I guess this really would have been the proof as to whether or not the Enterprise could have been constructed on Earth (See link, this’ll blow your mind!!)

http://disneyandmore.blogspot.com/2009/05/star-trek-attractions-artwork.html

Now, I will also claim my Voyager comparison is based very much on Bernd’s info regarding the 366m Church Enterprise. I realize I may be in denial, but I like it in Denial, the weather is nice.

Mark has some great points though- if you have the physical integrity to break lightspeed and make impulse barrel rolls at .25C windsheer and 1 G of gravity should be cake. Even my beloved TOS Enterprise made breakaway speed to escape the sun’s gravity in “Tomorrow is Yesterday.” That had to be more physical stress on the superstructure than an Earth launch.

I agree though, orbital drydocks are the way to go. Can’t understand why they’d be using them for the NX-class then revert to planetside docks 100 years later (unless the tech made it more economic?). Like you say though, ir’s a movie, so I guess artistic licence wins out.

At the risk of being just plain difficult though, if I we were to weigh up the challenges of building the ship on Earth vs building the ship in orbit is there anybody who thinks building it on Earth is the easier option? I would think that the project to build the yard that looks after the ship during its construction on Earth would be just as monumental a project to design and construct as designing and constructing the JJ-Enterprise itself! – Of course I appreciate that this technology is science fiction and that it would take a real life exercise to prove this one way or the other and that until this happens for real, we’ll probably never get to the bottom of this one! It’s all fun to ponder though which is something you don’t get with Coronation Street!

When you consider the immense stresses the ship’d undergo to accelerate even at impulse power (up to a good fraction of c in a few seconds? We’re talking thousands of G’s), and to maneuver at such speeds (thousands of G’s with multiple simultaneous vectors), then a few G’s to get the thing off the face of the planet is child’s play. Nullifying those forces is what SDF and IDF are for, anyway.

But to address your point, Stu, aren’t anti-gravs common technology in Trek? Probably a bit power-intensive to have running right through construction, but along with (or as part of) the use of tugs and/or thrusters, I’d have thought that technology would’ve helped the launch or transfer to orbit. Plus there’s structural integrity fields to prevent the hull buckling – if they can deal with the monumental accelerations to vast multiples of lightspeed, then surely dealing with earth’s gravity would be a doddle?

There’s a precedent that’s been quoted before for planetside construction, with a Galaxy-class hull visible prior to full assembly at Utopia Planitia:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Utopia_Planitia.jpg

Are you referring to a series of novels or something cos the only large vessel from the ‘early days’ that I can recall is that mining facility that moved from the Moon to Mars in the Enterprise episodes: “Demons”/“Terra Prime”
Whilst this story does indeed prove that even in 22nd Century it is within the realms of Earths engineering abilities to construct large vehicles that can launch themselves from a planet and land on another it still doesn’t sit well with me that the JJ-Enterprise should be able to do the same. The mining facility, though large had reasonable symmetry and a centre of gravity that was probably dead-centre. Now, if JJ was going to reduce the complexity of his hero ship to that of a simple saucer we’d probably just accept the whole concept of its planet-based construction and that even a massive JJ-Enterprise was acceptable; indeed flying saucers and science fiction have been holding hands since the genre was born! However the JJ-Enterprise has its huuuge saucer with one point of attachment to the rest of the ship and it’s being held in probably the worst possible way; this is not an engineering solution, this is a disaster waiting to happen! This would be like picking up a loaded dinner plate and holding it in one hand with thumb and forefinger! The moment the engineers at that construction yard remove that rig suspending it, under Earths gravity the JJ-Enterprise would either fall straight on its nose, or if its got a particularly heavy rump, that saucer will snap off at the yoke probably straight away – This shape is not suited to be manhandled about the surface of the planet!

Now Voyager on the otherhand… The ship’s not all that big (342m long, 15 decks high), it’s centre of gravity is not that far forward and it’s design is a lot more compact with no large bodies extended by flimsy pylons etc. that would snap off the moment it touched down…

I like the new movie. A lot. So, I am willing to forgive some things I don’t agree with (I sure hope there’s a proper engineering section in the sequel- something installed on Tuesday). I do think there are things we as fans are “fervently discussing” which are not really issues. One of these is the launch of the Enterprise. Now, the idea of a 700+ meter ship is still something I am not really ready to jump on (I prefer the original 366m idea). Launching a ship that size from a planet though is completely consistent with earlier Trek, even without the “scans of the Narada improved Starfleet tech” excuse. A century later, Starfleet had ships that size that were not only capable of atmospheric entry, but could hover and land, and then launch themselves unaided back into space. If I can accept the Intrepid Class can land and take back off on a planet with no assistance, why is it unreasonable to assume that a century earlier Starfleet couldn’t do it with some sort of assist vehicles? There’s an image for a future SOTL calendar; the Ryan Church Enterprise lifting off while towed by support ships!

Doug- great images of the Suliban ship. I almost always forgave “Enterprise.” It was just fun to watch.