Why Build On Earth?
- Thread starter FlightCntrl
- Start date
You don't pull g's in space. By definition. If the "warp field" creates stresses, those are different stresses and presumably dispersed differently around the ship.
There's also questions of centers of balance and all in 1-g. How the loads are distributed around the ship.
Without some kind of technobabble anti-grav magic, there is NO WAY the entirely constructed Enteprise, by its shape and distribution of loads and weights alone, could be stable in 1-g. Let alone fly. No way.
Why not build on Earth? Lots of big things are. Actually...all things are, at the moment. Building it in space has no real advantage unless you think they're building something insanely fragile for some reason. If we can build something like the seattle space needle today, we can build something like the Enterprise out of super-strong materials 300 years in the future. It's plausable.
If the ship can get from here to Jupiter and back in like 2 minutes, I think it can handle a lift-off.
If the ship can get from here to Jupiter and back in like 2 minutes, I think it can handle a lift-off.
Enterprise's plague says "San Francisco, Calif."
Also,
"APRIL: To me she was always like my child. I was there in the San Francisco Navy Yards when her unit components were built."
- The Counter Clock Incident
Also,
"APRIL: To me she was always like my child. I was there in the San Francisco Navy Yards when her unit components were built."
- The Counter Clock Incident
Sure you can. The source is different but the resulting force is indistinguishable. If the ship can’t handle 1 g, while modern structures easily do, then clearly they should fire the moron who built it.
There’s no reason to assume they wouldn’t take this into account. Even in zero-g, mass distribution is important. So they would take this into account even if it never came close to a planet.
Which they also have, but don’t really need if they’re building it out of a strong material.
How can you possibly know the weight distribution? Not everything has the same density, or almost every ship ever built would’ve flipped over and sank a long time ago.
They have shields and advanced propulsion. Shape is irrelevant.
When the impulse engines fire up, there will most definitely be a stress on the structure of the ship. Maybe things are weightless in space, but the ship still has MASS -- and there's also a little thing called inertia.
The impusle engine (attached to the back of the saucer?) will make that saucer want to move, but the rest of the mass of the ship (secondary hull & nacelles) will be at rest and want to stay that way ("objects at rest tend to stay at rest"...). The neck attaching the saucer to the lower hull -- and the struts connecting the nacelles to that hull -- better be structurally sound or the ship will rip apart upon starting up on impulse.
...and remember, there is no warp bubble on impulse.
By the way, you DO pull g's in space (at leats artificial g's)...if I were in a spacecraft that suddenly accelerate to a speed 100,000 mph faster that I was a moment earlier, the g forces would cause me to become a red stain on the wall. Those same forces apply to all of the ship.
Are we going to have to endure this question a trillion times before folks get it in thier heads that what happens in a teaser is not what happens in a film or do we need to bring up the fact that not once did we ever see a borg ship in the shape of a Star Trek Delta a tillion times as well ?
Why won't it be in the film?
I say it will be in the film?
Any evidence that I am wrong?
I say it will be in the film?
Any evidence that I am wrong?
Oh -- I agree completely. I'm just saying, if you want to get technical, the stresses caused by acceleration, mass, and inertia still apply in the weightlessness of space.
I bet the first time we see the Enterprise onscreen in this film will be several years after launch.
We can rationalize it away, it's what we do as Sci-Fi fans !
Anti-grav, no problem, tractor beams, no problem, Bucky cables and or carbon filiment cable to hoist it into orbit, sure why not ?
My post was more aimed at the OP, but it is fun to approch the 'problem' from a pure sci-fi angle.
- W -
* Thinking outside the box, it's what sci-fi fans do *
Anti-grav, no problem, tractor beams, no problem, Bucky cables and or carbon filiment cable to hoist it into orbit, sure why not ?
My post was more aimed at the OP, but it is fun to approch the 'problem' from a pure sci-fi angle.
- W -
* Thinking outside the box, it's what sci-fi fans do *
Reality check: Star Trek isn't real.
We're talking about a made-up space ship that travels at faster-than-light speed. Last time I checked, that ain't possible either.
And even if it were possible, the crew onboard would resemble something little more than chunky salsa at the end of their first acceleration, no matter what kind of materials were used in construction or where the ship was built. I don't see anyone whining about that. So why should we give a tribble about building it on earth?
Power? It must be a billion times the mass of a human being.
Building it on Earth is not what I have an issue with ...
What personally nags at me is that there are welders (human ones no less) doing this kind of work.
You think that the technology in the 23rd century of Trek level would still let humans to handle the outside stuff when they probably have the machinery to do it 100x faster/better ?
I'm sorry ... but as I said, if they are using humans for this kind of work, then I repeat, it's no wonder SF takes as long to make their ships.
Having said that ... it's possible that what is in the simple teaser trailer is not going to be in the movie itself, however, there is no proof to say that it won't
If they do it like this, then fine, we'll get through it and accept it, although as I said, it would be nice to see some actual machinery doing all the work.
I mean really, the NX-01 encountered a space station that did all the repairing on it's own, both on the outside and inside (and that thing was a 24th century Federation tech equivalent ... which also begs the question as to why SF in the mid/late 24th century was not churning out ships in weeks/months instead of years).
Scale it down by some 100 years, and you still have an ability to let the machinery do most of the work for you and you doing mostly internal construction work.
Still, yes, visually it looks nice ... but in-universe wise, it doesn't work.
And the ship can easily fight off gravity for that matter.
Why some people equate anti-gravity and all other similar tech as 'magic' is beyond me when we have 0 clue what kind of technological advancements will WE accomplish over the next 100 years alone (when practically speaking we are inventing things today that are imitating some of Trek technology ... which is not that much ... from over 300 years into the future - from Trek POV - on ... admittedly ... very small scale).
What personally nags at me is that there are welders (human ones no less) doing this kind of work.
You think that the technology in the 23rd century of Trek level would still let humans to handle the outside stuff when they probably have the machinery to do it 100x faster/better ?
I'm sorry ... but as I said, if they are using humans for this kind of work, then I repeat, it's no wonder SF takes as long to make their ships.
Having said that ... it's possible that what is in the simple teaser trailer is not going to be in the movie itself, however, there is no proof to say that it won't
If they do it like this, then fine, we'll get through it and accept it, although as I said, it would be nice to see some actual machinery doing all the work.
I mean really, the NX-01 encountered a space station that did all the repairing on it's own, both on the outside and inside (and that thing was a 24th century Federation tech equivalent ... which also begs the question as to why SF in the mid/late 24th century was not churning out ships in weeks/months instead of years).
Scale it down by some 100 years, and you still have an ability to let the machinery do most of the work for you and you doing mostly internal construction work.
Still, yes, visually it looks nice ... but in-universe wise, it doesn't work.
And the ship can easily fight off gravity for that matter.
Why some people equate anti-gravity and all other similar tech as 'magic' is beyond me when we have 0 clue what kind of technological advancements will WE accomplish over the next 100 years alone (when practically speaking we are inventing things today that are imitating some of Trek technology ... which is not that much ... from over 300 years into the future - from Trek POV - on ... admittedly ... very small scale).
No - the added time and expense you'd have to go through to build those automated systems on a thing that should have human eyes and hands looking over it at every step. Trust me this isn't a car its more like the space shuttle and that's basically built by hand.
There's no need to use robots (also something completely out of place in the Trekverse...) for such a thing if all these self same automations were in place to construct the thing they would also be part of the engineering crew to maintain it in flight. We've never seen any such thing - instead its poor Scotty climbing a Jefferies Tube to fiddle with wires and sonic tools...
That's bad why?
Sharr
Omega_Glory
Commodore
Exactly. That would be the only part of this question that is actually canon.
Similar threads
