Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 01 Jun '12 16:23
    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

    This looks interesting.
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Jun '12 17:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by murphius
    http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

    This looks interesting.
    I 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.
  3. 01 Jun '12 20:35
    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.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    01 Jun '12 21:01
    Originally posted by murphius
    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.
    Even the best technology 100 years from now will not get the big E up to c much less warp 9
  5. 02 Jun '12 09:49
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Even the best technology 100 years from now will not get the big E up to c much less warp 9
    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
  6. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    02 Jun '12 19:41
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    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
    For 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....
  7. 02 Jun '12 21:45
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For 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 those struts had better be made of impossiblystrongium.

    Richard
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Do ya think?
    03 Jun '12 02:05
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    For 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....
    Just turn with the saucer until you're facing the way you want
  9. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    03 Jun '12 05:33
    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.
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Jun '12 09:55
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    [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.
    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.
  11. Standard member SwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    05 Jun '12 05:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    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.
    He goes on to give example surface coverings that aren't bullet-proof. Aesthetics and human comfort are his only considerations.
  12. 05 Jun '12 05:51
    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.
  13. 05 Jun '12 11:16
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    Even if it doesn't, we can depend on Voyager 6 to come back and haunt us.

    Richard
  14. 05 Jun '12 19:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    Designing a starship the same as the enterprise may be a technical
    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).
  15. 06 Jun '12 01:52
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    Again why should we seriously consider thermoforming Venus or Mars?

    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.