Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: sigtau on May 23, 2012, 01:15:45 pm
-
An engineer for a currently-unspecified Fortune 500 company has drawn up meticulously detailed plans for a full-scale USS Enterprise replica, able to move itself with constant acceleration sufficient enough to get us to key points throughout the solar system--and apparently, this feat can be accomplished cheaply.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47396187/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T7FBuFKbjAM
I doubt it'll happen, but it's still cool to think about.
EDIT: Also, this. http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/
EDIT 2: And their forums. http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum
-
it's cool to think about how immediately and obviously terrible this design is
-
killjoy :sigh:
Although I would have to agree that the Enterprise's shape is probably a terribad design or layout for our first space-faring feat of awesomeness in the early-to-mid 21st century, isn't it still a good thing that someone took the time to draw up plans for something that's even remotely and financially feasible?
-
Nice dream, but there are better ways to design an interplanetary starship. Not to mention nobody would fund such thing these days. World is going bankrupt around us and this guy thinks about a Star Trek ship?
If that's really possible though, there must be an even better, cheaper and more efficient way to design such a ship.
-
The world is not going bankrupt :blah:
-
Sometimes I get a really big smile while reading my tech stuff on the web.
In my view we should strive to do things which seems out of reach, but with endurance, courage and
most of all brainpower we will get there some day...maybe sooner then you think.
Don't think small, think big or very big.
Anyway it's also nice to just daydream about it
-
On paper it looks like this ship is about 25% propellant. That seems really wastefully low, all other design issues aside.
-
If I were to improve that design, I think I'd saw off the engineering section, instead mounting the reactor on the axis around which the saucer would rotate. The thrust would be perpendicular to the saucer's plane (this would ensure even G-force distribution when thrusting and simplify the design a bit). Hangar on the front (this would simplify launches). If anything, the whole thing would resemble Earth Force One from B5.
-
I just imagine making first contact with aliens and them thinking how utterly dumb as rocks our species must be because we threw pragmatism to the wind in order to build a damn TV show ship. We're already going to be hopelessly technologically inferior, we could at least try to look like we have enough pragmatism to fill a thimble.
-
I imagine making first contact with aliens to find that they've done exactly the same. :P
-
...and in the spirit of Star Trek, we will pay for the ship by cutting social security and public healthcare! Come on guys, it's a win-win!
-
This isn't supposed to happen for another 200 years... there must be a temporal agent influencing the past.
Don't worry humans, I'll enlist the resources of the Obsidian Order to undo this distortion of the timeline.
-
I just imagine making first contact with aliens and them thinking how utterly dumb as rocks our species must be because we threw pragmatism to the wind in order to build a damn TV show ship. We're already going to be hopelessly technologically inferior, we could at least try to look like we have enough pragmatism to fill a thimble.
Hey, it worked in Galaxy Quest.
-
I just imagine making first contact with aliens and them thinking how utterly dumb as rocks our species must be because we threw pragmatism to the wind in order to build a damn TV show ship. We're already going to be hopelessly technologically inferior, we could at least try to look like we have enough pragmatism to fill a thimble.
Hey, it worked in Galaxy Quest.
See the difference is they actually built a fully functional NSEA Protector in Galaxy Quest. We would be flying in the face of sense in order to make a junker shaped like the 1701.
-
I just imagine making first contact with aliens and them thinking how utterly dumb as rocks our species must be because we threw pragmatism to the wind in order to build a damn TV show ship. We're already going to be hopelessly technologically inferior, we could at least try to look like we have enough pragmatism to fill a thimble.
Hey, it worked in Galaxy Quest.
You just had to remind us of that awesome theme song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4n-CiwIZcY) didn't you? :(
We still need the Omega 13 device...
-
the USS Enterprise has been built for close to 60 years now....
-
the USS Enterprise has been built for close to 60 years now....
It took me about 45 seconds but .... I see what you did there.
-
Cool stuff. IDK if it will ever move beyond a dream, but cool nonetheless.
Also, Legate Damar, relax. No warp drive on this Enterprise, so the timeline isn't that far askew. :P
-
I'd like to see this Enterprise built
I don't give a damn about the design problems associated with it. You can build the next generation one like that
But the Enterprise would simply be damned cool
-
This isn't supposed to happen for another 200 years... there must be a temporal agent influencing the past.
Don't worry humans, I'll enlist the resources of the Obsidian Order to undo this distortion of the timeline.
Might want to let them know about a cardassian in communication with the human race a couple hundred years before first contact. :P
You could also point out the lack of a Eugenics War in the 1990's. I mean, come on! Without the Eugenics Wars, we don't get Kahn, and without Kahn, history will proceed into the 23rd century with a distinct lack of KAAAAHHHHN!!
-
Alright, Nuke, what was that nuclear reactor using salt or whatever you were talking about? This thread (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum/the-1-5-gwe-nuclear-reactor-for-the-enterprise/how-is-a-1-5gw-nuclear-fission-reactor-supposed-to-work-in-space) on the BuldTheEnterprise Forums (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum) made me remember but I can't remember all the little details. I wish I could search within specific user's posts...
-
This isn't supposed to happen for another 200 years... there must be a temporal agent influencing the past.
Don't worry humans, I'll enlist the resources of the Obsidian Order to undo this distortion of the timeline.
Might want to let them know about a cardassian in communication with the human race a couple hundred years before first contact. :P
You could also point out the lack of a Eugenics War in the 1990's. I mean, come on! Without the Eugenics Wars, we don't get Kahn, and without Kahn, history will proceed into the 23rd century with a distinct lack of KAAAAHHHHN!!
I thought it was obvious that the Eugenics Wars took place behind the scenes, under the mask of several seemingly unrelated global conflicts... :nervous:
-
Alright, Nuke, what was that nuclear reactor using salt or whatever you were talking about? This thread (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum/the-1-5-gwe-nuclear-reactor-for-the-enterprise/how-is-a-1-5gw-nuclear-fission-reactor-supposed-to-work-in-space) on the BuldTheEnterprise Forums (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum) made me remember but I can't remember all the little details. I wish I could search within specific user's posts...
you have google, just enter 'molten salt reactor'
-
I don't think that was nuke who brought that up. But if you were wondering if a liquid sodium reactor would solve the problem they are discussing there, no. First of all, the sodium would only be the intermediary. You can't spin a turbine with it, you still need steam (or other high-pressure gas) for that. And no matter what you cool it with, you still have to get rid of the substantial waste heat. This applies to EVERY form of energy generation, not just fission, as it is a product of the conversion cycle, not the source of the energy. If you can't radiate it all, the only remaining option is to have vast quantities of expendable coolant to blow overboard.
-
Even if you have an awesome reactor you still need propellant. Lots and lots of propellant. This design doesn't do a great job on that front.
-
I didn't look very closely, but I thought it said ion engine. Which doesn't seem the least bit practical for a ship of this size.
-
This isn't supposed to happen for another 200 years... there must be a temporal agent influencing the past.
Don't worry humans, I'll enlist the resources of the Obsidian Order to undo this distortion of the timeline.
Might want to let them know about a cardassian in communication with the human race a couple hundred years before first contact. :P
You could also point out the lack of a Eugenics War in the 1990's. I mean, come on! Without the Eugenics Wars, we don't get Kahn, and without Kahn, history will proceed into the 23rd century with a distinct lack of KAAAAHHHHN!!
I thought it was obvious that the Eugenics Wars took place behind the scenes, under the mask of several seemingly unrelated global conflicts... :nervous:
Really? I mean, we can tot up all of the casualties from all of the military conflicts occuring between 1993 and 1996, but I don't think you're going to come up with the 30 million corpses that historians of the 23rd and 24th centuries agree were generated by the Eugenics Wars.
It also doesn't explain the presence of an uppity Legate showing up on an internet message board, three and a half centuries before his birth. You should take care, when telling the temporal branch of the Obsidian Order that there are continuity errors in need of addressing.
-
As far as heat goes, the aluminum hull is going to be used. IDK if that would be enough though. That and the idea of using the heat to produce hydrogen was put forward.
-
This isn't supposed to happen for another 200 years... there must be a temporal agent influencing the past.
Don't worry humans, I'll enlist the resources of the Obsidian Order to undo this distortion of the timeline.
Might want to let them know about a cardassian in communication with the human race a couple hundred years before first contact. :P
You could also point out the lack of a Eugenics War in the 1990's. I mean, come on! Without the Eugenics Wars, we don't get Kahn, and without Kahn, history will proceed into the 23rd century with a distinct lack of KAAAAHHHHN!!
I thought it was obvious that the Eugenics Wars took place behind the scenes, under the mask of several seemingly unrelated global conflicts... :nervous:
Really? I mean, we can tot up all of the casualties from all of the military conflicts occuring between 1993 and 1996, but I don't think you're going to come up with the 30 million corpses that historians of the 23rd and 24th centuries agree were generated by the Eugenics Wars.
You mean the casualties that you know of...
It also doesn't explain the presence of an uppity Legate showing up on an internet message board, three and a half centuries before his birth. You should take care, when telling the temporal branch of the Obsidian Order that there are continuity errors in need of addressing.
I have special dispensation :p
-
Even if you have an awesome reactor you still need propellant. Lots and lots of propellant. This design doesn't do a great job on that front.
I didn't look very closely, but I thought it said ion engine. Which doesn't seem the least bit practical for a ship of this size.
"While the ship will not travel at warp speed, with an ion propulsion engine powered by a 1.5GW nuclear reactor, it can travel at a constant acceleration so that the ship can easily get to key points of interest in our solar system. Three additional nuclear reactors would create all of the electricity needed for operation of the ship."
"The Gen1 Enterprise will be powered by three ion propulsion engines. These will provide constant acceleration, and versions of this technology are already used in spacecrafts. These engines are powered by electricity, and thus using nuclear reactors to generate this electricity is a natural fit. "
-
I didn't look very closely, but I thought it said ion engine. Which doesn't seem the least bit practical for a ship of this size.
An ion engine still needs propellant, and in large quantities. The designer might think that electricity alone is enough for an engine, but he's wrong; it still needs fuel, fuel, and some extra fuel. The great advantage to ion engines is their excellent specific impulse, but he'll still need to pack argon (or xenon, or something similar) propellant in quantity.
-
Perhaps a Bussard Ramjet could take care of that, and it'd even be fitting with the overall theme (the original Enterprise also had it).
-
I suspect it wouldn't. Nowhere near enough velocity, nowhere near enough density. It's not clear whether Bussard ramjets will work even at high relativistic velocities.
Bear in mind that to collect one kilogram of hydrogen the ramjet scoop must sweep, with 100% efficiency, a volume about equal to that of the earth. This isn't enough for a ram-assisted ion rocket.
-
I didn't look very closely, but I thought it said ion engine. Which doesn't seem the least bit practical for a ship of this size.
An ion engine still needs propellant, and in large quantities. The designer might think that electricity alone is enough for an engine, but he's wrong; it still needs fuel, fuel, and some extra fuel. The great advantage to ion engines is their excellent specific impulse, but he'll still need to pack argon (or xenon, or something similar) propellant in quantity.
To coincide with General's response as it lacked an actual source
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html
"Ion thrusters use inert gas for propellant, eliminating the risk of explosions associated with chemical propulsion. The usual propellant is xenon, but other gases such as krypton and argon may be used."
As for how much, you could calculate this by use of the Deep Space One probe
"Deep Space 1 carries 178 pounds (81 kilograms) of xenon propellant, which is capable of fueling engine operation at one-half throttle for over 20 months. Ion propulsion will increase the speed of DS1 by 7900 miles per hour (12,700 kilometers per hour) over the course of the mission."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs08grc.html
-
Put it on Kickstarter and we may be cruising the solar system in a couple of years... :coughs:
Other thoughts: Sometimes one really wishes we were alone in space just so that no one can see what we're doing huh? LOL.
Closing thoughts: This really does have all the amusement value of watching a 5 year old build his own spaceship.
-
Other thoughts: Sometimes one really wishes we were alone in space just so that no one can see what we're doing huh? LOL.
Too late :D
-
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/propellant
The tanks on the Enterprise will be most likely Argon, 55 million pounds, and three refueling depots, each with 55 million pounds. IDK exactly how we're going to fill said depots.. though they were suggesting Skylon to get up to the Enterprise and back.
Cost for 220 million pounds of Argon: $4 billion
Cost for 220 million pounds of Xenon: $500 billion
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum/ion-propulsion-engines/hydrogen-is-not-dangerous-in-space
Hydrogen was mentioned, but the author was afraid it would explode (he mentioned Hindenburg), until someone pointed out that unless you put your hydrogen tanks beside your oxygen supply, Hydrogen is inert. Someone also mentioned that the explosion of the Hindenburg was most likely due to the coating of alumnized rubber dope which was similar in composition to solid rocket fuel that they were using on the skin (There was a note by Hindenburg company engineers that they were aware of this issue). The flames were yellow in hue, and Hydrogen burns clear / blue. Most of the Hydrogen in the Hindenburg likely escaped into the atmosphere before having a chance to be ignited in the conflagration of the coating on the Hindenburg. So, the Hydrogen was actually likely safe. But they took unnecessary risks with the coating and got bit.
See Larry Niven's N-Space books for details regarding ramscoop ships. But yea, at any speed less than a significant fraction of light, there just isn't enough interstellar hydrogen- it's something like 1 atom per cubic meter, isn't it? In any case, while hydrogen is ~75% of the universe, it's not like it's sitting out in pure form in convenient barrels.
BTE-Dan, I think that you should look up the Hindenburg explosion analysis that was done by Nasa. Granted that it was night, but the fire of the Hindenberg was yellow. Hydrogen burns clear or with a blue cast. When freed in the Hindenburg situation, the hydrogen went straight up since it is very light. The real culprit of Hindenburg was the aluminized rubber fabric dope used on its hull which is similar to the recipe for solid rocket booster fuel, and the static electricity of the landing mast. This is why the skin immediately and completely burned away. There is a note by the Hindenburg company engineers that they were aware of the flammable nature of the aluminized rubber and nitrocellulose dope. Lighting a piece of that fabric was like lighting a fuse.
The real problem with hydrogen from an engineering standpoint is that it requires very close tolerances in valves and fittings and tanks to keep it from escaping as it is very low molecular weight and is sometimes used to test valves because it is so slippery. It also requires a relatively large volume for storage even in liquid form, as compared to heavier fuels. I note that Elon Musk has used Kerosene for his new rocket, Falcon for a more compact solution
The other remarkable thing about liquid hydrogen is that the Nasa rocket nozzles use it as coolent to keep them from being overheated by the plasmas. It flows through many little tubes in the bell of the rocket. It also gets preheated that way.
Hydrogen is generally useful for running power cells as well and making water for the humans if oxygen is abundant, from say regolith.
-
The tanks on the Enterprise won't be anything because it's a ****ty design that will never be built (thank ****)
e: if he wanted to fix it the first step would be to make a change akin to Dragon's suggestion, but he won't because then 'it's not the enterprise'
-
I just looked at the site, and oh my god I had no idea this idea was _this_ terrible.
It's almost as if this project was conceived by a bunch of fanboys with way more enthusiasm than skill.
I mean, the original design for the TV Enterprise was specifically chosen to be a departure from the then-current missile and airplane-like designs in order to imply a level of technology far beyond that prevailing at the time. Even in-universe, the design requires technological aids (like, say, an impulse drive, warp drive, dilithium reactor, artificial gravity) to be practical, none of which we know how to do.
If you really want to build a spaceship from SF for realsies, I would suggest a more practical design, like, say, the one from 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Babylon 5's Omega.
-
If you really want to build a spaceship from SF for realsies, I would suggest a more practical design, like, say, the one from 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Babylon 5's Omega.
I was wondering about that. Although, I get the saucer section. (For the 1G gravity magneto-wheel-whatever-you-call-it) BTW, he hasn't kept the scale of the Enterprise. It's actually like 3 X larger AFAIK. (Someone said this was for the gravity wheel, otherwise, motion sickness might result as it would have to spin faster to produce 1G?? -I don't get that part, but OK).
The main (engineering from the SF world) section + two nacelles fits nicely in with triple redundancy, but, I don't really see how it's necessary, as nothing should really be that problematic that you can't have all three triple-redundancy systems in the same hull section. I guess someone could say that it's to prevent losing all three systems with a meteor strike, but if you get a strike that big, you're screwed anyways (lop one of the nacelles off or disable it, and you're gonna have to shut down the other nacelle just to keep it pointing straight, and you're still going to have to counteract the now lopsided mass, unless the other nacelle was only damaged and shut down).
If physical distance between the reactors / engines is a big plus, then the design makes sense. If not.. well, what the E said.
EDIT: I get the part about the gravity wheel having to spin faster. I don't get why this would produce motion sickness. You're inside. No windows, only viewports. Being pinned to the outer wall by centrifugal force to simulate gravity. I really don't see how this would produce motion sickness just because you are travelling slower/faster... you're still pinned with 1G and no external references, darn it.
-
If you really want to build a spaceship from SF for realsies, I would suggest a more practical design, like, say, the one from 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Babylon 5's Omega.
I was wondering about that. Although, I get the saucer section.
You shouldn't 'get' the saucer section, as it's one of the biggest design flaws - 10 points if you can spot why!
-
There's also a ship from "The Mission to Mars" (that was the Polish title, anyway), fairly realistic (IIRC, I watched this movie a long time ago) and not bad looking either. Or the interstellar ship (I forgot the name) from Avatar, which was based on an actual concept. BSG may also have some realistic designs, which I would have seen if I've managed to watch more than four episodes. Star Trek is one of the worst franchises to base ships on, since it prefers aesthetics over realism.
-
BSG didn't have particularly realistic designs.
-
The problem with that gravity wheel is that it is oriented so that its axis is perpendicular to the thrust axis. This causes some weird behaviour (Which s why all the gravity wheel designs you've seen so far have the wheel's axis in parallel to the thrust axis).
While on the subject of thrust, balancing this design so that the thrusters are "behind" the center of gravity is also going to be non-trivial.
This whole talk about triple redundancy is basically bull****. There is no practical reason for the design to be as it is (because the basic design is based on technologies noone knows how to build). This is just an extreme example of cargo cult engineering, just without the misunderstood real technology the cargo cultists want to emulate.
-
Well, you *DO* want the nuclear reactors away from people...
A reason to keep the three reactors in three separate hulls – and separated from the saucer hull – is to protect the people who reside inside the saucer hull in the case of an emergency. For example, if a meteor strikes one of the reactors, the reactor can be jettisoned away. This is a case where the Enterprise ship basic configuration that has been lifted from science fiction fits nicely with the functional needs of the actual Gen1 ship design.
Another reason to have the three reactors in three hulls set away from the saucer hull is to reduce the exposure to any low level radiation from the reactors on the people and electronic equipment in the saucer hull. While the reactors will be heavily shielded to block the release of radiation, some gamma radiation and neutron radiation will still escape at a low level. So “distance attenuation” is a strategy used to further reduce this radiation. Distance attenuation takes advantage of the fact that radiation from the reactors falls off by the inverse-square law. While short term exposure will cause no ill effects on a person’s health, such as when workers or visitors are in the main engine hull or aux engines hulls, long term exposure might pose a health risk. Thus the reactors are located at least 250 feet away from the saucer hull at all points.
I kind of felt the same way the E did looking over the site (and I wasn't too happy about it, I want the design to be viable); however, the author does make some points for his design that aren't discernible with just a casual glance at the website. However, I wish he'd spent some time, you know, actually covering a few bases like
1) How he plans to get all of his stuff up there (this may be possible but not right exactly now, we need some sort of heavy lifter, and it needs to be efficient or the cost is going to be nutso) and
2) how he plans to get these fuel depots in place and fueled -- ok, good, now how about re-fuelling them?? Yes, the Enterprise will use that fuel and need more.. you'd need another fleet of fueling ships (that doesn't make this impossible, it just means you need some infrastructure in place is all) and
3) How is this thing going to break orbit with .002 of constant acceleration.. is the plan just to increase speed slowly and go into increasingly wide orbits of the Earth until escape velocity is reached?
EDIT: The only thing I don't like about having the gravity wheel in front like a big shield is that it makes a nice big meteor target... maybe if you put it up on its side, and had four small reactor / engine pods spread out at equal distances from it, then it wouldn't have any problems spinning the hull around (ok, actually it might spin, I see that now but this could be countered by having ion compensation thrusters maybe... IDK - I just don't like the idea of plowing through space with a nice, big flat surface that happens to be the habitat ring in front)
Like this:
^ direction of travel ^
ll
engine / reactor pod > |--ll--| < engine / reactor pod
ll
^ gravity wheel
view from top ^
__ <engine / reactor pod
_|__
/ \
| | <gravity wheel > Direction of travel
\ /
-----
|
---- <engine / reactor pod
view from side ^
This would make for a smaller profile to avoid meteorites / space dust (assuming high relativistic speeds were ever reached)
Right?
-
3) How is this thing going to break orbit with .002 of constant acceleration.. is the plan just to increase speed slowly and go into increasingly wide orbits of the Earth until escape velocity is reached?
Slow but steady acceleration is probably the best way to get around in space, and the reason ion thrusters are so promising. Steady thrust will raise apoapsis into an escape trajectory.
-
The whole multiple redundancy, ejecting reactors that are hit stuff is all doable in a much more conventional, easier to build and operate design.
Also, we (well, the US Navy) has been able to safely operate nuclear reactors on ships that are much smaller than this proposed design. Why would the techniques used on carriers and subs not also work for a spaceship?
-
The problem with that gravity wheel is that it is oriented so that its axis is perpendicular to the thrust axis. This causes some weird behaviour (Which s why all the gravity wheel designs you've seen so far have the wheel's axis in parallel to the thrust axis).
Indeed. Any attempts to accelerate this configuration would pull some people "down", some would get "lifted" off the floor, some would be pulled down the corridor and the rest would experience a combination of those effects. Not to mention I'm not sure if it won't tear itself apart when trying to turn. With an "Earth Force One" style configuration, everybody would get pulled to the side, which is comparatively easy to account for. Not to mention structural stress should be somewhat more manageable, and the center of mass would be in line with the thrust. Not to mention maneuvering thrusters placement would be easier in that layout. Same goes for plasma shield projectors (a serious technology (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9567-plasma-bubble-could-protect-astronauts-on-mars-trip.html)), and eventual weapons.
As for the reactor, just put it near the engine, at the far end of the ship's "trunk". That's also make it easy to put radiators on it. You can decouple the entire assembly and fire it into space at any time, should the need arise.
-
Dragon, the problem with the last bit (firing your entire reactor/engine assembly away) is that, at this point, no one can come rescue you... you have to be self-sufficient until a fleet is operational, and, even when one is, they will take some time to get to you at 0.002g acceleration if you are out near Mars, say. Which brings up my other point, how is 0.002g acceleration going to throw anyone anywhere when it's up against 1.0G of artificial gravity???
-
Dragon, the problem with the last bit (firing your entire reactor/engine assembly away) is that, at this point, no one can come rescue you... you have to be self-sufficient until a fleet is operational, and, even when one is, they will take some time to get to you at 0.002g acceleration if you are out near Mars, say. Which brings up my other point, how is 0.002g acceleration going to throw anyone anywhere when it's up against 1.0G of artificial gravity???
I'm really trying not to tear my hair out here. I really am.
-
jr2. You do not know what you are talking about. A low constant acceleration over a long period of time will take you wherever you want. The "artificial gravity" is not actual gravity, but centrifugal force (which carries _other_* problems with it).
*Other problems being the need to counterbalance the rotational forces imparted by the rotating thing.
-
A steady .002g acceleration will get you anywhere. If we had a rocket that could do a steady .002g once in orbit for an arbitrary burn time we'd have the keys to the inner solar system.
-
Which part? OK, let's see, 1.0G artificial gravity = everyone is pinned to the outside of the gravity wheel. Let's say I weigh 100 kilos. Now, I get .002g acceleration, let's say it's pushing me towards, I don't know, the door on the other side of my room. 0.002x100=0.2kg, yes?
Unless I'm missing something here, which I probably am, but Batts is too busy sitting on his hands to explain so I'll wait until he's decided that he can explain without trying to damage his hairdo. Really, Battuta, you should try gesturing whilst explaining, gives you something to do. Just keep your hands away from the person who ist giving you the problem while you explain. ;)
EDIT:
Nonoononononononnononono
You misunderstand, I'm talking about this:
Indeed. Any attempts to accelerate this configuration would pull some people "down", some would get "lifted" off the floor, some would be pulled down the corridor and the rest would experience a combination of those effects. Not to mention I'm not sure if it won't tear itself apart when trying to turn.
0.002g acceleration. I don't see any problems like the above occuring.
I do however see the point with the counter-rotating deal, however, I don't see how putting the saucer in front is going to fix it (the engine stack and outside of the gravity ring will just rotate counter - I suppose that's ok, but won't that detract from the spin speed of the inner ring, messing with the artificial gravity? Wouldn't it be better to counter the force entirely, making it unnecessary to put the ring in front?
Wait a minute. Once the inner ring is up to speed, it's actually supposed to be magnetically suspended. So, once it's up to speed, the only force you will need to counter the counter-rotation will be whatever it takes to keep the inner wheel spinning, which I don't think will be that much if it's a) magnetically/electro-magnetically suspended and b) in a vacuum (which it will be; only the sub-compartments within will be pressurized)
EDIT2:
A steady .002g acceleration will get you anywhere. If we had a rocket that could do a steady .002g once in orbit for an arbitrary burn time we'd have the keys to the inner solar system.
I'm aware... where did you get the idea that I didn't know that? :confused:
-
Note, I'd prefer not to be stuck with 0.002G as the maximum delta-V. This would merely be a "cruise acceleration", used 90% of the time. It should have some kind of backup engine capable of higher Gs, for use whenever they're needed (for getting clear of space stations, or avoiding unexpected collisions). Also, a consistent force would be less annoying than a constantly changing one, and rest assured, you'll notice those 0.002G.
As for reactor ejections, being stuck with a backup chemical engine (which could be enough for a deorbit and a landing, or at least for putting the ship on a trajectory it could be intercepted on) would be preferable than being cooked by a malfunctioning reactor. Of course, given the current track record of nuke reactors, I'd say it's unlikely it ever happens.
-
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/impulse-engines
The impulse engines are small engines seen on a portion of the outer perimeter of the aft end of the saucer hull as shown below. They are generally used only in emergency situations. When used, they apply stabilizing forces to the saucer hull, with high thrust if needed, to protect the humans inside this hull and to make sure the saucer hull does not break up or become damaged. For example, if a main engine hull or one of the aux engine hulls must suddenly be jettisoned away from the ship because a meteor strike caused a radiation leak, the impulse engines kick on to keep the Enterprise from going into a dangerous spin or roll. In fact, the main engine hull and aux engine hulls could suddenly all be jettisoned away, and the impulse engines will make sure that the saucer hull remains stable and intact.
The impulse engines also provide thrust for short periods to alter the flight path of the Enterprise in the case where there are problems with the ion propulsion engines. Even though the engines have very limited sustainable power, they can still maneuver the ship out of harm’s way if its direction is changed well before it’s near some object that it might impact. For example, if a disabled Enterprise was on a collision course with Mars, but Mars was still hours away, a slight change in direction of the Enterprise would be more than enough to prevent the Enterprise from crashing into Mars.
The impulse engines, unlike the ion propulsion engines in the three engine hulls, have a need for short term high thrust. This is required to provide the sudden bursts of thrust needed in emergency situations to stabilize the saucer hull. What technology is used to achieve this will be up to the design team to figure out. Chemical rockets, using liquid propellant systems to enable throttling, are the leading candidates, but other safer options should be investigated too.
-
That's what I meant. Those engines should give you at least 1G, maybe more. Which invalidates this:
0.002g acceleration. I don't see any problems like the above occuring.
In Politifact terms, full flop. :)
-
I apologize for the misunderstanding, I misread your post.
However, you still haven't addressed the issue that conventional designs can fill many, if not all, of the same requirements and design goals put forward for this idiotic project. When designing an interplanetary starship, I should think that building it as sturdy and simple as possible would be a good goal, given that you really wouldn't want to take any unnecessary chances on this stuff.
In Politifact terms, full flop. :)
Oh do shut up. Show us a design that can give 1g of accel for prolonged periods of time first, please. The best constant accel engines we have, Ion engines, are limited to low thrust ratios, not to mention the need to keep engines fueled.
-
This is true. I for one think that a single engine/reactor array would do just fine. Actually, how about the B5 ship.. IDK what it is, but it's like a rotating cylinder... you could have one of those, rotating around the engine/reactor array, with enough distance to be safe in radiation terms (ofc you can always make a reactor safe with shielding but let's not forget that adds mass and you ofc have to get it into orbit in the first place, so the less shielding necessary, the better).
EDIT: of course you would have to counter the rotational force of the inner module.
Oh, and dragon:
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/100-year-roadmap
(http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/USS-Enterprise-Spaceship-100-Year-Roadmap-v4.png)
-
I was talking about those high thrust "impulse" engines. The ship is going to spend about 90% of the time under ion power (maybe even more, closer to 98%), and use high thrust engines for special situations. Still, in those situations, people on the "Enterprise" style ship would get thrown around. On the "EF1" style they also would, but in a more predictable fashion. If we had engines capable of making consistent 1G thrust, then why bother with a centrifuge?
-
Because we don't have engines capable of doing 1G thrust for more than... I don't know, a few hours at best I think (if you throttled down a liquid fueled rocket to do 1G). They aren't fuel efficient like ion engines.
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/engines
These three engines will all be ion propulsion type engines, sometimes also known as ion thrusters. The thrust created by an ion propulsion engine is very small compared to conventional chemical rockets, but these engines have a very high specific impulse, meaning they use propellant very efficiency. This high propellant efficiency is achieved by accelerating the propellant to very high speeds.
*High specific impulse allows much less propellant to be carried onboard the ship, thus lowering its overall wet mass.
*Safer than chemical rockets since there are no ignited materials in the engines.
*The propellant gas used in the ion propulsion engines will be non-flammable and thus safer when stored in tanks and routed through pipes to the engines.
*Very long engine life. Ideal for the Enterprise whose engines must last for decades.
*Lends itself to being powered by a nuclear reactor that is used to generate electricity. Nuclear reactors have a very long life as a power source, which is a great fit for the Enterprise.
*A low .002g constant acceleration is so small that it does not interfere with the operation of the gravity wheel. The change in the gravity acting upon persons inside the wheel as the wheel spins is so slight that it will not be noticed.
-
Have we finally agreed that the NCC-1701 does not make a feasible design without antimatter-powered warp cores, artificial gravity, energy shielding, and impulse drives?
With that out of the way, I'd rather see the Angelwing from Nexus or the CR90 corvette from Star Wars before I see the Enterprise. They also stand a greater chance of being used as a base design since they actually have their thrusters placed on the ship's centerline.
-
Even bloody Star Destroyers are a more feasible design.
-
Sulaco or bust (http://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/smilies/f/0/getin.001.gif)
-
Even bloody Star Destroyers are a more feasible design.
They're actually among the best warship designs I've seen, though the bridge messes this up a bit. The wedge shaped hull makes for a greatly increased field of fire for it's turrets.
-
You do realize that just by fighting this design here will get nothing accomplished right? Take it up against him and see what he has to say for himself
Afterall, he did make the challenge
-
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/faq
(Relevant section sized up & in bold) EDIT: basically, someone needs to show him that yes, it can be done, but that design paired with current tech isn't feasible - Enterprise, sure, NCC-1701, no, not yet anyways (even if we had the tech, I don't know if it would be an optimal design.. I never got why Star Trek ships were all connected sections. If I were a Klingon/whathaveyou, I'd aim for the little thin connecting sections, overcharge my phasers/disruptors & fire a couple of torps).
Q: BTE-Dan, do you really think it’s technically possible to build the USS Enterprise over the next two decades?
A: Yes. It’s within our technological reach to build a full-sized Enterprise with 1g gravity. This Gen1 Enterprise can go on missions to key points of interest in our solar system, like Mars and Venus. It will be the biggest ship of any kind ever built by humans, and it will be larger than the tallest building in the world. It’s possible to build the Enterprise, and it would be a monumental achievement for us humans who inhabit the planet earth.
Q: How would building the Enterprise alter our manned space program?
A: The USS Enterprise from Star Trek is a cultural icon, and we should latch part of the US space program on to this icon and build from there. We need a far grander vision of what we should be doing to get humans up into space and how we might gain a permanent foothold there. If we aren’t going to get a sustainable presence up there, then we should stop spending money for putting humans into space and instead focus on robotic missions like sending more advanced rovers to Mars, Venus, and elsewhere. If we are going to ask taxpayers to pay billions of dollars for projects to put Americans into space, it should be for an idea that they can relate to and be inspired by. The general form and characteristics of the spaceship should be inspirational – and building the first generation of USS Enterprise would surely be inspirational.
Q: Well the ship is inspired by the Star Trek Enterprise, but it’s not the same. Please explain why it’s different.
A: It’s different because the technologies we have to work with in the first half of the 21st century are much different than the technologies that will exist in the 23rd century when Star Trek is set. We can only dream of what technologies may exist by then. So we can stay as true to the themes of the Enterprise ship as is possible given our technological limitations. We have to re-configure interior sections of the ship quite a bit. But it will still be a magnificently impressive ship. When completed, and given the missions that it will be capable of doing, it will be as inspirational as putting astronauts on the moon in 1969.
Q: You seem pretty excited about this.
A: You are right. This is super cool.
Q: What if someone can prove that building the Gen1 Enterprise is beyond our technological reach?
A: If someone can convince me that it is not technically possible (ignoring political and funding issues), then I will state on the BuildTheEnterprise (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/) site that I have been found to be wrong. In that case, building the first Enterprise will have to wait for, say, another half century. But I don’t think that anyone will be able to convince me it can’t be done. My position is that we can – and should – immediately start working on it. There is a forum (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/forum) on the BuildTheEnterprise site where anyone who wants to try to prove that the ship can’t be built over the next twenty years is welcome to state their case.
But also, even if it can’t be built over the next twenty years, that should not stop the program from starting. If NASA dives into the R & D for the ship and they in time learn that it will take say 25 years instead of 20 years – then it takes 25 years. Thus the Gen1 ship can still be built; it’s just a matter of time and determination to see it through.
Q: But you don’t even work at NASA – or in the space industry. So why should we believe you?
A: All of my reasoning is contained on the BuildTheEnterprise (http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/) site. Mainly I have tried to show feasibility by scaling up technologies that have already had quite a bit of research done on them. Where possible I show the calculations for scaling things up to show feasibility. For example, you can scale up the masses of the systems in proposed missions to Mars such as for a mission using an ion propulsion engine. So you scale everything up, like the on-board nuclear reactor to power the engines, and so on, and you can arrive at a ship the size of the Enterprise.
Of course everything will not scale up linearly. Some technologies when scaled up may make things actually easier due to improved economies of scale. Others may be more challenging to scale up, and a non-linear quality may work against you. But hey, developing the Enterprise is supposed to be challenging.
Q: Does your background and experience as an engineer help you with all of this?
A: I think that my training and thirty years of experience as an engineer have been valuable when working on the ideas at the BuildTheEnterprise website.
Q: Alright, now for the big issue. Do you think that the funding could ever be put in place for this? I mean the public just doesn’t seem all that interested in space stuff. And the country is broke.
A: Our federal spending levels and revenue levels are out of balance because we have promised so much for entitlement programs. It’s true that we should not add a large new program of any kind unless we directly find the money to pay for it. So at BuildTheEnterprise I propose three options. First, we could cut spending across a large number of federal programs that are classified as discretionary spending. This would exclude cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and major social programs. Second, we could simply raise the income tax rates slightly. Or thirdly we could do a combination of cutting spending on many discretionary spending items and also raise taxes slightly. Since we only need about $50 billion per year to fund the Enterprise program – out of a $3.6 trillion federal budget – it is well within reason that such a program could be funded given enough enthusiasm within the slice of the public who cares about space exploration. Of course this enthusiasm would have to at some point spill over to some influential national political leaders, such as a president or presidential candidate. And there would need to be enthusiasm in Congress.
If we want to define the greatness of our civilization mostly based on how we make transfer payments to each other through social programs, well, that sure doesn’t seem too inspiring. We need some other things to get jazzed up by as a civilization – something with a much bigger sweep – something to fire our imaginations. And we need something to inspire more young people to want to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics – the STEM subjects. We need a worthy successor to the Apollo space program – and the Enterprise program can be just that.
Just look how many young people were inspired to study engineering by the character Scotty from Star Trek. Well, I bet a lot of young people would be inspired if we actually built the first generation of Scotty’s ship.
Q: Live long and prosper.
A: Likewise. Thank you.
— END of FAQ —
-
e nm
-
Personally, I don't think that we should be designing technology to fit the vessel yet. One of the few advantages of Space travel is the fact that ships don't have to follow a design-plan as such, it doesn't need to be aerodynamic or even aesthetically pleasing, they can grow organically around the equipment they are required to carry.
At the moment, I think that's the best way to progress. Whilst it would be fun to have a replica Enterprise in Space, probably far more could be achieved in the way of advancing our knowledge of Space Travel with more 'equipment-centric' designs.
-
To be honest we've been designing the technology to fit the vessel, or rather our ability to lift the vessel to orbit, since we started on this spaceflight thing. We have yet to stop, despite the ability in theory to do so via the ISS.
-
Whilst it would be fun to have a replica Enterprise in Space, probably far more could be achieved in the way of advancing our knowledge of Space Travel with more 'equipment-centric' designs.
I once saw a late '90's, four-cylinder Honda Accord, fitted with 27" wheels, unable to leave a grocery store parking lot, because the exit was on a slight incline, and the engine did not produce enough torque to get those wheels moving up a hill. A culture has been bred that would rather go nowhere in style than anywhere practically. A 3:1 scale Enterprise is kind of the Trekkie version of that Accord. It doesn't matter that there may be an obviously-better means of travel; the wheels won't be large enough/it won't be the Enterprise.