3DWhere the future began

captainkirk

The original Enterprise prepares for take-off after construction is finished.
As you can see, there's still a lot of work to do, adding more detail, supports for the saucer, and so on. Also, the subdivision isn't at full.
Let me know what you think and if you have any ideas.

BlueNeumann

How many of those prisoners from Les Mis would it take to haul that thing into place?

Very cool rendering, dude.

gerb200

Very, very cool. Looking forward to seeing some more.

evil_genius_180

I like seeing stuff like this. Very cool so far. I won't get nitpicky about the ship, but there are a few slightly inaccurate things about it. But, I also know how hard it can be to try to do that ship screen accurate. I've tried multiple times and I'm still not sure I got there.

PixelMagic

This is a very cool render and concept, but something about it makes the Enterprise feel smaller than it should. Something needs to be in there for a sense of scale, like people or something.

Saquist

It's interesting to see these land pics of constitutions launched from the ground. Trek has certainly opened the door to far more scientific inaccuracies as of late.

I like the realism of the image though. The light balancing is quite nice though the lighting is too intence on the ship. Should be more subdued in the day light.

Knight26

There is an old joke airial photo of the Newport new shipyard, where they build aircraft carriers, of the NCC-1701 sitting the slip where the USS Enterprise CNV-65 was built, this reminds me of that picture, just from the ground.

This image:
NCC1701_small.jpg

Which when you look at it is really just a bad photoshop with the carrier in the slip just kind of filled in, badly, but hey it is a really old photoshop too.

spacefighter

Saquist wrote: »

It's interesting to see these land pics of constitutions launched from the ground. Trek has certainly opened the door to far more scientific inaccuracies as of late.

agreed, ships like that are probably to big to be built on the ground and not designed for atmospheric use. the render on this thread is quite good but more supports should probably be used to balance the ship what with the centre of gravity being so high up. those are problems that will be faced when doing this sort of thing on earth's surface. lighting in the render is convincing.

Saquist

spacefighter wrote: »

agreed, ships like that are probably to big to be built on the ground and not designed for atmospheric use. the render on this thread is quite good but more supports should probably be used to balance the ship what with the centre of gravity being so high up. those are problems that will be faced when doing this sort of thing on earth's surface. lighting in the render is convincing.

I don't want to say..."too bit" but rather impractical. For instance where they say the Movie Enterprise 2009 was built is due for a massive Earth Quake in 300 years on a five hundred year cycle.

evil_genius_180

The dedication plaque from the original TV series does say "San Francisco, Calif." on it, indicating that it was built there. Though, some fans think the San Francisco Yards are in a geosynchronous orbit over San Fran.

Beda of Borg

Love it!
Got a new Title at Facebook

Saquist

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

The dedication plaque from the original TV series does say "San Francisco, Calif." on it, indicating that it was built there. Though, some fans think the San Francisco Yards are in a geosynchronous orbit over San Fran.

Utopia Plantia is a plane on Mars yet the ship yards are clearly seen in Voyager, in orbit around the planet just as many of the Enterprises were constructed in San Franscco Yards including Sovereign and as we see in the motion picture Kirk is in San Fransisco and shuttles up to the Enterprise in Dry dock the same as Sovereign...

BC

If I remember correctly Roddenberry himself stated that the Enterprise was built in orbit in the San Francisco Yards orbital facility at a number of conventions. Still, the ships have been taken into atmosphere so many times in the various series and movies that it probably does not make as much difference as it would if they kept them in space all the time. The image is impressive even now, with the bracing mentioned and people and construction equipment around it it should be even more so when finished

evil_genius_180

Saquist wrote: »

Utopia Plantia is a plane on Mars yet the ship yards are clearly seen in Voyager, in orbit around the planet just as many of the Enterprises were constructed in San Franscco Yards including Sovereign and as we see in the motion picture Kirk is in San Fransisco and shuttles up to the Enterprise in Dry dock the same as Sovereign...

Yes, I know all of that.

I was just saying it says "San Francisco" on the plaque. That could mean the ship was built there, it could mean that the major components were built there and assembled in orbit (which is the more likely scenario.) The problem is, none of this crap was ever officially stated. Sure, Gene said this, and X fan says this, but nothing is concrete. Personally, I've always gone with the theory that the orbital dry dock seen in TMP is part of the San Francisco yards, but we have no on screen evidence of this. It is possible to build a ship that large on the ground and use the anti-gravity thrusters to get it into orbit. There are advantages to building on the ground. One of which is the fact that your build crew doesn't all have to be in space suits.

spacefighter

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Would a moderator please delete this? The stupid forum double posted, even though I only hit "post" once.

can't you delete it yourself, go into edit post, select delete and specify a reason in the text field.


anyway if i was building the enterprise i would do it in orbit but i would(if surface to orbit travel is as easy as it is in trek) build the pieces modularly on the ground. also as director, harder as the effects may be, i would want to shown the shipyard in orbit as it would be pretty awesome to see on screen.

Saquist

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Yes, I know all of that.

I was just saying it says "San Francisco" on the plaque. That could mean the ship was built there, it could mean that the major components were built there and assembled in orbit (which is the more likely scenario.) The problem is, none of this crap was ever officially stated. Sure, Gene said this, and X fan says this, but nothing is concrete. Personally, I've always gone with the theory that the orbital dry dock seen in TMP is part of the San Francisco yards, but we have no on screen evidence of this. It is possible to build a ship that large on the ground and use the anti-gravity thrusters to get it into orbit. There are advantages to building on the ground. One of which is the fact that your build crew doesn't all have to be in space suits.

spacefighter wrote: »

can't you delete it yourself, go into edit post, select delete and specify a reason in the text field.


anyway if i was building the enterprise i would do it in orbit but i would(if surface to orbit travel is as easy as it is in trek) build the pieces modularly on the ground. also as director, harder as the effects may be, i would want to shown the shipyard in orbit as it would be pretty awesome to see on screen.

It would be better to build the modules on the moon and moon them between orbits. Space Suits aren't as bad as the most common cause of work place injury/death. Falling...

In sealed structures you could have human crews fit the modules but most of this construction will be by robotics. Human inspectors (I guess because machines can do a better inspection job of so much area) could overseer but there is no better way to build objects 3 and 4 times the size of a carrier in a years time.

evil_genius_180

So, they should build parts on the moon and take them 221,600 miles back to Earth for assembly rather than just building them on Earth and taking them 22,236 miles up into a geostationary orbit? It would make more sense to just have the shipyard orbiting the moon, if you're building parts there. (but that's just my opinion)

spacefighter wrote: »

can't you delete it yourself, go into edit post, select delete and specify a reason in the text field.

Thanks. I'm used to other forums that don't allow regular users to delete their posts.

Saquist

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

So, they should build parts on the moon and take them 221,600 miles back to Earth for assembly rather than just building them on Earth and taking them 22,236 miles up into a geostationary orbit? It would make more sense to just have the shipyard orbiting the moon, if you're building parts there. (but that's just my opinion)



)

1. I've never seen anti grav used in such a way. Trek always uses propulsive force in Star Fleet to go from Planetary to Orbit. Thrusters, impulse, Ion

2. The most amount of energy is spent during lift off. It's not about mileage. The moon's gravity is a 17th that of Earth. I would put the ship yards in Lunar Orbit but if there are production facilities around Earth already then moving finished pieces 230 thousand miles instant remotely inconvenient for an interstellar civilization considering that production facilities will often be found near mining facilities which will be all over the solar system.

evil_genius_180

Why not simply beam the parts up to the orbital docks from Earth? Last time I checked, that was how they got most stuff into orbit in Star Trek. Not counting JJ Trek, the transporters on Star Trek can't beam from the Earth to the Moon. The thruster comment I made was about getting the entire ship into orbit, not just parts. And I meant to say RCS thrusters, not anti-gravity thrusters. (I don't know why I said that) So, with transporters, you build it on Earth, beam it into space and assemble it. Easy peasy.

Saquist

Apparently Voyager can beam objects from HEO (High Orbit starting at 22236) when it's transporters are functioning normally. But because transporters are a light speed, a beam from the moon could take 1.5s for all the information to arrive. Even though transporters are used rather cavalierly in Trek you're using more power than you would just to travel into orbit conventionally and I'd imagine seeing as it took all of Deep Space Nine Computer Core and Defiant's aswell to hold the information of the 4 people then it would seem transporter buffers really do just hold matter in some form and likely aren't designed to hold that much matter. (It's a bit confusing) I'm sure there nothing to stop the producers from doing that on screen though.

evil_genius_180

The transporters are as powerful as needed for the script of the episode/movie.

captainkirk

Wow! I didn't expect to cause such a discussion. Anyway, here's a small update. I added saucer supports but I don't know if they'll stay like this. Let me know what you think. I also added a fueling structure to the side and some people walking about.
Just to add something to the land/space argument, weren't some parts of the E-D built on the surface of Mars? I have a memory of seeing a picture from TNG of the saucer and the engineering hull on the ground.

evil_genius_180

Looking good. The people give it a nice sense of scale.

Yeah, we get carried away with the discussions sometimes. I don't remember anything specific about the -D being built on Mars' surface. They had a few "flashback" sequences (some were on the holodeck) that showed the inside of a facility at Utopia Planitia. But, that could have been an orbital facility.

BlueNeumann

"You want us to check under the hood while you're filling up?"

Still looking pretty cool, man. I don't know if I remember seeing the picture of the D on Mars, I know it was built around Mars, but until we saw the last episode I never had a real clear picture in my head of how it was made. I wish I could ask my kid self what he was thinking, he had some funky ideas (oh, to be that creatively uninhibited but with my level of skill...)

captainkirk

evil_genius_180 wrote: »

Looking good. The people give it a nice sense of scale

The people are cut out from the Riverside shipyard in ST09

Yeah, we get carried away with the discussions sometimes.

No problem. It's not as bad as an argument I once accidentally started on TrekBBS.

I don't remember anything specific about the -D being built on Mars' surface. They had a few "flashback" sequences (some were on the holodeck) that showed the inside of a facility at Utopia Planitia. But, that could have been an orbital facility.

I don't remember seeing it in an episode. I think it was on Memory-Alpha. It looked like a satellite photo with all the parts scattered about.

BlueNeumann

Oh my god, I just got this image in my head of assembly instructions for the D, I have to draw them. Basically "insert saucer A into drive section B" and so on

Saquist

captainkirk wrote: »

Wow! I didn't expect to cause such a discussion. Anyway, here's a small update. I added saucer supports but I don't know if they'll stay like this. Let me know what you think. I also added a fueling structure to the side and some people walking about.
Just to add something to the land/space argument, weren't some parts of the E-D built on the surface of Mars? I have a memory of seeing a picture from TNG of the saucer and the engineering hull on the ground.

Nothing has been expressly stated.
There is an image of the Saucer of a Galaxy Class Starship used in one episode as an orbital shot of some facility. I think it was a production job flob. It was from far away too hardly intelligible unless magnified.

Later we see the Galaxy being constructed both in Space Dock (during LaForge's Holo-program and during Voyager launching" (this either means there is a Spacedock in Mars Orbit (which seems unnecessary to have two 8 mile long stations in the same system (or one of those station in orbit is large enough to accommodate a ship of this size...with room to spare.

evil_genius_180

captainkirk wrote: »

I don't remember seeing it in an episode. I think it was on Memory-Alpha. It looked like a satellite photo with all the parts scattered about.

Yeah, I found it:

Utopia_Planitia.jpg

It certainly looks like Galaxy parts, though the resolution on it is so low that it's hard to say for certain. Those could be buildings.

Then there's this shot, which shows the ship clearly being constructed as an entire ship, not parts, because you can see where the framework for the saucer is there and they're putting on hull plating:

Galaxy_class_design_lab.jpg

Plus, I do believe that was supposed to be an orbital station. It looks like it's enclosed, so it's hard to say for certain. It might be more clear in HD, but I don't have any of the TNG blu-rays (I have the DVDs.)

BlueNeumann

I'm going to put on my geeky hat and suggest that the Galaxy class PROTOTYPE was built in Spacedock and then the production models were made in orbit around Mars, or finished off (final buff and scrub?) in that spider-leg thing from the last episode. Different facilities having different strengths or something.

evil_genius_180

It's certainly possible. Maybe, once the prototype was done, they did them in more of an assembly line method. We just don't know.

This shot shows the fleet yards in all its glory. You can mostly seen completed ships in the docks. Though, if I remember correctly, you did see some ships being constructed during the fly-through of the yards.

Saquist

That's logical...I think the USS Galaxy would have been served best figuring out it's quirks in SpaceDock with the appropriate radiation shields.