| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
greekvvedge
Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Location: Apkujeong
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| In a time where propulsion is x10,000 greater than current maximum propulsion, and where cost is not an issue, would it really be a stretch of an imagination to build a starship on Earth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I imagine some serious power is still needed to lift it off the ground though. We've never seen any indication in Trek that capital sized ships can "float" around above ground. It's not like you can just fire some thrusters and slowly edge your way up. The gravity well explanation is pretty good though, I'll buy that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuahirtle27
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| joshuahirtle27 wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| joshuahirtle27 wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| I too was a bit confused at first. Building a star ship on the ground? Err. But I loved seeing the old style shuttle craft. It could be good. |
The Original Enterprise was built IN San Francisco. It says so on the dedication plaque. As opposed to San Francisco Fleet Yards which orbit earth. |
Even if canonical, it's still requiring one to make a great leap in logic when anything that size would clearly be built in space. |
Yeah but it is the 23rd Century AND Roddenberry said it was built on Earth. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)#New_Star_Trek_film
| Quote: |
| According to The Making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen E. Whitfield, the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and the vessel itself was constructed in space. The 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. |
According to wiki, it is not canon to depict it being built on earth. |
I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia isn't an academic source 
Thanks for shedding light on the construction of 1701. We know the Enterprise can escape a planets gravity and it's not unreasonable to think it may be able to take off... but it has no landing struts to is cannot land again.
The books are not traditionally considered cannon. I'm not sure why. Maybe some don't follow the series' plan like they should or they don't fit with the time lines... I don't think ANYTHING about Enterprise should be cannon... well maybe not everything should be thrown out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuahirtle27 wrote: |
| I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia isn't an academic source |
"According to The Making of Star Trek by Gene Roddenberry and Stephen E. Whitfield, the components of the Enterprise were built at the San Francisco Navy Yards and the vessel itself was constructed in space."
The claim is there's a horse, not a unicorn in a backyard. I'm sufficiently convinced by a wiki page that's likely watched by thousands of star trek geeks and makes a reference to a Roddenberry book to establish the point.
| Quote: |
| Thanks for shedding light on the construction of 1701. We know the Enterprise can escape a planets gravity and it's not unreasonable to think it may be able to take off... but it has no landing struts to is cannot land again. |
Escape a planet's gravity from what distance? Gravity's pull falls at the square of the distance.
| Quote: |
| The books are not traditionally considered cannon. |
At least you spelled cannon right. I didn't manage that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuahirtle27
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Escape a planet's gravity from what distance? Gravity's pull falls at the square of the distance. In TOS episode where they went back in time Scotty had to punch the impulse engines to max to hold the ship in an atmospheric orbit which still decayed until he got the Warp Drive online.
. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joshuahirtle27 wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Escape a planet's gravity from what distance? Gravity's pull falls at the square of the distance. In TOS episode where they went back in time Scotty had to punch the impulse engines to max to hold the ship in an atmospheric orbit which still decayed until he got the Warp Drive online.
. |
|
Not to be technical about fantasy but there's a difference .... a fer get it. It's a movie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red_devil
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Easter Clark wrote: |
| And there is still a pretty big gap re: the years between TOS and TNG--even when you consider "Generations." I'd like to see the back story of the Enterprise-D crew. Maybe next time? |
That's a pretty damn good idea too. I would love to see that, but i don't know how they would do that since most of the crew met for the first time at "Encounter at Farpoint". Instead i think a series with new crew + a few cameo's and maybe some crew from the DS9 or Voyager imbedded in it that talks about the Enterprise C with Rachel Garrett would be sweet. Perhaps the timeline that spans as far back as the Enterprise C commission to the last battle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The books are not traditionally considered cannon. |
At least you spelled cannon right. I didn't manage that. |
Are you being sarcastic? Canon is the correct spelling this case. Unless he is somehow comparing the books to large, iron devices designed to blast smaller, iron bits large distances to smash things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joshuahirtle27
Joined: 23 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The books are not traditionally considered cannon. |
At least you spelled cannon right. I didn't manage that. |
Are you being sarcastic? Canon is the correct spelling this case. Unless he is somehow comparing the books to large, iron devices designed to blast smaller, iron bits large distances to smash things. |
Nope. I just pressed N too many times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internjim
Joined: 29 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Im new to this topic, and a HUGE tng fan, and I always enjoyed the old series, and I think this trailer looks really good, and I plan on seeing the movie. An idea being tossed around about 13-14 years ago when ER and Chicago Hope were new shows and successful was to do a Starfleet Medical show. If they had done this then, with Beverly Crusher as the head of Starfleet Medical it could have been good, not sure if it would be good now. I also think that they could do a decent show or even movie about Starfleet Academy or Riker and Troi on the Titan! There are lots of ideas for Trek, and as long as they keep making Star Trek movies or shows I will give them a chance. I for one am still hoping for another TNG film, because I would hate for Nemesis to be the last one! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I personally thought all the episodes in TNG featuring Beverly Crusher and Deanna Troi were the worst episodes.
The only major weakness in TNG was the amount of touchy-feely storylines......mostly concerning Dr. Crusher and Troi. There's enough touchy-feely dramas around. Let's keep all that rubbish out of sci-fi!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
internjim
Joined: 29 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hey, it wasnt my idea for a show, and I agree that the weaker episodes were the ones to focus on Troi or Crusher. I kind of liked Pulaski more than Crusher, she had more character and I loved it when she mispronounced Data's name when she first came on board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
