Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 623
# 131
02-09-2013, 12:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
One idea proposed on the site is to break the building of the Gen1 Enterprise into construction phases, where each phase gives a viable craft for some uses in its own right.

Phase 1: Build a simple gravity-less space station as a starting work base. We could even repurpose the ISS for this.

Phase 2: Build the Gravity Wheel as a Space Station to be used for experiments and scientific research in orbit.

Phase 3: Add the overall Enterprise hull structures.

Phase 4: Add the nuclear power system and electric propulsion engines.

The beauty of doing Phase 1 and Phase 2 before adding the hulls of the Enterprise is that you get a large and very useful space station with 1g artificial gravity much sooner and at much lower cost. This wheel could hold 1000 people, and therefore it would be a destination for space tourists. Thus perhaps building Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Enterprise could be done as a private venture. That is, perhaps this could be a profitable business venture. This would also give more time to develop better technology we can use in each stage of the ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghyudt View Post
Does anyone else think that maybe human beings were never meant to leave earth in the first place? One of my favorite tv shows had a line in it that I always agreed with. Is the earth trying to tell us something? Pulling us back down like it does? Now, I'm all for building a space faring vessel that doesn't return to earths atmosphere, but I think we can wait. We currently know so little about our own planet that it seems logical to stay and explore it more before trying to travel to others. And if a ship is built, a design like the enterprise, or any star trek ship, isn't very realistic. Something closer to the galactica (2004) or even a star destroyer would be far more feasible, especially considering that the mass of the saucer section alone would put the neck under extreme stress when turning.
Well this is the whole point, exploration, there is so much we DO know and yet yes there is so much we don't know. Exploration is in our blood so is curiosity. If some people don't want to leave that is fine but people should not stop others who want to do it. There are a lot of good reasons as well as bad but the good out ways the bad. It is only matter of time. It will happen sooner or later.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,277
# 132
02-09-2013, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghyudt View Post
Does anyone else think that maybe human beings were never meant to leave earth in the first place? One of my favorite tv shows had a line in it that I always agreed with. Is the earth trying to tell us something? Pulling us back down like it does? Now, I'm all for building a space faring vessel that doesn't return to earths atmosphere, but I think we can wait. We currently know so little about our own planet that it seems logical to stay and explore it more before trying to travel to others.
For the time being, space is a lot more accessible to us than, say, the ocean or the Earth's core. And we don't have to stop doing research on Earth -- the ship will never have more than a thousand people on board at a time, and only rarely more than a hundred or so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghyudt View Post
And if a ship is built, a design like the enterprise, or any star trek ship, isn't very realistic. Something closer to the galactica (2004) or even a star destroyer would be far more feasible, especially considering that the mass of the saucer section alone would put the neck under extreme stress when turning.
The ship probably won't have a neck, at least not one as flimsy as the one on the TOS and TMP Enterprises. The ship will have the basic Enterprise design, but the details will be adapted and changed to be as functional as possible.
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-- Q
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,916
# 133
02-09-2013, 06:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghyudt View Post
Does anyone else think that maybe human beings were never meant to leave earth in the first place? One of my favorite tv shows had a line in it that I always agreed with. Is the earth trying to tell us something? Pulling us back down like it does? Now, I'm all for building a space faring vessel that doesn't return to earths atmosphere, but I think we can wait. We currently know so little about our own planet that it seems logical to stay and explore it more before trying to travel to others. And if a ship is built, a design like the enterprise, or any star trek ship, isn't very realistic. Something closer to the galactica (2004) or even a star destroyer would be far more feasible, especially considering that the mass of the saucer section alone would put the neck under extreme stress when turning.
If we were never meant to leave the planet it would be impossible for us to do so, although I suspect you're referring to the philosophical rather than the physical. One thing that must be realized is that our world has a limit to it's available resources and a limit to it's carrying capacity and we are approaching those limits rapidly. Barring some monstrous program to reduce human population dramatically and revert our technological needs to something more primitive, we are going to need new living space, new sources of metal, energy and raw materials and it would be better for us to start looking for these things while we still have those resources available to work with, rather than wait until we've exhausted our only supplies and are no longer capable of looking elsewhere.
Of the alternatives I would say a star destroyer is the most practical, it's shape and engine locations seems the most logical, the Galactica maybe a bit less so, although it is structurally a sturdy design its engines are actually well above the ships center of mass, impressive looking on screen but it would actually mean the engines thrust would be constantly driving the ship into a downward loop.
The Enterprise was never meant to be a practical design, it's shape was meant to say this is the future, this technology does not obey the laws of physics, it is beyond those laws and manipulate space itself in order to move. In Star Trek the engines don't move the ship, they radiate an energy wave that changes the space around the ship and it's that space itself that moves the ship. Warp engines aren't engines at all, they're emitters, antennae.
For a conventional propulsion system, I don't know, maybe large arrays of superconductors at strategic locations using magnetic fields to hold/force the parts into stable alignment and overcome the stresses generated by engine thrust, that's the only thing I can think of that might make the design workable, without that it would crumple in on itself with the least amount of torque.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,809
# 134
02-09-2013, 07:27 PM
Assuming this ship gets developed, then it has to stay as close to the original as possible or people will scream what the **** is that. That is not the Enterprise. My main concern is that it will take too long to build that only a small portion of the people will know what the original Enterprise looks like. They are more likely to remember the 2009 version rather than the 1960s version or it might be the 2060s version. How many people are going to know about a show that aired a hundred years ago?
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,277
# 135
02-09-2013, 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starkaos View Post
Assuming this ship gets developed, then it has to stay as close to the original as possible or people will scream what the **** is that. That is not the Enterprise. My main concern is that it will take too long to build that only a small portion of the people will know what the original Enterprise looks like. They are more likely to remember the 2009 version rather than the 1960s version or it might be the 2060s version. How many people are going to know about a show that aired a hundred years ago?
Considering how influential Star Trek is in today's culture (especially TOS), I don't think there's much chance of it being forgotten anytime soon. And if development does begin, it will undoubtedly create more interest in the series. TOS will be with us for some time to come.

And I doubt there's a single person in the world who thinks the Enterprise presented in the series and movie would work perfectly in the real world. It's inevitable that a real version will have more than a few differences. And there were plenty of different Enterprise designs throughout the Star Trek franchise; I don't think they'd say no to a ship that looks a like a real-world version of it.
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-- Q
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,916
# 136
02-09-2013, 09:44 PM
I'm finding it hard to imagine a time when nobody would recognize the ship, the USS Enterprise is a cultural icon, even people who have never followed the series recognize the ship. We are getting better at storing and archiving information and pretty much gone are the days of old reels of cellophane film disintegrating in some warehouse, so I suspect that TOS and all of the other series will be available for new generations to enjoy for a long time to come.
In the 23rd century they'll be watching and laughing at how far off the mark things were.
As for the ship itself it doesn't have to be a perfect match for the design to be recognizable, a saucer attached to 3 cylinders 2 behind and one below can't be mistaken for anything else.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 623
# 137
02-12-2013, 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
I'm finding it hard to imagine a time when nobody would recognize the ship, the USS Enterprise is a cultural icon, even people who have never followed the series recognize the ship. We are getting better at storing and archiving information and pretty much gone are the days of old reels of cellophane film disintegrating in some warehouse, so I suspect that TOS and all of the other series will be available for new generations to enjoy for a long time to come.
In the 23rd century they'll be watching and laughing at how far off the mark things were.
As for the ship itself it doesn't have to be a perfect match for the design to be recognizable, a saucer attached to 3 cylinders 2 behind and one below can't be mistaken for anything else.
Indeed, it is only a matter of time now. Any way just a thought ladies and gentlemen, on the BTE the neck and and nacelles support struts or legs, cant remember what they are actually called, why not just make those parts of he ship stronger if it is a weak point? Anyway I don't know how it is a weak point if the BTE is a ship or exploration, from a military point of view yes I can agree.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,809
# 138
02-12-2013, 08:42 AM
The thing is that with remakes, people will focus on the remake rather than the original. So if I mention Kirk to someone 30 years from now, then they are more likely to remember Kirk from the new movies rather than the original Kirk. So the original Kirk would not have the same impact as the Kirk from the new movies since children are seeing it now and it makes an impression in their minds that this is Star Trek. It is not likely that they will see a show that is older than their parents.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 262
# 139
02-12-2013, 09:05 AM
A space freighter would be more valuable o us now than the enterprise. A "permanent" vehicle that can ferry equipment to and from asteroids, moons and the inner planets would allow access to more resources to help practically everyone. There is enough mineral wealth in the asteroid belt to put 22 billion in everyone's pocket (more than likely it would lead to more mega-corporations) so the economic incentive are there.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,277
# 140
02-12-2013, 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by starkaos View Post
The thing is that with remakes, people will focus on the remake rather than the original. So if I mention Kirk to someone 30 years from now, then they are more likely to remember Kirk from the new movies rather than the original Kirk. So the original Kirk would not have the same impact as the Kirk from the new movies since children are seeing it now and it makes an impression in their minds that this is Star Trek. It is not likely that they will see a show that is older than their parents.
There have been three King Kong movies in the last eighty years. However much the special effects have improved, the original is still the one everyone talks about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mondoid View Post
A space freighter would be more valuable o us now than the enterprise. A "permanent" vehicle that can ferry equipment to and from asteroids, moons and the inner planets would allow access to more resources to help practically everyone. There is enough mineral wealth in the asteroid belt to put 22 billion in everyone's pocket (more than likely it would lead to more mega-corporations) so the economic incentive are there.
The Enterprise proposed at BTE would be able to do pretty much anything a freighter can. It will have huge cargo capacity and can travel reasonably quickly through the solar system.
"It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid."
-- Q
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 10:29 PM.