[kevin]

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

I even understood that he himself built the ship.

Well - he is a miracle worker!

[Saquist]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

Incorrect.

It's a fact.
There isn't one reason that would override construction in space.

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

In your opinion. Correct in others' opinions.

These guys that think or believe otherwise are laymens.


Abrams,

Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there. And the second thing is that the Enterprise is not some flimsy yacht that has to be delicately treated and assembled. The idea that things have to be assembled in space has normally been associated with things that don’t have to be in any kind of pressure situation and don’t ever have to ever enter a gravity well. That is not the case with the Enterprise. The Enterprise actually has to sustain warp, which we know is not actually moving but more a warping of space around it. And we know that its decks essentially simulate Earth gravity and so its not the kind of gravity created by centrifugal force, it is not artificially created by spinning it. It is created by an artificial field and so it is very natural, instead of having to create a fake field in which you are going to have to calibrate everything, to just do it in the exact gravity well in which you are going to be simulating.

Read more: Producer Explains Star Trek’s Teaser Trailer, New USS Enterprise | /Film http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/01/19/...#ixzz0h7I7F6Fx

Note that Abrams...slyly slip by the actual problems of construct and goes straight to an explanation which entertains the completed ship. Sure ships once constructed should be able to deal with multiple gravities. But we're talking construction.

Abrams doesn't know anything about construction.
That's why his Enterprise built on the ground doesn't have a lick of properly constructed scaffolding and ultimately he's a visual artist so he abandoned reality of construction in order to display a dynamic, more relate-able scene of the Enterprise being constructed on the ground.

I give him a "B" for his diversionary explanation.

Originally Posted by martok2112

Wow....I wonder how we made our rockets and the ISS, and all them other things that were meant to be in space?

No you don't martock. or you shouldn't wonder
An Apollo Rocket weighs 3,038,500 kg and the Galaxy weighs 4.5 million MT. That's a difference of 1,480.9939114694750699358235971697 Times the Rocket.

The suggestion that if you can build a rocket on Earth then you can build 4.5 million MT ship on Earth incredibly fallacious.

It's like saying if I can build a a lego castle then you can build a skyscraper. Those are not comparable constructions. There are a thousand problems you will have with the skyscraper that you will never have to address with the lego set up.

It's always amazing to see how people take engineering for granted and Abrams despite whatever tech is present in the 23rd century is running propaganda. He'd say or do anything to make his perspective in the film valid.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

Still Star Trek, still happened.

Yes. In the Abramsverse. Not in the Prime.

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

That is incorrect as well.

What? Now you're just talknig jibberish. The original statement was incorrect in your opinion. It was correct in the opinions of others. Your opinions are not facts. You really need to learn the difference.

[Capt Dunsel]

Originally Posted by radoskal

Thank you "Scotty" I always thought it being built on the ground was ridiculous, no mistaking the man's words...up in space at the San Francisco Navy Yards

One thing that perhaps no one considered is that the starship graving yards in the middle of "West Bumf**k Iowa" might have been named and referred to as the San Francisco Navy Yards. Look, the San Francisco Bay area is host to a ton of expensive real estate now - and it ain't gonna get any better in the 23rd century. You need a water-going vessel there because of the natural harbor and the strategic position. However, why would any sane person site a starship construction facility in the Bay Area? You would need to be insane.

Further, I imagine that the process of getting said ship to space is not an insignificant one. I doubt they use chemical rockets or any such crude devices - but rather perhaps just blip the warp drive for a second or put "thrusters on full" for a moment. Still, the risk to the surrounding area would be great - opening a warp bubble at the planet's surface? Yeah, who the hell cares about spatial distortions in IOWA ????? It would be a different question in the Bay Area with all that expensive real estate. And what if the orbital relocation fails and the ship falls back to earth? In Iowa, it would at worst just fall into that massive quarry filled with rusting Corvettes - but in San Francisco it could actually have an effect slightly more serious than the latest seizmic tremor.

I am comfortable in my own personal Canon that they NAMED the Starship graving yards in Iowa "The San Francisco Yards" out of respect to the location of Starfleet headquarters - and perhaps in tribute to the construction of the Enterprises of old.

I see no problems with the ground construction. In fact I think it is rather cool.... Love the retro-tech welders working on the baffle plates....

JB

[I-Am-Zim]

The only problem is...Pike called it the "Riverside Ship Yard" in the bar scene.

[NCC-73515]

They built the Riverside shipyards because of George Kirk's heroic actions... that's why it exists in the Abramsverse

[I-Am-Zim]

That seems to be the general fan consensus, even though it has never really been confirmed by the writers. As far as I know, all they said is that the alternate timeline "explains the differences". That was their way of sidestepping the issue of Prime universe canon. But that sounds reasonable. Problem is, do they build a shipyard every time a Starfleet officer does something heroic?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

It's always amazing to see how people take engineering for granted and Abrams despite whatever tech is present in the 23rd century is running propaganda. He'd say or do anything to make his perspective in the film valid.

I have to accept every other bit of impossible in today's world technology that Trek espouses as part of it's daily life.

Warp drive, magical 'intertial dampers' that luckily enough prevent the crew being squished during speed up to warp, human transportation, those luckily devised and equally magical structural integrity fields and a fair few others along the way.

Of course, there's also the fact I don't give a jot where the ship was built anyway.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

They built the Riverside shipyards because of George Kirk's heroic actions... that's why it exists in the Abramsverse

On a technical level I kinda find that a stretch, but then it's not outwith the realms of possibility either.

[Saquist]

Why is that the fan consensus?