The E-D was built on the ground, don't see why The 1701 couldn't

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I clearly recall the outlines of Scarlett Johansson's nipples pressing against the white dress she wore on that yacht during the opening credits...
TGT

Ergo, it was excellent film .

Just kidding -- actually I thought The Island definitely had the potential to be a smart little film; It had an interesting story and a decent script...however, as usual, Michael Bay insisted on turning it into an action film, which it wasn't.

I'm convinced that if Michael Bay directed Casablanca, he would have included a 20-minute car chase through the streets of Casablanca between Rick and the apathetic Louis; or if would have directed Sunset Boulevard, he would have had Nora Desmond's mental breakdown include her running through the film shooting up the sets and people with an automatic machine gun, leading up to the ending with a 5-minute struggle between her and Joe for that gun -- until Joe gets blown away in a slow-motion barrage of scores of bullets.

My point is that it's easy to blame the srceenwriters for a bad film (and somestimes it is the fault of the script.) However, very often the director could turn a good script into a bad film. Take my Sunset Boulevard example (which was admittedly hyperbole):
***Sunset Boulevard spoilers to follow ***
I'm sure the screenwriter's screen direction was to have Nora shoot Joe. However, it was the manner in which Joe got shot in the back while defiantly walking away from her which made that climatic scene work so well -- and put a terrific exclamation mark on that film. Another director could have decided it would be better for Joe to go out in an exciting physical fight for his life; however, that would not have the same impact, and much of the film's meaning would have been lost.

That error in filmmaking would fall squarely on the director, not the screenwriter.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Most of my favorite movies take place entirely in gravity wells.

 

[ancient]

In the future, gravity wells remain the one thing sure to f*ck a ship that can travel across the galaxy in about 4 days.

I mean, we wouldn't want to go all fantasy.

 

[RAMA]

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.

We don't have to assume anything, they appeared in the episode of STNG:

As I said, if we assume ...

Just cuz it is onscreen in a tiny monitor display doesn't mean jack. Or do you assume that phaser speed is variable, since we see them INCHing their way out of the guns in the first season parasite episode? Continuity errors aren't limited to TOS pre-r, y'know, or maybe you should watch DARMOK again. And as far as that goes, how about VOYAGER with 'no turn while in warp?' which invalidates years of TOS and the whole vger intercept in TMP? onscreen means nothing in that instance

It also helps that Okuda said so..and also the tech manual.

 

[Captain X]

 

[Psion]

No, no, no Captain Arrrgh! That picture doesn't prove anything. It could very easily be standard procedure to tear a ship down like this just to clean out the mud, leaves, dead moths, and spider webs that accumulate inside the ship after building it on the surface!

 

[Captain X]

Pesky Martian spiders, moths and leaves...

 

[Psion]

You clearly have no appreciation for that which would be kewl, sir.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Guess in May we'll finally find out where the Enterprise was built.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

I'm pretty sure I saw dirt on the Enterprise so it must have been built on the ground.

Yeah...by DAMN DIRTY APES!






Of course, if I was building a starship, I'd rather do it in a nice gravitational field where there was air pressure and oxygen outside so my guys wouldn't have to suit up in pressure suits, wouldn't worry if they tore a hole in the hull or their suit, and wouldn't float off to oblivion if their gravity boots failed...but that's just me.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

Most of my favorite movies take place entirely in gravity wells.

Some of my best friends live in gravity wells.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Of course, if I was building a starship, I'd rather do it in a nice gravitational field where there was air pressure and oxygen outside so my guys wouldn't have to suit up in pressure suits, wouldn't worry if they tore a hole in the hull or their suit, and wouldn't float off to oblivion if their gravity boots failed...but that's just me.

1). Exactly how many real-world cosmonauts, astronauts and taikonauts managed to get themselves killed during an EVA since Alexei Leonov completed the first one back in 1965? Oh, that's right: None.

2). Building and servicing large structures on the planet's surface is inherently dangerous precisely because one is in a gravitational field and not an inertial orbit. What is the average per annum number of construction workers and window washers who get splattered after accidentally falling off highrise buildings in the US? At least a hundred, I am fairly certain. Fudge, even building an ocean liner in a drydock is not without its gravity-induced risks.

3). I would assume that "duranium" and "tritanium" possess slightly higher Young's Modulii than toilet paper, thus rendering the threat of ruptured starship hulls from accidental impacts by spatially confused dockyard monkeys minimal.

4). An astronaut in LEO does not "float off to oblivion" in the event of a spacesuit thruster failure but instead enters a new orbit with slightly different elements (dependent upon direction and velocity at the time of the malfunction, naturally). Presumably by the 23rd century there would be a sufficient number of auxiliary spacecraft - and transporters - available to make a prompt recovery.

TGT

 

[Captain X]

Not to mention they've built the ISS in orbit without much any astronauts tearing holes in their suits or floating off.

 

[ST-One]

Not to mention they've built the ISS in orbit without much any astronauts tearing holes in their suits or floating off.

Wrong. The ISS is assembled in orbit. The single modules are constructed entirely on Earth.

 

[trevanian]

Not to mention they've built the ISS in orbit without much any astronauts tearing holes in their suits or floating off.

Wrong. The ISS is assembled in orbit. The single modules are constructed entirely on Earth.

Only because the appropriate infrastructure wasn't put in place in the 60s. Everything in the manned program has been a matter of applying a used bandaid on an open oozing wound since then.

 

[Captain X]

Not to mention they've built the ISS in orbit without much any astronauts tearing holes in their suits or floating off.

Wrong. The ISS is assembled in orbit. The single modules are constructed entirely on Earth.

Gee, really? No, I thought they pressed and shaped all the sheet metal and riveted everything together right there and orbit...

The point still stands.

 

[Psion]

Not to mention they've built the ISS in orbit without much any astronauts tearing holes in their suits or floating off.

Wrong. The ISS is assembled in orbit. The single modules are constructed entirely on Earth.

Isn't that pretty much the way that Roddenberry fellow said the Enterprise was built?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Not to mention they've built the ISS in orbit without much any astronauts tearing holes in their suits or floating off.

Wrong. The ISS is assembled in orbit. The single modules are constructed entirely on Earth.

Gee, really? No, I thought they pressed and shaped all the sheet metal and riveted everything together right there and orbit...

The point still stands.

Well, no it doesn't. Your reference to the ISS supports the premise of the Enterprise's major components being built on Earth more effectively than it does the claim that the ship was built in orbit.

 

[ancient]

Of course, if I was building a starship, I'd rather do it in a nice gravitational field where there was air pressure and oxygen outside so my guys wouldn't have to suit up in pressure suits, wouldn't worry if they tore a hole in the hull or their suit, and wouldn't float off to oblivion if their gravity boots failed...but that's just me.

1). Exactly how many real-world cosmonauts, astronauts and taikonauts managed to get themselves killed during an EVA since Alexei Leonov completed the first one back in 1965? Oh, that's right: None.

And how many Enterprises have they managed to build yet?


In any case, it's a really slow and unnatural way to work.

2). Building and servicing large structures on the planet's surface is inherently dangerous precisely because one is in a gravitational field and not an inertial orbit. What is the average per annum number of construction workers and window washers who get splattered after accidentally falling off highrise buildings in the US? At least a hundred, I am fairly certain. Fudge, even building an ocean liner in a drydock is not without its gravity-induced risks.

In the future, the workers wear Spock-boots. Or are robots, who have no unions!

 

[Probert]

Hey, all,... I haven't waded through this massive thread but am dropping in to confirm that the Enterprise-D was assembled in the orbiting dockyards above the prefabricating facility on the surface of Mars.

It was not built on the ground.

Andrew-