forget the news that bernanke is lowering interest rates and the market's in the toilet, THIS enterprise constructed by the GAYS is the news of the day!

where's nice gaius with a song when you need him?

oh who cares? I think the pic looks awesome. I'll see the movie regardless of whether the ship was built by gays, grays or laser rays.

As far as Trek goes, as long as sticks to the canon of Galaxy Quest, I'm happy.

Greenstyle is right though - it's being built on Earth. And Bob Orci confirmed it on another Talkback.

Anyway, the new design looks cool and making the engines look like something that may actually make the ship fly isn't all that bothersome for me.

I'm holding out hope. The ST films have always been a mixed bag. Maybe this will be for the best. Although it is an odd numbered movie.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAA!!! !!

What's wrong with you people?? It's fucking sci-fi, not sci-fa, why should anything be constrained by reality? We've had time traveling by flying around the sun, holodeck characters becoming 'real', Klingons starting off as guys with lots of fake tan and winding up with ridges all over their heads 80 some years later then winding up with ridges again in Enterprise which was set before the original series.

It's sci-fi, if the warp field allows a star ship to take off from Earth level, so be it, just grow the fuck up and wait till the film actually comes out.

To the asshole who said that because the ship is built on Earth he isn't seeing the film....Fucking hell man, I think you'd better seriously evaluate your psychological state, you're clearly off your fucking head. Also, you are no doubt homosexual.

Become a doctor or something, anything but spending your time memorizing Trek facts.

I find that oddly intriguing.

The difference and reason to build a spaceship in space only comes in if the engineering required to build a ship that is viable both on the ground and in space is trickier/more expensive than that required to build a ship that is viable in space alone.

Without reference to some "canon" that I have't bothered to look at, I'd say that star trek ships are way too goofy looking to do much of anything on the ground besides collapse under their own weight. So, I'd guess they are built in space.

My point is just that if it's sufficiently cumbersome to deal with a spaceship that has big heavy parts (saucer and warp-drive thingies) suspended way out from the body on struts on the ground, then it would make sense to build it in space.

Xenu

Tom Cruise (Scientology)

Kyra Sedgwick (Born On The Fourth of July)

Kevin Bacon (marraige) !!!

Uhura

Yes, that's what he said in the Warp Edition, and the box says "Certified Canon"

Oh noes I'm getting weak just thinking about that.

Mirajeff better thank Harry for getting him this close to the Baconator.

But I don't want to be frowned upon.

This vehicle looks like its about the size of a Wal-Mart, so in order to get this thing into orbit around Earth, the launch vehicle will need to be about the size of a small town and will take about a year to fill with fuel.

Or maybe JJ is rebooting physics at the same time. Either way, there's a reason that the international space station was constructed IN SPACE rather than ON EARTH. Oh and one more cheap shot: Star Trek always did its best to make its technology, while completely sci-fi, at least grounded in enough science to make it plausible. Thats why many of Trek's gadgets are in our lives today - because they were always grounded in a plausible explanation. So can I get a plausible explanation for building a ship of that size on earth as opposed to in orbit. The sheer weight of the craft would have it sinking into the earth before it was finished.

Oh and its a shame they couldn't take pictures during the DAYTIME - no we have to see obscured, spot-lamped scenes of the graveyard shift.

Here's the thing folks. The question of where the friggin' ship was built has so little importance to the overall "universe" of Star Trek, it's a waste to discuss it. It is not some universally excepted truth that the entire series is based on. It's not vital to Star Trek that one line of text in one book that's arguably canon is followed to the letter. Those books have often been contradicted by later films and/or series, and the next edition just changed it to fit the show. And one line spoken by Sulu in a restored but originally deleted scene can't dictate everything.

1) The writers RETARDEDLY thought working in Area 51 into the storyline would be a "cool" idea that the average moviegoer or non diehard Trek geek would find a "fun" tip of the hat to UFOs and the like.

And Dear Trek writers: it WAS a groan inducing lame idea to work in, so its just one of those things where you out thought yourself for the worse.

The other reason its being built on Earth?

2) I guarantee you...I PROMISE YOU...that they did this SPECIFICALLY so there would be a protracted SFX sequence were the Enterprise first fires its booster rockets or something, at which point it leaves the dock and you see it starting to rise up...more and more out of the hangar bay and past the open bay doors...CUT TO: an exterior wide shot as it rises up higher and higher into the blue sky, a dramatic shot framed against the sun...CUT TO: Pine giving the order to fire the main engines for the first time...at which point in a continuing sequence the Enterprise flies over the ocean or past some mountains or even over a city where people look up, point at it, etc...and then it accelerates and heads into space...all while a psuedo John Williams orchestral score plays some majestic theme.

I guarantee you...NOT even having read the script...that THAT'S what these guys thought (again) would be "cool" (or at least different) since we've already seen the Enterprise leave drydock in space several times now. So this was their idea of "mixing things up" and JJ Abrams simply nodded and said "Yeah, that WILL look cool!"

Look, the grunt welding the hull together is clearly NOT going to be the computer geek in charge of programming Sick Bay computers. So first of all, like ANY construction situation involving multiple parties with specialized talents, it's all a relative matter of "how long" your services would be needed to begin with.

Not to mention, this is friggin' STAR TREK...they have MATTER TRANSPORTERS...so these workers wouldn't be LIVING in space for 10 years, they'd simply get beamed up to work an 8 hour shift and then beamed right back to Earth.

And even then, if you still want to talk about muscles and whatnot...and if you want to SERIOUSLY talk about how you would actually handle a 10 YEAR construction program...I'm sure in the freakin' future, much like labor unions insist today, Starfleet would know to ROTATE the work crew personnel for safety's sake. Say, 3-6 months on, 3-6 months off.

http://tinyurl.com/ 38h3os