the movie's big-wigs?

Of course sometimes, numbers are just numbers.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Of course sometimes, numbers are just numbers.

So when exactly are numbers not numbers?

TGT

 

[Franklin]

Of course sometimes, numbers are just numbers.

So when exactly are numbers not numbers?

TGT

In the same way that sometimes, sometimes, a cigar isn't just a cigar.

 

[Timo]

...Which brings about the pressing question: is it a canon violation if STXI shows people smoking?

My fictional money is on the Enterprise being built in San Francisco, because TPTB have no particular reason for changing that. The trailer certainly doesn't establish otherwise, and although the 20-minute special preview might, no description of it so far has been detailed enough to establish anything definite.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[GodThingFormerly]

My fictional money is on the Enterprise being built in San Francisco, because TPTB have no particular reason for changing that.

...except for the single most important reason, which is because they can.

TGT

 

[FordSVT]

Why can't the ship be partially constructed on earth and then raised into orbit and launched from the "SF Shipyard" after it's internals are completed?

Isn't there a scene in TNG that shows a Galaxy (or similar) class being built on the ground from orbit?