Topic: Enterprise from the new Star Trek XI movie Picture

[Vipre]

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations.  I don't have to pretend anything.  the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen.  And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it.  Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address.  It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Not one of those things is a "fact". Calling the first one "common sense", making a claim on the second and using a ceremony as the third transforms none of them into "canon" fact. It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending",  an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

[knightstorm]

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations.  I don't have to pretend anything.  the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen.  And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it.  Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address.  It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Not one of those things is a "fact". Calling the first one "common sense", making a claim on the second and using a ceremony as the third transforms none of them into "canon" fact. It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending",  an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

I consider the first one common sense, because if the facilities exist to do the job on land, and if the construction methods are presumably more efficient to do it that way, then its monumentally stupid to do it in space. 

The ceremony in the third makes a space construction for Enterprise B cannon because that ceremony is normally performed when the hull is launched but before it is properly fitted out, which was the condition of Enterprise B in the film.  Yes it is fiction, but fiction with a 40 year history, and established laws and rules.  Complaining that the creative team for the new movie is completely ignoring these rules after promising that they would not is not pretending.  I consider your accusations of pretending to be an insult because they lump me into what I view as an extremist category which I am most certainly not in, so either send me your name and address or shut up.

[Vipre]

I consider the first one common sense, because if the facilities exist to do the job on land, and if the construction methods are presumably more efficient to do it that way, then its monumentally stupid to do it in space.

Didn't say you couldn't call it common sense I said doing so doesn't make it a "fact" of how it was "fictionally" done or not done.

The ceremony in the third makes a space construction for Enterprise B cannon because that ceremony is normally performed when the hull is launched but before it is properly fitted out, which was the condition of Enterprise B in the film.

On terrestrial naval ships that is the ceremony. But the B was already constructed at the start of the film so there is no "canon" on how or where it was built just the implication. They could just as easily have built it on the surface, tractored it into space and had it's "launching" ceremony there. It would not contradict one ounce of "canon" if that were the case.

Yes it is fiction, but fiction with a 40 year history, and established laws and rules.  Complaining that the creative team for the new movie is completely ignoring these rules after promising that they would not is not pretending.

There is no established anything with regard to the construction of the TOS Enterprise, there is no "canon" to ignore because there is no "canon" on the subject. Point out one "rule" which says all ships are or must be built in space.

I consider your accusations of pretending to be an insult because they lump me into what I view as an extremist category which I am most certainly not in, so either send me your name and address or shut up.

You're arguing about a fictional ship's construction process, not just that but you're upset that people making a movie aren't building it "correctly" and you want to "step outside" because I call discussing the pretend process of building a pretend ship and the pretend rules it functions under pretending. You don't find that at all "extreme".

[Pestalence_XC]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

[knightstorm]

I consider the first one common sense, because if the facilities exist to do the job on land, and if the construction methods are presumably more efficient to do it that way, then its monumentally stupid to do it in space.

Didn't say you couldn't call it common sense I said doing so doesn't make it a "fact" of how it was "fictionally" done or not done.

The ceremony in the third makes a space construction for Enterprise B cannon because that ceremony is normally performed when the hull is launched but before it is properly fitted out, which was the condition of Enterprise B in the film.

On terrestrial naval ships that is the ceremony. But the B was already constructed at the start of the film so there is no "canon" on how or where it was built just the implication. They could just as easily have built it on the surface, tractored it into space and had it's "launching" ceremony there. It would not contradict one ounce of "canon" if that were the case.

Yes it is fiction, but fiction with a 40 year history, and established laws and rules.  Complaining that the creative team for the new movie is completely ignoring these rules after promising that they would not is not pretending.

There is no established anything with regard to the construction of the TOS Enterprise, there is no "canon" to ignore because there is no "canon" on the subject. Point out one "rule" which says all ships are or must be built in space.

I consider your accusations of pretending to be an insult because they lump me into what I view as an extremist category which I am most certainly not in, so either send me your name and address or shut up.

You're arguing about a fictional ship's construction process, not just that but you're upset that people making a movie aren't building it "correctly" and you want to "step outside" because I call discussing the pretend process of building a pretend ship and the pretend rules it functions under pretending. You don't find that at all "extreme".

1. The federation is usually portrayed as operating intelligently.  If major apparently superior shipbuilding facilities exist on the surface then doing a TMP type overhaul in space is stupid.  Therefore by indicating that such facilities exist the writers of this movie are depicting the federation as being stupid, and violating cannon.
1. Enterprise B. Was not completed as of Generations key systems were not installed
2. While its never explicitly stated that all ships are built in space, the fact remains that over the past 30 years, every time a ship is depicted as being built or receiving a major overhaul, its been in space.
3. The "pretend rules" the world of Star Trek function under are part of what differentiates it from those B-movie type scifis with ships on strings.  That's one of the reasons why I am unhappy with them suddenly ignoring the established cannon.  I do not consider myself an extremist because it takes something this big to annoy me.  I have no problem with them recasting characters or re-writing character biographies altering what the community generally accepted but which was not supported by onscreen cannon.  I also recognize that with 40 years worth of scripts, its impossible to keep the cannon entirely straight, and I accept a degree of retconning.  That is why I am not an extremist.  I only became upset when I read the interview because I view his explanations to be rather insulting to my intelligence.  I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

[knightstorm]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

Enterprise depicted NX class ships being built in orbit.  So you're suggesting that starfleet basically built ships in orbit in the 22nd century, stopped building them in orbit for some reason in the 23rd century, and then started building them in orbit again in the 24th century?  I thought the ships being built above San Francisco had to do with the fact that starfleet headquarters is located there.   Although the purpose of the dedication plaque in 1966 was to connect the Enterprise with something the audience would be familiar with like a major US city.

[Vipre]

1. The federation is usually portrayed as operating intelligently. If major apparently superior shipbuilding facilities exist on the surface then doing a TMP type overhaul in space is stupid. Therefore by indicating that such facilities exist the writers of this movie are depicting the federation as being stupid, and violating cannon.
1. Enterprise B. Was not completed as of Generations key systems were not installed
2. While its never explicitly stated that all ships are built in space, the fact remains that over the past 30 years, every time a ship is depicted as being built or receiving a major overhaul, its been in space.
3. The "pretend rules" the world of Star Trek function under are part of what differentiates it from those B-movie type scifis with ships on strings. That's one of the reasons why I am unhappy with them suddenly ignoring the established cannon. I do not consider myself an extremist because it takes something this big to annoy me. I have no problem with them recasting characters or re-writing character biographies altering what the community generally accepted but which was not supported by onscreen cannon. I also recognize that with 40 years worth of scripts, its impossible to keep the cannon entirely straight, and I accept a degree of retconning. That is why I am not an extremist. I only became upset when I read the interview because I view his explanations to be rather insulting to my intelligence. I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

1:That you consider the "fictional" process stupid is irrelevant. It's not violating anything, there is no canon on the structural assembly of the ship to violate as Pestalence and I both pointed out.
2: There were only two statements made on missing components for the B. The first was it's missing tractor beam emitter and that it hadn't had it's load of torpedoes delivered. Neither a major component, construction of the ship itself was complete.
3: In fact it's not just never explicitly stated, it's never stated at all, hence no canon to violate.
4: As pointed out multiple times there is no canon to violate so it's impossible to be upset over them "suddenly ignoring" something that doesn't exist. If you have no problem with them changing things which were not supported by onscreen cannon you're in luck, the construction of the hull of the Enterprise has never been shown onscreen.

I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending", an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

[knightstorm]

1. The federation is usually portrayed as operating intelligently. If major apparently superior shipbuilding facilities exist on the surface then doing a TMP type overhaul in space is stupid. Therefore by indicating that such facilities exist the writers of this movie are depicting the federation as being stupid, and violating cannon.
1. Enterprise B. Was not completed as of Generations key systems were not installed
2. While its never explicitly stated that all ships are built in space, the fact remains that over the past 30 years, every time a ship is depicted as being built or receiving a major overhaul, its been in space.
3. The "pretend rules" the world of Star Trek function under are part of what differentiates it from those B-movie type scifis with ships on strings. That's one of the reasons why I am unhappy with them suddenly ignoring the established cannon. I do not consider myself an extremist because it takes something this big to annoy me. I have no problem with them recasting characters or re-writing character biographies altering what the community generally accepted but which was not supported by onscreen cannon. I also recognize that with 40 years worth of scripts, its impossible to keep the cannon entirely straight, and I accept a degree of retconning. That is why I am not an extremist. I only became upset when I read the interview because I view his explanations to be rather insulting to my intelligence. I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

1:That you consider the "fictional" process stupid is irrelevant. It's not violating anything, there is no canon on the structural assembly of the ship to violate as Pestalence and I both pointed out.
2: There were only two statements made on missing components for the B. The first was it's missing tractor beam emitter and that it hadn't had it's load of torpedoes delivered. Neither a major component, construction of the ship itself was complete.
3: In fact it's not just never explicitly stated, it's never stated at all, hence no canon to violate.
4: As pointed out multiple times there is no canon to violate so it's impossible to be upset over them "suddenly ignoring" something that doesn't exist. If you have no problem with them changing things which were not supported by onscreen cannon you're in luck, the construction of the hull of the Enterprise has never been shown onscreen.

I'm calling you out because you have no problem being insulting and insinuating that my views are more extreme that what they truly are here, but you would probably reconsider face to face.

It's imagination, it's fiction, discussing the "facts" of a fictional ship and the "fictional" process of it's creation is an exercise in "pretending". If you consider my calling it what it is, "pretending", an insult I'd suggest refraining from pretending to begin with.

1. I was making a tongue and cheek remark about how ^*(backward suddenly depicting them building the ship on the surface seemed.
2. Its never explicitly stated that Kirk slept with Carol Marcus, so are you saying that's not part of the cannon either.
3. I have no problem changing small things ie. Enterprise cannot fire through shields, transporters cannot be used at warp, the definition of warp 10 ect.  Surface construction of the Enterprise not only violates a given rule about federation starship construction methods which has been depicted several times, it also takes away a major part of what differentiates star trek from many earlier scifi shows, and some later ones which had the heros, blasting off to the rescue in a rocket ship.  That's also why I am perturbed that the nacelles seem to have tail fins.  And as I have tried to point out, the fact that Every other major starship in the Star Trek cannon is depicted as being built in space makes it cannon that that is a standardized process for the construction of large starships.  The construction of the 1701 does not have to be shown explicitly because several other ships have been.

[Vipre]

2. Its never explicitly stated that Kirk slept with Carol Marcus, so are you saying that's not part of the cannon either.

The two have a "canon" son, that the two had sexual intercourse is in fact not canon only implied. That being the case, if down the line someone wanted to make it canon that he was conceived through some form of In vitro fertilization they wouldn't be violating canon either.

3. I have no problem changing small things ie. Enterprise cannot fire through shields, transporters cannot be used at warp, the definition of warp 10 ect.  Surface construction of the Enterprise not only violates a given rule about federation starship construction methods which has been depicted several times, it also takes away a major part of what differentiates star trek from many earlier scifi shows, and some later ones which had the heros, blasting off to the rescue in a rocket ship.  That's also why I am perturbed that the nacelles seem to have tail fins.  And as I have tried to point out, the fact that Every other major starship in the Star Trek cannon is depicted as being built in space makes it cannon that that is a standardized process for the construction of large starships.  The construction of the 1701 does not have to be shown explicitly because several other ships have been.

Again quote the "rule". Being implied does not make it a "rule". Name just one time the entire construction process has been shown onscreen. Not in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or any of the movies was it shown, the ships were all already built. In addition transporters can be used at warp and the original E had "tailfins" too.

The ABC's of it is "Implied does not equal canon no matter how strongly implied."

[Pestalence_XC]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

Enterprise depicted NX class ships being built in orbit. So you're suggesting that starfleet basically built ships in orbit in the 22nd century, stopped building them in orbit for some reason in the 23rd century, and then started building them in orbit again in the 24th century? I thought the ships being built above San Francisco had to do with the fact that starfleet headquarters is located there. Although the purpose of the dedication plaque in 1966 was to connect the Enterprise with something the audience would be familiar with like a major US city.

Being built in space can be constituted as assembly of the parts. However the parts have to be made some where.. It would be more cost effective to build the parts on Earth and then transport large pieces into orbit for assembly, thus being built in space.

If the whole ship was being built in space, there would be massive traffic to and from the facility and the transport lanes would get congested fast since material replicators at that time did not exist.

The NX-01, if you consider it a canon ship,
(See Star Trek: The Motion Picture for the Enterprise XVC-330, the ship before the NCC-1701.. NX-01 is not a canon ship according to Roddenberry's time line and was used as a ratings grabber by B&B .. It only gets canon credit for being on screen since B&B's budget was small, they took the Akira class ship and flipped the secondary hull upside down and painted it golden brown instead of sticking with previously established canon) ,
could have been built on the ground piece by piece, and then built in space from the pieces that they made on Earth. Same thing goes for the NCC-1701 .. the NCC-1701 was a complete refit done in space.. but the parts were built on the ground and the saucer was complete rebuilt on the ground (Reference the book 'Flag Full Of Stars') and then flown by Kirk to be attached to the secondary hull at Starbase001.

There has to be a starting point.. like the super structure.. I can see it now.. 0 G environment and trying to weld the structure together and someone sneezes and bumps the beam.. how it takes an hour to reposition the piece when on earth, Gravity would work as an anchor point on one end and allow control over the structure to be more precise.

Think about the efficiency of the project in a time before replicators and huge transporter complexes .. Assembly would be 100 times more efficient on Earth during the time when the NCC-1701 was being built than it would be in space.. Where in TNG, Technology advanced 110 years and they have a hullava lot better transporters, and now matter replicators, precision point tractors, etc which would make building a ship from scratch in space much more feasible than it would have been when Kirk was a teenager during the time that the Enterprise was being built.

Just like people don't realize that Pike was not the first captain of the Big E, Robert April was (reference Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek : The Animated Adventures), then Pike, then Kirk.. There was 19 to 20 years from when the big E launched to where Kirk took command of her.. That means when the Enterprise first launched, kirk was between the ages of 13 to 16 (can't remember off the top of my head) and had not yet entered Starfleet.

So if you are going back that far, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Enterprise was built on Earth and then assembeled in space, which would be the most cost efficient way to do it at that time.

[knightstorm]

This is not what someone thinks is the cannon, this is the cannon. When an orbital drydock is described as a federation fleetyard, then that strongly implies that these ships are built in orbit. When federation starships are depicted as being launched from and undergoing major overhauls in orbital drydocks it also demonstrates that these ships are built in space.

Which still does nothing to contradict the E being built on Earth. Examples; Enterprise D: Built in Orbit of Mars (shown in at least one episode), 1701: building never shown (refit done in spacedock), C: Never Shown, B: Never shown, A: never shown. "Strongly implied" to be canon is not the same as "canon" no matter how hard you pretend.

Considering the scale of the TMP refit, if the ships were initially built planetside they would have landed it common sense.
If ships were built planetside, landing would be a routine manuver- Star Trek voyager states its not
also the B was built in space, if it was built on land, they would not have had to launch the champagne bottle at it in Generations. I don't have to pretend anything. the facts speak for themselves, unfortunately the makers of the current movie didn't bother to listen. And then they had to be incredible *&%^&*bags about it. Also, if you want to insult me again, send me your name and address. It is easy for people like you to be brave by insulting people on an anonymous forum, but if you are going to do this, at least be ready to say it to my face.

Where you are making your judgment on is that Voyager is early 24th century, TNG is late 23 century and is about 110 years after the big E first launched.

The dedication plaque states San Francisco Shipyards .. Hmmm Alameda maybe, the Naval base.. remember "The Voyage Home", think of Kirks reaction when Checkov told him that the Naval Yards had the Enterprise in it.. Hmmm.. maybe that is where the idea came from.. turn the Naval yards at Alameda into a construction site for the CA class ships.. Heck that is where Battleships were constructed and more ship being constructed and repaired there today.. namely Aircraft Carriers.. given that bit of information.. the original Enterprise of the Constitution class was 288 Meters long or 944.88 feet.. the USS Enterprise that is a Nuclear Air Craft Carrier is 1,123 feet making her the longest naval vessel in the world, built in San Francisco Bay in Alameda.. the Fanology behind this was that the parts of the Enterprise is built on earth and then assembled in orbit in order to reduce the cost and time of making multiple deliveries since transporters still had problems and were not truly reliable...

Abrams is not violating canon.. he is confirming popular fandom into canon where none existed before.

Enterprise depicted NX class ships being built in orbit. So you're suggesting that starfleet basically built ships in orbit in the 22nd century, stopped building them in orbit for some reason in the 23rd century, and then started building them in orbit again in the 24th century? I thought the ships being built above San Francisco had to do with the fact that starfleet headquarters is located there. Although the purpose of the dedication plaque in 1966 was to connect the Enterprise with something the audience would be familiar with like a major US city.

Being built in space can be constituted as assembly of the parts. However the parts have to be made some where.. It would be more cost effective to build the parts on Earth and then transport large pieces into orbit for assembly, thus being built in space.

If the whole ship was being built in space, there would be massive traffic to and from the facility and the transport lanes would get congested fast since material replicators at that time did not exist.

The NX-01, if you consider it a canon ship,
(See Star Trek: The Motion Picture for the Enterprise XVC-330, the ship before the NCC-1701.. NX-01 is not a canon ship according to Roddenberry's time line and was used as a ratings grabber by B&B .. It only gets canon credit for being on screen since B&B's budget was small, they took the Akira class ship and flipped the secondary hull upside down and painted it golden brown instead of sticking with previously established canon) ,
could have been built on the ground piece by piece, and then built in space from the pieces that they made on Earth. Same thing goes for the NCC-1701 .. the NCC-1701 was a complete refit done in space.. but the parts were built on the ground and the saucer was complete rebuilt on the ground (Reference the book 'Flag Full Of Stars') and then flown by Kirk to be attached to the secondary hull at Starbase001.

There has to be a starting point.. like the super structure.. I can see it now.. 0 G environment and trying to weld the structure together and someone sneezes and bumps the beam.. how it takes an hour to reposition the piece when on earth, Gravity would work as an anchor point on one end and allow control over the structure to be more precise.

Think about the efficiency of the project in a time before replicators and huge transporter complexes .. Assembly would be 100 times more efficient on Earth during the time when the NCC-1701 was being built than it would be in space.. Where in TNG, Technology advanced 110 years and they have a hullava lot better transporters, and now matter replicators, precision point tractors, etc which would make building a ship from scratch in space much more feasible than it would have been when Kirk was a teenager during the time that the Enterprise was being built.

Just like people don't realize that Pike was not the first captain of the Big E, Robert April was (reference Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek : The Animated Adventures), then Pike, then Kirk.. There was 19 to 20 years from when the big E launched to where Kirk took command of her.. That means when the Enterprise first launched, kirk was between the ages of 13 to 16 (can't remember off the top of my head) and had not yet entered Starfleet.

So if you are going back that far, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Enterprise was built on Earth and then assembeled in space, which would be the most cost efficient way to do it at that time.

As I stated previously, I do agree that in 40 years its okay to retcon some small elements of cannon, ie. a set of conjectural drawings shown in TMP, at a time when noone ever concieved that they might want to do a Star Trek prequel spinoff.  Even then you could argue that Enterprise is not a retcon because only one carrier is pictured.  How accurate could that chart be if they left out the most decorated American warship from WWII, or the first nuclear powered aircraft carrier.  While its conciveable that elements of the structure might have been built on earth, and then assembled in space, that's not what's depicted here.  Furthermore, while zero g construction in Kirk's day may not have been as advanced as it is in TNG, its going to be alot more advanced than it is today.

2. Its never explicitly stated that Kirk slept with Carol Marcus, so are you saying that's not part of the cannon either.

The two have a "canon" son, that the two had sexual intercourse is in fact not canon only implied. That being the case, if down the line someone wanted to make it canon that he was conceived through some form of In vitro fertilization they wouldn't be violating canon either.

3. I have no problem changing small things ie. Enterprise cannot fire through shields, transporters cannot be used at warp, the definition of warp 10 ect.  Surface construction of the Enterprise not only violates a given rule about federation starship construction methods which has been depicted several times, it also takes away a major part of what differentiates star trek from many earlier scifi shows, and some later ones which had the heros, blasting off to the rescue in a rocket ship.  That's also why I am perturbed that the nacelles seem to have tail fins.  And as I have tried to point out, the fact that Every other major starship in the Star Trek cannon is depicted as being built in space makes it cannon that that is a standardized process for the construction of large starships.  The construction of the 1701 does not have to be shown explicitly because several other ships have been.

Again quote the "rule". Being implied does not make it a "rule". Name just one time the entire construction process has been shown onscreen. Not in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY or any of the movies was it shown, the ships were all already built. In addition transporters can be used at warp and the original E had "tailfins" too.

The ABC's of it is "Implied does not equal canon no matter how strongly implied."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether strong implication is cannon.  As for no transporters at warp, that was one example of the types of cannon changes I don't object to.  I believe that the first episode they changed it in was the best of both worlds.  Initially the new rule was that both ships had to be moving at the same speed, they changed this again in Star Trek voyager.  As for ships structures being built in space.  In Enterprise we see the half finished NX-02 in spacedock.  At the end of Nemesis, we see the Enterprise in space dock while work begins rebuilding the large section of the saucer that was destroyed when Picard rammed the Scimitar.  Also, the "tailfins" on the original enterprise are really a pair of brackets.  The ones depicted here appear to be actual tailfins.  Now all we need is to see the strings.

[Panzergranate]

Was the NX being built in orbit or more probally, assembled in orbit??

Items such as Warp Nachelles, major hull parts, etc. would be easier to manufacture on a planet than in the weightlessness of space.

The International Space Station is pre-fabricated on Earth and assembled in space simply because it is less problamatic that way.

[knightstorm]

Was the NX being built in orbit or more probally, assembled in orbit??

Items such as Warp Nachelles, major hull parts, etc. would be easier to manufacture on a planet than in the weightlessness of space.

The International Space Station is pre-fabricated on Earth and assembled in space simply because it is less problamatic that way.

The Nacelles could have been prefabed, but the hull appears to be built in space.  One thing that you should consider when using the ISS as an example is that the only infrastructure we have for this type of work are two cranes with Canada written on them in big bold letters*.  That is not the case in Archer's time, and is certainly not the case in Kirk's.

*This is not an anti-Canadian statement, I just always found that amusing.