# Starship Enterprise



## Dark Psion (Nov 12, 2008)

From the new movie, first look at the new/old Enterprise

'Star Trek': An exclusive first look at the Enterprise | PopWatch Blog | EW.com


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 12, 2008)

It's the same way as the new bridge to me... I really like the looks of it from modern scifi-standards... But it has something very wrong with it... I think it's all that blue...

Can't wait for the movie 

[sblock=The image for those who don't like clicking unknown links]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/sblock]
[sblock=For comparison's sake, the original NCC-1701]
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/sblock]


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 12, 2008)

It has much more of the movie-Enterprise look then the television look. Especially with the blue  

I like it, now I want to see a space combat scene


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 12, 2008)

Bad shuttlecraft!  Someone file a photon torpedo at that bastard cuz he ruined a nice profile shot with it's ugly red exaust port!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2008)

Looks good to me.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 12, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> Bad shuttlecraft!  Someone file a photon torpedo at that bastard cuz he ruined a nice profile shot with it's ugly red exaust port!



Do I file that under "P" for Photon or "T" for torpedo?


----------



## Mallus (Nov 12, 2008)

Looking good!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 12, 2008)

Maybe it is just me but it gives the impression of being a smaller ship in scale, could be the tightness of the image and the angle of the warp engines.  It has a nimbleness about it.


----------



## Traycor (Nov 12, 2008)

Looks great to me! They did a good job of making the old look & design work with today's standards of realism.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 12, 2008)

Anyone know what the classification and class of this Enterprise will be, for geeks like me?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 12, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Anyone know what the classification and class of this Enterprise will be, for geeks like me?




It should be the same as the ST:OS, U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution class.


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 13, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> It should be the same as the ST:OS, U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution class.




I agree with Hand. Canon-wise it is the same ship as in the Original Series.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Nov 13, 2008)

I like it, very sleek. I admit, I would've made the deflector dish orange-reddish as a nod to the golden one... but that's personal taste, sort of (and because I'm a bit bored of that blue light = sci-fi convention).

But I dig it a lot, very nice ship.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mark (Nov 15, 2008)

That's the goods!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 15, 2008)

That's six shades of cool, wrapped in spiffy.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 15, 2008)

One of the trailers from Quamtum of Solace last night was for this.  Apparently Kirk likes driving classic cars off cliffs.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Nov 16, 2008)

Wycen said:


> One of the trailers from Quamtum of Solace last night was for this. Apparently Kirk likes driving classic cars off cliffs.



You mean the Kirk who couldn't figure out how to get out of reverse in A Piece of the Action?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 16, 2008)

Ed_Laprade said:


> You mean the Kirk who couldn't figure out how to get out of reverse in A Piece of the Action?




Yeah. That's my single biggest gripe with the trailer, which I otherwise rather liked.

The series made it _very_ clear that Kirk (and Spock) had _zero_ experience with automobiles. It may be a fanboy nitpick--I used to be a _huge_ Trekkie, and I admit I still have a lot of the knowledge and the OCD that went with it --but still, it's irritating.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 16, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yeah. That's my single biggest gripe with the trailer, which I otherwise rather liked.
> 
> The series made it _very_ clear that Kirk (and Spock) had _zero_ experience with automobiles. It may be a fanboy nitpick--I used to be a _huge_ Trekkie, and I admit I still have a lot of the knowledge and the OCD that went with it --but still, it's irritating.




Yes because there's no one in our world who can drive, but can't drive a stickshift right?

I give Abrams credit for guts, but I fear this movie will get drowned by nerds expecting him to honor every one-off line in every trek episode in every line of this movie's dialogue.

On the trek boards, people are flipping out over Uhura ordering a Cardassian sunrise. 

Seriously, there are like 6 different batman shows on TV and in theaters right now. None of them agree, but they're all batman.

Worst movie ever. I will see it only three times. Today. /comic book guy

Can't trek fans be happy through one damn trailer that we're getting a trek movie at all?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 16, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> Yes because there's no one in our world who can drive, but can't drive a stickshift right?




A) They clearly weren't familiar with cars _at all_ in the scene.

B) The car shown in the trailer was a classic Corvette--which, given the years they were available, would've had a stick shift.

And please don't try to argue "Well, it could've been a reproduction, with an automatic." Yes, it _could_. But I think we both know that the scene was there because JJ Abrams wasn't familiar with the episode _A Piece of the Action_, and not for any other reason.

Is that an unforgivable sin? No. As I said, I liked the bulk of the trailer. But it _is_ a break from ST canon, and it's one that bugged the "canon-Trek-Geek" part of me. No more, no less.


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 16, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> A) They clearly weren't familiar with cars _at all_ in the scene.




What about Spock shouting all the time in the Cage, set (like this movie) before TOS? Should every line of dialogue Spock has be shouted in this movie, like he's serving on a WWII submarine? 

What about McCoy's southern accent?

If we hold this movie to every _line_ of dialogue uttered by or about the TOS characters, they're going to need to hand out cliff notes as you walk in (and again- we're basically talking about 1 scene of 1 episode where Kirk doesn't seem familiar with cars).



> And please don't try to argue "Well, it could've been a reproduction, with an automatic." Yes, it _could_. But I think we both know that the scene was there because JJ Abrams wasn't familiar with the episode _A Piece of the Action_, and not for any other reason.




I wasn't going to argue that. Again, the minutiae required for me to argue "well clearly it's a reproduction and all cars in the 23rd century would be manual transmission" is exactly the sort of madness I am specifically lobbying all trek fans to avoid.

Remmber, I am only calling on us to be as mellow as _Batman fans_.

And as for the assumption that neither Abrams, nor Orci, nor Kurtzman has seen a Piece of the Action, I find it hard to believe none of the 3 had seen that episode.

According to comments they have made, Abrams is a casual trek fan, one of the writing duo was not a fan at all, and one was a HUGE fan with encyclopedic knowledge of the franchise. 

More likely, they are not going to bind themselves to everything ever written about those characters, in the interest of making a good movie. 



> Is that an unforgivable sin? No. As I said, I liked the bulk of the trailer. But it _is_ a break from ST canon, and it's one that bugged the "canon-Trek-Geek" part of me. No more, no less.




Right, I understand what you're saying. I know the canon, I even love it. DS9 was my favorite Trek series precisely because of this.

But this was going to happen (a re-envisioning/re-whatever of the TOS) eventually. I'm just glad they're doing it now. Remmeber when they were saying we'd go 10 years before another Trek movie? 

I'm glad that didn't happen, and just hoping for a good movie.


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 16, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> And as for the assumption that neither Abrams, nor Orci, nor Kurtzman has seen a Piece of the Action, I find it hard to believe none of the 3 had seen that episode.




That aside...  I'm a pretty big Trek fan.  I saw the trailer last night. I've seen that particular episode.  I honestly forgot about that nit pick until you guys mentioned here.  And now that I remember it...  Eh, big deal.  Star Wars has done worse.


----------



## Orius (Nov 17, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> It should be the same as the ST:OS, U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701, Constitution class.




It damn well better be.

No bloody A, B, C, OR D.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 17, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> That aside...  I'm a pretty big Trek fan.  I saw the trailer last night. I've seen that particular episode.  I honestly forgot about that nit pick until you guys mentioned here.  And now that I remember it...  Eh, big deal.  Star Wars has done worse.



Speaking of which...

Bootleg Star Trek Trailer Shows Young Kirk, Spock | The Underwire from Wired.com


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 17, 2008)

Lets see. I'm undecided about the car... I can live with the retconned looks of the ship. But there is one thing I most certainly can't accept: Have you noticed the lenght of Uhura's skirt?! How could they make it so long?! It's way too inconsistent with the originals!

*Warning, above post may or may not contain humor. Trekkie Control Adviced*


----------



## The One Ring (Nov 17, 2008)

*drools all over her keyboard*

That Enerprise is teh seks.


----------



## Wycen (Nov 17, 2008)

I wasn't actually making reference to Kirk's lack of car knowledge, just that he trashed a beautiful thing.

However, I fully expect them to push the limits and re-envision as much as they think they can get away with and then maybe a little more.  Wonder what kind of fall out would happen if they Battle Star Galatica'ed it...


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 17, 2008)

Okay, was that part of Top Gun in the trailer?  Still, I liked it.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 17, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> but I fear this movie will get drowned by nerds



I don't know what this means.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 17, 2008)

Wycen said:


> Wonder what kind of fall out would happen if they Battle Star Galatica'ed it...



The likely result would be one of the finest dramatic films of the year, full of Oscar-worthy performances, that pisses off a chunk of the original fan base but still does well enough to warrant a sequel.  

Also, the Top Gun-esque sequence was puzzling... but the rest of the trailer looked great.

re: canon... it's my sincere hope that they nuke most of the Star Trek canon from orbit --it's the only way to be sure-- lest it blast a hole in their new flagship.... well, at least w/r/t the nitpick-y little details that weren't consistent throughout the run of TOS, let alone the following series.


----------



## rowport (Nov 17, 2008)

Originally Posted by Vigilance  
but I fear this movie will get drowned by nerds


Arnwyn said:


> I don't know what this means.



I do know what he means-- Trek fans so obsessed with changes in small details that the overall quality of the movie gets obscured with the vitriol.  But, I think that is the risk that Abrams created by his "reimagining" the universe.  He could have gone after a totally new cast/story set in Trek continuity, but instead chose to rewrite the past.  If that offends fans of the original, he brought it on himself.

I think the movie looks great (other than the nitpick that the crew looks too young overall).  I think it will do well with the average guy who likes action movies.  But it might not go over well with real Trekkers, and that is the risk Abrams chose to take.


----------



## Mark (Nov 17, 2008)

Trekkers will complain about something no matter what hits the screens so the concern always has to be about what will draw in a new audience and please the majority of movie goers.  Some people will buy Rutles albums just to burn them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 17, 2008)

rowport said:


> Originally Posted by Vigilance
> but I fear this movie will get drowned by nerds
> 
> I do know what he means-- Trek fans so obsessed with changes in small details that the overall quality of the movie gets obscured with the vitriol.  But, I think that is the risk that Abrams created by his "reimagining" the universe.  He could have gone after a totally new cast/story set in Trek continuity, but instead chose to rewrite the past.  If that offends fans of the original, he brought it on himself.
> ...



It's a risk he chose to take, I agree. I also think people worry to much. 
I am not sure if I can call myself a Trekkie or Trekker or Tractor or whatever (I just read a lot of Startrek books, watched the shows, got space ship models, but I never costumed myself as a Klingon, Romulan, Vulcan or Starfleet officer, nor did I ever visit a Con), but I think some updates, changes to the continuity, heck maybe even a fully fledged reimagination of Startrek are good for it.

Startrek is a great franchise. The messages and ideals it portrayed are worthy of portrayal, and I think particular TNG influenced my view on moral and ethics. But I also think that "technically", it has its flaws. It is riddled with continuity holes and inconsistencies. There have been a lot of stories that have either been told badly or are bad on their own. (Voyager and Enterprise where particularly rife from it). 
Fixing this by whatever means necessary is acceptable and even commendable. 

I'd love an entirely new Startrek Show, set after DS9 and Voyager, preferably with a new Enterprise exploring new borders (other Galaxies might be interesting, maybe with an Enterprise full of previously hostile species - Humans, Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, Ferengi), but i'd also love to go back to old places and revisit old characters, and change a few things to make them work better as a whole. "Fix" the timeline inconsistencies, and maybe change entire storylines to make them work better (My pet project Voyager for example would benefit a lot if they emphasized the "lost in space" and "limited resources" aspects stronger - they don't have to go all dark like BSG, but they should show the real struggles of maintaining the Federation ideals - or failing at them. Restore the threat of the Borg.*)


*) I'd love to combine these aspect. Imagine the Voyager entering a region of space with various aliens, some of them hostile to each other, others in uneasy alliances, some in an outright war. And then, a Borg Cube threatens them - can the Voyager establish the threat of the Borg? Will they manage to create an alliance of these races, even if they face severe failures? Will Janeway use "shortcuts" that hurt in the long run but will help against the Borg? Will they create a second Federation, or just a dark mockery of it? And how does Janeway and her crew react to faiilures and losses, entire planets destroyed or assimilated by the Borg while they are watching?)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Nov 17, 2008)

Here's my problem, such as it is.

If JJ was really reimagining the franchise, rebooting it like _Batman Begins_ or _Casino Royale_, I'd have _zero_ issues with continuity. None. And I wish that's what he _was_ doing.

But he's not. This movie _is_ connected to prior canon.

[sblock]Leonard Nimoy-Spock comes back in time to warn Zachary Quinto-Spock of some sort of danger that's come back from the future to do nasty things to Federation history.

So that leaves open the question of "How much can/should change, and how much can/should remain the same?"

Me? I'd rather they have foregone this entirely, and just called the damn thing a complete reboot.  Especially since I'm so damn sick of time travel in the series; they should be calling it "Time Trek" at this point.[/sblock]

Now, as I said before, this isn't really a big deal for me. The continuity issues will nag at a small portion of my brain, and the rest of my brain will tell that portion to shut up and watch the movie. And when it's over and done, I'll judge the movie on its own merits, _not_ on whether Kirk should've been able to drive a stick shift.

But the whole thing could've been avoided, and I think it would've made for a better premise if it had.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 17, 2008)

rowport said:


> I do know what he means-- Trek fans so obsessed with changes in small details that the overall quality of the movie gets obscured with the vitriol.



_If_ that is what he means, then I don't know what he's talking about. If there are truly enough nerds that end up "drowning" (whatever that means) or "obscuring" the movie, then apparently JJ targeted the wrong audience and made the wrong decision when botching up the continuity.

If that doesn't happen, then no worries - he made the right decision to not be so anal about the continuity.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 17, 2008)

Apple - Trailers - Star Trek - Trailer 2 - Large


----------



## Kaodi (Nov 17, 2008)

There are quite a few things about that trailer that I was not too too big on, but they were nothing to get riled up about, except for one thing: What *really* bugged me what the presentation of Uhura and (while I may have been mis-seeing things) the notion that she was getting it on with one of the other crew members that we all know. Maybe I am also misremembering, but I do not seem to recall anything like that, and if they are just adding it in out of the blue I think it is doing a great injustice to the character (and perhaps the original actress), given her historical significance.


----------



## stonegod (Nov 17, 2008)

Kaodi said:


> There are quite a few things about that trailer that I was not too too big on, but they were nothing to get riled up about, except for one thing: What *really* bugged me what the presentation of Uhura and (while I may have been mis-seeing things) the notion that she was getting it on with one of the other crew members that we all know. Maybe I am also misremembering, but I do not seem to recall anything like that, and if they are just adding it in out of the blue I think it is doing a great injustice to the character (and perhaps the original actress), given her historical significance.



Its seriously implied, but a still of the "intimate" scene shows that the brassiere of Kirk's partner does not match that of Uhura. Of course, why should Uhura's scene even be in there...?


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 18, 2008)

Some choice shots from the trailer for your viewing pleasure:

Kirk (Chris Pine) looking on as the Enterprise is being built. (A little nitpick here. I'm no science buff, but isn't building a ship that size on the Earth's surface a big nono?





Spocks parents, Amanda Grayson and Sarek. Played by Winona Ryder  and Ben Cross.







The all new Transporter effect. Am undecided whether it's better or worse than the original.






A good shot Kirk and Spock along with the rest of the bridge.






The new Warp Speed effect.






Another shot of the PowerMac sto- er, I mean, bridge of the Enterprise.






Kirk and Uhura running through the PowerMa- er, decks of the Enterprise.






Bruce Greenwood as Captain Christopher Pike






A city on the Planet Vulcan.






Simon Pegg as Scotty.






Eric Bana as Nero.






A great shot Karl Urban as Dr. Leonard Mccoy. 






An unidentified alien monstrosity.






Zoe Saldana as Uhura.






Now as to my impressions to the trailer. I liked it!  It's not exactly the Star Trek of old. What with the increased emphasis on action and all. But I'm willing to reserve judgment after all the cool imagery they've bombarded us with. As to the gripes w/ the whole Kirk in a car thing, I could live with it (particularly because I've never seen the episode in question ).

A bit surprised though that Chris Pine's Kirk is featured heavily in the trailer, while Zach Quinto's Spock is not by much. You'll all recall that Quinto's casting as Spock got all the hype during the early stages of the film's production.

Can't wait for 2009!


----------



## garyh (Nov 18, 2008)

I noticed a female crewmember in science blue wearing pants and long sleeves, which I approve of.

I mean, I approve of the skirts, too, don't get me wrong.    But I appreciate the more modern approach of including the more practical uniform for female crew.

Now, if we see the TNG season 1 male skort, that...  well, I'd support that equality in principle as well.  In principle.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> But I think we both know that the scene was there because JJ Abrams wasn't familiar with the episode _A Piece of the Action_, and not for any other reason.




No.  I don't know that.  What I know is that Abrams has bigger fish to fry than slavish adherence to small elements of established continuity.  I know that he _has to_ violate some continuity if he doesn't want to have his hands so tightly bound as to make the entire project a waste of time.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2008)

horacethegrey said:


> Kirk (Chris Pine) looking on as the Enterprise is being built. (A little nitpick here. I'm no science buff, but isn't building a ship that size on the Earth's surface a big nono?




The Constitution-class starships are 305 meters long.  A modern Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is 340 meters long.  So, no.  If you can build the aircraft carrier on the surface, you can build the starship - especially when the starship has gravity-control technology implied in the series.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Nov 18, 2008)

In that still-frame the teleportation doesn't look as good as it does in the trailer. I think it looks good in the trailer, especially the little whisps of it at the end.

What I am wondering is during the beginning of the trailer what are those large structures you see dotting the landscape in the distance they are barely visible against the sky. One is more prominent during the grown-up Kirk motorcycle scene.

Also, was it just me or did it look like that canyon was artificial, and that there was skyscrapers within that canyon.


----------



## horacethegrey (Nov 18, 2008)

Umbran said:


> The Constitution-class starships are 305 meters long.  A modern Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is 340 meters long.  So, no.  If you can build the aircraft carrier on the surface, you can build the starship - especially when the starship has gravity-control technology implied in the series.



Oh of course building the ship on the surface would be no problem. I was referring to the fact when it actually lifts off. Doesn't physics state that when an object that big flying on the Earth's surface would cause hell on the gravity of the surrounding area. It seems more feasible to me to build a Federation Starship in space, as it was shown numerous in TNG.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

horacethegrey said:


> Oh of course building the ship on the surface would be no problem. I was referring to the fact when it actually lifts off. Doesn't physics state that when an object that big flying on the Earth's surface would cause hell on the gravity of the surrounding area. It seems more feasible to me to build a Federation Starship in space, as it was shown numerous in TNG.




Realistically, the problem is getting in the air and leaving the planet. With Startrek engines, this is not a big concern. 

And otherwise, no, there wouldn't be a big problem. Airplanes don't cause gravity problems, either.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 18, 2008)

The ship is only about 300 meters long (have to check), the image above makes it look huge.  

See: Jeff Russell's STARSHIP DIMENSIONS or Atomic Rocket Size Chart


----------



## Vigilance (Nov 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Realistically, the problem is getting in the air and leaving the planet. With Startrek engines, this is not a big concern.
> 
> And otherwise, no, there wouldn't be a big problem. Airplanes don't cause gravity problems, either.





And we have seen the Enterprise fly in Earth's atmosphere in the TOS days, so we know it's airworthy.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 18, 2008)

Needs more cow bells.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2008)

horacethegrey said:


> I was referring to the fact when it actually lifts off. Doesn't physics state that when an object that big flying on the Earth's surface would cause hell on the gravity of the surrounding area.




Not in particular.  It looks large on a human scale, but as far as the planet is concerned, it is a puny thing, a drop in the proverbial bucket.  



> It seems more feasible to me to build a Federation Starship in space, as it was shown numerous in TNG.




And eventually the Federation does move to that - a few years later (in ST:TMP), the Enterprise gets refit in orbit.


----------



## drothgery (Nov 18, 2008)

Umbran said:


> The Constitution-class starships are 305 meters long.  A modern Nimitz-class aircraft carrier is 340 meters long.  So, no.  If you can build the aircraft carrier on the surface, you can build the starship - especially when the starship has gravity-control technology implied in the series.




... though if you have that gravity control technology, it's easier to build a starship in space.


----------



## Mallus (Nov 18, 2008)

drothgery said:


> ... though if you have that gravity control technology, it's easier to build a starship in space.



Sure. But audiences have seen the Enterprise being built/refit in space. This is the first time we've seen her being built on a --presumably-- Iowan plain, and it looks pretty cool.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Nov 18, 2008)

Mallus said:


> Sure. But audiences have seen the Enterprise being built/refit in space. This is the first time we've seen her being built on a --presumably-- Iowan plain, and it looks pretty cool.



Though wouldn't it have made more sense to at least build it in a hangar instead of out in the open?


----------



## Mark (Nov 18, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> Though wouldn't it have made more sense to at least build it in a hangar instead of out in the open?





It would be easier to build such a hangar in space.  Wait a minute . . .


----------



## Mallus (Nov 18, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> Though wouldn't it have made more sense to at least build it in a hangar instead of out in the open?



Not if the intended goal was to _look cool_. If they were trying to make sense they would have built the ship in orbit.

Never underestimate the importance of _looking cool_ in SF films.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2008)

drothgery said:


> ... though if you have that gravity control technology, it's easier to build a starship in space.




With gravity control, it is easier to build a ship in space than it is to build it in space without the gravity control.

With gravity control, it is not necessarily easier to build in space than on the ground.  In the clip, they're still using welders - so we can take a guess that replicators aren't up to Next Gen standards.  That would perhaps imply having to actually lift all the mass of parts off the ground into orbit, and assembling it there.  This may not be a savings.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 18, 2008)

Umbran said:


> With gravity control, it is easier to build a ship in space than it is to build it in space without the gravity control.
> 
> With gravity control, it is not necessarily easier to build in space than on the ground.  In the clip, they're still using welders - so we can take a guess that replicators aren't up to Next Gen standards.  That would perhaps imply having to actually lift all the mass of parts off the ground into orbit, and assembling it there.  This may not be a savings.




And getting workers into space, supplying them there with air, food and water is also more difficult then its on the ground. I suppose they eventually decided that building a giant space dock that could do all that was worth all the effort (especially with technological advancement), but they aren't there yet.

[/fanwank]


----------



## Pbartender (Nov 18, 2008)

Okay, I didn't want to do it, but you guys forced me into it...  

[PEDANTIC GEEK]

First, notice that the sign in the lower left has corner of the constuction picture says "AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY, 1213N IA"  IA, as in Iowa.

Also, remember that the famous Utopia Planitia Shipyards on Mars, not only had orbital starbases and drydocks, but also manufacturing facilities and construction yards on the planet's surface.  In the ST:TNG episode _Parallels_, Cardassians were using the Argus Array to spy on several Federation installations, including the Utopia Planitia Shipyards.  At one point, as Geordi is running through the Array's sensor logs, a picture of the shipyards appears showing the major structural components of a _Galaxy_-class ship being assembled in a yard on the surface of Mars...  See below.







[/PEDANTIC GEEK]

Guh.  Now I feel dirty.  If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go take a shower.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 18, 2008)

horacethegrey said:


> Doesn't physics state that when an object that big flying on the Earth's surface would cause hell on the gravity of the surrounding area.



Not really, no.

A Constitution-class starship has a mass of "less than 1,000,000 tons" according to Memory Alpha. For the sake of ease of calculating, let's say all that mass is concentrated in one point. At a distance of 10 meters from that point, an object would experience a gravitational accelleration of:

a = G*m/d^2, where
a = accelleration
G = Gravitational constant, approximately 7E-11 Nm^2/kg^2
m = the attracting object's mass (1E+9 kg)
d = distance (10 m)

Which gives us a = 7E-11 * 1E+9 / 10^2 = 7E-4 = 0.0007 m/s^2, or about 1/14,000th of Earth's gravity.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 18, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> At one point, as Geordi is running through the Array's sensor logs, a picture of the shipyards appears showing the major structural components of a _Galaxy_-class ship being assembled in a yard on the surface of Mars...  See below.



That's pretty cool... (or, in more appropriate parlance, "neat-o")


----------



## Umbran (Nov 18, 2008)

Staffan said:


> Which gives us a = 7E-11 * 1E+9 / 10^2 = 7E-4 = 0.0007 m/s^2, or about 1/14,000th of Earth's gravity.




Or, perhaps more conceptually useful - the force needed to lift the thing off the surface is only equal to its weight.  Sure, you don't want to be directly under it when it lifts off, but the same can be said for a normal rocket.


----------



## DonTadow (Nov 19, 2008)

Umbran said:


> Or, perhaps more conceptually useful - the force needed to lift the thing off the surface is only equal to its weight.  Sure, you don't want to be directly under it when it lifts off, but the same can be said for a normal rocket.




Ok, just saw the new trailer... i'm out again. I"m aparently just old, but Its not going to be the old fashioned scfi movie i want.. looks kinda like it was inspired from the last two star wars movies.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 19, 2008)

DonTadow said:


> Ok, just saw the new trailer... i'm out again. I"m aparently just old, but Its not going to be the old fashioned scfi movie i want.. looks kinda like it was inspired from the last two star wars movies.



One can only pray that JJ Abrams would inject some cerebral story elements as he did with his previous works.

Without it, it would just be a base brain-free ripoff of _SW._


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2008)

Pbartender said:


> Okay, I didn't want to do it, but you guys forced me into it...
> 
> [PEDANTIC GEEK]
> 
> ...



Wow, where did you find this picture! I think I remember some aspects of the episode, but definitely not that there was a "screenshot" of a Galaxy class starship in building!


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 19, 2008)

Oh, here is another VERSION of the trailer!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAjmbASkkLY]YouTube - Star Trek 90210[/ame]


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 20, 2008)

San Fran is part of the 90210 zip code???


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 20, 2008)

Ranger REG said:


> San Fran is part of the 90210 zip code???



Yep, after the Eugenics Wars there was some remapping, rezoning, and rewrites, it happens.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> Yep, after the Eugenics Wars there was some remapping, rezoning, and rewrites, it happens.



Wow. Can't imagine what that would look like in the future. It's Beverly Hills meet Haight-Ashbury.

That's even spookier than Hell.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Vigilance said:


> And we have seen the Enterprise fly in Earth's atmosphere in the TOS days, so we know it's airworthy.



Technically they did that when they accidentally traveled back in time and one 1960's Air Force pilot spotted it. I think they nearly got pulled down by the Earth's gravity but nearly escaped and corrected themselves to standard orbit path.


----------



## Orius (Nov 25, 2008)

You know what bothers me the most about this movie?  It not the continuity problems, because Star Trek is pretty much one big continuity problem anyway.  It's the whole "hipper, younger" crew angle.  Everytime Hollywood pulls this it's annoying.


----------



## Ranger REG (Nov 25, 2008)

Orius said:


> You know what bothers me the most about this movie?  It not the continuity problems, because Star Trek is pretty much one big continuity problem anyway.  It's the whole "hipper, younger" crew angle.  Everytime Hollywood pulls this it's annoying.



Yeah, you know what's even worse? _Sesame Street._ They're getting younger, and hipper everytime.

*creaks in his rocking chair*


----------

