01 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by murphiusI heard about this. It might LOOK like the Enterprise and it might even work as an in-system ship, it will never leave the Solar System, won't be able to even get close to 0.1 c. More like 0.001c, if that.
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/
This looks interesting. 🙂
01 Jun 12
Yes, you may be right but this is only the MK I they propose to build. The ship will be refitted as technology gets better. That is according to the synopsis that appears on the site.
It may all be pie in the sky. I like to think that one day our children will have the technology to go and visit all the new worlds that have been discovered.
01 Jun 12
Originally posted by murphiusEven the best technology 100 years from now will not get the big E up to c much less warp 9🙂
Yes, you may be right but this is only the MK I they propose to build. The ship will be refitted as technology gets better. That is according to the synopsis that appears on the site.
It may all be pie in the sky. I like to think that one day our children will have the technology to go and visit all the new worlds that have been discovered.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd if it does, the ship they build with it will be very unlikely to look like the Enterprise. It's not a very good working design. It looks high-tech, but for practical purposes, it's not well thought through.
Even the best technology 100 years from now will not get the big E up to c much less warp 9🙂
Richard
02 Jun 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueFor one thing, if the living quarters are spinning to produce artificial gravity, they better gimbal the whole assembly if they want to bank and turn....
And if it does, the ship they build with it will be very unlikely to look like the Enterprise. It's not a very good working design. It looks high-tech, but for practical purposes, it's not well thought through.
Richard
03 Jun 12
The floor of the pods, where people walk, cannot be only .5” thick. It is undesirable for people to have the sense that they are walking on a thin sheet of material due to the sound and feel of it as they walk. Also, a composite floor will not be too esthetically appealing over a large area. Thus the .5” thick composite floor will in most places be covered with various flooring materials to make the surface more appealing to people and also less prone to accidental puncture.I like how the floors are a mere half an inch thick, support all the weight of the people and the structures they play in (theaters, museums, basketball courts, etc.), but they're prone to accidental puncture. 😲
04 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitAccidental puncture from weapons. That is a common sci fi theme. Also figures in jets too, terrorist with gun and people worried he would fire it off blowing a hole in the wall.
[quote]The floor of the pods, where people walk, cannot be only .5” thick. It is undesirable for people to have the sense that they are walking on a thin sheet of material due to the sound and feel of it as they walk. Also, a composite floor will not be too esthetically appealing over a large area. Thus the .5” thick composite floor will in most places b ...[text shortened]... y in (theaters, museums, basketball courts, etc.), but they're prone to accidental puncture. 😲
05 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseHe goes on to give example surface coverings that aren't bullet-proof. Aesthetics and human comfort are his only considerations.
Accidental puncture from weapons. That is a common sci fi theme. Also figures in jets too, terrorist with gun and people worried he would fire it off blowing a hole in the wall.
05 Jun 12
I don't think we should get ahead of our selves. We should send robotic probes to the nearest star systems as soon as technologically reasonable - its worth waiting for the fastest drives or a next-gen ship will over take an older one.
We should explore all the local planets and moons robotically.
We should seriously consider terraforming Mars or Venus or the possibility of establishing a self sustaining civilization on either without terraforming. However, all early missions for feasibility and preparation should be fully robotic.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
05 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadEven if it doesn't, we can depend on Voyager 6 to come back and haunt us.
I don't think we should get ahead of our selves. We should send robotic probes to the nearest star systems as soon as technologically reasonable - its worth waiting for the fastest drives or a next-gen ship will over take an older one.
Richard
05 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadDesigning a starship the same as the enterprise may be a technical
I don't think we should get ahead of our selves. We should send robotic probes to the nearest star systems as soon as technologically reasonable - its worth waiting for the fastest drives or a next-gen ship will over take an older one.
We should explore all the local planets and moons robotically.
We should seriously consider terraforming Mars or Venus ...[text shortened]... raforming. However, all early missions for feasibility and preparation should be fully robotic.
no go area. Saying that, it must be possible to design a starship.
If it is impossible to develop a FTL starship drive, then i agree with
you and we have to develop generational ships or explore with
robotic probes/replicators/surrogates.
This universe is so vast. It seems logical that mankind explores and
populates as many world as possible.
Besides, I hate the thought of keeping all our eggs (DNA) in one basket (Earth).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
06 Jun 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain why should we seriously consider thermoforming Venus or Mars?
I don't think we should get ahead of our selves. We should send robotic probes to the nearest star systems as soon as technologically reasonable - its worth waiting for the fastest drives or a next-gen ship will over take an older one.
We should explore all the local planets and moons robotically.
We should seriously consider terraforming Mars or Venus ...[text shortened]... raforming. However, all early missions for feasibility and preparation should be fully robotic.
Terraforming a planet will take a huge amount of time and vast resource application before
you see any benefit, you destroy any extant local life forms and much of the potential useful
scientific information you could gain from studying it and at the end of the day you get at
best about 1.5 times the earth's worth of extra living area both of which coming with a
string of extra complications (high radiation from sun due to lack of magnetic feilds, non-standard
gravity and day length ect ect) and after taking all the time and effort to get out of earth's
gravitational well you are dropping straight back down another one.
On the other hand building space habitats out of asteroids clears up asteroids that might otherwise
threaten earth, starts benefiting us immediately with asteroid mining and due to the small size (comparatively)
of space habitats they start becoming habitable much sooner than a planet would.
They can be spun to produce any desired gravity and lit with mirrors for any desired day length.
They have no significant gravitational well so travel between them is vastly cheaper and easier and
there is conservatively enough materiel available in the solar system for Trillions of people to live
in comfort as opposed to the few extra billions we get by terraforming Venus and Mars.
Given that any terraforming operation is almost certainly going to need to build space habitats and
stations anyway as part of the terraforming process my question is why bother to go to all the trouble
of terraforming planets and destroying their current landscapes and all that we could learn from them
in the name of making extra living space that will be harsh and uncomfortable for any non transhumanist
living there when we can accommodate far more people faster in space habitats?
Particularly as self sustaining space habitats basically just need engines stuck on the back to become
generational starships.
Terraforming strikes me as being a pretty bad idea on a cost benefit basis when compared to building space
habitats.