Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 101
01-16-2013, 02:28 PM
Only five more days to go and 6,768 votes so far. If we dont make it to its deadline date can we start a new one? Or get an extension?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,369
# 102
01-16-2013, 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
To be honest, it looks pretty ugly to me. More like a cargo freighter than a vessel of exploration and discovery.
However, Earth Alliance ships from Babylon 5 have believability rather than looking artistic. I can believe that an Earth Alliance ship can be built and fly in space while I have a huge problem with the Enterprise being built and flying in space. The nacelle struts are a huge structural weakness to the ship and Star Trek explains that they can ignore that weakness due to Structural Integrity Fields. Unfortunately, we don't have Structural Integrity Fields or any material that would be strong enough to support such a huge structural weakness.

In a couple of hundreds of years, some rich Star Trek fan would be able to build the Enterprise, but with our current technology having a ship like the Enterprise undergo some huge accident would be a serious blow to Star Trek fans everywhere. The Phoenix is a modified nuclear missile with warp nacelles and is supposed to launch in 50 years so it would be much more practical to build. We have a couple hundred years to launch the Enterprise.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,324
# 103
01-16-2013, 03:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj011 View Post
Only five more days to go and 6,768 votes so far. If we dont make it to its deadline date can we start a new one? Or get an extension?
I don't remember seeing anywhere on the site that we can't try again, but I didn't create the petition so I'm not sure. Whatever happens, we'll just continue to spread the idea and refine the concept. Losing the petition will not sink or even really set back BTE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starkaos View Post
The nacelle struts are a huge structural weakness to the ship and Star Trek explains that they can ignore that weakness due to Structural Integrity Fields. Unfortunately, we don't have Structural Integrity Fields or any material that would be strong enough to support such a huge structural weakness.
As I said in my last post, the nacelle struts (and the ship as a whole) don't have to be identical to what we saw in Star Trek. The ship only has to look enough like the Enterprise to bring it to mind.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,369
# 104
01-16-2013, 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
As I said in my last post, the nacelle struts (and the ship as a whole) don't have to be identical to what we saw in Star Trek. The ship only has to look enough like the Enterprise to bring it to mind.
Change the design too much and it is no longer the Enterprise. According to some Star Trek fans, if it is not almost completely identical to the Enterprise, then why bother. IMO, the gravity disc changes the design of the Enterprise too much so that it is no longer the Enterprise. In fact, I would say that it is a crude mockery of the original. If something is called the Enterprise and is based on the NCC 1701, then it has to be as close to the original as possible or its not good enough.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,324
# 105
01-16-2013, 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starkaos View Post
Change the design too much and it is no longer the Enterprise. According to some Star Trek fans, if it is not almost completely identical to the Enterprise, then why bother. IMO, the gravity disc changes the design of the Enterprise too much so that it is no longer the Enterprise. In fact, I would say that it is a crude mockery of the original. If something is called the Enterprise and is based on the NCC 1701, then it has to be as close to the original as possible or its not good enough.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. The Gen1 will be different than the fictional Enterprise in that it looks a bit different, is nuclear powered, uses ion engines, and relies on a gravity wheel for artificial gravity. But it will be similar to the fictional Enterprise in that it is a vessel of exploration, has a large and diverse crew, carries enough equipment to conduct scientific studies far from Earth, and is spacious enough to provide comfortable living quarters for the people on board. And I doubt many people rage-quit TNG because the Enterprise-D didn't look exactly like Kirk's ship.

I think most Trek fans will agree the similarities more than outweigh the differences.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,369
# 106
01-16-2013, 04:33 PM
If these Enterprises are going to be more than just tourist destinations, then I rather have them not built. If they are used as tourist destinations, then it is not necessary to have artificial gravity since people will only be there for a week or two at the most. Using a future design rather than something that will be about a hundred years old when it finally starts being built is a more sensible option. Starships that are used for scientific research and exploration should be created to optimize the crew's performance. Using the Enterprise seems like it will be a problem for productivity and safety and safety is far more important to people on the starship than being a symbol. The Enterprise has no real basis as being a valid Starship design. The Borg Cube makea for a more practical design.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,324
# 107
01-16-2013, 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starkaos View Post
If these Enterprises are going to be more than just tourist destinations, then I rather have them not built. If they are used as tourist destinations, then it is not necessary to have artificial gravity since people will only be there for a week or two at the most. Using a future design rather than something that will be about a hundred years old when it finally starts being built is a more sensible option. Starships that are used for scientific research and exploration should be created to optimize the crew's performance. Using the Enterprise seems like it will be a problem for productivity and safety and safety is far more important to people on the starship than being a symbol. The Enterprise has no real basis as being a valid Starship design. The Borg Cube makea for a more practical design.
If NASA announced they were thinking of building a giant cube in space, would the general public care enough that the government would be willing to fund it? Probably not. If they announced they were thinking of building the USS Enterprise? Quite possibly.


A cube might be a bit more functional. But the Enterprise is much more attractive to the average person, and getting funding for an interplanetary spaceship will be a lot easier with the public supporting it.

And the Enterprise is still a nice, practical design. It has room and equipment for everything it needs to do its missions, it will have triple redundancy to minimize any problems or dangers to the crew, and will reinvigorate the space industry in a huge way. The saucer-neck-hull-nacelle configuration isn't as restrictive as people are making it out to be.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 108
01-16-2013, 05:12 PM
Well there are plenty of star trek federation designs they can use for the enterprise, like I said in my previous posts for example the enterprise e (sovereign class), voyager (intrepid class), defiant (definet class) are some. It does not have to look like the enterprise from the star trek as long it is practical and has the name enterprise it is good enough for me at least.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 109
01-18-2013, 01:27 PM
look what I found. http://www.space.com/19323-mona-lisa...ser-photo.html

May solve the communication problem.
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 399
# 110
01-18-2013, 01:30 PM
Seems a lot of people are worried about structural weakness...

Though less iconic, something like the Wells or Mobius Temporal ships wouldn't suffer the same problem.
More anything?
"MORE EVERYTHING!"
-Jerry Seinfeld on Star Trek Online Content

Foundry Works: Uncharted
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 01:53 PM.