Bridge Commander Central
Recreational Forums => Trek Discussion => Ships & Tech Talk => Topic started by: blaXXer on May 27, 2008, 05:21:00 AM
-
As most of us have seen in the teaser for JJ Abram's upcoming Trek movie, the original Enterprise was obviously -to some extent- built on Earth, namely at the famed San Francisco Naval Shipyards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Naval_Shipyard). Now, I have seen some fans complain that this was, in fact, not canonical to see it depicted as such.
Is that true? Well, let's examine some examples:
1. Ships are regularly built planetside, as shows this image of Utopia Planitia (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Utopia_Planitia)
(http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/c/cc/Utopia_Planitia.jpg)
2. According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space.
Source (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29)
3. It has never been established on-screen that the original Enterprise was completely constructed and assembled in space.
4. It would make sense to construct the ship planetside but assemble it in orbit. Why you ask?
Well, it's quite simple, actually: Having assembling crews in a zero-g environment construct each and every component
by hand in EVA-suits would be way too impractical to actually pull it off. Instead just assembling the bigger
components in low orbit would even profit from the low gravity and could be done by worker bees or somesuch.
-
Well we see that Galaxy being assembled on a planet so why wouldn't a connie be assembled on a planet 150 years earlier???
-
Well we see that Galaxy being assembled on a planet so why wouldn't a connie be assembled on a planet 150 years earlier???
Exactly that is why I am trying to convey :)
-
That appears to be exactly what the next film will portray, as well.
-
I know, I know. Just putting up this thread for all whiners that cry around that it was un-canon.
-
Parts of the ships were built on the planet, however, it all comes together in drydock in orbit. Launching a ship the size of a Galaxy Class from a planets surface would be a disaster, uncless the inertial dampers and the structural integrity field could keep gravity fron tearing it apart.
Voyager's design, and its size allowed it to go interplanetary! Enterprise too was interplanetary, I believe the sovereign is able to go interplanetary aswell. Defaint probably. but the Galaxy Class, i have my doubts.
-
If it can provide 1.something G of acceleration in any axis, I don't see why it can't go
interplanetary atmospheric flying as well.
-
i forgot to factor the axis and G acceleration in. I feel like an idiot lol. I gotta remember my basic physics class last year in school.
-
Parts of the ships were built on the planet, however, it all comes together in drydock in orbit. Launching a ship the size of a Galaxy Class from a planets surface would be a disaster, uncless the inertial dampers and the structural integrity field could keep gravity fron tearing it apart.
Voyager's design, and its size allowed it to go interplanetary! Enterprise too was interplanetary, I believe the sovereign is able to go interplanetary aswell. Defaint probably. but the Galaxy Class, i have my doubts.
Wat has a galaxy to do with a constitution-class ship anyways?
-
Parts of the ships were built on the planet, however, it all comes together in drydock in orbit. Launching a ship the size of a Galaxy Class from a planets surface would be a disaster, uncless the inertial dampers and the structural integrity field could keep gravity fron tearing it apart.
? Voyager's design, and its size allowed it to go interplanetary! Enterprise too was interplanetary, I believe the sovereign is able to go interplanetary aswell. Defaint probably. but the Galaxy Class, i have my doubts.
Wat has a galaxy to do with a constitution-class ship anyways?
Lots of things.
Both named Enterprise
Both established speed records in their days
Both made formitable combat vessels
Both made more history than any other class of ship
Both were said to be "Queens of the Fleet"
Both were flagships.
-
Parts of the ships were built on the planet, however, it all comes together in drydock in orbit. Launching a ship the size of a Galaxy Class from a planets surface would be a disaster, uncless the inertial dampers and the structural integrity field could keep gravity fron tearing it apart.
Voyager's design, and its size allowed it to go interplanetary! Enterprise too was interplanetary, I believe the sovereign is able to go interplanetary aswell. Defaint probably. but the Galaxy Class, i have my doubts.
Wat has a galaxy to do with a constitution-class ship anyways?
Lots of things.
Both named Enterprise
Both established speed records in their days
Both made formitable combat vessels
Both made more history than any other class of ship
Both were said to be "Queens of the Fleet"
Both were flagships.
In light of this specific discussion.
-
both were massive constructions which were allegedly built on a planet's surface...
it seems to make perfect sense to me to build it on the ground. TBH if in 200 years there's ships that can fly half way across the galaxy but can't get into orbit of a planet on their own...it's a bad job!
-
True, but i just cant begin to imagine a ship as large as a galaxy or a conni launching frome the surface. The thrusters would dig into earth, skyscrapers will fall due to the percussion.
DAMN I'D LOVE TO WHITNESS SUCH AN EVENT!
the ship would literally cover the sun as it goes off into the unknown of space!
GOSH! SOOOO GLORIOUSE!
anyway. I can get what ur sayin there. The Galaxy and the Conni have alot in common. More than any of us think!
-
Can we please stay on-topic, here?
-
To tell you the truth, I think the ship MAY have been built on earth. Judging by the Star Trek XI trailer, its looks like it was built on the surface. But, the TOS books i'v read states that the ship was built in Drydock Sigma, San Fransisco Shpyards in earth orbit. and the TMP Enterprise was probably also built or just assembled in that drydock. Too many sources say something different. It would probably be easier building it on the surface. But I still support that the Enterprise was built in orbit.
-
It would be similar to the way the build modern warships, like the new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, they will be built in "blocks" by the contracter and assembled in dry dock before being launched and fitted out, makes sense to handle the "blocks" of a starship in a similar fasion.
-
True, it makes for easier, quicker, andmore efficient production without having to built it in the water/ open space. But the question still stands, Where/ how did they build the Original Enterprise?
-
I think its reasonable that the 1701 could have been constructed on earth and then somehow launched, if something the size of a galaxy class can,
I cant why see a constitution class couldn't..
-
True, it makes for easier, quicker, andmore efficient production without having to built it in the water/ open space. But the question still stands, Where/ how did they build the Original Enterprise?
No canon information exists on the subject, except the one I have elaborated on in my original post. Well will see it in the movie, methinks.
-
Hopefully so. I hope the movie solves this question. Which it should lol.
"According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space."
source: Memory Alpha
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)
look under Early History.
You realize, I just mentioned that source in my first post, don't you?
-
I believe the movie might clear this question. I hope so anyway.
-
To tell you the truth, I think the ship MAY have been built on earth. Judging by the Star Trek XI trailer, its looks like it was built on the surface. But, the TOS books i'v read states that the ship was built in Drydock Sigma, San Fransisco Shpyards in earth orbit. and the TMP Enterprise was probably also built or just assembled in that drydock. Too many sources say something different. It would probably be easier building it on the surface. But I still support that the Enterprise was built in orbit.
Since when have novels EVER been considered proper Trek lore?
-
It isn't. On-screen = canon. No novels, companions or what the production folks or the actors say.
-
TNG tech manual is considered cannon. Also VOY: Threshold isn't considered cannon.
-
TNG tech manual is considered cannon. Also VOY: Threshold isn't considered cannon.
threshold=/=canon??
it's on screen, and as blaxxxer pointed out, this is the dfeinitionof canon
-
Many fans dismissed it as being cannon. It was an exception.
If you read this article it can help (especially at the bottom of the page but the rest of it is funny)
http://www.agonybooth.com/recaps/Star_Trek/Voyager/Threshold.aspx?Page=7
-
The fans can't say jack. Threshold is canon, the technical manual is not. The latter confirmed by Mike Okuda, although he admits that it is "highly correct."
This isn't Star Wars, we can't have people saying things are not canon just because they don't like them.
-
Then who decides what's cannon then???
-
Then who decides what's cannon then???
I believe it depents on the caliber? If it is 20mm and above it usually gets classified as a cannon. :P
Personally, I say that canon is only what has been directly created/imagined/had a hand into, by the original Creator himself. (Gene Roddenberry).
Anything beyond that now matter how many sticks they might wave is just a fanboy interpretation and anyones imagination is as good as anyone elses.
-
Or, to expand on what actual Trek canon is: Any televised or movie material published by the studio that holds the rights to the source material.
And, lukerobin, Threshold is canon, whether you like it or not. The TNG manual, while highly correct is not, in any shape or form, canon.
And, for that matter, TAS is not canon.
-
Or, to expand on what actual Trek canon is: Any televised or movie material published by the studio that holds the rights to the source material.
And, lukerobin, Threshold is canon, whether you like it or not. The TNG manual, while highly correct is not, in any shape or form, canon.
And, for that matter, TAS is not canon.
This is what defines Canon.
Hell, if the Masses had their way, they'd say Enterprise was no Canon. Though, unfortunately, due to the fact it was broadcast under the creators names, it is considered such.
-
At least it's better than Star Wars with the "any novelization is canon!" approach.
-
At least it's better than Star Wars with the "any novelization is canon!" approach.
[OT]Well, any published material has to be greenlit by LFL's very own Leland Chee, so a sufficient level of continuity is maintained. The only one NOT caring about this, seemingly is The Flanelled One himself, what with the new clone wars animated movie and the force unleashed. [/OT]
Back to the topic at hand.
-
I don't really see atmospheric flight to be that much of a problem. The ship can handle billions of Gs of accelleration through combination of SIF and Warp Field. Superheated gasses would be the biggest problem, and they can be overcome by taking it easy.
The problem with an actual landing is the contact forces. In a specially designed dock built to take advantage of certain 'jack points' like on a car I can see a starship resting safely on a planetary surface in one piece.
-
And, lukerobin, Threshold is canon, whether you like it or not.
I liked the episode, i've got no problem with it. I'm just stating what i've heared.
Taken from StarTrek.com
"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind. "
Even Gene Roddenebrry changed his mind about canon. What if an event happens in one series of ST but get contridicted in another. What one is the true canon? That's where personal canon comes in ("not set in stone") to make ends meet.
I'm not gonna go on about this anymore because it's ridiculous.
Back to topic:
I think its reasonable that the 1701 could have been constructed on earth and then somehow launched, if something the size of a galaxy class can,
I cant why see a constitution class couldn't..
It would be similar to the way the build modern warships, like the new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, they will be built in "blocks" by the contracter and assembled in dry dock before being launched and fitted out, makes sense to handle the "blocks" of a starship in a similar fasion.
I have to agree with both those statements. The galaxy is much bigger and they're built on a planet, and it would be much easier building the parts on a surface instead of in space.
Is there anything stopping the ships being locked on with a tractor beam and pulled into space from another ship?
-
Here's my addition to this discussion that also brings the Connie & Galaxy closer together.
Saucer separation. Both ships were capable of separating the saucer section from the secondary hull. Though in the Connie's case, it would have been done as a last resort in an emergency since it was primitive in those days. Nevertheless, if said saucers were to land on a planetary surface, they would be susceptible to the forces of gravity. Now, remember that if these ships WERE completely constructed in orbit, they would have never been subject to gravity. Naturally, of course, the ships had structural integrity fields...IF there was power to them. Look at the Enterprise-D's destruction. When she hit Veridian 3, she had no power left after landing. That includes the SIF's. If the ship hadn't been built to withstand gravitic pressures, the entire saucer would've collapsed like a giant pancake. The same would hold true for EVERY starship capable of planetfall, from the saucer of a Constitution-class starship to the Defiant(which DID have landing pads) to Voyager to even the Sovereign saucer.
Also blaxxer, thanks for posting that image of the Galaxy on Mars, that'll be good for shutting up one of my friends next time he starts to argue about there not being precedent.
-
Here's my addition to this discussion that also brings the Connie & Galaxy closer together.
Saucer separation. Both ships were capable of separating the saucer section from the secondary hull. Though in the Connie's case, it would have been done as a last resort in an emergency since it was primitive in those days. Nevertheless, if said saucers were to land on a planetary surface, they would be susceptible to the forces of gravity. Now, remember that if these ships WERE completely constructed in orbit, they would have never been subject to gravity. Naturally, of course, the ships had structural integrity fields...IF there was power to them. Look at the Enterprise-D's destruction. When she hit Veridian 3, she had no power left after landing. That includes the SIF's. If the ship hadn't been built to withstand gravitic pressures, the entire saucer would've collapsed like a giant pancake. The same would hold true for EVERY starship capable of planetfall, from the saucer of a Constitution-class starship to the Defiant(which DID have landing pads) to Voyager to even the Sovereign saucer.
Also blaxxer, thanks for posting that image of the Galaxy on Mars, that'll be good for shutting up one of my friends next time he starts to argue about there not being precedent.
They can create artificial gravity on ships so why can't they simulate gravity in space? (Although I completely agree with you :D)
-
Here's my addition to this discussion that also brings the Connie & Galaxy closer together.
Saucer separation. Both ships were capable of separating the saucer section from the secondary hull. Though in the Connie's case, it would have been done as a last resort in an emergency since it was primitive in those days. Nevertheless, if said saucers were to land on a planetary surface, they would be susceptible to the forces of gravity. Now, remember that if these ships WERE completely constructed in orbit, they would have never been subject to gravity. Naturally, of course, the ships had structural integrity fields...IF there was power to them. Look at the Enterprise-D's destruction. When she hit Veridian 3, she had no power left after landing. That includes the SIF's. If the ship hadn't been built to withstand gravitic pressures, the entire saucer would've collapsed like a giant pancake. The same would hold true for EVERY starship capable of planetfall, from the saucer of a Constitution-class starship to the Defiant(which DID have landing pads) to Voyager to even the Sovereign saucer.
Also blaxxer, thanks for posting that image of the Galaxy on Mars, that'll be good for shutting up one of my friends next time he starts to argue about there not being precedent.
You forgot to mention that the Prometheus Class could also land on planets. If you look at its MSD, you can see landing struts.
-
Why is it so hard to accept that Starfleet and the Federation have planet side ship construction facilities. I assume they'd have quite extensive construction yards to build shuttles and runabouts so why couldn't that extend to starships?
You've mentioned about the varoius ships with landing capacity, due to production sources starships landing on planets goes right back to TOS with the Connie's saucer being able to land on a planets surface.
It would also make sense that the reason Starfleet seem to design such sleek craft is so they can fly or extend periods in a planets atmosphere and above the planets surface. Shuttles do and they aren't as any where near as powerful as a starship.
That's my two cents! lol