Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 21
12-24-2012, 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudl View Post
loved the idea of a enterprise A shaped hotel in las vegas a few years back...but actually building a spaceship in that shape seems, excuse my language, idiotic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj011 View Post
If I remember correctly in space you can build a ship any ship you want since there is no air in space so don't have to worry about aerodynamics? You can build a giant donut or Lego brick and is would be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
I don't believe any other weapons are planned for the ship. Though they could probably add more if needed.



Presumably it would use some kind of high-power radio transmitters. You're right, that's not listed on the site.
Also so what not listed, escape pods, if anything were to happen to the main ship how will the crew escape other than the vehicle they are taking with but could that hold the whole crew, last thing I want to see Titanic in space. To many lives are lost due to arrogance as well as other things.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,874
# 22
12-24-2012, 09:32 AM
Nothing would make me happier than seeing a firm commitment towards space exploration but let's be realistic.
No government anywhere on this planet is going to spend billions of dollars to build an enormous ship in space that looks like the Enterprise just to inspire people and any politician that considered it would be laughed out of his party if that party had any hopes of winning another election. Diverting 40+billion (the author is being unrealistically conservative it would cost a great deal more) annually from the GNP to build giant white elephants in space would be political suicide.
It is not an efficient design, it's grossly oversized for any purpose that we currently need, it's ungainly shape would require a miracle of engineering to make work and for no other reason than esthetics.
The Enterprises shape was a whimsy because Roddenberry wanted a flying saucer shape and the only reason it has the configuration we're familiar with is because someone was looking at the artist concept drawings upside down.
No one can really say what future space craft will look like but it's highly doubtful there will ever be anything that remotely resembles what we see in Star Trek.

I expect this petition will get a polite noncommittal response if it gets any attention at all, before being tossed in the same file as conspiracy theories, alien abduction stories and every other crackpot notion that someone had the delirium to think up.

Increasing interest in space exploration yes I would support that, but actually building the Enterprise, sorry that is just nonsense.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 892
# 23
12-24-2012, 09:59 AM
The nifty thing of the Enterprise form factor is that there is quite a bit of survivability built in, main crew in saucer, radiation in secondary hull/nacelles. Major problem with this design is the excess conduits and structural requirements to pipe all that power etc. around...

Therefore, as much as it loathes me to say this, I think a miniaturized Galaxy class would be equally iconic and, due to it's "squished" form factor, need a lot less structural support to pull off the job...

And for a space station, Franz Joseph's Starbase One...
50: S'Leth/Eurthyr/S. Dareau/Ardrian/Krudge/Annlova Not: Jadja
Still at it. CBS "restrictions" fell by wayside with freebie Breen. Time to re-examine ENT and ToS at tier 5, repurpose the Connie into Sci and rebuild an Akira escort into the "NX". 6 "eras", spread evenly over all the classes...
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,168
# 24
12-24-2012, 12:16 PM
Something to consider: the petition is not asking for NASA to start building the ship. It's asking for NASA to evaluate the technology proposed on the site.

You're right -- the chances of this ship ending up resembling any of the Enterprises are pretty much zero. But. If the petition succeeds, and NASA does examine the technology listed on the site, it could lead to a real ship with a more realistic configuration, that also looks appealing and inspirational.
Say NO to mandatory Arc!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,314
# 25
12-24-2012, 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
Something to consider: the petition is not asking for NASA to start building the ship. It's asking for NASA to evaluate the technology proposed on the site.

You're right -- the chances of this ship ending up resembling any of the Enterprises are pretty much zero. But. If the petition succeeds, and NASA does examine the technology listed on the site, it could lead to a real ship with a more realistic configuration, that also looks appealing and inspirational.
Considering how many Star Trek nerds are in NASA, I am certain that this study has already been done. If not officially by NASA, then by a group of Engineers and Scientists on their own time. I could actually see this as an episode of Big Bang Theory or at least one of their nerd discussions.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,874
# 26
12-24-2012, 02:01 PM
But isn't NASA already doing that? Clearly we're going to need a better means of propulsion than current combustion engines and I thought that nuclear or ion engines were already high on the list of things that NASA was already looking at. I've seen designs for ships with inflatable sections for habitation areas with nuclear pulse and or ion engines for propulsion. It is not much to look at but it would get the job done.
The problem with any design isn't what a ship would be like in it's final configuration, it's getting the pieces up there and putting it together, to build a ship like the Enterprise would literally require a ship yard in space, building that alone would be no small endeavor.
The thing really missing in the petition isn't the idea, it's the need, why would we build it, why do we need it?
With the Cold War it wasn't about being first to the moon, the message was "If we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly put a big honking bomb on you". Had the Cold War continued we would probably have a colony on the Moon by now and be sending manned expeditions to Mars. But that's not how things turned out, the Cold War ended and there is nothing out there in space that we desperately need. To justify creating a sustainable permanent presence in space we need a reason for being there, money rules all, any investment needs a return and being there to inspire humans or some obscure scientific study just doesn't cut the mustard.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 27
12-24-2012, 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
Something to consider: the petition is not asking for NASA to start building the ship. It's asking for NASA to evaluate the technology proposed on the site.

You're right -- the chances of this ship ending up resembling any of the Enterprises are pretty much zero. But. If the petition succeeds, and NASA does examine the technology listed on the site, it could lead to a real ship with a more realistic configuration, that also looks appealing and inspirational.
It would be neat if all aerospace agencies in the world and the governments who had experience with space all got to gather. Not only uniting to build a ship but uniting together as a people for a common goal, a true UNITED (PEOPLE OF) EARTH like in star trek and in stargate Atlantis. Honest if we all pulled the resources and expertise from the whole world, this can be doable.

As for need can think of lots

1) Continue exploration ( its part of human nature)
2) Continue scientific study (human nature again)
3) Looking for other resources
4) Our planet is getting over polluted , need space
5) Motivation to develop new and better technologies
6) Tourism
7) Because we want to, most of us deep down

If it is put on hold or someone stops its, it will happen eventually its only a matter of time. Its not if but when.

And i say the when is now!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,168
# 28
12-24-2012, 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
With the Cold War it wasn't about being first to the moon, the message was "If we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly put a big honking bomb on you". Had the Cold War continued we would probably have a colony on the Moon by now and be sending manned expeditions to Mars. But that's not how things turned out, the Cold War ended and there is nothing out there in space that we desperately need. To justify creating a sustainable permanent presence in space we need a reason for being there, money rules all, any investment needs a return and being there to inspire humans or some obscure scientific study just doesn't cut the mustard.
It would be pretty sad if the only reason to explore space was to say "F*** you!" to the competition.

As stated in the above post, we need to explore for the sake of exploring. We don't want to become stagnate. And besides, we have a lot to gain from colonizing space -- mining asteroids/planets/etc, spreading out humanity to reduce the threat of overpopulation, etc.
Say NO to mandatory Arc!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 10,912
# 29
12-24-2012, 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
It would be pretty sad if the only reason to explore space was to say "F*** you!" to the competition.

As stated in the above post, we need to explore for the sake of exploring. We don't want to become stagnate. And besides, we have a lot to gain from colonizing space -- mining asteroids/planets/etc, spreading out humanity to reduce the threat of overpopulation, etc.
A healthy bit of competition isn't something to be discouraged though.
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,880
# 30
12-24-2012, 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
It would be pretty sad if the only reason to explore space was to say "F*** you!" to the competition.

As stated in the above post, we need to explore for the sake of exploring. We don't want to become stagnate. And besides, we have a lot to gain from colonizing space -- mining asteroids/planets/etc, spreading out humanity to reduce the threat of overpopulation, etc.
I expect it to be largely for economic reasons. People have explored much of the Earth in their quests for new resources. I don't expect the exploration of the solar system to be much different.
HAIL HYDRA!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I can haz joystick!
MMOs aren't charities. Corporations are supposed to make a profit. It's what they do.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 PM.