We Could Build The Starship Enterprise (Maybe)

Discussion in 'Unrelated Discussion' started by Geers, May 10, 2014.

  1. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    So this engineer is of the opinion that building a slightly modified version of the USS Enterprise is entirely possible. I don't know enough about engineering to make a proper assessment but I don't see anything glaringly obvious which wouldn't work (unless I'm being silly and missed it somehow). To his credit, he's been pretty thorough in his plans. He even came up with a budget plan.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Oh, and it also has a 1000MW laser, for killing Klingons mining and science.

    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/
    Remy561 likes this.
  2. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    What's the point of the nacelles?

    Aren't you supposed to build spacecraft like submarines?
  3. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Well if something goes wrong you can ditch it. The auxiliary engines and saucer hull can all detach from the connecting body.
    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/why-the-enterprise-form
  4. tehtrekd

    tehtrekd Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,996
    Likes Received:
    2,772
    Yeah, that'd go over well in the next UN board meeting.

    "So, we could get to Mars in 90 days, all we need is a budget of 50 BILLION dollars a year for 20 years, also we'd have to build the Gen 1 Starship Enterprise and the entire first and second world would have to get along long enough to build it."
  5. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    The US defence budget is about 600 billion. So it's not that crazy.
    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/funding-politics
  6. tehtrekd

    tehtrekd Post Master General

    Messages:
    2,996
    Likes Received:
    2,772
    The US? You expect the people that, after shutting down government, cut off the 18B dollar budget given to NASA instead of lowering the 600B dollar defense budget to fund this?

    No, what we need is another Cold War. Something to get the sciences of the world all the money they'll need.

    You know, mild chances at nuclear war aside, it would sort of work.
    Neumeusis likes this.
  7. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Well I can't say that wouldn't work. Just tell them there's oil and terrorists on Europa. That'll work.
  8. thebigpill

    thebigpill Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    85
    but I thought we already did?

  9. kvalheim

    kvalheim Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    645
    Dat framerate
  10. Col_Jessep

    Col_Jessep Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,227
    Likes Received:
    257
    I think the design of the Enterprise is not exactly great for real life considerations. A large rotating ring structure would certainly be better for the first generations. You get some fake gravity and don't have to concern yourself with stabilizing the nacelles. The downside is a larger surface area which requires more shielding. Best to go with a cylindrical core with two to four arms that contain areas where gravity is useful: workspace, habitat...

    The question about manned missions in our solar system is really more about funding than technology. What we need are cheaper ways to get payload into orbit. You think the Enterprise is big? Wait till you see what it takes to bring the parts into orbit. Payload mass times 20. If only we had a space elevator...

    I think with a space elevator you could probably get a good part of your funding from tourism. Who wouldn't want to spend a day or two in a space station in orbit looking down on earth?
    LavaSnake likes this.
  11. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    It's ok, he's thought about shielding:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/shielding

    We might need bigger rockets, but it's not something we can't do right now. A space elevator isn't really feasible right now. My idea is:

    Build a moon base
    Make a space elevator and/or mass driver there.
    Use materials there to establish a mining base.
    Start mining asteroids.
    Build in orbit.

    Putin_tada.gif
    Last edited: May 13, 2014
  12. igncom1

    igncom1 Post Master General

    Messages:
    7,961
    Likes Received:
    3,132
    If we humans could stop throwing a fit whenever we hear the word "Nuclear" there are some better ways of getting into orbit, and I don't mean exploding our way up either.
    Geers likes this.
  13. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    But...But....



    Seriously though, building that on the ground would be crazier than the concept itself.
    ryan375 and igncom1 like this.
  14. Col_Jessep

    Col_Jessep Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,227
    Likes Received:
    257
    You need 8km/s delta-v to get into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), roughly 3km/s to get to Moon, 1.5-2km/s to land on Moon, 1.5km/s to take off, IIRC. A mining base on the Moon would certainly help in the long run but it's fuel you really want early on. There is no 'conventional' (fossil/H2/O2) fuel on the Moon though.

    Mars would be better due to its CO2 atmo and (probably readily available) frozen surface water. You can take some Mars soil, heat it and condense pure water out of it. With the CO2 from Mars' atmo (80% is CO2) you can build basically any conventional fuel you want. And getting it into orbit around Mars is a lot cheaper than Earth!
  15. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    There's water on the moon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

    And it's a lot closer than Mars.
  16. Col_Jessep

    Col_Jessep Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,227
    Likes Received:
    257
    The obvious advantage of the Moon is that you have a better chance to save your guys if something goes wrong. Don't be fooled though, it takes roughly the same amount of fuel to get to Moon or Mars if you don't have to hurry like for resupply or robotic missions. The big difference is travel time and distance. It can be cheaper to land on Mars than on the Moon. Aerocapture and parachute assisted landing are great for your budget! Frequent storms on Mars make it somewhat dangerous for manned missions though but if you 'just' want to drop an automated factory... =D
  17. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Moon has Helium-3 though. For nuclear fusion.
  18. Col_Jessep

    Col_Jessep Moderator Alumni

    Messages:
    4,227
    Likes Received:
    257
    Once we have fusion reactors we will be playing in an entirely different ballpark. That's when it might become interesting to bring it back from the Moon and use it here in our power plants. That will be a while though.
  19. kvalheim

    kvalheim Post Master General

    Messages:
    1,726
    Likes Received:
    645
    It bothered me when I found an article on how space travel is -always- gonna be a cramped, uncomfortable experience in entirely function-over-form ships like we have now. Human progress is a surprising beast
  20. Geers

    Geers Post Master General

    Messages:
    6,946
    Likes Received:
    6,820
    Moon. That is all. DO NOT READ PAST THE OPENING PARAGRAPH IF YOU WANT TO WATCH IT.

    As a general rule of them you should disregard an article that uses words like "always" like that.

Share This Page