Fan-made Image Inspired Teaser Trailer |
jump to navigation

Fan-made Image Inspired Teaser Trailer January 20, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The story of the week is the new Star Trek teaser trailer. And the discussion of the week is that it is built on land (and not space). has now learned how it all started.

Fan art makes the big time
Trekkies are famous for dabbling in fan films, fan fiction and fan art. It appears that these kinds of things can get the attention of the bigwigs in Hollywood. A trusted source tells that the idea for the trailer came from a fan-made image (below) showing the USS Enterprise being built in a naval ship yard. The origins of the image are unknown, but it has been circulating on the web for a long time.

Fan-made image

(click to enlarge)

Official Paramount image

(click to enlarge)

Newport News…birthplace of Enterprises
The fan-made image shows the Enterprise being built at ‘TENNECO Newport News’ which is now Northrop Grumman Newport News in Newport News, VA. It just so happens that both aircraft carriers bearing the name ‘USS Enterprise’ were built there. [NOTE: is not reporting this is where the Starship Enterprise is seen being built in the teaser. We have no idea, except that it is not Area 51.]

Full Coverage of the Star Trek Trailer: Roberto Orci Q&A On Teaser

Review – Star Trek Teaser Trailer [w/TRAILER VIDEO]

First Official Image of the USS Entperprise

Review – “Cloverfield”


1. ShatisDead - January 20, 2008

Robert Orci said this was the image that inspired them in one of the other threads..

2. Richard Daystrom - January 20, 2008

Glad to know they do listen once in a while.

3. diabolk - January 20, 2008

I knew it! I had see this image, and remembered it when I saw the teaser, and couldn’t find it anywhere on my computer.

4. Wayne Spitzer - January 20, 2008

There she is. That’s the image I was referring to in an earlier post; I liked it so much I had it on my desktop for a number of months. Makes me all warm and fuzzy about the potential of the Internet in general. Fascinating story!

5. BritFan - January 20, 2008

Well, the plaque said San Francisco so I expect the “real” construction sute will probably be in the Bay area.

By the way, does anyone know the real reason behind the whole San Francisco connection to Trek? What with the ship being built there, Starfleet HQ there, numerous bay area names being used for colonies and planets in TOS….etc.

I’ve read a lot of Trek real-history books, but never seen a discussion of why GR referenced San Francisco so much. After all Hollywood is in L.A. Did he live there when he was little or something?

(No complaints, BTW. I’ve been to Frisco and it’s very nice :-) Just curious why it became a Trek Mecca )

6. johnconner - January 20, 2008

Maybe I’m easy to please, but I’m as happy as a pig in sh** that we’re seeing it built on a grand scale at all, much less where.

7. RisHAZBOT - January 20, 2008

It’s from a modeling website…’s been around for a while and a lot of people know the creator.

8. T2 - January 20, 2008

fascinating…and good to know

9. m aspill - January 20, 2008

5 maybe its a naval theme rather than a startrek reason fo SF as star trek pretty much is navy in space ….. maybe

10. Viking - January 20, 2008

I remember this image from, oh God, at least five or six years ago. Compared to how powerful today’s graphics software is, it’s kind of primitive, but I always thought the artist did a great job conveying a tongue-in-cheek message. If he (or she) could be postively Identified, they should be given kudos for their role as an unintentional catalyst in kicking-starting the whole franchise back to life.

11. seth - January 20, 2008


to my knowledge, Trek extensively used San Francisco as that city is well known for it’s diversity and tolerance. In the 60’s in particularly, it was the center of The Hippie movement.

12. Bono Luthor - January 20, 2008

The teaser gave me a feeling like the Enterprise credits did. I don’t think that’s a bad think as I loved the idea of that show, and on the occasions they pulled of good episodes I liked the bridge between now and then/the future that it provided.

If this movie can take that idea, that promise that Enterprise never delievered on then I find that a very cool prospect.

With Shatner’s involvment of course! : )

13. Ro-Dan - January 20, 2008

Wow! That’s what I thought. When I first saw the teaser-trailer, that above image came immediately to mind.

14. Sebastian - January 20, 2008

Love the symmetry; Trek inspired fans to make videos, movies, etc. Now the makers of the new film are inspired by the fan fiction! It’s a loving tribute to the ‘unknown Trekkie!’ And I don’t care what anyone’s negative opinion on the subject is, that new photo from the trailer looks incredible! After 41 yrs, ol’ NCC-1701 has never looked better!

15. Rhett Coates - January 20, 2008

Details, details.

As far as that goes, the story (of ST XI) could simply state that ‘certain components’ were constructed at the Newport News site, and the basic overall vessel assembled well as [some future] shipyard in the greater San Francisco area—which is where Starfleet HQ is located in all 5 versions of ‘Trek to date, from ST:ENT clear up through ST:VGR (in the existing time-line). The “Big E” aircraft carrier CVN-65 is across the James River from NN in Norfolk RIGHT NOW (January 2008), having returned the week before Christmas 2007 from a deployment in the current “world hot spot.” One of the chief engineers, a fellow named Dennis–, is an aquaintence of mine; I met him once last year at the Gloucester County Public Library. Wearing his full uniform and ENTERPRISE cap that day, he stated then that “STAR TREK” has a large presence on the aircraft carrier, and comically quipped about them [sometimes] pushing his engines too hard (yes, in a Scottish accent!).

About the awesome photoshopped pic: I never could “zoom” in on that shot previously on the internet (the link didn’t work for some reason), and now seeing that it’s set in Newport News, 30 minutes south of where I live, I just had to stop and blink: WOW—what a legacy, if 200 or 300 years from now, that shipyard (under whatever name it will have then) might actually construct ANY part of such a “United Earth” starship—and perhaps even name it the Enterprise. What an awesome thought.

I have heard that some present-day CVN-65 officers may feel they seem to operate “in the shadow of [the Star Trek] television series,” but it is the feeling of many others that that view is in error, and that it is exactly the other way around: that Gene Roddenberry himself was INSPIRED BY THAT VESSELS’S REAL HISTORY to name his starship USS ENTERPRISE, after the aircraft carrier. If so, then the carrier vessel has perhaps the truer legacy of what Star Trek has become in the minds of us all. (Maybe when the carrier is retired in 2012, it might be re-commissioned to become the world’s greatest RESTORATION of humanitarian hope, where hardships such as disaster relief and other tragedies can be overcome, at least in part, due to help provided by THE CREW OF THE ENTERPRISE as she is in our time (even after 2012), wherever help is needed aruond the world. That way, the “USS ENTERPRISE” would live out Gene Roddenberry’s dream in real life, with a real crew, on a real mission to help humanity. Would it not?

So, finally, Newport News vs. San Francisco? Why would they need to compete in the 23rd Century? How about, instead, “…in cooperation with other sites around the world, and CENTERED in San Francisco, for the UNITED EARTH SPACE PROBE AGENCY in the year 2245?” Hmmm…….

(—With any apologies to ‘canon’ factors that might indeed state that the starship is constructed at the San Francisco navy yards in the 23rd Century. As a matter of fact, wasn’t the S.F. navy yards site stated as where the starship IS built, in one of Gene R’s own books [published in the late 1960s] about the making of the original series? VISION, folks, and CREATIVITY IN WRITING, is all that is necessary to making it “logical” …. with a little bit of inspired ‘help’ from Industrial Light and Magic.)

16. Charles Trotter - January 20, 2008

You know, when I first saw the teaser, just a few moments after it ended, this was the image that came to mind. I was wondering if it was some kind of inspiration… now I know, lol!

Ah, good ol’ Newport News Shipbuilding. :)

17. newman - January 20, 2008

Anthony if you can figure out who the original creator of that image is, you should do an interview with them. I wonder if he or she is a big trek fan.

18. mada101 - January 20, 2008

For this new Star Trek, I guess it makes sense to literally ground the Enterprise in reality and have it built on the Earth, instead of in orbit as was intended by Roddenberry. Since the intention is to bring in a new audience who don’t really particularly know anything about the original Trek canon, having the ship built in space isn’t as ‘real’, ‘gritty’ or as close-to-home as what we see in the teaser.

This isn’t TOS Trek. This is Nu Trek. Fans like me may not like O&K’s idea for the Enterprise’s construction, but this film isn’t for us. Though, I do wonder if people would have less of an issue with it if the Enterprise looked like it used to, as in the picture above ;-)

19. Khan Khan - January 20, 2008

As long as they bring back the mini skirts with “Britney” type 21st century undies, I’m a happy trekker.

20. I am Kurok! - January 20, 2008

Newport News is on the east coast.

Scale looks right, though.

21. Jon C - January 20, 2008

Some 40’s style guy welding with goggles in the 23rd century?they should get up to speed on manufacturing and have some sort of vision for the 24th century because everyone uses robotics to weld today.It’s a nice gritty kind of shot ,but I’m expecting more technological advances.

22. trekkie1701D - January 20, 2008

Although the first time I saw that specific picture was here, I found one that is the same except they use a Miranda class ship rather than the Enterprise

23. MrRegular - January 20, 2008

It’s a good reference image for persons unable to comprehend the size of the Big E, or the size of an aircraft carrier for that matter. Works for me.

24. S. John Ross - January 20, 2008

If they track dow the creator, I hope they at least give him some movie tickets ;)

Time was when Paramount had a triple-strength deflector field up between themselves and fan creativity (and for that matter, the work of those who labor in the licensed-but-non-canon salt-mines professionally), and it’s really nice seeing the trend over these past several years of newer Trek honchos approaching the matter differently.

When I was on the writing team for the Star Trek RPG several years ago, we had strict orders that we weren’t allowed to reference anything but our own stuff and canon: we couldn’t make visible nods to Trek novels, Trek comics, Trek fanstuff, anything. Partly it was a matter of legal protections, but there was also a palpable air of wanting to avoid any kind of “consensus” arising in the non-canon material.

And then, years later, the producers of Enterprise made multiple nods to not one but two of the books we did, and said nice things about them on the record in the process … and that was just really nice. Felt like family. This feels the same way, and it’s a feeling that belongs in Trek fandom whenever possible. We are ALL Star Trek. Every one of us, and when connections like this one happen it warms the Jefferies Tubes of my heart, or words to that effect.

Get that guy some movie tickets, someone :)

25. Allister Gourlay - January 20, 2008

So own up… who did the photoshop work on this?

26. Fort - January 20, 2008

In “Flag Full of Stars,” Decker flies the primary hull up to orbit to the “engineering hull.” They launch from outside of San Fransisco. The opening chapter of the book explains that it was more cost-effective and easier for some tasks to complete the refit on the ground. And it gives Kirk a good excuse to keep the old girl nearby! The cover of the book shows the primary hull with a Space Shuttle, the ENTERPRISE of course, beneath it. The primary hull lifts off on it’s landing gear, Kirk can see it from his office in the Admiralty building. That’s one of the places where the “built on the ground” mythos starts.

More likely that the entire ship was (will be?) built in orbit, in a dock from material mined from the Asteroid Belt or the Moon. That would be much easier than mining the Earth (and more eco-friendly). And the dock was named after a major city it happened to orbit over, or because it’s major port. (Or Gene could have had some attachment to San Fransisco.) I would expect there to other docks floating around, perhaps for important Russian, English, or other ship-building sites.

27. Dominic - January 20, 2008

The image is very very old but great :)

28. Avi Chapman - January 20, 2008

At first I was a bit shocked at the concept of building on land. The technical manuals (yes I read them) said that the ship would buckle under a 1 g load without the Structural Integrity Field. During building, the SIF would not exist, so I figured that’s that.

However, upon thinking about it, I see no reason why you can’t just use a scaffolding and then turn on the SIF just before launch.

My other objection had been that we’ve actually seen the Utopia Planitia Shipyards in Voyager and they were in space, despite being named after a [fictional] city. Although this was the 24th century, it had presented compelling evidence that the San Francisco shipyards would also be in space. Add to this the fact that the NX-01 was launched from space and you get a two century history of building in space.

However, having thought about this one, I realise that all starships in the Utopia Planetia Shipyard in the Voyager shots were complete or nearly so. No reason why they couldn’t be nearly completed on Mars and then taken into orbit for that last part of construction. This mirrors the way ships are build in reality. Putting the ship into the water is just one step of the building process and the actual commissioning of the vessel may not occur for quite a while after that.

29. Izbot - January 20, 2008

A nice case of life imitating art. Or is it art imitating art? Fans come up with some pretty goofy stuff a lot of the time but sometimes they make something that really resonates. Wasn’t “Yesterday’s Enterprise” based on a story that was originally fanfic? That episode remains one of the finest hours of aired Trek.

30. STDEVIL - January 20, 2008

I know they already have an ending to this Star Trek, But I really think they should use the alternate ending from Star Trek 4. I know it’s probably not canon, but it would be a great ending. Check it out here. What do you think Mr. Orci?????

31. ss - January 20, 2008

Does this trailer mean that the characters in the film will resolve problems by actually doing things rather than by looking constipated while talking to a computer console about subatomic particles? I was really a big fan of the constipated+computer+particles plot structure in Voyager… I could just see the writers: “The dramatic conflict has been resolved because a character will say some gibberish and then assert that the problem is, in fact, resolved!”

32. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

Bulding the enterprise on land is ok, but assembling it on land is stupid.

This looks so silly its a joke…

No matter how many effects they put in, it will still be a laughing matter.
Star Trek will be the endless joke of the scientific community and whoever knows anything about space. WHY DIDNT THEY ASK NASA???

Whats next? Build Enterprise B in my backyard GARAGE??? LOL!

Simply put, big space ships are always assembled in space.

It is true with our current space stations, and thats what they planed for ORION and DEDALUS in the future…

The 2 true starships that Nasa has been planning.
Its funny but ORION technology has been mentioned in STARTREK too, read this page to find out whats its all about

I Quote : ” The Star Trek:TOS episode “For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” features a generation ship, constructed out of a hollowed-out iron asteroid, propelled using “Orion class nuclear pulse engines” in which fission bombs were detonated in shafts. It appeared to have been traveling for about 10,000 years, and had traveled about 30 light years on its own power.”

Dedalus is another one

33. roberto orci - January 20, 2008

I believe the idea of actually seeing the construction was Damon Lindelof’s idea. Just one of a million.

34. Chops - January 20, 2008

#28 “My other objection had been that we’ve actually seen the Utopia Planitia Shipyards in Voyager and they were in space, despite being named after a [fictional] city.”

On the contrary, both Wikipedia and Memory Alpha refer to Utopia Planitia as a “plain.” We’ve seen surface structures, but there’s no reason to think there’s a city down there. In orbit, the dry docks are fairly tightly clumped for space-borne objects, so is it much of a stretch to say that they’re more or less “above” the plain?

Now, I would have made the same argument for the SF Shipyards before the trailer, but I’m flexible. =)

35. Andy Patterson - January 20, 2008

Cool! It’s nice to know someone’s fan project can inspire the big boys to act on that work, and see some fruition of imagined, yet unrealized dreams.

36. Balock - January 20, 2008

I like it, but the fonts are wrong and the bridge dome/upper saucer is off…

37. Andy Patterson - January 20, 2008

Also, nice to know the little guy can have ideas that the IDEA people haven’t come up with.

38. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

I should start a site to gather people who want Enterprise to be assembled in SPACE, to make a global internet petition, then millions of letters to be sent to PARAMOUNT!

This is a disgrace…!!!!

Roddenberry will be doing CARTWHEELS in his Grave!

39. Magic_Al - January 20, 2008

According to CURRENT science big spaceships must be built in space. However a warp ship has several technologies that might make that unnecessary. Antimatter-powered engines, artificial gravity, structural-integrity fields, etc. could make the cost of hauling a large mass out of the gravity well insignificant. For initial construction there would be more people and resources on the ground. Once the thing is built, you’d maintain and upgrade it in space just to avoid unnecessary strain of landing and re-launch, but in the world of Star Trek I don’t think initially building a starship on the ground is a crazy idea.

The welder, I assume, is there because he’s a nut who really likes welding and wants to be personally invested in the starship. Surely in the 23rd Century nobody HAS to do a job like that.

40. CmdrR - January 20, 2008

I still think that’s my ’83 Gremlin in the parking lot. You just can’t kill those things.

41. GNDN - January 20, 2008

36: Not to mention the endcaps on the nacelles.

I see that I am only one of many to make a connection between the Newport News image and the teaser. We don’t create the media, it creates us, right?

As for the brouha-ha over Earth-based construction versus space dock, I don’t recall a single episode that says one way or the other. That teaser, though, is visually arresting and says so much about what Star Trek was, is, and always will be: to boldly go….

42. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

Number 39,

Enteprise in all the TOS scripts always had a problem with landing and going into the earths atmosphere, except for one Episode.

This is logical… remember thats why they made transporters so they wouldnt have to land the ship, also just imagine how many plots this Breaks…

Oh no Kirk is stranded on the planet… we cant beam him up because of the atmospheric distrurbances…


You see this does not work, its a bad scientific idea, even for the future, its a bad artistic idea, showing the magistic feeling of something built in space is far more powerful, and its not good for the PLOTS and SCRIPTS of all STAR TREK.

43. Balock - January 20, 2008

I like the white/gray paint better than the metallic look. It is said that the paint had the ability to “glow” so it would be visible in the darkness of space…

44. me - January 20, 2008

“Roddenberry will be doing CARTWHEELS in his Grave!”

I bet he rather will laugh out loud.
Fans usually are more fanatic about consistency than the creative writers, who just want to bring over a message, feeling, good story or entertainment.

45. OR Coast Trekkie - January 20, 2008

Well hey, what do you know… no criticisms of the font, or the scale…

46. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

Also I must remind you the different ways the klingon WARBIRD was used in startrek IV the Voyage Home.. that had that landing everywhere….

We had never seen Enterprise going around in planets atmoshperes.. and for a good reason Gene NEVER intended that!!!

Even with the transporters they would use shuttle craft and not bring the Enterprise down…

47. Balock - January 20, 2008

anti-gravs guys, anti-gravs, perfectly “cannon”…

48. Balock - January 20, 2008

#45, see #36…

49. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

Boldly be constructed on Earth, where no WELDER has gone before! lol…

SPACE SPACE SPACE!!!! Enterprise should be assembled in space!

I mean com on, welders in a construction site? What are they making? The Titanic back in 1912???

I think the new star trek will be a comedy…

50. Magic_Al - January 20, 2008

^42. As I said in my post, once the thing is built and put in space, you’d keep it in space. My point was that bringing all the parts together for the first time would be a more efficient on the ground, for the same reason ocean-going vessels aren’t usually built in the water. Assuming power is not a problem, taking off is easier than landing.

51. Dr. Image - January 20, 2008

Do they build aircraft carriers or submarines on or UNDER water??
NO. Case closed.
As long as the movie is good, I don’t care where the damn thing is supposedly built.

52. Jupiter1701 - January 20, 2008

In the TNG episode when the Enterprise-D recovers Scotty caught in the transporter, he used the shields from the old ship to keep the doors open on the giant sphere. If they have force fields strong enough to hold gigantic doors open, one would think they could safely lift a shift into orbit.

If they can use a tractor beam to stop another ship dead in its tracks, they ought to be able to use one to lift another ship off a planet.

If they can fly through all kinds of spatial anomolies, one would think they can fly through the Earth’s atmosphere.

Besides, everyone knows that the little hamsters that run on the spinning wheels that power the ship need gravity in order to do their job. Otherwise, they’d float off and get stuck in the machinery.

53. roberto orci - January 20, 2008

49 Nothing in the teaser precludes final assembly in space. Nor does the appearance of humans preclude robotic or other assistance.

54. Jupiter1701 - January 20, 2008

#52 ^^ – I meant “lift a ship”. The little hamster that powers my computer bumped me while I was typing.

55. Balock - January 20, 2008

right #53…

56. Balock - January 20, 2008

my wife and kids just went off to see Cloverfield. Ha, litlle do they know that they have a Trek trailer waiting for them! It will be interesting to see what they say…

57. roberto orci - January 20, 2008

Starfleet Command expects full report from family away mission.

58. Doug - January 20, 2008

Here we go again. –grin–

This photo of the Big E being constructed has been around for a good ten years. It is, of course, a photo of the old AMT/ERT kit. It is nicely done, however, I am sure today’s modern artists could do it more convincingly (i.e., the new movie teaser).

I do believe portions of the ship could be constructed on earth… someone mentioned modular components in a post on another thread. That makes sense to me, BUT there is no way a fully constructed starship would see its final construction days on a planet. Anti-grav units or tractor beams could surely lift or pull the pieces up to an orbital drydock, but I think it would be pretty unwieldy to attempt it on a fully construced vessel

The engines alone, with all of the shielding and warp drive components would be massively heavy, nor do I believe for a second that the engine pylons could support that amount of weight in a full gravity environment (heck, the plastic model kits are notorious for engine sag –grin–).

I stand by my ealier assessment that if NASA can build sections of space stations on earth and lift them up via the shuttle that Star Fleet can follow the same tenets with starship construction.

59. Balock - January 20, 2008

ha, plastic model engine sag… now that really brings back memories…. I wonder if Abrams or Orci ever built an AMT E…

60. Doug - January 20, 2008

Guys, please (pretty please) learn the difference between cannon and canon. Please?

btw Mr. Orci, we fans really appreciate you taking the time to chime in on these pages. If anyone has any doubts you and the rest of the production staff care about what we think this, this should answer those fears.

Mr Ori’s comments (# 53) corroborate my belief (one I mentioned on another thread) that the teaser is a metaphor. All this talk is making me want to see the movie now! Anyone got a time machine handy?


61. Doug - January 20, 2008


correction: “If anyone has any doubts you and the rest of the production staff care about what we think, this should answer those fears.”

62. Viking - January 20, 2008

’49 Nothing in the teaser precludes final assembly in space. Nor does the appearance of humans preclude robotic or other assistance.’

Quite telling. One must test-fit large modules before final assmbly. What’s good for NASA and the maritime services today doesn’t mean it’s beneath Starfleet two centuries from now.

63. Viking - January 20, 2008

#57 – sorry. I was peeking. ;-)

64. RTC - January 20, 2008

Thank you, Roberto, for bringing order to this ongoing canon chaos.

Folks, putting aside for a moment the excellent, creative messaging that the trailer conveys … see Part II, Chapter 2 (page 171 in my copy) of Whitfield/Roddenberry’s “The Making of Star Trek,” and I quote: “The unit components were built at the Star Fleet division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards” — there’s the trailer — “and the vessel was assembled in space.”

Then please reference #53 above, as stated by one of the writers of the new film: “Nothing in the teaser precludes final assembly in space.”

Can we move on now?

If only all this passion could be harnessed for good….

65. The Haggard - January 20, 2008

Teasers are just that… TEASERS.
Often, events shown in a teaser never appear in a movie. They are just images meant to affect emotional responses… as this one has. NOTHING about the movie is certain yet. Nothing in this teaser can be taken at face value. It will be TRAILERS that start to form images of what is actually IN the movie.

66. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

53. roberto orci

“Nothing in the teaser precludes final assembly in space. Nor does the appearance of humans preclude robotic or other assistance. ”

I sure hope so…. Roberto get the Top heads of NASA on the phone, You can do it!.. I am sure they would GLADLY give you the BEST advice on Earth about where its best to assemble ENTERPRISE… (*)

How do I know? Well I am sure they are all TREKIES! :-)

(*) Im sure they will say SPACE.

67. Andy Patterson - January 20, 2008

60. Doug – January 20, 2008

Guys, please (pretty please) learn the difference between cannon and canon. Please?

I loved Cannon, Colombo, Barnaby Jones and especially Mannix

68. Balock - January 20, 2008

hmmm #64, you are right, it is on page 171. If memory serves, page 191 states the nacelle diameter to be 60 feet. Also note on page 195 that the E tractor beam has a range of 100,000 miles. so a tractor beam and/or anti-gravs could handle getting the peices into orbit.

Case closed…

69. Viking - January 20, 2008

#67 Andy Patterson – how cold you forget Harry O, or McCloud? Hell, even Ironside came complete with his own chair. ;-)

70. trekgeezer - January 20, 2008

You know the Enterprise was shown flying in the atmosphere in “Tomorrow is Yesterday”. Far enough into the atmosphere that 60’s era jet interceptors could get a clear look at her.

71. Will Decker - January 20, 2008

Kenny S.

I am also sure there are tons of Trekkies who can contradict what you are saying about the Enterprise should be built in Space. There are also pictures in Star Trek canon that show that the ships are built on the ground and then assembled in space. So I think your comment on the ship was built in space is pretty baseless.

And the episode of Star Trek I am quoting from is “Paralells” in TNG in which we see components of Galaxy Class Starships on the surface of Mars waiting to be put in to orbit to be assembled.

I loved the Teaser showing the Enterprise under construction. And I am looking forward to seeing more when the Trailer or even pics are leaked. Star Trek is in very good hands :-)

72. JPH - January 20, 2008

Of course this is a fundamentally silly argument… but hey, here’s some more!

Look, there’s no way the Enterprise would ever be “built” in space. Even in the 23rd century, the working conditions there would be horrendous — every worker would need to be provided an atmosphere and transportation into orbit. Getting supplies up there would be miserable and just breaking for lunch would take half a day. Plus, even if they don’t use money in the 23rd century, it would be ludicrously expensive.

So, even in 200 years the best place to build a spacecraft would be on the ground. Where all the work could be done in consistent gravity inside a nice big old atmosphere. Components could easily be warehoused there, workshops for specific tasks would be available, and workers could go home after a day’s work to, you know, their home.

Imagine the whole ship were built first on Earth. Tested (as best possible within an atmosphere) and then disassembled into several large subassemblies. These subassemblies would have their own life support and power systems so working in them would be straightforward.

Each of these large subassemblies would be transported into orbit — maybe by beaming if there’s transporter technology large enough. Then reassembled in orbit into the completed Enterprise. That would mean the ship was built on Earth with final assembly in Earth orbit.

The ship is obviously designed to never operate in the atmosphere but optimized for duty in space. Just as today’s aircraft carriers aren’t also designed to drive on the Interstate highway system.

Imagine the design compromises necessary to have the Enterprise land… it makes more sense to build it strictly for space. And it makes more sense to build it first on the ground.

Think it through people!

Next: What would Spartacus have done if he had had a Piper Cub.

73. PaoloM - January 20, 2008

The ship built on land is a wonderful sight. It’s an emotional image that looks fresh and fascinating. Ships in orbiting drydocks are cliché that we have already seen dozen of times. Looking for something new is always good.

74. Chris - January 20, 2008

This is the shipyard in Newport News, you can tell where the aircraft carrier was erased out. I’ve also seen the same pictures except the USS Relient was in its place.

75. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

# 72

I am saying it should be build on LAND and ASSEMBLED in SPACE…

read my first post at number 32.

76. MrRegular - January 20, 2008

Amen. It’s on page 171. And since GR co-wrote the book, that settles it for me.
“Canon” and “Cannon” are two different words. One of them can refer to a 1970s TV show starring a private investigator, named “Cannon”, who was a man of some width.

77. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

# 73

I was thinking about the Arthur C Clark Space elevator, that it could be used to place the parts of Enterprise in space…

To my astonishment someone else on mentioned it also!

The space elavator is scientifically sound, and could be built in the future.

read more about it here:

78. trekgeezer - January 20, 2008

It’s not relevant to the plot, so quite frankly my dear trekkers, I don’t give a damn.

79. Gerry Alanguilan - January 20, 2008

I also think it’s perfectly logical for the ship to be built on land… but I’m wondering. How in the world are they going to bring it up to space?

80. Balock - January 20, 2008

yes #76, and my name is Balock, spelled diferently than my cousin Balok

81. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Just heard on the news that Cloverfield opened big at the box-office.

Of course, look at the trailer it had attached to it in order to pull the big crowd in!! :)

82. Vulcan927 - January 20, 2008

The teaser is exactlly how I have always envisioned the creation of the Enterprise, as far back as I can recall watching and reading when younger. Love the abvove fan produced picture as well as the teaser trailers double entendre “Under Construction”. It sure has wet my appetite for more.

All this talk made me curious to look up in my book from 1973
“The Making Of Star Trek” by Stephen E. Whitfield – Gene Roddenberry, Chapter 2 page171 2nd paragraph
“The unit components were built at the Star Fleet Division of what is still called the San Francisco Navy Yards, and the vessel was assembled in space. The Enterprise is not designed to enter the atmosphere of a planet and never lands on a planet surface.”

The show had been Gene Roddenberrys’ vision of what MAN could be capable of becoming, but with any form of entertainment, be it music, movie, tv, book etc…with each actor & new writers imput comes change..with each production comes a $ amount effecting creativity.

I have been entertained since the shows birth in 1966 through all its incarnations, changes and ups and downs, and believe we are in good hands.

Cheers…here’s looking frwd to the roller coaster ride this December :-)

83. Oregon Trek Geek - January 20, 2008

If I was I multi zillionaire, I’d build a full scale mock up of the Enterprise, complete with all the rooms on the interior. With as many of the turbo lifts working as our current technology would allow. And open it as a tourist attraction somewhere. I’d probably choose the refit E.

It would be so cool to walk up to it, see how big it is, and then enter, and walk the decks. Take the turbolift to the bridge. Go to engineering, and basically go anywhere on the ship you want. check out crew quarters, crawl in a jeffries tube. Whatever. It would be seriously cool.

There would have to be more than one bathroom though.

84. Zort - January 20, 2008

Contrary to the prior administrators of the franchise, who nearly run it to the ground with their incompetence, these guys DO listen. God bless their little socks off for giving us a great movie.

PLEASEEEE put Shatner in the movie!
With sugar on top?

Sorry, just had to say that. No, Shatner doesn’t pay me for saying this. Shatner doesn’t endorse my petition. I have a mind of my own, thank you.

Yes, I think Shatner’s presence, even if it’s a cameo, will bring in Trek fans by the hordes. Why? He’s an icon, plain and simple. Then, continue with the timeline of the prequels, and we’ll be happy.

The producers need to understand that if Spock was killed off in “Wrath of Khan” and was resurreced, Kirk died in “Generations” and can be resurrected as well. It just requires some creative writing. And these writers and producers ARE creative. One look at the trailer proves it without a doubt to me.

But believe me when I tell you, Kirk’s resurrection will be a deciding factor in increasing revenue for the franchise, because it will be a correction of an error that shouldn’t have happened, in the first place. Do a quick market research, folks. You won’t regret it. Honest.

85. Timncc1701 - January 20, 2008

I thought of this old photoshop when I saw the teaser trailer. Like everyone says, the remarkable thing is that the people who are making this film actually give a damn about what we nerds are saying on the internet. We are kind of like a built in focus group. However, the script cannot be changed as long as the writer’s strike is on. It would be nice to see Shatner in the film to give it the seal of approval. Hear that, guys?

86. J. E. Carrales - January 20, 2008

Many of you must not be Star Trek fans, I mean WHOLE TREKKERS.

I recall, maybe it was in “The Making of Star Trek” that the Enterprise’s components were build on earth and it was assembled in Space.

“According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space. ”

I have known this since the Animated Series. I don’t see it as a big deal.

As for San Franciso as the point of origin, it hink it has to do more with Nautical tradition than “the HIPPIE” movement.

87. Edge - January 20, 2008

The trailer was better.

88. spockboy - January 20, 2008

Hey Guys,

Back in 2001 I first saw this image and loved it. I realize that the notion of building the Big E on Earth pisses off some of the purists, but it’s an interesting idea.
Anyway, back then I was immediately inspired to touch it up with a more accurate Enterprise model.

89. Kirk's Girdle - January 20, 2008

Wired, I hadn’t seen this image before, but that’s how I pictured the trailer (camera angle) after reading the description.

90. Kirk's Girdle - January 20, 2008

Errrrr, make that “weird”.

91. Kirk's Girdle - January 20, 2008

Nice nacelle caps, Spocko.

92. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

I am ok with Building on Earth, and assembling in Space…

100%, its logical and good.

Just dont assemble Enterprise on EARTH …. (there where some implications about balancing the engines… in space you dont have gravity thus no way to balance something, that should be done by mathematics & design not trial and error)

thanks for those who found that book (post number, 83. Vulcan927) ….. It tells us what Roddenberry had in mind , and He was a genius… :-)

93. Balock - January 20, 2008

Spockboy! I just wanted to say that I’ve seen a lot of your clips, etc. over the past year and really enjoy the work. Cool and entertaining, thanks!

94. m aspill - January 20, 2008

88 yeah urs is better thanks

95. Gary Swoggle - January 20, 2008

Maybe some ships are built on land and some in orbit, duh. The shipyard would have antigrav lifters to lift their product into space just like real shipyards roll ships into water or build them in drydocks in the case of carriers.

96. Balock - January 20, 2008

minor issue, the people/car standing on the saucer of spockboy’s photo are way too big in proportion to the E… some people never seem to be happy… but actually i’m just having fun with all this and trying to not take it too seriously…

97. m aspill - January 20, 2008

im a massive satr trek fan but i dont care where the enterprise was built ! i dnt mind the chat and theories but why are some people so offended by this and presume thatb ecause they dnt agree with this detail they wont like the film

98. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008


My brother found his old 1701 blueprints last week. I haven’t seen them yet, so I can’t tell you who originally made them. I jokingly asked about the bathroom issue, and bro’ insisted there are bathrooms *everywhere,* certainly in all crew quarters. And, according to him, wherever there’s a rec deck or conference room, there’s a bathroom. Apparently, there’s even one below the bridge with access to the bridge.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

99. toddk - January 20, 2008

#58 Yes , I had about a half dozen of those model kits and it wasnt til later on that the nacelle sag froblem was fixed. one solution was to hang the model ship upside down til the glue dried. you could also wire the nacelles together inside the primary hull. alas I never had a good model of the ship because of these problems, I stopped buying AMt kits because the klingon ship I bought turned out to be black..and so was the second one..I decided to wait til a real one was built.god , iI was a stupid kid:P

100. banned - January 20, 2008

With all due respect, guys, resurrecting Kirk would be ridiculous. It was ridiculous in the novels, and it would be ridiculous in this movie. Shatner is not Star Trek, and his inclusion in the film is neither necessary nor even a good idea if the script doesn\’t call for it–which it does not.

101. Balock - January 20, 2008

Mr. Orci, although Mr. Shat /Kirk was my childhood hero, and IMHO, a much better actor in TOS then he gets credit for, I agree. Don’t put him in, just to be in it…

102. Nomad - January 20, 2008

I like the ship built on land idea simply because it’s BOLD. Star Trek has always been afraid of its own implausability and this concept flies directly in the face of that.
Star Trek can only become real once it owns up to being fantasy. We want to accompany Kirk and crew into space but how do the earthbound follow if the ship is already far beyond reach?

103. Tony Whitehead - January 20, 2008

#64, #68, #82. I happen to have the same book and I wish more posters on here did as well. I have been saying similar things in the past that Gene Roddenberry and his staff did a pretty thorough job of working through the invention of a universe. Yes, sometimes they contradicted themselves from show to show, but the universe was as constant as one could hope for.

I still wonder if The Supreme Court ever referenced ‘The Making of Star Trek’ in their pre-production meetings. From what I have seen so far, I would assume that it’s a safe bet.

By the way, Anthony, I know that the official website is coming online as we speak, but this fan wants you to know how much I appreciate the fine work you’ve done here to create a community for all of us to be proud of.

104. Hon. David Kulessa - January 20, 2008

Why is everyone complaining about the end caps on the nacelles? It’s my assumption that, because the ship is half built, they haven’t been put on yet.

Of COURSE they look like pod racer engines, that’s the insides.


105. Balock - January 20, 2008

By the, my kids give Cloverfield 4 out of 5 stars, and liked the look at the Trek trailer…

106. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

Everyone look *reaalllyyy* closely at #100 before responding. :-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

107. Tony Whitehead - January 20, 2008


Well, that about wraps it up for Kirk, doesn’t it?

Now onto an exciting story. . .Wow me, Mr. Orci!

108. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - January 20, 2008

#100, ouch man, well that seems to be it guys, concrete proof that the Shat isnt in the movie.

but… question, ok the script may not call for it, but the vast majority of the fans do, are you just going to ignore us?

im not in anyway trying to take a stab at you, its just that we all feel that Generations sucked and although the Shat signed up for that doom, Nimoy had the chance to direct his ressurection – and it would seem un-sporting for Spock not to at least try to bring kirk back.

however… i do fully place my faith in your hands that if you say the script is good and doesn’t need the shat-man then so be it. I just hope its not

a) a canon raper

b) pants (English phrase for sh!t)

and c) Tainted by the whole shat saga

i wish you and your men god speed


109. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - January 20, 2008

#106…. i dont see what you see… WHAT DO YOU SEE???

110. Michael P. Delaney - January 20, 2008

Once again, The Making of Star Trek, a book published in 1968, written by Stephen Whitfield and GENE RODENBERRY clealy and explicitly states that the Enterprise components were built at San Francisco Navy Yards and assembled in space. In the very next sentence, it says that the Enterprise is not designed to operate inside an atmosphere and NEVER lands on a planet. The promo I saw today shows a welder in a wife-beater t-shirt and goggles welding the craft like it was an old ‘57 Chevy muffler. Since we don’t even build passenger aircraft (not to even mention spacecraft) like that TODAY, the teaser is either meant to be nothing but symbolic, or else shows a total lack of respect for 40 years of Star Trek history, as well as the intelligence of the viewers. I’ll have to wait to see which is true.

111. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

AHEM… I’ll repeat:

Everyone look *reaalllyyy* closely at #100 before responding. Especially the user name.

“Oh, one of these things is not like the other…”

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

112. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - January 20, 2008

#111 so… he forgot the O big deal… its finished *cries*

113. Nomad - January 20, 2008

#100 reads fake! Who is ROBERT Orci?

114. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - January 20, 2008

#113… cue the dramatic music, we have an IMPOSTER!! … or roberto is tired, or is that robert?… hmmmm

115. Jay - "The Real Jim Kirk" - January 20, 2008

#110, who cares where the enterprise was built? seriously GET OVER IT

116. Green-blooded-bastard - January 20, 2008

I’m so happy!!! I LOVE Star Trek!!!

117. Ralph F - January 20, 2008

I’ll say this once more: it’s a TEASER TRAILER. It is NOT MEANT to be a scene from the film. It’s supposed to call forth the spirit of adventure and exploration (all the voice-overs, the American spirit put forth in construction and creation) that inspired Gene to create STAR TREK in the first place.

118. Devon - January 20, 2008

#108 – It was the Generations writers + Shatner that allowed his character to be killed off.

To me, it shows they are NOT ignoring canon as they do awknowledge that he is dead. Ignoring canon would say that he was not dead, etc. Would be a completely different story maybe if the character had not been killed off.

119. Jeffrey S. Nelson - January 20, 2008

I still think the Enterprise from TOS would have looked great on the big screen without any alterations. There…I said it. I ike the fan photo of the ship under construction on Earth much better than the teaser shot. The latter looks like Jules Verne helped design it. There…I said it. James Cawley was right on the mark in my opinion. There…I said it. Nuff said.

120. Kenny S - January 20, 2008

111. Michael P. Delaney –

Thank you for saying again and informing everyone here, that the Enterprise according to RODDENBERRY HIMSELF was built on Earth but ASSEMBLED in space,
and the Enterprise is not designed to operate inside an atmosphere and NEVER lands on a planet.

This is how it should be… I hope the new movie respects this, because it IS VERY important ! ( I wont go into explaining why this is important .. but it is)

121. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

Hey, Jay,

All I’m saying is, I don’t have to type in my user name everytime I post. Roberto always posts as “roberto orci.” Always.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

122. pinky - January 20, 2008

What I love is not that the ship was or wasn’t built in space or does or does not have Kirk in the Captain’s chair — I just love how whenever Roberto talks about the decision he DID make, it sounds like he really thought about it and chose what worked for him. Awesome.

Besides, everyone knows the transporter exists because the budget on TOS was too low. If they had the budget to land Enterprise, they would have found a way.

123. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

Man, Browser is not refreshing this site as well as I’d like.

I see y’all have it all sorted out now.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

124. Tony Whitehead - January 20, 2008

#106. Looks like you’re right. If Mr. Orci comes on here and denies being #100, it appears I’ve been fooled. I also doubt Mr. Orci will confirm or deny this early anyway. If this is a faker, I hope he’s banned for awhile.

125. Devon - January 20, 2008

“In the very next sentence, it says that the Enterprise is not designed to operate inside an atmosphere and NEVER lands on a planet.”

Watch the episode “Tomorrow is Yesterday” then get back to us. Thanks.

126. Lord Garth Formerly of Izar - January 20, 2008

Spockboy- awesome as always but are the workers on the hull giants???
Just teasing but the image would be dead on perfect if they were about 1/4 size. Really cool though !!!!!!

127. Devon - January 20, 2008

#106 / #124 – I believe all Anthony has to do is look at the email address and he’ll know for sure. I believe there have been posts made with a Cap O and without a cap o before. Didn’t seem to be a problem then?

128. trekkie1415 - January 20, 2008

Look at the angle. The Nacels are off. To close together, and too close to the saucer. It is very possible that they aren’t even attached right now, which means that the ship isn’t put together yet. They could be hauling it off to space to be assembled completely. Actually, someone in an article said that exact same thing. So just calm down and… use your imagination…

129. ObiWanCon - January 20, 2008

I’ve had enough of this crap I will now no longer read the comments on this website nor will I post a comment because this argument about where the Enterprise was built is pathetic and I’m sick of it, so goodbye.

130. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

#124 Tony,

If #100 really was Mr. O, and even if he’s *really* thinking along those lines, he’d have to be smokin’ some serious Vulcan trip-weed to post something like that.

Now, I don’t claim to know anything of O&K’s recreational drug usage or lack thereof, but I don’t think we’ll *ever* see Mr. O or any of the other creative team typing any such posts as #100, even if they *are* stoned out of their gourds.

So, my ever-hopeful Shatner-must-be-in-it friends,

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

131. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

You’re right about the cap O, but it was the context of the post that made it unbelievable. So I called it out. If I’m wrong, I’ll offer my sincerest apologies.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

132. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

#127 Devon “Cap O”

You’re right! I’ve seen so called Orci posts with big AND small “o’s” ….which is the true Orci?

Will the real Roberto Orci please stand up?

Anybody able to recognize the phrasing to that question is OLD!! :)

133. Lugosi - January 20, 2008

# 132. Harry Ballz – January 20, 2008
“Will the real Roberto Orci please stand up?
Anybody able to recognize the phrasing to that question is OLD!! :) ”

Eminem? No, just kidding! It’s from a Twilight Zone episode, isn’t it? But I’m only 24 years old. That’s not THAT old, is it?

134. Devon - January 20, 2008

# 131 – Oh i see now.

135. Oregon Trek Geek - January 20, 2008

98. The Vulcanista “there are bathrooms *everywhere,* ”

That is a relief ;) I always wondered if maybe Spock was green because there was only one bathroom…. :)

136. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Nice try, Lugosi, but keep guessing!

137. Buckaroohawk - January 20, 2008

Back to the topic of this thread: The fan-manip of the Enterprise being built on Earth.

My family vacations in North Carolina and driving there requires a trip through the Chesapeake Bay, including Newport News, VA. We’ve been making the trip for almost 30 years and every time we drive through and I see those huge ships (military, industrial, and civilian) in their dry docks being serviced I can’t help but think “it would be so cool to see the Starship Enterprise resting in one of those bays.”

I’ve been seeing that photo online for years and it has always intrigued me. Like many others I always ASSUMED that the Enterprise was built in space, but the truth is that there is no filmed evidence to support this. If the production crew have decided that she was built on Earth (and possibly assembled in space), then I’m okay with that. Just so long as the old girl flies. That’s all that matters.

138. ShatisDead - January 20, 2008

People that are quoting some stupid encloypedia from the 70’s – GET A LIFE. The Enterprise is not real and the encloypediw as just another product designed to get your cash!!!

To constrain Trek forever on the basis of some encloypedia is short-sighted, idiotic and just plain dumb/

And Mr. Orci – thank you for not bringing Shat back. He killed his character for cold hard cash..and thats it. Any attempt to bring him back would just be stupid, irresponsible for the future of Trek, and is not neccessary.

139. Lugosi - January 20, 2008

# 136. Harry Ballz – January 20, 2008
“Nice try, Lugosi, but keep guessing!”

But I thought I was right! “Will the Real Martian Please Stand Up?” is an episode of The Twilight Zone. Am I still not getting it?

140. Capes - January 20, 2008

All Ihave to say is that it’s great to have Trek in production……PERIOD!

…….and the Vulcanista ROCKS!

141. Xai - January 20, 2008

38. Kenny S – January 20, 2008
I should start a site to gather people who want Enterprise to be assembled in SPACE, to make a global internet petition, then millions of letters to be sent to PARAMOUNT!

Yes, get right on that

142. Larry - January 20, 2008

5. BritFan – January 20, 2008

…By the way, does anyone know the real reason behind the whole San Francisco connection to Trek? What with the ship being built there, Starfleet HQ there, numerous bay area names being used for colonies and planets in TOS….etc.


San Francisco is where the United Nations was organized and founded in 1945, so I always thought that was the reason the Federation/Starfleet/etc. was based out of SanFran. It’s the city were Earth first attempted to unite. (not counting the ineffective League of Nations, of course).

I thought that was mentioned somewhere in Trek, but I guess not.

143. Tony Whitehead - January 20, 2008

#138. Ordinarily, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, when this so-called stupid encyclopedia is co-written by the producer of the show, a little-known man by the name of Gene Roddenberry, I am inclined to take his word for it. You can go on with your name-calling though, if it makes you feel better.

144. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Lugosi….since you’re the only one trying to play….I’ll give it to you!

Good guess with The Twilight Zone, but the title of that Zone episode from 1961 was paraphrasing a question often used in a 1950’s game show called What’s My Line!! Contestants would pretend to be somebody else (along with the actual person in question) and at the end the host would ask, “will the real so-and-so please stand up?”

Thanks for playing! Tell him what he’s won, Johnny! :)

145. Sass - January 20, 2008

The Enterprise hull was laid in the San Francisco shipyards. Since when has that been a secret?

146. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

#142 Larry “does anyone know the real reason behind the whole San Francisco connection to Trek?”

I always heard it’s because Sulu was determined to have it start there, so he travelled back in time to “make it so”!!

Ouch!! :)

147. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

#145 Sass “The Enterprise hull was laid in the San Francisco shipyards”

Wow, I once got laid in the San Francisco shipyards, but that’s another story! :)

148. Xai - January 20, 2008

For those that are not catching it… #100 post was likely NOT roberto Orci as Vulcanista noted earlier.

149. Lugosi - January 20, 2008

# 144. Harry Ballz

Oh, okay. I didn’t know that. But how could I, being from Germany and not knowing any of your game shows; least of all the ones from the 1950’s. But thanks for this Twilight Zone trivia!

150. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Hey, Lugosi…..for being in your 20’s, you already have an impressive knowledge of showbiz trivia….congrats!!

151. FSL - January 20, 2008

I remember a webpage from many years ago with a similar image, only it wasn’t the Enterprise, but the Reliant instead. The webmaster claimed responsibility for that image, saying it was his/her home town.

Hope to see the trailer in good quality soon. I was told the Trek trailer was not attached with Cloverfield here…

152. Andy Patterson - January 20, 2008

Whether 100 was Orci or not I’ve always felt that Shatner was more Star Trek than anyone or anything on the show. That’s always been my thought.

Now I’m not advocating bringing him back and I’m not jumping on that whole band wagon of Shatner in the movie……but I feel , have always felt,… Shatner, no this discussion or this discussion board.

153. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

#135: Next time I’m in his neck of the woods, I’ll ask him to show me the plans. He’s only an hour away. Bro’ also says the plans are for the “NCC-1701, no A, B, C, or anydamnthing else.”

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

154. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

#149 Lugosi (*love* that s/n!)

Not to worry; most *Americans* your age don’t know about “What’s My Line”! :-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

155. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Vulcanista, no teasing me over my silly humour in #147?

156. Jupiter1701 - January 20, 2008

RE: Starfleet based in San Francisco.

San Francisco didn’t enter the picture until The Motion Picuture. I think Roddenberry just wanted to show something from our time that still existed in the future. I always figured that he was a Californian, and the most notable manmade structure that was familiar to him was the Golden Gate Bridge.

What other constructed object could he really have chosen, one that would “bridge” the connection from our time to the future? I can only think of a few other icons: The Eiffel Tower, the Statue of Liberty, Big Ben. The pyramids of Egypt, maybe.

But those listed can be very closely associated with the nation in which they are located. But a bridge really doesn’t impart any nationalistic vibe, and there are many famous bridges throughout the world. Naturally, he’d chose one of the most famous, one in his home state that he had probably grown fond of and everyone would instantly recognize.

Bridges also symbolize man conquering obstactles and journeying to new destinations. I think he chose the bridge more than the city.

Then as time went on, the writers naturally had to stick with San Fran to preserve canon. Although word is that in the next movie Starfleet is located in Canton, Ohio.

(Just for clarification, I’m joking about the last sentence. I can be serious, but not for too long.)

157. non-belligerency confirmed - January 20, 2008

it has occurred to me during this “earthbound or space assembly” debate that i was becoming pretty bored with the spacedock in general: we saw it first in TMP, then in enterprise (a hundred years earlier), then at the end of nemesis (a hundred years later). the damn thing never really changed. nor did those worker bee shuttle things
as a matter of fact, i hated it at the end of nemesis.

but i still maintain it was constructed behind a deli in smithtown long island. when we see the full reveal, you’ll see it too. those welders were fueled on bagels and pastrami.

158. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

144 – I thought that line was used in the game show “To Tell The Truth”, not “What’s My Line”.

159. Mac - January 20, 2008

Has anyone ever read, “The Making of Star Trek” by Stephen E. Whitfield? According to the book the Enterprise was build in the S.F. naval shipyards.

160. zzbluesman - January 20, 2008

just to add to everything,although it would be cool to actually see the enterprise launch from the ground on earth,I dont think we will actually see that.the writers are sticking with trek history,and I belive it will launch in space just like the NX01 before it.

161. TomBot2008 - January 20, 2008

You know I’d like to think I can see both sides of the issue; space built vs. earth built. Both sides have some valid points I suppose, but it really comes down to… Hey, this is A TEASER TRAILER folks, so, let’s conjecture but please keep it LIGHTHEARTED! ;-) Personally, I think we can do it.

162. Thomas - January 20, 2008

This is big weekend for Star Trek: Cloverfield opens to huge numbers, ensuring that a lot of people saw the Trek trailer.
Also, no one seems to have noted this, but today would’ve been DeForest Kelley’s 88th birthday. I just thought someone ought to pay a little tribute to the good doctor on a weekend that is so big for Trek right now.

163. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

158 Windsor Bear “To Tell The Truth”

Good guess, but remember on To Tell The Truth you’d have one guest answering “yes” or “no” questions from a panel of celebrities and they’d have to guess the guest’s occupation by the end? There was no asking someone to stand up at the end to single them out from others on that show. I can see how your memory could easily cross over between the two…………..GAWD, I”M OLD!!! :)

164. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

#155 Harry,

[batting eyelashes] My mama taught me that if I didn’t have anything nice to say, I shouldn’t say anything at all. [batbatbat]


Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

165. Windsor Bear - January 20, 2008

Harry, I hate to tell ya buddy… but you’ve got them backwards. And yes… I’m old too!!

166. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Windsor, old pal…..I’m not trying to debate this, but I just went into Youtube to watch old clips (you had me doubting my own sanity) and it clearly shows What’s My Line to have a panel of celebritiies blindfolded trying to guess the identity of ONE guest, not the other way around….too much Romulan ale?

Or is it possible wikipedia will let ANYONE post information, whether it’s correct or not? :) Please tell me if somehow I’m having a brainfart…

167. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

Well, it’s 12:01 Monday morning…..they said we’d have the HD version of the Trek trailer available to us on Monday.

Where is it??!! Many of us are WAITING!! :)

168. JoeR - January 20, 2008

Ok I will end this. Any see a tng ep called Parallels. You can see that a galaxy class ship built on Mars. Look in the bottom right of the image.×11/parallels088.jpg

Lets get back to the real issue…The Design of the Damn Ship!!! :D

169. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

Harry, Windsor Bear,

There’s some memory-blending going on here. Back in the fall, I remember seeing a YouTube video on this site with Leonard Nimoy on “What’s My Line.” The format was as Harry described in 166, but the “Will the real [whatever] please stand up” was not part of the reveal, if you will. That little ditty is indeed from “To Tell the Truth.”

Pass me some o’ that Vulcan trip-weed, y’all. }|-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

170. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008


I just LOVE IT when you come riding to my rescue!

How will I ever repay you? Can you think of a way?? :)

171. starfall42 - January 20, 2008

Ok, just because I’m a game show nerd as well as a Trek nerd:
“To Tell the Truth” featured a celebrity panel and three contestants, all who claimed to be a particular person. The panel members would question them and then vote on who they thought was the real person. At the end, “Will the real please stand up?” The contestants would fidget a bit to build suspense, then the real person would stand up. Each wrong vote (where the contestant fooled a panelist) would earn that contestant money.

“What’s My Line?” was where the panel would try to guess a contestant’s occupation. They would use both celebrity and non-celebrity contestants; for the celebrities they would blindfold the panel so they wouldn’t recognize the contestant and they’d try to guess the identity of the contestant. This show’s catchphrase was “Sign in, please”.

172. starfall42 - January 20, 2008

Here’s the TrekMovie entry with the clips of Roddenberry (To Tell the Truth), Nimoy (What’s My Line) and Shatner ($10,000 Pyramid)

173. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

Yeah, Harry, as a matter of fact, I can!

PASS ME SOME O’ THAT VULCAN TRIP-WEED you and Bear were smokin’! }|-)

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

174. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008


Thanks, Starfall! That must have been a slow news day around here.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

175. Harry Ballz - January 20, 2008

To get good Vulcan trip-weed
A good friend is all you need
They’ll give you a toke
And light up your smoke
Once stoned, you’ll hafta feed!

176. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008



Can we cook [i.e., derail a thread w/o meaning to] or what!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

177. Aragorn189 - January 20, 2008

I never knew there was a version of that photo with the Enterprise. I’ve only seen the version with its rival from Star Trek II, the USS Reliant. Anyway, I live in the area and my dad actually works there on occasion. This is cool that this photo was the inspiration. Awesome.

178. Ryan - January 20, 2008

It’s the 21st, where’s my trailer in HD!?!

179. ZtoA - January 20, 2008

I just went to see Cloverfield and the trailer… I really dig the idea of building the Big E on Earth… seeing iron workers build the ship just like they build ships and sky-scrapers today give us a connection to the future… kinda like the old saying that “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.

There’s no reason why a technologically advanced, space ferring race capable of building a ship like the E could not assemble parts on Earth, then launch them into space for final assembly. If you look at modern oil drilling platforms, and I mean the really big ones used in the north sea, those are build on land, assembled in the water, then towed out to sea using an array of tug boats simultaneously pulling in all directions.

180. Devon - January 20, 2008

#156 – Just for what it’s worth, the Bridge Plaque does say “San Francisco, Cali” in TOS.

181. non-belligerency confirmed - January 20, 2008

enterprise built on earth? next you’ll be telling me that jesus was jewish or dumbledore is gay.

182. The Vulcanista - January 20, 2008

To the “Why San Francisco” folks:

I’ve always maintained that Trek has some deep roots in WWII.

Frisco was probably chosen as the location for Starfleet because the shipyards were appropriated in 1941 by the U.S Navy as *the* major shipbuilding operation after the decimation of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. San Francisco was also the debarkation point for WWII soldiers to the Pacific theater.

Given the military history of the creators of Trek (mainly Pacific theater), SF was a logical, if you will, choice for the location of the Starfleet shipyards. Certainly, their military experiences formed the basis for many of TOS’s adventures.

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

183. Daniel Broadway - January 20, 2008

What time will the teaser be online? I know it said Monday the 21st, but does that mean midnight? Mid-day? What?

184. Adam - January 20, 2008

well Daniel, Its 1228 MST now, not up yet, lets wait ‘tll midnight Hollywood time.

185. Devon - January 20, 2008

184 = My though exactly. Let the whole continental U.S. catch up first.

186. S. John Ross - January 21, 2008

#182: Yeah, that’s always been my assumption as well. San Francisco was the home of the Pacific Fleet, so it fits for it to be home of Starfleet in a show with lots of WWII aesthetic echoes.

187. Jeffrey S. Nelson - January 21, 2008

100. Roberto Orci

So, why the posturing from the studio that–to paraphrase–“we’re still trying to work in a part for Shatner”? How hard would it be to have the storyline change the time line to have “old” Kirk alive? Not hard at all. I think the real story is Shatner is unwilling to accept a cameo and the studio unwilling to admit it.
And I still think you missed the boat by not hiring Jesse Lee Soffer to play Kirk. Even my 79-year old dad sees the casting possibility when we watch “As The World Turns.”

188. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

you can all be assured that when Roberto Orci or any of the other known Trek luminaries post here, I check to make sure it is the real one. Why he changes his O’s is a mystery…could be logging in with dif machines. Anyone who has tried to spoof a real person gets permabanned…no warning. This site prides itself on allowing fans to interact with peole like Bob, Daren, James Cawley, Robert Justman, Brannon Braga, Robert Burnett, Rick Sternbach, and many others…even Dennis Bailey! We cannot afford to have fakers here.

Case in point #100 has been banned. even though he was claiming to be ‘robert orci’ and not ‘roberto orci’ it was close enough that it was intended to be a trick.

189. Rorschach - January 21, 2008

Mr Orci, please excuse my fellow fans they know not what they want…

They say they want Shatner in then movie but then say they want you guys to respect canon. How can you respect canon if you include a character in the movie that died 3 movies ago!

They say they want you guys to maintain the fell and look of the Enterprise and when you do they say “the nacelles are too big” based on what they saw in a TEASER.

They complain that the Enterprise was not built on Earth like in the trailer even though they have no canon proof that it was done otherwise since it was never mentioned in any movie or episode.

So, I look forward to the movie and although I might occasionally cringe at the fact that something I like about TOS might be changed I accept that you guys are trying to do something good. It might fail but I have great hope you guys might just pull off what Star Trek has needed in years and make it a success again…

Can’t wait…

190. Aggi - January 21, 2008

If you compare the pictures from the “first official image” and Gabe Koerners ENTERPRISE you will see that they are very familiar. Take a look at the warp engines and the bridge dome. I know the official image is very dark and the ist not very much to see, but the blades of the bussard collectors are slighty twisted and the lines behind the bussard collectors are running diagonal up to the top of the engines like Koerners ENTERPRISE. And the bridge dome has almost the same silhouette.

Though the ships are not 100% the same but look very similar.

191. Phil Smith - January 21, 2008

I’ve seen this image posted in several Naval offices from the Pentagon to San Diego. It’s quite clever and apparently serves as an inspiration for those stuck in the otherwise dull 21st century…

192. subatoi - January 21, 2008

It might be a good idea to collect Mr. Orci’s answers to fans in the other posts, organize and publish it. He said some interesting things (like “All signs says yes” about a cameo, possibly ENT, if I’m not wrong) that everybody should read, not just crazy people who read 800 posts :)

193. Jacques Chirac - January 21, 2008

They should watch Bring Back Kirk trailer, not that picture, that crap.

194. EdDR - January 21, 2008

How about a scene where Spock in Vulcan Ambassador clothing is back at Star Fleet HQ walking up to the Admiral’s office in charge of Star Fleet and the door opens with the Admiral and Kirk stepping out. Spock gives one of his eyebrows arching astonished looks. Kirk says something like,” You look like you’ve seen a ghost.” and Spock astonishes Kirk with a smile. End shot.

195. EdDR - January 21, 2008

#38 How about a million man march to get that done?
#39 Why not welders? They certainly had flight engineers on board the starships, why would they have an engineering dept. in the first place.
Sure robotics would have a place in manufacturing, but human beings like to create things and get themselves dirty doing it. Everybody on Earth had a job. Why Not?

196. j w wright - January 21, 2008

gee, it never occurred to him that that image is not only very fanciful, but entirely inaccurate?

as any trek fan would know upon seeing it? cool, but, really, impractical.

maybe it wouldnt hurt to give the reins to an actual fan of star trek? someone familiar with the universe created by gene rodenberry (anyone remember that guy?)

197. Anthony (no, not THE Anthony, the one in Indiana) - January 21, 2008

Many ocean liners back in the day had their superstructures built on dry land then they were moved to the water to be fitted out. There is no reason a starship can not be built on the ground then moved to space to have the rest of its builkheads installed and finished.

198. j w wright - January 21, 2008

it would be more difficult to build a boat in the water, obviously.

since the materials to build a starship are already in space, why send them down to the earths surface, assemble them only to send them back up?

who knows, but that is canon…

sending the major hull sections into orbit, for assemble completion of the ship in its final configuration is also canon, as mentioned in the making of star trek and the mars shipyard seen in st-tng.

199. GraniteTrek - January 21, 2008

Personally, I’m not a canon slave, so I wouldn’t mind finding out this NCC-1701 was built at Newport News, not SF. It would actually be more sensible, since there aren’t any shipyards of note in SF Bay anymore – they all closed – while the Grumman/Newport News shipyard is still going full bore building starship-sized ships right now, and will be well into this century (at least). Where the ship is built really means jack squat in the overall storyline.

In the interest of full disclosure, however, I’m biased – my wife’s a Navy brat from Norfolk, and I’ve seen both the USS Enterprise (CVN65) and the USS Eisenhower (CVN69) not to mention assorted other vessels of all classes up close while visiting there.

200. j w wright - January 21, 2008

why not move the constition construction project to the core of the earth, then?

where the ships could be forged from the very fires of the earth itself, at the hands of wizards and orcs?

really, why not? lets see if trek fans are willing to buy that ‘theory’ of the movie? that ‘reinterpretation’?

i say the 1701 should have spinners, flames and a badass sound system, yo!

201. British Naval Dude - January 21, 2008

Arrrr…. thar be the white whale!

A sailing man dunna care where his vessel was made… unless it be built in China… but I do dun see that ye fans can make stories fer yourselves as ya like it… maybe give Mr. Russ some support to make us thar future independent films that do whatever we pleases…

202. Victor Hugo - January 21, 2008

Internet neophytes, don´t you remember around 1999, the late website named “You can´t do that in Star Trek”?

203. Victor Hugo - January 21, 2008

Here, not there yet, but this 1999 image has the Reliant being built in the same spot:

The late website was:

But you can see it through the internet archive:

The website presented funny altered images of Star Trek, mixing with other series, it was quite a hit at the time!

204. AJ - January 21, 2008

British Naval Dude: I’m getting an unhealthy “Spongebob Squarepants” vibe from you, especially after all the pot we all smoked a while back in San Fran.

My young kids seem to find it (Spongebob, not pot) 24/7 on US TV. I prefer the Family Guy pirate, but you are definitely more Spongebob, “who lives in a pineapple under the sea.” Sorry. Hope you understand the reference.

All I want is to see what these darn guys are welding!

205. Black Fire - January 21, 2008

144. Harry Ballz – January 20, 2008

Lugosi….since you’re the only one trying to play….I’ll give it to you!

Good guess with The Twilight Zone, but the title of that Zone episode from 1961 was paraphrasing a question often used in a 1950’s game show called What’s My Line!! Contestants would pretend to be somebody else (along with the actual person in question) and at the end the host would ask, “will the real so-and-so please stand up?”

Harry, you do usually know your movies/TV stuff, but on this you are dead wrong. The show you are referring to is “To Tell The Truth”. You can see it with Gene Roddenberry as the guest star on YouTube: Nimoy was on What’s My Line!!, but that video is no longer up. Maybe you got the two mixed up?

206. deleted - January 21, 2008

deleted by admin

207. AJ - January 21, 2008

The STXI site is not on line right now. I tried accessing it from the official site as well. No dice. Hopefully, someone is uploading some Trekker goodness, or JJ didn’t pay his bill.

208. Michael P. Delaney - January 21, 2008

Hey, Jupiter 1701- Where do you get off saying San Fransisco didn’t get into official canon until the first motion picture? HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY OF THE ABOVE POSTS???? Rodenberry himself wrote in his “Star Trek Bible” for writers that, and I quote, “portions of the ship were built in what is still called the San Fransisco Naval Yards and then assembled in space.” He wrote this in the mid-sixties, before the original series ever aired!!! GEEZ!!!!

209. Black Fire - January 21, 2008

205. Black Fire – January 21, 2008

Arrgh, missed that soembody already said it. My apologies.

210. AJ - January 21, 2008

Now the site is back. No change. I’m in Norway, if that means anything. Never really understood this “Internets” thing.

211. British Naval Dude - January 21, 2008

#204 What? me pants are pants-shaped, not square.

As far as why in ‘Frisco goes, as we sailors do say: dunna ask, dunna tell

Harr! I kidd… actually it is ‘Frisco cuz that place is as cold as space…

212. Jupiter1701 - January 21, 2008


Dude, you need some Prozac or something. Relax already.

Starfleet HQ wasn’t shown on screen until The Motion Picture. I don’t give a flip what you people who live in your Mommy’s basement say about some so-called document that nobody but the Trek Cult worships. Most ordinary people go by what is on the screen.

And the original question was “Why Starfleet is in San Fran”, not where the ship was built. Pay more attention.


Get a life. Seriously.

213. Will - January 21, 2008

212: How about screaming at you for being a dickhead?

214. Tony Whitehead - January 21, 2008

#212. There are enough people in here with this ‘so-called document’ who can verify it exists, and what’s more, know that it’s Gene Roddenberry’s actual writing, that nullify your post.

If this were another author, writer, or even people in mommy’s basement, you might have a point. But it wasn’t…and you don’t.

Thanks for playing.

215. Anthony Pascale - January 21, 2008

Will (213) and Jupiter (212)…warnings for flaming.
comments to

216. Jupiter1701 - January 21, 2008

Anthony, all I did was express an opinion about why Starfleet is located in San Fan, and the guy started yelling at me and insulting my intelligence. It annoyed the heck out of me, because none of this is important. But two wrongs don’t make a right. I apology.

You guys go on and argue about your canon. I have a life, and come here as a fun diversion. If stating an opinion means being attacked and yelled at, then you go on and argue about your senseless dribble.

It’s not fun anymore. I’m outa here.

217. Scifigirl - January 21, 2008

I don’t care if this was photoshopped or not, I love it and I think it’s so friggin’ cool that it inspired the STXI production team.

218. Rob - January 21, 2008

San Francisco, shown visually since TMP, makes for a visually stunning background. There are always inconsistencies in Trek- The Borg/Hive insertion for Picard, Data says contractions more times than I can count, etc.

Mentioned earlier was the Golden Gate as carrying a iconic meaning for humanity, like the pyamids & the Eiffel Tower. What the GG Bridge has is the magnificent Marin Headlands- now a park, on which Starfleet HQ is built. The drama of that site- the bridge, the bay and the hills are one of the most dramatic urban-natural sites on the planet. That’s good enough for me!!

219. Michael P. Delaney - January 21, 2008

Devon, I am very familiar with that episode- just watched it a week ago.. Please notice that the Enterprise is imperiled by orbiting (yes, orbiting) so low as to be skimming the atmosphere. Rodenberry was still very much in control when that episode was written; he knew the capabilities of the ship he created. Remember, the atmosphere extends 50 miles high on earth, and certain jet interceptors even in the ’60’s could reach almost that altitude.

220. Michael P. Delaney - January 21, 2008

By the way, Jupiter 1701, I am a married, very successful attorney in a large Texas city. Believe me, I don’t live in any basement, but I have loved Star Trk since I was twelve. The so-called “mysterious document” is available at your local bookstore in Whitfield and Rodenberry’s The Making of Star Trek. It is a classic, and no one who is unfamiliar with it really knows Star Trek.

221. trekfansince1977 - January 21, 2008

I was upset at one point about this whole thing, but yeah orci is right when he said on another thread that some books had referenced it being built on the planet, and that now that they have leagal domain over the canon, they could have it being built anywhere if they wanted. I’m just glad that a fan, whoever he/she may have been who created got the attention of orci and jj and the entire team. I hope the person who made that image knows that they are the inspiration for the teaser, or if you know the person, tell them!! :)

222. The Vulcanista - January 22, 2008

You know, I’d bet if anyone could hunt down the originator of that image, it would be someone from this site. Surely someone has a clue who it might be!

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

223. HelenofPeel - January 22, 2008

I believe the image came from a website in the mid-90s called something like “Star Trek Gallery” – It was quite a collection of fan made stuff. The site appears to be in a somewhat decommissioned state. I remember the guy who ran it had gotten married and thought he could keep doing his Star Trek thing…

You can find the image and what’s left of his site here:

224. Cush - January 22, 2008

Built on the ground? A travisty! Enterprise NX01 was built in space just like 1701, 1701A,B,C,D,E….. but now its built on the ground!!!! Millions of metric tons with no vertical engines for take off….. This is only the begining of the end of a great francise!!! all in the name of mindless reinvention. Star Trek didnt neen a new ship or gear of uniforms, it needed an epic story, well writen with alot of action and good acting…. Yet millions will be pored into effects showing impossible events and a new ship that slaps every manual collector in the face! Its a shame the star trek folk dont understand canon, that they dont apreciate how invested we are in this story and its charecters..especialy the enterprise!

225. Devon - January 23, 2008

#224 – Yes, the movie and franchise are in TREMENDOUS jeopardy because of a trailer that may not even be part of the movie itself.

Quick, save the kids! Start putting the food and other survival tools away in the “Star Trek Trailer Destroys Lives” Shelter! Everyone, SAVE YOUR LIVES!

“Yet millions will be pored into effects showing impossible events”‘

Right, and of course we ALL know that Star Trek NEVER did that, in light of us transporting our selves every day to distant planets, mating with different alien species, traveling at hundreds of times the speed of light. We do that every day dont we because it’s all possible today right?

226. PatsPhan - January 23, 2008

That’s not even a great photoshop image. GEEZ! You can see, right behind Big-E, where they just painted the remainder of the aircraft carrier deck a color other than “battleship gray.” It just looks…sad.

227. Captain Robert April - January 23, 2008

Photoshop wasn’t around when that pic was created.

I remember coming across that ditty back in the early ’90s.

228. Intrepid - January 23, 2008

I’m choking on my own rage about this whole thing

229. robert - January 25, 2008

Ok i did some reading on the construction of the the enterprise. Now what i found out was that the main section, the sauser section, was built on earth and then under its own power took off to be connected to the secondary section ie the warp section. Now i would be interested in know, if there is a second trailer to see the enterprise take off…. or for that matter how it takes off

230. robert - January 25, 2008

Oh an another thing while i remember what happened to Lieutenant – Commander Gary Mitcheal. Or is this film going to be an alternate time line. So if your reading this JJ where Mitcheal?

231. Cush - January 26, 2008

Robert the main section was never built on earth… It has no vertical propultion what so ever and weighs so much that it would require billions (not millions like the saturn V moon rocket) to obtain any flight verticaly. I dont know what you are reading…but its wrong..not only that but re-watch the trailer you can see the engineering section and the naccells right behind the sauser….. We are all going to be horibly diasapointed about these events..

232. Captain Robert April - January 27, 2008

“Ok i did some reading on the construction of the the enterprise. Now what i found out was that the main section, the sauser section, was built on earth and then under its own power took off to be connected to the secondary section ie the warp section. ”

Um, source?

233. Captain Robert April - January 27, 2008

For everyone’s edification….

234. cutaway artist - January 28, 2008

Why does the saucer section look like it has 5 levels at the outside rim

Why does the ship in general look like the motion picture Enterprise. Will we have spires sticking out the nacelles, how about a bigger deflecter dish. Why does it not look like the ship in the original pilot. Would that not have been less predictable and yet more cool

235. circulation fans - June 2, 2008

[…] yard. The origins of the image are unknown, but it has been circulating on the web for a long time Fans, Greenhouse Cooling, Exhaust Fans, Shutter Fans …Need exhaust fans for your […]

236. richard patching - December 3, 2008

like star trek can you send a modael of the enterpris

237. Dave - December 5, 2011

nice image, However i couldn’t help but notice that the “barren area behind the saucer is in the shape of the stern end of an aircraft carrier. The other give away is you can see the “tunnels” that are covering catapults 3 and 4 under the starship’s Right (as you look at it) engine.

238. Roman - May 17, 2012

Cute image, but the idea of doing final assembly of such a spacecraft at the bottom of Earth’s gravity well is just plain STOOPID, even with ?24th-century materials tech, gravitational/inertial damping tech etc.

It’s just an extravagant & needless expense. Great film, though, and this was still really cool imagery for purely entertainment purposes. ;) is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.