Why Build On Earth?
- Thread starter FlightCntrl
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Well, if you want to get picky, the moon seems to have gotten lots and lots bigger and closer to earth by ST 3. So, 'normal' is relative.
BTW, poster MAC, you hit it right on the head with the antiscientific aspect of this build on earth thing. This is also what happens when any kind of fantasy is called scifi, because it is license to do stuff arbitrarly w/o any restraints, which is why I don't like fantasy but love SF.
BTW, poster MAC, you hit it right on the head with the antiscientific aspect of this build on earth thing. This is also what happens when any kind of fantasy is called scifi, because it is license to do stuff arbitrarly w/o any restraints, which is why I don't like fantasy but love SF.
"I makes sense here in the real world to build in space.
It makes sense in the fictional world. It used to make
sense in the Star Trek universe...
...and then the revisionists got control of the place."
1. The Enterprise's plaque says "San Francisco Calif."
2. The TOS bible says the Enterprise's parts were built in the San Fransisco Navy Yards on Earth, then the ship was assembled in space.
3. TNG showed ship's parts being built on Mars.
4. 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
Before JJ Abrams became involved.
What is the problem?
It makes sense in the fictional world. It used to make
sense in the Star Trek universe...
...and then the revisionists got control of the place."
1. The Enterprise's plaque says "San Francisco Calif."
2. The TOS bible says the Enterprise's parts were built in the San Fransisco Navy Yards on Earth, then the ship was assembled in space.
3. TNG showed ship's parts being built on Mars.
4. 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
Before JJ Abrams became involved.
What is the problem?
There's one person who can get the newly constructed Enterprise from Earth into Space...
...Scotty.
And I reckon he can do it in 1 week - although his initial estimate for the task will be 2 weeks.
***
Visit my Hustle episode summaries, memorable moments, and quotable quotes at:
http://hustletvreviewzoo.blogspot.com/
...Scotty.
And I reckon he can do it in 1 week - although his initial estimate for the task will be 2 weeks.
***
Visit my Hustle episode summaries, memorable moments, and quotable quotes at:
http://hustletvreviewzoo.blogspot.com/
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You keep using what you want from the bible and discarding the rest. The part about it not ever landing is pretty damn important (and demonstrated on the show, since they are always getting pulled down out of orbit and it is bad news when it happens), so that would outweigh having some bits built dirtside and taken up to orbit, where the real work would be done (and chances are, where most of the fabrication would happen too, to take advantage of non-terrestrial micrograv tech.)
Again, SF yards is ALSO the geosync assembly space in orbit.
Maybe we shouldn't bother going on with this argument; you'll just turn up in another thread saying the same stuff, to hell w' it.
It also looked unchanged when the Enterprise-D passed over it in "Conspiracy." (see: Conspiracy screencap )
Heres a theory! Suppose the entire scene isn't even part of the movie at all. JJ is good at getting messages across without giving much away. Suppose the scene was made simply to convey the idea that the new movie was starting at the beginning and retelling the story. Thats the message it delivers, at least to me. Also, notice how the ship is pretty much complete at the end of the trailer. Do you think there gonna take it apart again and lauch the pieces independantly? Even launching just the saucer section would be a challenge, and would probably look rather akward on film. I'm trying to image a transporter big enough to move a million metric ton ship. Even in pieces, Not very graceful. Just a thought!
Great username, TOSTNGDS9VOYENT! :thumbsup:
You do know though, that there is a difference between taking off and landing?
The enterprise cant land because its the wrong shape and has no landing gear.
That isnt the same as saying it cant take off from a specially designed cradle as a once only event, ie, when its just been built.
Ships are built on land, then they slide down into the sea, they dont go back onto the land again, but it dosnt mean they cant start off there.
Yes but new ships always have bugs and some design flaws. Does Starfleet want to find out the hard way that the sublight engines suddenly bug out on them and they crash after take off? It makes way more sense to build a starship in a drydock.
Much has been said about welders and workers working without spacesuits. I propose that in a large facility like a Spacedock or another drydock, they have the ability to completely seal the dock and pressurize and enable gravity. That way they can still launch ships without dangerous take offs from a planet but workers can still walk all over the outer skin without gravity boots and spacesuits.
Much has been said about welders and workers working without spacesuits. I propose that in a large facility like a Spacedock or another drydock, they have the ability to completely seal the dock and pressurize and enable gravity. That way they can still launch ships without dangerous take offs from a planet but workers can still walk all over the outer skin without gravity boots and spacesuits.
Not really, it was just an excuse to use the transporter and save $$$. There was never any 'high theory of what ships can't do'.
Yes, being pulled out of orbit by an alien death-ray is a problem.
It has nothing to do with being able to land/take off though.
Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.
Why dont we use the space shuttles today to bring raw materials into space and build the ISS up there? Because it takes more resources to do it that way. So the large parts were fabricated on the ground and assembled in space, why is it so hard to believe the enterprise is any different.
The following link is to an article on the American Welding Society's website. Warning, it's a rather technical article, but it also lays out the case for space construction by folks who should know.
Welding in Space
From the introduction:
So, the ideas are out there today. But, I guess in Trek's world they've shown to be still unproven or unworkable by the 2250s.
True, "Star Trek" takes great liberties with science and the laws of physics. But fiction or not why build on land and technobabble the damn thing into orbit when there's a perfectly logical and very realistic building method from which to extrapolate?
Welding in Space
From the introduction:
So, the ideas are out there today. But, I guess in Trek's world they've shown to be still unproven or unworkable by the 2250s.
True, "Star Trek" takes great liberties with science and the laws of physics. But fiction or not why build on land and technobabble the damn thing into orbit when there's a perfectly logical and very realistic building method from which to extrapolate?
Similar threads
