Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 406
# 81
01-08-2013, 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post



The petition isn't asking them to build it. Just to investigate the feasibility. If it passes that test, we have something that could work. If it doesn't, the design will be refined until it is.
If you are petitioning the Government for something you aren't asking they do, then you are simply wasting time and don't have nearly the kind of commitment to your ideals this would require.

By signing this petition, you -are- putting your name on the effort to build this, and accepting responsibility for all that involves. If you don't want that responsibility, then you have no right to exert the authority involved in it.

Last edited by danqueller; 01-08-2013 at 07:43 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,109
# 82
01-08-2013, 07:41 AM
I must say I am surprised by the negativity and lack of imagination demonstrated by many respondents to this thread.

The BTE is all about a feasability study, it's not asking for the Enterprise to be built right now. Many of the problems voiced so far would certainly be studied as part of that feasability study.

This is a first step to leaving our ball of dirt behind as we are ultimately destined to do unless we wish to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Come on people, show some imagination and sign that petition.

BTW I am from the UK, can I sign it or do I have to be an American citizen?
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 406
# 83
01-08-2013, 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattjohnsonva View Post
I must say I am surprised by the negativity and lack of imagination demonstrated by many respondents to this thread.

The BTE is all about a feasability study, it's not asking for the Enterprise to be built right now. Many of the problems voiced so far would certainly be studied as part of that feasability study.

This is a first step to leaving our ball of dirt behind as we are ultimately destined to do unless we wish to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Come on people, show some imagination and sign that petition.

BTW I am from the UK, can I sign it or do I have to be an American citizen?
Many of us are long-time Star Trek affiliates who followed the space program for many years and are very familiar with what is involved in putting anything up in orbit, along with the battles in Congress for anything dealing with spaceflight and the costs involved when things go wrong. It isn't something to be taken lightly, and we've seen how the Shuttle program ended up. Our 'first step' was taken almost 30 years ago, and ended by popular apathy and lack of upkeep.

Imagination is more than just jumping on the bandwagon for a proposal that isn't intended to do anything but force yet another Government study.

Last edited by danqueller; 01-08-2013 at 07:56 AM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,200
# 84
01-08-2013, 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by danqueller View Post
If you are petitioning the Government for something you aren't asking they do, then you are simply wasting time and don't have nearly the kind of commitment to your ideals this would require.

By signing this petition, you -are- putting your name on the effort to build this, and accepting responsibility for all that involves. If you don't want that responsibility, then you have no right to exert the authority involved in it.
We aren't asking them to do it yet, but we do want them to do it. But we have to take it one step at a time. If it does pass the feasibility study, then we would ask for the R&D to start. If that goes well, then the actual construction can begin.

I'm not in charge of BTE, but I do support it. I will gladly do what I can to make it happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattjohnsonva View Post
BTW I am from the UK, can I sign it or do I have to be an American citizen?
No, you don't have to be American.
Please fix the Foundry lag!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,880
# 85
01-08-2013, 02:23 PM
It's been a while since I looked in on this thread, I see it's still going strong
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
The ship will drop them off as it travels. It's got more than enough cargo space.
This would require it to use more reaction mass to move, since the ships mass would be increased by the mass of the fuel depots it's moving. Where is all this argon supposed to come from? A single tankful for this behemoth would deplete Earth's entire production of argon for several years. Talking about mining hydrogen from the moon or Mars once again implies a preexisting infrastructure needed to support this ship, making the ship itself superfluous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
Triple redundancy is a main theme in the proposed design. So even if something does go wrong, there are at least two backup plans in place. That's why we have a triple-layered hull, three nuclear reactors, three ion engines, and so on.
Triple Redundancy also equals additional weight for these redundant systems, a triple layer hull as portrayed may give it some small defense as a stationary object but at interplanetary speeds it would be grossly inadequate, a particle the size of a grain of sand would rip through that skin like an artillery shot. Current materials science simply does not support a structure of this size, the gravity wheel system in order to function without constant counter rotation thrusting would require a second wheel of equal mass turning in the opposite direction, the tensile torsional load demands of such a structure is well beyond our current capabilities. In Star Trek TNG they had to invent a technology to support the design of the ship called "structural integrity fields" that would re-enforce the then 24th century super alloys to make them 10,000 times stronger, we have neither these fields nor these super alloys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
In the unlikely event of an emergency where the ship loses all three ion engines, it can use its rockets and thrusters to return to Earth. This may take some time, depending on how far the ship is from Earth at the time, but the ship is built for self-sufficiency. There should be more than enough supplies on board to sustain the crew.
That does not factor in the amount of conventional rocket fuel that the ship would have to carry to facilitate such a fall back, it took millions of pounds of conventional fuel/oxidizer to move a 90,000 lb payload from the Earth to the moon, for this monstrosity it would take billions of pounds of fuel to move. This ship will not be operating in an interstellar void it will be working in a solar system where it will need to have sufficient thrust and velocity to be able to maneuver against the gravity of the various planets and objects in it's path. The more we discuss this design the more elaborate and prohibitively gigantic it becomes, each new detail adds thousands of tons of additional weight that need to be accommodated and compensated for resulting in a ship that would need to be the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer just to accommodate the fuel and reaction mass it would need to carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."


-- Arthur C. Clarke
Interesting quotes from a science FICTION author, but what we are discussing is very much more than merely venturing a little way past the limits of possibility. What we are talking about is bankrupting national economies and stripping resources on a planetary scale to build a monstrously huge symbol that is simply not needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycoticvulcan View Post
The ship proposed on BTE is a concept. It has some ideas for how such an interplanetary vessel might be built, and encourages an inspirational design. The real ship, if it ever gets built, will inevitably be much different than the one proposed. And that's not a bad thing.
It would have to be radically different, the ship simply doesn't need to be this big, we simply do not have the means to build it, nor the resources to support it, not on the scale it is requiring. Preventing motion sickness isn't an adequate justification for the size of the gravity wheel and the wheel is the deciding element in the size of this ship, the only reason for artificial gravity is to prevent "space adaption" ie bone density loss and muscle and vascular atrophy and there are far simpler ways of overcoming that than a thousand foot diameter wheel. Much smaller scale centrifuges and exercise stations could accomplish the same end eliminating the need of a massively huge ship to carry a single large wheel.
We have the technology to build a ship that has the superficial appearance of the Enterprise, but only on a very much smaller scale, the design as proposed by the author is beyond our capabilities and by the time our technology has advanced to where we could build such a thing the author's proposal would be outdated.
Petitioning a feasibility study of technologies that are already in research is superfluous and our governments are already adept enough at finding creative ways to waste taxpayers dollars, we don't really need to add fuel to that fire.
In all likelihood the petition and proposal will be regarded as the crackpot ramblings of a fanatical element of a science fiction genre's fanbase doing more damage to the cause of space exploration than good. The author has forgotten or ignored a most basic tenet of starting small to build interest and need to expand towards a greater goal, instead proposing a grand endeavor requiring a massive investment of money and resources with a dubious return of possible though not guaranteed future benefits. The Enterprise should have been at the end of the road he was laying out, not the beginning.

Last edited by maxvitor; 01-08-2013 at 02:34 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,200
# 86
01-08-2013, 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
It's been a while since I looked in on this thread, I see it's still going strong
Welcome back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
This would require it to use more reaction mass to move, since the ships mass would be increased by the mass of the fuel depots it's moving. Where is all this argon supposed to come from? A single tankful for this behemoth would deplete Earth's entire production of argon for several years.
If more Argon is needed, it can be mined by private or public groups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Talking about mining hydrogen from the moon or Mars once again implies a preexisting infrastructure needed to support this ship, making the ship itself superfluous.
One of the ship's first missions will be to establish a base on the moon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Triple Redundancy also equals additional weight for these redundant systems, a triple layer hull as portrayed may give it some small defense as a stationary object but at interplanetary speeds it would be grossly inadequate, a particle the size of a grain of sand would rip through that skin like an artillery shot.
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/hole-patching-system

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Current materials science simply does not support a structure of this size, the gravity wheel system in order to function without constant counter rotation thrusting would require a second wheel of equal mass turning in the opposite direction, the tensile torsional load demands of such a structure is well beyond our current capabilities.
Dan talks about that problem, and some possible solutions, in this blog post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
That does not factor in the amount of conventional rocket fuel that the ship would have to carry to facilitate such a fall back, it took millions of pounds of conventional fuel/oxidizer to move a 90,000 lb payload from the Earth to the moon, for this monstrosity it would take billions of pounds of fuel to move. This ship will not be operating in an interstellar void it will be working in a solar system where it will need to have sufficient thrust and velocity to be able to maneuver against the gravity of the various planets and objects in it's path.
In an emergency situation where its ion engines can't be used, it only really needs enough to get it going. Once it's on-course and traveling at a desirable speed, they can shut down the rockets until they need to slow down again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Preventing motion sickness isn't an adequate justification for the size of the gravity wheel and the wheel is the deciding element in the size of this ship, the only reason for artificial gravity is to prevent "space adaption" ie bone density loss and muscle and vascular atrophy and there are far simpler ways of overcoming that than a thousand foot diameter wheel. Much smaller scale centrifuges and exercise stations could accomplish the same end eliminating the need of a massively huge ship to carry a single large wheel.
That's not the only reason for the ship's size. The Enterprise proposed on the site will serve as a combination of spaceship, space station, and spaceport. This means it must support having many people on board at once - up to a thousand at any given time. It must be able to dock and refuel multiple smaller spacecrafts at the same time. And the huge cargo-carrying capacity is critical for hauling probes, landers, and base-building equipment to Mars and elsewhere. Simply put, if we want to get serious about establishing a permanent human presence in space, with robust and sustainable capabilities to do big things up there, we need a big ship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
We have the technology to build a ship that has the superficial appearance of the Enterprise, but only on a very much smaller scale, the design as proposed by the author is beyond our capabilities and by the time our technology has advanced to where we could build such a thing the author's proposal would be outdated.
We can do it now. We just have to convince the people in charge that it's worth doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
Petitioning a feasibility study of technologies that are already in research is superfluous and our governments are already adept enough at finding creative ways to waste taxpayers dollars, we don't really need to add fuel to that fire.
If the technologies are already being researched, then why is NASA still working on the SLS? Why are we still obsessing with primitive capsule rockets when we could be working on spaceplanes and interplanetary ships?

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
In all likelihood the petition and proposal will be regarded as the crackpot ramblings of a fanatical element of a science fiction genre's fanbase doing more damage to the cause of space exploration than good.
You're probably right. But if enough people are interested in the project, it will get their attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
The author has forgotten or ignored a most basic tenet of starting small to build interest and need to expand towards a greater goal, instead proposing a grand endeavor requiring a massive investment of money and resources with a dubious return of possible though not guaranteed future benefits. The Enterprise should have been at the end of the road he was laying out, not the beginning.
You have to dream big if you want to get people's attention. And I'm sure the Enterprise itself won't be the first thing we get out of the project - we'd get spaceplanes capable of landing and taking off from different celestial bodies, we'd be able to get stuff into orbit at $1,000 per pound (or less), and that's just the start.

The Apollo program gave us smoke alarms, fire extinguishers, and flame-resistant textiles worn by most firefighters today. Who knows what the Enterprise program will give us?
Please fix the Foundry lag!

Last edited by psycoticvulcan; 01-08-2013 at 06:13 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,200
# 87
01-08-2013, 06:06 PM
I highly encourage you all to check out Dan's blog. He discusses the concepts on the site in some detail, going into the pros and cons of each. This entry is a personal favorite.
Please fix the Foundry lag!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,940
# 88
01-15-2013, 01:08 AM
the deathStar petition got rejected (who could have thought of that ) , so will be the buildtheenterprise petition.
wondering what will be the next, a real tardis, or the spacebattleship yamato (guess thats for the japanese)
Go pro or go home
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,200
# 89
01-15-2013, 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by baudl View Post
the deathStar petition got rejected (who could have thought of that ) , so will be the buildtheenterprise petition.
wondering what will be the next, a real tardis, or the spacebattleship yamato (guess thats for the japanese)
The Death Star petition was obviously a joke. The Death Star as it was portrayed in Star Wars is obviously not going to happen.

But BuildTheEnterprise is a possibility. At the very least they can look into the conceptual designs and determine what works and what doesn't.

That said, it's not really looking like the petition will reach 25,000 in time. Maybe next time.
Please fix the Foundry lag!
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 622
# 90
01-15-2013, 09:42 AM
na i dont think the death star was a bad idea, would have been great to build it, not to its full size but build it big enough to be a space station. With no plant killing weapons of course.
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 06:01 AM.