Why Build On Earth?

[[[[MAC]]]]

ancient said:

trevanian said:
The part about it not ever landing is pretty damn important

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'.

(and demonstrated on the show, since they are always getting pulled down out of orbit and it is bad news when it happens),

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.

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.)

Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.

"ALIEN DEATH-RAY"!!! Are you watching Flash Gordon or Star Trek???

Every single episode shows us that they can't take off or land the
Enterprise. Otherwise they wouldn't use the shuttles the way that
they do or it wouldn't have been necessary to invent the transporter.

(I'm not talking about GR deciding to 'invent' the transporter to
save special effects money. I'm talking about why something happens
in the Star Trek universe. Besides with the ability to use CGI for
effects today it wouldn't cost JJ one extra penny to have the ship
built in space than it would be show it take off and land a hundred
times. GR may have had a financial reason to do what he did, but if
JJ shows the Big E being built on the surface he's doing it just to
screw with Trek history - and I'm sure he knows it.)

And as for the advantage of micrograv tech not being scientific, I
suggest you take a look at what we know about this kind of thing
already. Even just from the little work done on Skylab and up on
the International Space Station, we know that microgravity allows
us to make virtually perfect ball bearings and microfibers that are
stronger and longer than we have been able to make on Earth in the
highest tech facilities.

(Maybe those big spinny things that we can now see in the front of
the warp nacelles need perfect ball bearings. Maybe the reason why
the hull plating, the skin, of the Enterprise that we can see in the
trailer seems so thin is because they are using microfiber composites
that can only be made with 'space fibers'.)

There are dozens of very real reasons for going with the idea that
the Enterprise was and would be built in space, just as many fictional
reasons to do so, and only one reason not to.

What is that one reason? "Because..."

(Sorry, that's the way it is...)

MAC

 

[biotech]

Is there some particular reason you never use the full width of the page?

 

[biotech]

Franklin said:
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:

An alternative approach to developing large space infrastructures is to assemble them in space. Consequently, an in-space assembling technology has been identified as a critical or enabling technology. The Russian station Mir and the ISS represent the current state of the art of structures for in-space assembly. The ISS is based on modular assembly and mechanical joining, which required multiple shuttle launches, docking events, and quite intensive extravehicular activity.

The cost of the mission, risk tolerance, and failure margins can be better mitigated by building the structure in space using small and relatively inexpensive truss elements. These elements can be prefabricated on Earth and delivered to the “construction” site in a pallet or other container using an expendable launch vehicle. The key to successful in-space construction is a versatile, reliable, cost-effective automated joining technology that is easy to use.

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?

Of course using a 21th century concept to understand how they do things in teh 23rd century, would be like the people who came to america on the mayflower assuming that all ships would alawys be made of wood, and that the weapon of choice in the 21st century would be the flintlock.

 

[scotthm]

Franklin said:
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?

I think you're taking a 1 second scene from a 30 second teaser trailer way too seriously.

---------------

 

[[[[MAC]]]]

scotthm said:

[[[MAC]]] said:

scotthm said:

[[[MAC]]] said:
[Building the Enterprise in space] used to make sense in the Star Trek universe...

Now that it doesn't, let's just be glad that it makes sense to build it on Earth, otherwise it wouldn't get built at all.

I just have no idea what you just said.

Does this help?

---------------

I understood what I said. I'm still not sure what you mean.

My point is, as you can see from my other posts, that building
the Enterprise on Earth as one large unit - the whole burrito -
makes no sense at all - Zero Sense.

Its not right if this were the 'real' universe. More and more,
we're finding the advantages of building in space those things
that need to be used in space and we're also finding advantages
of building in space those things that we will be using on Earth.

Its also not right if we're in the fictional universe. Its a long
standing 'fact' in just about every Science Fiction universe ever
thought up by the best SF authors that interstellar spaceships will
be built in space.

And the Star Trek universe used to follow these 'realities'.
Now, it seems that JJ is rewriting that last couple of decades
of ST history and doing it in a way that make no sense. I hope
he has a good reason, some huge plot event that can't be written
some other way... but I can't think of any one that he could
come up with that would be good enough. (And just to make it
look gritty, dirty, and lived in is not good enough.)

MAC

 

[ancient]

[[[MAC]]] said:

ancient said:

trevanian said:
The part about it not ever landing is pretty damn important

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'.

(and demonstrated on the show, since they are always getting pulled down out of orbit and it is bad news when it happens),

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.

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.)

Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.

"ALIEN DEATH-RAY"!!! Are you watching Flash Gordon or Star Trek???

Star Trek featured many alien death rays.

Every single episode shows us that they can't take off or land the
Enterprise. Otherwise they wouldn't use the shuttles the way that
they do or it wouldn't have been necessary to invent the transporter.

Just because it's easier to use the shuttle or transporter, it doesn't make all other options 'impossible'. They refuel fighters in flight. Doesn't mean they can't do it on the ground, they just don't bother taking the time & energy to land every time they need fuel. Pretty simple idea.

(I'm not talking about GR deciding to 'invent' the transporter to
save special effects money. I'm talking about why something happens
in the Star Trek universe. Besides with the ability to use CGI for
effects today it wouldn't cost JJ one extra penny to have the ship
built in space than it would be show it take off and land a hundred
times. GR may have had a financial reason to do what he did, but if
JJ shows the Big E being built on the surface he's doing it just to
screw with Trek history - and I'm sure he knows it.)

All based on assumptions that are wrong.

And as for the advantage of micrograv tech not being scientific, I
suggest you take a look at what we know about this kind of thing
already. Even just from the little work done on Skylab and up on
the International Space Station, we know that microgravity allows
us to make virtually perfect ball bearings and microfibers that are
stronger and longer than we have been able to make on Earth in the
highest tech facilities.

So in the 22nd century we need to make ball bearings in space, eh? Even if this were true, there's no reason to sacrifice the convenience of building it on the ground.

(Maybe those big spinny things that we can now see in the front of
the warp nacelles need perfect ball bearings. Maybe the reason why
the hull plating, the skin, of the Enterprise that we can see in the
trailer seems so thin is because they are using microfiber composites
that can only be made with 'space fibers'.)

Possible, but all based on speculation. Besides, they wouldn't need to build the ship where they build the bearings.

There are dozens of very real reasons for going with the idea that
the Enterprise was and would be built in space, just as many fictional
reasons to do so, and only one reason not to.

What is that one reason? "Because..."

(Sorry, that's the way it is...)

MAC

Dozens eh? So...no air, no gravity, huge temperature variations, and this is a good thing? No. There is no advantage from building it in space. Sorry. Certainly none in a society where anti-gravs are common.

 

[Plecostomus]

And while we CAN make perfect ball-bearings and superfiber in space we're a LONG LONG way from bringing these to commercial reality.

 

[[[[MAC]]]]

biotech said:
Is there some particular reason you never use the full width of the page?

I usually open my browser to just about full screen width
(and have a wide-screen monitor) and usually prefer to read
lines that approximate what I would get on a book or magazine
page. It allows me to compose my thoughts better when I'm
rereading what I just wrote before I hit the send button.

(That might be one big difference, unlike many posters, I do
reread what I've written before I hit the send key...)

Also, I'm somewhat old school and although I'm very comfortable
on a computer, having used them at work and at home for over
30 years, I did learn to type on a typewriter and still like
the feeling of hitting the return key to control the flow of
thoughts down the page...

MAC

 

[biotech]

[[[MAC]]] said:Its a long
standing 'fact' in just about every Science Fiction universe ever
thought up by the best SF authors that interstellar spaceships will
be built in space.

Well appart from star wars, and stargate, and Lexx, to name a few off the top of my head.

 

[trevanian]

ancient said:

trevanian said:
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.)

Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.

What the fuck do you know about it? ?Did you subscribe to NASA FACTS when you were 7 years old? Did you a/v for astronautical conferences while in high school? Did you take anything above bonehead math, or have any understanding of the various offshoots that have come out of the space program, or the heavy 'dollar multiplier' from dollars spent on space programs and how that helps the economy? Don't you dare tell me I made shit up, you go do some fucking homework, and LEARN the stuff that anybody with the slightest interest or investment in the future should already know so that you can make an INFORMED vote instead of a kneejerk one.

Better still, go fuck yourself. That way you'll be out of the gene pool after a time, and it'll be one less ignoramus voting wrong on everything.

 

[Arlo]

[[[MAC]]] said:
I did learn to type on a typewriter and still like
the feeling of hitting the return key to control the flow of
thoughts down the page...

MAC

I pity anyone who has to work with text you send them

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Sure is nice to see that nobody is taking this conversation too seriously...

 

[Michael]

EliyahuQeoni said:
Sure is nice to see that nobody is taking this conversation too seriously...

 

[Arlo]

Well let's see, as I understand it, STXI will feature the Enterprise being built partially on Earth, partially in space. Or not. Maybe. This flies in the face of 40 years of verifiably absolute canon regarding where the Enterprise was built. Or not. Maybe.

I'm not sure how much more seriously this subject needs addressing.

 

[Trujew]

trevanian said:

ancient said:

trevanian said:
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.)

Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.

What the fuck do you know about it? ?Did you subscribe to NASA FACTS when you were 7 years old? Did you a/v for astronautical conferences while in high school? Did you take anything above bonehead math, or have any understanding of the various offshoots that have come out of the space program, or the heavy 'dollar multiplier' from dollars spent on space programs and how that helps the economy? Don't you dare tell me I made shit up, you go do some fucking homework, and LEARN the stuff that anybody with the slightest interest or investment in the future should already know so that you can make an INFORMED vote instead of a kneejerk one.

Better still, go fuck yourself. That way you'll be out of the gene pool after a time, and it'll be one less ignoramus voting wrong on everything.

meow. Prove it.

 

[ancient]

If you'll all excuse me, I'm going to call Nasa and ask them to start building their spaceships in space. Trek fandom demands it.

 

[Franklin]

scotthm said:

Franklin said:
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?

I think you're taking a 1 second scene from a 30 second teaser trailer way too seriously.

---------------

Oh, not really. The teaser is most certainly a metaphor. In another thread, a case is being made based on the teaser that this Enteprise may be 3000 feet long.

I thought that in the context of the whole thing, using those welders was a nice touch. They looked like they came straight from doing iron work at an LA skyscraper construction site in 1966. The past creating the future.

The interesting thing is how this thread has taken on a life of its own on the subject, though. Everyone has a case, everyone has a defense, and everyone is right. Cool.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

trevanian said:

ancient said:

trevanian said:
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.)

Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.

What the fuck do you know about it? ?Did you subscribe to NASA FACTS when you were 7 years old? Did you a/v for astronautical conferences while in high school? Did you take anything above bonehead math, or have any understanding of the various offshoots that have come out of the space program, or the heavy 'dollar multiplier' from dollars spent on space programs and how that helps the economy? Don't you dare tell me I made shit up, you go do some fucking homework, and LEARN the stuff that anybody with the slightest interest or investment in the future should already know so that you can make an INFORMED vote instead of a kneejerk one.

Better still, go fuck yourself. That way you'll be out of the gene pool after a time, and it'll be one less ignoramus voting wrong on everything.

Needless to say, you have a warning for flaming.

Comments to PM.

 

[scotthm]

[[[MAC]]] said:

scotthm said:

[[[MAC]]] said:

scotthm said:

[[[MAC]]] said:
[Building the Enterprise in space] used to make sense in the Star Trek universe...

Now that it doesn't, let's just be glad that it makes sense to build it on Earth, otherwise it wouldn't get built at all.

I just have no idea what you just said.

Does this help?

I understood what I said. I'm still not sure what you mean.

What I mean is this: Since it no longer makes sense to build the Enterprise in space (according to you), then let's be glad that they're building it on Earth (in the teaser), otherwise it wouldn't exist (in the movie).

More and more, we're finding the advantages of building in space those things that need to be used in space and we're also finding advantages of building in space those things that we will be using on Earth.

Can you give me some examples here? What are we manufacturing in space these days?

I know we've done some experiments that look promising, but with these 'advantages' you speak of, surely we've started up at least a couple of orbital factories, otherwise it's all hypothetical.

Now, it seems that JJ is rewriting that last couple of decades of ST history and doing it in a way that make no sense.

Does it? Please PM me with the Star Trek script; I don't mind spoilers.

---------------

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Trujew said:

trevanian said:

ancient said:

trevanian said:
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.)

Which you all just made up based on nothing scientific at all.

What the fuck do you know about it? ?Did you subscribe to NASA FACTS when you were 7 years old? Did you a/v for astronautical conferences while in high school? Did you take anything above bonehead math, or have any understanding of the various offshoots that have come out of the space program, or the heavy 'dollar multiplier' from dollars spent on space programs and how that helps the economy? Don't you dare tell me I made shit up, you go do some fucking homework, and LEARN the stuff that anybody with the slightest interest or investment in the future should already know so that you can make an INFORMED vote instead of a kneejerk one.

Better still, go fuck yourself. That way you'll be out of the gene pool after a time, and it'll be one less ignoramus voting wrong on everything.

meow. Prove it.

Knock it off, Trujew.

Next time it will be a warning for trolling.