You are absolutely right, my friend! The Enterprise was constructed on the ground, and then disassembled into smaller, more manageable sub-asemblies to be beamed up into LEO (low-earth orbit) with powerful transporters, thence re-assembled in space. Even in the 23rd Century, this would be much easier than transporting everything up to LEO, let alone, as you so eloquently stated, the workforce; not to mention, safer…How many men died building the Golden Gate Bridge, something like 22, 23?

All anyone has to do, if you can find one, is get their hands on a Star Trek background document, some created before the original series was even on-air (’The Making of Star Trek’, the ‘Star Trek Bible’, ‘The Star Trek Technical Manual’, etc). The Enterprise, we are clearly told, was built at what even in Century 23 still called the ‘San Francisco Navy Yards’ (nice nautical touch, doncha think?), or more specifically, the Mare Island Shipyards, just outside of San-Fran proper. This, I expect, is where we see the big scene in the trailer, and believe me, it is not inconsistent with the background. These also say repeatedly that the Big E was ‘assembled in orbit’, totally consistent with what you just said, since she is, after all, a creature of space.

Having said that, as someone already pointed out very adroitly here (forgive me, I forget who), it would nonetheless be quite possible to launch – although not land (unless in water, I guess) a Constitution-class vessel (the ‘Connies’ someone cleverly tagged them, here, lol), just with the use of a powerful warp field to mitigate the ship’s mass, hold it all together with the SIF (structural integrity field), and make VERY sure the inertial dampeners are at FULL – never can predict what effect variable gravity will have on humanoid flesh – and then simply cut loose with the Enterprise’s main impulse fusion plasma thrusters (Impulse, btw, is a term used today, having to do with a certain quantity of fuel consumed over a specific period of time, expressed as a ratio – say, 100-1 for the chemically fueled Space Shuttle, as opposed to, I expect, 100,000-1 for the Enterprise – specific impulse). This may be an excellent test to see how the lady holds together under the even stress of 1 G to achieve escape velocity, co-ordinating several different systems at once…Hmmmm…

On the other hand, this just might be too dangerous, even if everything was charged, spun up, and tested before hand. The Earth’s rotation, after all, will not change between today & then; America’s east coast might be a good place to launch Supercarrier-sized payloads, by taking advantage of the planet’s spin and launching a payload safely out over the Atlantic, but not from San Francisco! My God, if anything went wrong she might come down in Missouri, f’Chrissakes, that’s where I live! AAAACCCCKKK!

No, the Enterprise was ASSEMBLED in space, but as you pointed out, Nomad, in pre-built sections, couldn’t have said it better myself. Kinda like the superlifts they prefabricate to assemble into a carrier or any other sea-going vessel today. The only difference is a matter of a couple of hundred miles – straight up. It’s just safer. But by then, all the parts have been pre-fitted, plugged in, and tested under gravity, so you KNOW the whole system works.

Besides, this is all part of a corrupted timeline anyway, as cool as cool-on-a-T-shirt the Enterprise would no doubt look flying through the sky (and yes, areodynamics could easily be handled by the shields), so Abrams can do just about whatever he wants, as long as he remains consistent; remember, the original timeline, as well as the original Enterprise and crew profiles, might very well remain intact. This is a new direction, literally, no matter who served with whom or when, in the original uncorrupted timeline…Confused? Me too!

THEN, LET’S GO SEE THE MOVIE ON MAY 8th!

Love to ya,

JOHN

We all need to take this for what it is – an original take on some classic characters. I can’t wait!!!!

[...] Star Trek [...]

[...] has come up with a video showing how William Shatner may have reacted to the Star Trek trailer behind closed doors, and if you’re a fan I guarantee you’ll find this funny as [...]

I’M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!”

Vic

@Andy S
I think that the episode Amok Time when he has to let Edith Keeler die, Kirk
You mean “City on the Edge of Forever” where he has to let Edith Keeler die. Also, he doesn’t drive a vehicle in that episode. Amouk Time was when Spock hit his 7 year itch.

I have read this whole thread and most of it is about the ship and how is Starfleet going to get it into space. I kept thinking while reading, “How do we know this is not just a mockup, an illustration of a new Starship design”. While watching the trailer in Quantum of Solace, I kept thinking that the ship Kirk was looking at was too small for over a thousand people. Also, if it is the ship, why can’t they just use thrusters to get it into space, like in Voyager?

About warp fields on planets; I’ve always thought that forming a warp field inside a planets atmosphere would create horrible atmospheric conditions. But in Star Trek IV, they went into warp after transporting the whales aboard the Bounty (Klingon ship), so what do I know.

I’m a huge Trek fan and these little continuity issues don’t bother me. Why? Because JJ Abrams said this was a re-imagining of Trek, so we should expect some differences. Let’s just hope it is as good as the trailer shows.

Hey, happy to have you contribute to the conversation, bud – just do it nicely.

Vic

No need to be insulting to fans that have kept the franchise alive for decades – without whom there wouldn’t BE a new Star Trek movie.

Vic

Oh man, EXCELLENT pick for Sulu! Unfortunately it would be too weird to have TWO actors from Heroes on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Vic

In 6 i was expecting a launching ceremony and whatnot for Enterprise-E, didnt get it, instead we are introduced to the ship already in service, and i loved it.

Very.

Vic