The E-D was built on the ground, don't see why The 1701 couldn't
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
- Status
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Assuming we take those images as canon, there is still plenty of reason to figure the early one was built in orbit.
For one thing, Mars gravity is a shitload less than earth.
24th century tech seems way more advanced than 23rd, so they've probably got new systems in addition to old ones like spacedock.
Plenty of stuff from GR and others indicate that when they were talking about this pre-TMP, that the SF yards were in geosync orbit ABOVE SF, not in the city itself.
Everybody will have 2000 ways to tear all this apart, but I wanted to get on-record and get out before the bombs start falling.
For one thing, Mars gravity is a shitload less than earth.
24th century tech seems way more advanced than 23rd, so they've probably got new systems in addition to old ones like spacedock.
Plenty of stuff from GR and others indicate that when they were talking about this pre-TMP, that the SF yards were in geosync orbit ABOVE SF, not in the city itself.
Everybody will have 2000 ways to tear all this apart, but I wanted to get on-record and get out before the bombs start falling.
In areas where canon has not been expressly established, as in law, this is a case of reasonable doubt, previous assumptions are not enough. There's enough reasonable doubt against the ship having been built in space that building it on the ground is not an impossibility. I like the gravity well story Orci has. It makes perfect sense in terms of calibration.
I don't think what we saw in Parallells was Uptopia Plantia's shipbuilding facilities. We saw Utopia Planitia consist of plenty of spacedocks orbiting Mars in Voyager's Relativity.
But regardless, there is no evidence saying the Enterprise D was built on the ground, so why are you saying there is. Indeed, we know nothing about how the Enterprise D was built. Maybe it was built at some ground facility by a guy welding it together, but we have no evidence making it canon, so I see no reason to think so.
But regardless, there is no evidence saying the Enterprise D was built on the ground, so why are you saying there is. Indeed, we know nothing about how the Enterprise D was built. Maybe it was built at some ground facility by a guy welding it together, but we have no evidence making it canon, so I see no reason to think so.
Conversely, before seeing the teaser in January, there was no evidence saying what we saw built of the TOS Enterprise was either built on the ground or in space. So becuse there was no evidence either situation was possible.
The teaser was just a metaphor that the movie was "being built". As Freud said, "Sometimes, a cigar is *just* a cigar".
that could be a ground-based testing facility or a training facility or anything...
We don't even know that for sure. The teaser as metaphor is an assumption on the part of some fans, mostly by those still holding out hope that the ship will look closer to the TOS ship than it did in the teaser. Besides, the amount of thought that Orci put in explaining why it was built on the ground suggests to me that their interpretation of the Enterprise's history is that it was built as seen in the teaser.
All I'm saying is there is wiggle room for the ship to be either in space or on the ground, in part or in whole. Based on what you've said I think you'd agree. That until there is declarative dialogue, text, or scenes in the context of the movie, then it's anyone's guess.
We'll find out in May...
And *what if* the E was built by elves?
Don't be silly.
There's no way ANY version of the Enteprise would fit inside a hollow tree.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
And *what if* the E was built by elves?
I thought elves had left the building.
I admire you, St. John, for you are a voice crying in the wilderness. Meanwhile, Jennifer Morrison is dancing the dance of the seven veils, so, like, um, hold onto your head.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Gee, and I thought I'd invalidate any remaining credibility with that Shatner-level pun I made a couple posts up. 'preciate it.
We may not have specific canon on this, but even if we did, since Star Trek has spilled the beans about future events, and details have been discussed to death on TrekBBS, people in those future centuries might look at how closely Trek canon reflects their era and try to avoid any mistakes foretold in Star Trek, hoping to benefit from a "special case of hindsight." And once they do, any new Trek we get may reflect what happens differently as a result of that, what with Paramount's unique ability to see the future. Then those future people can look at that, too, and see if what they changed worked out, and perhaps think twice about changing other things or even consider changing some things back. And maybe that's the source of many of the perceived inconsistencies we find in Trek.
Dude, wait until i've dropped the acid to start talking like that!
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Maybe it was built on a filthy asteroid.
- Status
Similar threads
