The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Captain Robert April]

Obviously, it's being made of something totally kewl, dude! since that appears to have been the primary consideration, how kewl it looks.

This is what happens when you start playing games with these kinds of longstanding assumptions, like the bulk of work on the Enterprise's construction being done in orbit. Ya tend to ignore the reasons why that assumption was made in the first place, like maybe it makes a helluva lot more sense to build a ship of that size in orbit. Never mind that nothing in canon spells out the process explicitly, the logical problems alone should be enough to chuck this notion of building it on the ground out the nearest airlock.

 

[Forbin]

Logic is a pretty flower that smells like a studio executive.

 

[Arlo]

Star trek has time travel and a device that can scramble your molecules and send them to another location intact. I think what makes sense from the standpoint of real physics is a minor quibble.

 

[ancient]

I don't think building it on the ground is a problem. You know what they say about assumptions...

We could do it today if we wanted. I mean, there's a suspension bridge in Japan with towers 6 miles apart. The towers are so far away that they are both vertical, yet lean away from eachother by quite a bit due to the Earth's curvature.

Given the better materials and anti-gravs of the future, it would be a breeze to build a 947 ft ship like the enterprise on the ground. If we did it today it would look like the Statue of Liberty did when they did those renovations on it - it'd be encased in a support frame. But in the future with tractor beams and energy fields, a support framework need not be visible at all.

 

[Aegis]

You know...we are all assuming it's being built on the ground. Could be an enclosed drydock in space. Could be on the moon. Could be we are all going to see the film ANYWAY!

 

[Captain Robert April]

There's still that old adage, why make it harder on yourself? As has been mentioned several times before, with current technology we could build an ocean liner on the top of a mountain and eventually get it to the sea, but why the hell would we? Or, to go back to the Statue of Liberty, they didn't build the whole thing in Paris and haul it to New York in one piece, they sent it over in sections and assembled it on site.

Just citing Trek's technological level doesn't really cut it, either. Folks still walk to the bathroom, they don't beam themselves there.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Aegis said:
You know...we are all assuming it's being built on the ground. Could be an enclosed drydock in space. Could be on the moon. Could be we are all going to see the film ANYWAY!

Orci has already stated several times that what we're seeing is on the ground, and provided, in my opinion, some rather lame justifications.

 

[Arlo]

Captain Robert April said:
they sent it over in sections and assembled it on site.

Isn't that also what Orci suggested? That it's being built in sections on Earth, and being assembled on site--that is, in space?

 

[ancient]

Well, building an ocean liner on a mountain is bad because it will be very difficult to move. It's not the same as building a starship on the ground. A starship can quite easily go from ground dock to orbit. Flying saucers don't have mobility issues.

There's no real advantage to be had from having it built in orbit, unless you are building them in bulk and don't have space on the ground. But Trek ships have never been built in bulk numbers.

I know how strong fan assumptions can be, and how they often override real-world happenings, or even canon itself (NOOOO). But I really don't have a problem with them building it in San Francisco like the plaque says.

 

[Trekker4747]

I don't think building it on the ground is a problem. You know what they say about assumptions...

They make an ass out of you and Mption?

 

[Holytomato]

Captain Robert April said:
Obviously, it's being made of something totally kewl, dude! since that appears to have been the primary consideration, how kewl it looks.

This is what happens when you start playing games with these kinds of longstanding assumptions, like the bulk of work on the Enterprise's construction being done in orbit. Ya tend to ignore the reasons why that assumption was made in the first place, like maybe it makes a helluva lot more sense to build a ship of that size in orbit. Never mind that nothing in canon spells out the process explicitly, the logical problems alone should be enough to chuck this notion of building it on the ground out the nearest airlock.

The plaque says, "San Fransisco, Calif."



Its part of The Canon tm. :thumbsup:

My new phrase, JJ is scum for cherry picking The Canon tm, but we TOS purists are not tm.

"Obviously, it's being made of something totally kewl, dude! since that appears to have been the primary consideration, how kewl it looks."

This movie is not being made for us Irrelevent Old Fogeys. We must bring in new fans. :thumbsup:

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Captain Robert April said:
Obviously, it's being made of something totally kewl, dude!...

Like that kewl "duranium" and other nonsense words Trek's been using for decades to duck engineering questions.

 

[Vektor]

This is still very preliminary, but I started building the Enterprise we saw in the teaser trailer using my own modified version as a starting point. Only the saucer section has been modified so far, so ignore the rest.

I'll try to post some other views later tonight.

 

[therealfoxbat]

Arlo said:
Star trek has time travel and a device that can scramble your molecules and send them to another location intact. I think what makes sense from the standpoint of real physics is a minor quibble.

Nothing in physics says you can't time travel. You just need a serious buttload of energy...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Vektor, that looks pretty damned cool.

I like the lowered, flattened "teardrop" just below the Bridge a lot.

 

[largo]

there, now that our lord Vektor is doing a take of it, can we all agree that its made of awesome and full of the win?

 

[Arlo]

largo said:
there, now that our lord Vektor is doing a take of it, can we all agree that its made of awesome and full of the win?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I think any reasonable person would understand that Vektor's work, always excellent, has no bearing on the design itself, which he is merely attempting to interpret.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm waiting for the side-by-side comparison shot with the original design.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I know exactly what the original design looks like. It's different from this, not better.

 

[Vektor]

I updated the previous image in this thread with some added detail and here are a few more showing different angles:

I figured these might help clarify what the ship in the teaser trailer looked like for those who feel like debating its merits, or lack thereof. I can't guarantee this is accurate, of course; it's just my best attempt to match what little was shown. Some of it, like the back of the bridge module, is highly speculative, and everything but the saucer section is a hold-over from my previous version of this model, not to be confused with the official version.

I'll keep adding details to this model as, presumably, more are revealed between now and December.