William_Robinette
Shallow Member
They are most definitely on earth. There is a city in the BG and wasn't the 1701 built in the San Fransisco ship yards?
Star Trek
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
They are most definitely on earth. There is a city in the BG and wasn't the 1701 built in the San Fransisco ship yards?
I always figured that the San Francisco shipyards were in geosynchronous orbit over the city, or something.
After all, the Enterprise refit was performed in an orbital spacedock (along with every other large-scale construction/maintenance operation in the ST universe, that we've seen), and really, how flagrantly stoopid would it be, to construct something that massive, that's not meant to support its own weight, on the ground and then have to lift it into orbit?
Of course, the mere fact that it's flagrantly stoopid, doesn't mean the writers didn't choose to handle it that way...
After all, the Enterprise refit was performed in an orbital spacedock (along with every other large-scale construction/maintenance operation in the ST universe, that we've seen), and really, how flagrantly stoopid would it be, to construct something that massive, that's not meant to support its own weight, on the ground and then have to lift it into orbit?
Of course, the mere fact that it's flagrantly stoopid, doesn't mean the writers didn't choose to handle it that way...
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Perhaps they didn't have the shipyards constructed yet? I don't know and I agree not very smart on their part but that looks to be the way they are saying it happens.
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Biggest problem with building the Enterprise on the ground is that Consitution-class starships are not capable of controlled atmospheric flight. (Per original-series episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday," when Enterprise got bounced into the atmosphere, low enough to be intercepted by an F-104, and barely made it back out. (One of the novels did suggest that, during the refit of the ship between the end of TOS and The Motion Picture, the saucer section was detached and rebuilt on the ground in San Francisco. Star Trek novels are not, of course, canon, and that's mostly a good thing. 
)
I didn't notice a city in the background (but then again, I was paying no attention at all to the background). My personal theory is that this was some sort of enclosed, pressurized, facility in a station like Spacedock or the big stations seen orbiting Mars in a Voyager episode. Actually, now that I think of it, the shipbuilding facility orbiting mars is known as Utopia Planitia, which IIRC is the name of a surface feature of the planet, so it makes sense that the "San Francisco" yards could be in orbit above San Francisco...
) I didn't notice a city in the background (but then again, I was paying no attention at all to the background). My personal theory is that this was some sort of enclosed, pressurized, facility in a station like Spacedock or the big stations seen orbiting Mars in a Voyager episode. Actually, now that I think of it, the shipbuilding facility orbiting mars is known as Utopia Planitia, which IIRC is the name of a surface feature of the planet, so it makes sense that the "San Francisco" yards could be in orbit above San Francisco...
Batutta
Major Contributor
Not capable of atmospheric flight? Another reason the Kilngon Bird of Prey is a far superior, and cooler, spacecraft. Seriously, how did the Federation ever beat those guys?...I'm thinking they assemble the Enterprise in large pieces and tow it to space, like the Statue of Liberty.
Capt Quirk
Veteran
The Voyager was capable of landing, which was the first I know of. Enterprise was supposed to be built at the Mars site... I think. And believe it or not, the Enterprise, and most of the following ships, had a detachable saucer, but it was Next Gen that ran that into the ground... like when Riker was in command 
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Well, technically, the TOS and TMP versions of the Consitution-class had a detachable saucer in case of emergency, but the TNG Galaxy-class was the first to have a re-attachable saucer. 
(You can even see what are purported to be the "landing gear" of the TOS version, they're the little triangular details on the underside of the saucer about 60 degrees port and starboard of the centreline; the third is presuambly hidden underneath the connecting dorsal.) What we saw in "Generations" was about the best-case scenario for landing the TOS or TMP saucer, and about the worst-case scenario for the TNG saucer--according to the TNG Technical Manual, under ideal conditions, they could actually land the saucer and then take it off again! (Obviously, getting dumped into the atmosphere of a planet by the warp-core breach of the stardrive section is nowhere near ideal conditions. ) The Voyager is the first starship that we know of intended to land, in one piece, on a planet and take off again, but--just to go TOTALLY Trek-nerd on y'all --the MSD of the Defiant from DS9 shows landing gear, suggesting that it could as well, although the writers never intended it to. (MSD is "Master Systems Display," which is the big schematic of a ship that sometimes appears at the back of a ship's bridge; as illustrated in this thread by Sad Max's "trophy" from "Generations.")
Back on-topic: http://www.ncc-1701.com/ is live as a pretty typical JJ Abrams viral website; supposedly there's a way to get one of the camera feeds to show concept art of the Enterprise corridors, but damned if I can figure it out...
(You can even see what are purported to be the "landing gear" of the TOS version, they're the little triangular details on the underside of the saucer about 60 degrees port and starboard of the centreline; the third is presuambly hidden underneath the connecting dorsal.) What we saw in "Generations" was about the best-case scenario for landing the TOS or TMP saucer, and about the worst-case scenario for the TNG saucer--according to the TNG Technical Manual, under ideal conditions, they could actually land the saucer and then take it off again! (Obviously, getting dumped into the atmosphere of a planet by the warp-core breach of the stardrive section is nowhere near ideal conditions. ) The Voyager is the first starship that we know of intended to land, in one piece, on a planet and take off again, but--just to go TOTALLY Trek-nerd on y'all --the MSD of the Defiant from DS9 shows landing gear, suggesting that it could as well, although the writers never intended it to. (MSD is "Master Systems Display," which is the big schematic of a ship that sometimes appears at the back of a ship's bridge; as illustrated in this thread by Sad Max's "trophy" from "Generations.")Back on-topic: http://www.ncc-1701.com/ is live as a pretty typical JJ Abrams viral website; supposedly there's a way to get one of the camera feeds to show concept art of the Enterprise corridors, but damned if I can figure it out...
Last edited:
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Correct. The 1701's saucer was attached using explosive bolts. That makes it a little harder to reattach, not like the magnetic locks on the 1701 D. I don't have any idea of when they started that, whether it was B, C, or D.Well, technically, the TOS and TMP versions of the Consitution-class had a detachable saucer in case of emergency, but the TNG Galaxy-class was the first to have a re-attachable saucer.
the MSD of the Defiant from DS9 (which is the big schematic of the ship at the back of the bridge that Sad Max has already brought to y'all's attention
That's not the Defiant; it's the NCC-1701-B from Generations.
[quote="Captain Pierce](Obviously, getting dumped into the atmosphere of a planet by the warp-core breach of the stardrive section is nowhere near ideal conditions.)[/quote]
That was Rick Berman indulging his deep-rooted desire to erase as much of everything bearing Gene Roddenberry's fingerprints, as he possibly could.
Last edited:
Captain Pierce
Veteran
No, what I meant was that your illustration there was an example of what I meant by MSD, but admittedly I phrased it poorly. Don't go revoking my Trekkie card just yet...
Capt Quirk
Veteran
Enterprise didn't really bother me as bad as Voyager's "Year of Hell... that didn't really happen."
No, what I meant was that your illustration there was an example of what I meant by MSD, but admittedly I phrased it poorly. Don't go revoking my Trekkie card just yet...
I'd never even contemplate doing such a thing.
What's "MSD?"
Captain Pierce
Veteran
MSD = Master Systems Display. It's the Treknology term for the big picture of the ship at the back of some bridge sets. Your souvenir from Generations is the MSD of the Enterprise-B.
The rumours that the new movie is going to have time travel continue to come out, and it is so dampening my enthusiasm. I'm trying to ignore them as best as I can, but dammit, I am so sick of frickin' time travel...
The rumours that the new movie is going to have time travel continue to come out, and it is so dampening my enthusiasm. I'm trying to ignore them as best as I can, but dammit, I am so sick of frickin' time travel...
Capt Quirk
Veteran
The Okudas... Now there are some folks who know some Treknology!
Captain Pierce
Veteran
Agreed, although I can't for the life of me understand why they keep advancing Greg Jein's list of Constitution-class registry numbers...
Don't recall where I picked up "MSD" from, it's probably just a fan term, but I've been using so long now it's just habit...
Don't recall where I picked up "MSD" from, it's probably just a fan term, but I've been using so long now it's just habit...
Captain Pierce
Veteran
The Paramount spokesman claimed that there would be no rewriting, but given that Abrams said once that he was wishing he could do some rewriting, and that this announcement comes immediately after the end of the strike, one has to wonder...