Why Build On Earth?

[[[[MAC]]]]

biotech said:

[[[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.

Mmmm... Lets see, yes, where was it they were building the Death
Star??? Was it on a planet??? Was Darth Vader going to flick
his finger at it and push it into space??? Did we ever see a
Star Destroyer land???

Star Gate... After the movie and the first 3 or 4 episodes it stopped
being Science Fiction and became pure fantasy... And I didn't see
them building anything the size of the Enterprise.

Lexx... Never saw it. Don't care.

Ever read any Asimov? How about any A.C.Clarke? Maybe even some
Niven/Pournelle?

I did the best authors...

MAC

 

[ancient]

First off, Star Wars isn't something I would refer to for logical scientific reasoning.

Secondly, I don't think I need to point out the obvious differences between the Death Star and a ship like the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer.

 

[[[[MAC]]]]

ancient said:
First off, Star Wars isn't something I would refer to for logical scientific reasoning.

Secondly, I don't think I need to point out the obvious differences between the Death Star and a ship like the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer.

I wasn't. I was replying to Mr. biotech. He's the one that
trotted out Star Wars, Stargate, and Lexx. My initial reaction
was to reply that I had been referring to 'real' Science Fiction
written by the best Science Fiction authors. Then I changed
my mind and decided to comment in kind using his examples.

Maybe not a good idea...

Still, though I think its a telling point that even in the
science fantasy like Star Wars, the Death Star definitely was
built in space and from all evidence, the Star Destroyers were
never designed to land on a planet. I'd be willing to bet that
if Lucas was cornered and asked if they were built in space or
down on a planet, he would say in space.

Only the little 'puddle jumpers' like the Falcon landed...

(I know... Someone's going to jump all over this and say that
we saw ships bigger than the Falcon land. Yes, we did, but
I suggest that the ships that were of mostly the same class as
the Enterprise were the Star Destroyers - and we never saw
them land.)


MAC

 

[monetteman]

If you build it
They will come

 

[cbspock]

[[[MAC]]] said:

ancient said:
First off, Star Wars isn't something I would refer to for logical scientific reasoning.

Secondly, I don't think I need to point out the obvious differences between the Death Star and a ship like the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer.

I wasn't. I was replying to Mr. biotech. He's the one that
trotted out Star Wars, Stargate, and Lexx. My initial reaction
was to reply that I had been referring to 'real' Science Fiction
written by the best Science Fiction authors. Then I changed
my mind and decided to comment in kind using his examples.

Maybe not a good idea...

Still, though I think its a telling point that even in the
science fantasy like Star Wars, the Death Star definitely was
built in space and from all evidence, the Star Destroyers were
never designed to land on a planet. I'd be willing to bet that
if Lucas was cornered and asked if they were built in space or
down on a planet, he would say in space.

Only the little 'puddle jumpers' like the Falcon landed...

(I know... Someone's going to jump all over this and say that
we saw ships bigger than the Falcon land. Yes, we did, but
I suggest that the ships that were of mostly the same class as
the Enterprise were the Star Destroyers - and we never saw
them land.)


MAC

Attack of the Clones, and Sith showed the precursors to the Star Destroyers landing and taking off, they were even shown resupplying on land, not space. Even the huge spheres of the federation trade ships were shown landing and taking off in Clones.

So did they weld the death star in space?


I think this whole welding and building on earth thing is being taken way to seriously. We have a new Star Trek movie coming out at the end of the year!!!!! Where is all the excitement over that???


-Chris

 

[-Brett-]

[[[MAC]]] said:
Star Gate... After the movie and the first 3 or 4 episodes it stopped
being Science Fiction and became pure fantasy...

I'm curious. What happened in the 4th or 5th episode that made it more fantasy than it already was? Or for that matter, more fantasy than Trek or Wars?

 

[biotech]

[[[MAC]]] said:

ancient said:
First off, Star Wars isn't something I would refer to for logical scientific reasoning.

Secondly, I don't think I need to point out the obvious differences between the Death Star and a ship like the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer.

I wasn't. I was replying to Mr. biotech. He's the one that
trotted out Star Wars, Stargate, and Lexx. My initial reaction
was to reply that I had been referring to 'real' Science Fiction
written by the best Science Fiction authors.
MAC

Ah, the old "If I don't like it, it doesn't count" defence.

SW 1
Trade federation ships land and take off at will, these ships are comparable in size to the enterprise

SW 2 early versions of the star destroyer are seen to land and take off

sw 3 Even larger star destroyers, are seen to take off and land, along with the tantative IV.

SW 5 Large Rebel transports are seen leaving the surface of Hoth, and something imperial large enough to drop off six walkers had to had landed

Some might argue that star wars was the most sucsessful sci fi or all time, certainly the most comercially viable.

Stargate SG1, countless ships are seen being built on the surface of planets, including once they have the technology, earth ships, of course the biggest ships we see on the ground belong to the Ori.

Stargate is in the guiness book of records (rightly or wrongly) as the longest continually in production science fiction show of all time.

Close encounters of the third kind, huge mothership, seen if not actually landing, then hovering nicely only a few feet above the ground.

V huge motherships, hover nicely.

Independence day huge motherships, hover nicely.

You either accept sci fi as a medium or you dont, but when you start picking and choosing which sci fi is "real" and which is to be ignored your just sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Wowbagger]

You all do realize you're now arguing about Star Wars canon. Isn't that a heresy or something?

Here's my stance on it: If canon does not address an issue, there is no restriction on writing the issue in whatever way is most dramatically or aesthetically pleasing to the current showrunner. There is no canon saying that the Enterprise cannot be built on Earth. Therefore, the creators are entitled to do whatever they want with it. That is a simple and, I think, ironclad argument. No other points need be addressed. There seem to be quite a few people in this thread who agree with me.

No, the writer's bible is not canon. Neither is TAS. There is, in fact, absolutely no canon evidence either way. Abrams could have had the ship built in space or on Earth without committing any act of "revisionism".

Canon's tough enough to work with as it is. We need not make it harder by complicating it with speculation--and that's all it is, pure speculation--about what technology may or may not be like two and a half centuries from now.

 

[Jimmy_C]

Reasons to build on Earth:

1) You use less energy on life support.

2) Less chance of an accident if a small hole doesn't have the ability to threaten the lives of the workers. The Earth is a more hospitable environment and makes for happier workers. Happy workers are more productive and make less mistakes. Easier to fix mistakes on the ground too.

3) You have the power to travel light years in hours, but not the power to get to LEO? There's enough power to do so either way. However, see next point.

4) You mastered anti-gravity, but transporting anything is never 100% efficient. You still have transport getting it there, packaging, etcetera. Transporting the ship into orbit after being assembled has less waste.

5) You don't have to transport workers to orbit and back home to Earth every 8 hours. That adds up and could surpass by a large amount the weight of the ship herself over her construction timeline.

6) Instead of using thrusters or energy-using magnets, you use the tension of a crane or the normal force against gravity. Easier to put things in place before affixing them.

 

[Timo]

1) Do you? No weather in space. And plenty of space to vent toxic byproducts into - something that would require significant "life support" efforts on Earth.

2) Wouldn't bet on that, either. On Earth, falls and dropped objects maim and kill. In space, those are irrelevant.

3/4) The balance of things here is unknown - but starships effortlessly operate in a manner that is wasteful by this definition. And they operate that way for decades. Why would Starfleet get pennywise about construction if the energy (or other resources) expended there represents but a fraction of a percent of what is wasted during operations?

5) Why would the workers live on Earth? Mere three-four decades later, we see giant cities in orbit. Surely an acceptable place to live - and in fact even desirable, or the city wouldn't have been built in the first place.

6) Cranes have to fight the gravity of mass all the time. Thruster packs only have to fight the inertia of mass when it gets moved around. By the pennywise approach, omitting the steel of the giant cranes and scaffoldings would be a desirable saving if the replacement is a tiny mechanical mule.

Not that I'd argue that any of these outweighs the good points you listed. It's just a (partial) list of "reasons not to build on Earth", for comparison purposes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Building stuff in space these days is a pain in the (_)_) because space suits are so bulky and makes it hard to maneuver around. In the future howerver... oh wait their just as bad then too. Nevermind... resume building on earth.

 

[Franklin]

Timo said:
5) Why would the workers live on Earth? Mere three-four decades later, we see giant cities in orbit. Surely an acceptable place to live - and in fact even desirable, or the city wouldn't have been built in the first place.

Timo Saloniemi

This point keeps getting lost. This is a society where living and working in space is no big deal. There are things in space the Federation (and others) have built that are far larger than the Enterprise. They'd have had to have been constructed largely in space, if not entirely.

Construction facilities would have to be up there, along with the technology to do it safely, efficiently, and effectively in that environment. If one is afraid to work in space, or believes it's too dangerous to build there, one better not live there, either.

Obviously, it could be more efficient to build certain parts on the ground and send them to space for assembly. So we're talking a bit of both worlds, so to speak. Indeed, as folks have said, that was how Roddenberry said the ship was built. (Damn! He should've had someboday say that on screen forty years ago! Sometimes you have to tell folks how the gun works. )

 

[MisterPL]

Maybe that "city" in the background isn't really a city on Earth. Maybe it's the vast interior of a giant spacedock orbiting Mars.

Just a thought.

 

[Son_of_Soong]

Maybe they dont really build the Enterprise at all that that teaser was just to get us all excited (or annoyed).

 

[Jimmy_C]

Timo, I understand your concerns. Here is how I would respond:

1) There is weather in space from the sun. Besides that, it is easier to shield oneself from weather on Earth (especially with those nifty weather control stations we know exist on Earth in Star Trek). Venting toxic byproducts into space would change your orbit. A hazmat suit is still less expensive than a space suit.

2) In space, you accidentally let go and you end up in orbit. Tear a hole and you suffocate. There are more modes of catastrophic failure in space than on the ground. No realistic argument can say the opposite. Come on!!!

3/4) I don't know what you are referring to here.

5) I thought of this too, but discounted it. I don't know of many giant cities in orbit in Trek except for the occasional spacedock. Rarely more than one/planet in any case. Given the amount of time the crew of the Enterprise goes planet bound during their missions, I can imagine how often a construction crew would want to do so. Weak argument, I know.

6) Thruster packs are inaccurate and use fuel cranes use electricity, but don't need to adjust for station-keeping. Every time you touch the spacecraft, you exert rotational and inertial momentum. So you need to power your inertial dampeners when building it. Or you can just do it on Earth with a built-in inertial dampener called friction.

 

[Franklin]

OK, on another tack. Think of the refit of the Enterprise. Think of what had to be done. The old engine nacelles and support struts were removed and new ones were added. Major modifications were made to the neck, saucer, and secondary hull. Major changes were made to the interior of the ship. These were not simple repairs or upgrades. This was a complete overhaul. Basically they scuttled the old ship and made it a new one. This may not have been new construction, but it was the reconstruction of a starship at least.
And it was done in space.

 

[xanderwess]

Forgive me, as I have not read the entire thread and don't know for sure if someone touched on this, but I have been thinking: That is the Trailer was a Metaphor for the whole process of making the film HUGE, and its hard work (sweaty welder dude) and the trailer is not necessarily part of the movie or has not real relavence regarding the size of the ship, the place they are making it, the fact they are using present day welders, the face the nacells are different or anything. It was just JJs way of saying "we're working on it, and its hard work and its HUGE" see what I mean?

 

[Jimmy_C]

Franklin said:
OK, on another tack. Think of the refit of the Enterprise....And it was done in space.

Not on screen. :thumbsup:

 

[ancient]

Jimmy_C said:

Franklin said:
OK, on another tack. Think of the refit of the Enterprise....And it was done in space.

Not on screen. :thumbsup:

The closest we get to seeing the actual refit is in the books...and yes, it was done on the ground in the books. I know, I know: not canon.

I think the point here, which is getting lost as everyone picks a side, is that they could do it on the ground OR space.

COULD it be done in space? Sure.

Does it HAVE TO be done in space, as so many angry rants have indicated? Nope.

Is there any real advantage to doing it in space, given trek tech? Not really.

Therefore, Abrams has NOT made a blunder. That's the main point from my end.

 

[Wowbagger]

Amen to ancient.