Starship Enterprise

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 


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.
 


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.
 

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.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top