JJ ABRAMS Enterprise

When I saw the teaser, I thought at least the component sections might be constructed on the ground, then shuttled/tugged/tractored into orbit to be assembled in an orbital drydock.

We didn't build Skylab or the International Space Station on the ground because of the impracticality of trying to blast a large, ungainly non-aerodynamic structure into orbit, but I guess we'll lick that problem in a couple hundred years...
 
I'd say the ship has some sort of 'antigrav engines' and will lift off/fly in atmos with those.
Building the ship on the ground eliminates all those pesky space-related problems like vacuum, solar radiation etc.
Who sez that car runs on petrol?

Maybe they will reverse the tachyon flow of the transporters and just teleport the ship into orbit?

SAS
 
Actually the manuvering thrusters alone would be enough to get the ship to orbit in theory. Probably with a little help from repulsor beams (tractor beams in reverse) genlty pushing the mass of the ship upward.

Once in orbit they could then switch the Impulse decks on, run all checks and then after a sublight run to safe distance start the warp drive and begin testing that.

A ship tough enough to manuver at warp speed would be tough enough by a long margin to handle breaking grav and atmo without breaking a sweat. Keep in mind that ships like this engage in combat with weapons that could destroy the surface of a planet and travel at warp speeds. Also they aren't just nuts, bolts and welds. It's been said in dialog that there's several systems that help artificially bolster the structure integrety and the hull like innertial dampers and integrety fields.

Building it on the ground does make sense. We built the space shuttle on the ground, it can handle the forces of launch and re-entry all on it's own and it's nothing more than nuts, bolts and welds inside.
 
Sidewinder said:
Building the ship on the ground eliminates all those pesky space-related problems like vacuum, solar radiation etc.
SAS
Click to expand...

....but also adds problems like dust/dirt, rain, temperature variations, gravity, etc.
Solar radiation could be shielded by the SPACE DOCKS that have been established in the ST continuity.

I,m just pissed because I know the only reason they are doing it like this is because "they" believe it will look "cool".
 
anubispro said:
....but also adds problems like dust/dirt, rain, temperature variations, gravity, etc....
Click to expand...
Yeah, because most Sci-Fi movies are realistic with these things.:rolleyes

I just hope it is like the original trek were everyone alien looks human and speaks English no matter what planet they come from.:thumbsup We don't even have a planet wide language on Earth, but that is no reason to think it is not used everywhere else.:lol
 
"They" also said they were "honoring canon."
Let me count the ways:

1) Same name.
2) Same ship name and configuration- basically.
3) Same names for hardware- I guess.
4) The characters' names.
5) Gold, blue, and red shirts. Also miniskirts. (Can't argue there.)
6) Leonard Nimoy.

And that looks to be about it.

SO- long live Cawley's Phase II!
 
Saw this paragraph which seems a good fit to this current conversation about building location.:thumbsup

"According to The Making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen Whitfield, the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and the vessel itself was constructed in space. The new Star Trek film's co-writer, Roberto Orci, acknowledged depicting the Enterprise being built on Earth would cause debates among fans regarding canon. Explaining that the concept came from their own creative license and the precedent set in Star Trek novels, he said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)#cite_note-5
 
KnightAsylum said:
Saw this paragraph which seems a good fit to this current conversation about building location.:thumbsup

"According to The Making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen Whitfield, the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and the vessel itself was constructed in space. The new Star Trek film's co-writer, Roberto Orci, acknowledged depicting the Enterprise being built on Earth would cause debates among fans regarding canon. Explaining that the concept came from their own creative license and the precedent set in Star Trek novels, he said that the idea that some things have to be constructed in space is normally associated with "flimsy" objects which have to be delicately assembled and would not normally be required to enter a gravity well. He said that this did not apply to the Enterprise because of the artificial gravity employed on the ship and its requirement for sustaining warp speed, and therefore the calibration of the ship's machinery would be best done in the exact gravity well which is to be simulated."
Click to expand...

Eh, sounds like BS to cover their "creative license".

They wanted to have him ride a motorcycle up to it like it was Maverick in Topgun going up to an aircraft carrier or something.

Is this movie going to have a rockin' soundtrack?



Revvin' up your warp core
Listen to her howlin' roar
Duranium under tension
Beggin' you to touch and go

Highway to the Neutral Zone
Ride into the Neutral Zone

Headin' into deep black
Spreadin' out her wings tonight
She got you jumpin' off the star track
And shovin' into warp drive

Highway to the Neutral Zone
I'll take you
Right into the Neutral Zone





Will there be a space volleyball scene???
 
I still say it's a reboot, and they just don't want to admit it.

It'll be more problematic trying to shoehorn this film into the continuity than to simply say "k, never mind. It's a reboot. On with the show!"
 
CessnaDriver said:
...They wanted to have him ride a motorcycle up to it like it was Maverick in Topgun going up to an aircraft carrier or something...
Click to expand...
That didn't happen in Top Gun? There was a person riding a motorcycle and there were Aircraft carriers but nothing similar to this scene that I remember. I know the point was just to bash, and that bit was just a lead in for the song insult, but still I think the analogy doesn't work. Idealy you would need a movie with a guy riding up to something big, and it would help if the movie was one that was disliked by most. The only film I can think of at the moment is the iconic classic Top Secret and they did not have a scene like that either so I can't help ya.:unsure
 
Everyone thought Heath Ledger's Joker looked terrible when that first pic of him came out - and now his look has become the standard of what people expect of the Joker.
If the movie delivers on story and character development, then I am confident that the new Enterprise design will be accepted by fans and non-fans alike.
 
KnightAsylum said:
That didn't happen in Top Gun? There was a person riding a motorcycle and there were Aircraft carriers but nothing similar to this scene that I remember. I know the point was just to bash, and that bit was just a lead in for the song insult, but still I think the analogy doesn't work. Idealy you would need a movie with a guy riding up to something big, and it would help if the movie was one that was disliked by most. The only film I can think of at the moment is the iconic classic Top Secret and they did not have a scene like that either so I can't help ya.:unsure
Click to expand...

It rains a lot in Oregon, doesnt it?
 
GeneralFROSTY said:
Everyone thought Heath Ledger's Joker looked terrible when that first pic of him came out - and now his look has become the standard of what people expect of the Joker.
If the movie delivers on story and character development, then I am confident that the new Enterprise design will be accepted by fans and non-fans alike.
Click to expand...


So, you are saying that TOS compares to TMP STs like TV Batman compartes to cinema Batman?
OK,....except that TMPs had the ORIGINAL cast to help in the translation.

Besides,....theres no Joker better than Cesar Romero.
:lol
 
KnightAsylum said:
That didn't happen in Top Gun? There was a person riding a motorcycle and there were Aircraft carriers but nothing similar to this scene that I remember. I know the point was just to bash, and that bit was just a lead in for the song insult, but still I think the analogy doesn't work. Idealy you would need a movie with a guy riding up to something big, and it would help if the movie was one that was disliked by most. The only film I can think of at the moment is the iconic classic Top Secret and they did not have a scene like that either so I can't help ya.:unsure
Click to expand...


He rode the cycle up to runway to look at the Tomcats or somethin.

This reimagined stuff just looks like contemporary MTV silliness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crewman 6
Here is my EM-33 Plasma Pistol
Replies
0
Views
159
Crewman 6
Crewman 6
LimeyBuilds
Enterprise Phase Pistol Re-imagined.
Replies
5
Views
1,474
DamnYankee123
D
13doctorwho
Enterprise Wrath Of Khan Viewscreen
Replies
1
Views
982
13doctorwho
13doctorwho
Jameel Ur
Star Trek: Enterprise S-2 Excursion Tan Color uniform!
Replies
2
Views
619
peter1701
P
TheRealCatjuju
Blade Runner 2049 Officer K Blaster - Tip Top Workshop
Replies
3
Views
577
tain669
tain669
Back
Top