Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? - Page 3

BillJ · January 22 2013, 05:44 PM

I'd rather work towards feeding the hungry and fixing other issues on this planet before spending trillions on something useless.

Melakon · January 22 2013, 07:23 PM

Wow, you know, somebody mentioned this exact same thing exactly one week ago!

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=200455

And it's on this exact same page! Too bad you didn't read it first, it would have saved you the trouble of typing it all over again.

Bry_Sinclair · January 22 2013, 10:16 PM

Gravity wheel? Nuclear reactor?

Without artifical gravity plating and a matter/antimatter warp core, what's the point?

Spearsab · January 24 2013, 01:55 AM

.

Spearsab · January 24 2013, 02:03 AM

Garrovick
I do not mean to offend however; I don’t think you even considered this long enough to check it out. Not only is it practical but It would employ 10s of thousands of people for at least 20 years, maybe more. The Mars missions could give us continued technological feedback on just about everything we use in space. With a stable and sound platform the USS Enterprise could become a home away from home. And space, nearby moons, and asteroids would inherently seem not so far way. So as far as practical, I guess you have to determine if space is or was ever practical.

I would love to see the USS Enterprise fully envisioned as it has been portrayed in all the series however, I do also understand that we need to start somewhere and, I am not rocket scientist but if you read the website it seems feasible. A multi-functional vehicle is just what NASA and Space needs. The Moon missions, Mars missions, and Asteroid mission, both mining and study, are just the start. I am not part of the effort just a REALY enthusiastic space lover, but I could see us establishing asteroid and moon bases out further away such as Jupiter or even further.

As far as the “possible benefits” I cannot begin to describe the “possible benefits” but, if you look just at what the mission to the moon got us, from Velcro to Food storage, Propulsion to water and air filtering, from firefighting gear to LEDs, I think the benefits are WELL worth the cost.

I do understand that once you build the facilities to build, store, and maintain the equipment for the vessel you still have to maintain it. But what does that mean? It means Thousands if not 10s of thousands of jobs created out of “You gotta Dream” idea that will further the human race for millennia to come.

Identifying planets is not the hard part, per say. Getting there is. The closest inhabitable planet is Alpha Centauri Bb, 4.4 Light Years away.
Not exactly a stroll around the block.
But do you know what a stroll around the block is? Mars, Earth’s Moon, the asteroid belt.

I’m just saying. It’s like our solar system has all these places to go and not one wants to. Come on Just get in the car.?!.

Balrog

We are still working on light speed travel and deflector shields. The proposed USS Enterprise design would use Ion thrust engines which would create little acceleration over a short distant but a lot over a large one. Right now it is not as important as getting us in space.

Silvercrest

Check out the website. He covers the gravity issue on the website.

This is all just my opinion though. I just encourage everyone, even if you don't think if possible, feasable, or practical, or if you are just a party pooper, to go and check out the website. I think if will convince you.

Silvercrest · January 24 2013, 03:10 AM

It didn't.

magarity · January 24 2013, 05:29 AM

I'd be happy with a high speed probe sent out of the solar system with purpose built instruments to measure the solar boundary phenomena the Voyager probes are encountering. A solar sail craft could get up to 60K miles per second and get out there and beyond in just a few years.

T'Girl · January 24 2013, 06:32 AM

Spearsab wrote:

Check out the website. He covers the gravity issue on the website.

Centrifugal force and gravity are not the same things.

Spearsab · January 24 2013, 04:30 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=VMafReWFSfE

Simulated gravity is what we have for now. We can't create gravity because we don't how it is made, we just know how it effects things in space.

However if we generate a force that acts like gravity then I think it is mission accomplished.

So Centrifugal Force is not the same but equal to gravity.

Spearsab · January 24 2013, 04:34 PM

Silvercrest I guess you missed it then. Here is a link.

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/gravity-wheel

Silvercrest · January 24 2013, 04:48 PM

No, I saw it just fine. But you thought it would convince me. It didn't.

Spearsab · January 24 2013, 04:57 PM

Silvercrest wrote:

No, I saw it just fine. But you thought it would convince me. It didn't.

O' I miss understood. Well I'm sorry it didn't convince you.

I feel we have the technology within our reach to achieve space occupation and the economy that it would create, I think, is invaluable. But if we are going to wait until everything is perfect and up to date for our Sci-Fi expectations then we will never get there.

On the Moon Mission they used what they had and made what they didn't. They didn't worry about warp drives, deflector shields, or gravity they made it happen and we benefit for generations.

I think there are few things that humanity will stop bickering and come together to achieve and the space program, when it was progressive, was one of them.

Draculasaurus · January 24 2013, 05:17 PM

I like the idea of a solar system cruiser a lot!
I don't think the flat, wide saucer works very well for centrifugal "gravity" though.
It seems like a terrible waste of space and materials to just have full "gravity" at the relatively tiny outer rim.
A big fat squatty cylinder seems like a better idea.
Wouldn't look as cool though.

Carcazoid · January 24 2013, 05:26 PM

Frankly, I don't want to see an Enterprise until it can do everything the 'historical documents' depict. It would be really embarrassing for aliens to make first contact only to find out we're just pretending to have warp drive.

Nothing worse than a Vulcan laughing at you.

Silvercrest · January 24 2013, 08:40 PM

Look, here's the problem. You're not building the real Enterprise. Repeating that over and over isn't going to make it any more true.

You're building a mobile space habitat that happens to be shaped more or less like the Enterprise. And no one here has said anything convincing about why it should be shaped that way, other than, "It would be kewl!" Because there's no good reason to shape it that way.

That website talks about "form following function". It tries to convince us that the ship's main function is to inspire all of humanity and that this is the best form for that purpose.

Who says that's true? What makes it so awe-inspiring to anyone other than Trekkies? You give us a survey that proves that specific form is more inspiring to most of the people on Earth than any other. Heck, even a significant number of people. Say a tenth of the population, 700 million people. Then you'll have a case.

Until then, all you're doing is aping the outline of a fictional ship with no other commonalities. It will be a different size. Different internal layout. Different power source. Different propulsion (and located in different places). Different speed and range.

Why bother?

Not to say that the whole concept is invalid. It has validity. But trying to make it look like the Enterprise or tie it into Trek is a pointless exercise in geekdom that's likely to turn off any of your audience that don't happen to be Trekkies.

You could make the exact same proposal for a ship that is shaped differently and more efficiently (wherein form really does follow function) with no Trek connection. The proposal would be equally valid. More valid, probably.

Can you sell that on anyone? That should be the first question. If the answer is no, then you sure won't convince anyone of the Enterprise thing.

January 22 2013, 05:44 PM	#31
BillJ Vice Admiral Location: Greater Cincinnati	Re: USS Enterprise the real Deal!! I'd rather work towards feeding the hungry and fixing other issues on this planet before spending trillions on something useless. __________________ J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.

January 22 2013, 07:23 PM	#32
Melakon Commodore Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos	Re: USS Enterprise the real Deal!! Wow, you know, somebody mentioned this exact same thing exactly one week ago! http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=200455 And it's on this exact same page! Too bad you didn't read it first, it would have saved you the trouble of typing it all over again. __________________ "Every time you think, you weaken the nation." --Moe Howard

January 22 2013, 10:16 PM	#33
Bry_Sinclair Commodore Location: Along the border of Talarian space	Re: USS Enterprise the real Deal!! Gravity wheel? Nuclear reactor? Without artifical gravity plating and a matter/antimatter warp core, what's the point? __________________ Avatar: Captain Hilgrat Ja-Inrosh (deceased), Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Silverfin NCC-4470, Border Service Third Cutter Squadron Manip by: FltCpt. Bossco (STPMA)

January 24 2013, 01:55 AM	#34
Spearsab Ensign	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? . Last edited by Spearsab; January 24 2013 at 02:10 AM.

January 24 2013, 02:03 AM	#35
Spearsab Ensign	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? Garrovick I do not mean to offend however; I don’t think you even considered this long enough to check it out. Not only is it practical but It would employ 10s of thousands of people for at least 20 years, maybe more. The Mars missions could give us continued technological feedback on just about everything we use in space. With a stable and sound platform the USS Enterprise could become a home away from home. And space, nearby moons, and asteroids would inherently seem not so far way. So as far as practical, I guess you have to determine if space is or was ever practical. I would love to see the USS Enterprise fully envisioned as it has been portrayed in all the series however, I do also understand that we need to start somewhere and, I am not rocket scientist but if you read the website it seems feasible. A multi-functional vehicle is just what NASA and Space needs. The Moon missions, Mars missions, and Asteroid mission, both mining and study, are just the start. I am not part of the effort just a REALY enthusiastic space lover, but I could see us establishing asteroid and moon bases out further away such as Jupiter or even further. As far as the “possible benefits” I cannot begin to describe the “possible benefits” but, if you look just at what the mission to the moon got us, from Velcro to Food storage, Propulsion to water and air filtering, from firefighting gear to LEDs, I think the benefits are WELL worth the cost. I do understand that once you build the facilities to build, store, and maintain the equipment for the vessel you still have to maintain it. But what does that mean? It means Thousands if not 10s of thousands of jobs created out of “You gotta Dream” idea that will further the human race for millennia to come. Identifying planets is not the hard part, per say. Getting there is. The closest inhabitable planet is Alpha Centauri Bb, 4.4 Light Years away. Not exactly a stroll around the block. But do you know what a stroll around the block is? Mars, Earth’s Moon, the asteroid belt. I’m just saying. It’s like our solar system has all these places to go and not one wants to. Come on Just get in the car.?!. Balrog We are still working on light speed travel and deflector shields. The proposed USS Enterprise design would use Ion thrust engines which would create little acceleration over a short distant but a lot over a large one. Right now it is not as important as getting us in space. Silvercrest Check out the website. He covers the gravity issue on the website. This is all just my opinion though. I just encourage everyone, even if you don't think if possible, feasable, or practical, or if you are just a party pooper, to go and check out the website. I think if will convince you.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

January 24 2013, 03:10 AM	#36
Silvercrest Rear Admiral Location: Lost in Moria (Arlington, WA, USA)	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? It didn't.

January 24 2013, 05:29 AM	#37
magarity Lieutenant Junior Grade	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? I'd be happy with a high speed probe sent out of the solar system with purpose built instruments to measure the solar boundary phenomena the Voyager probes are encountering. A solar sail craft could get up to 60K miles per second and get out there and beyond in just a few years.

January 24 2013, 04:30 PM	#39
Spearsab Ensign	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=VMafReWFSfE Simulated gravity is what we have for now. We can't create gravity because we don't how it is made, we just know how it effects things in space. However if we generate a force that acts like gravity then I think it is mission accomplished. So Centrifugal Force is not the same but equal to gravity.

January 24 2013, 04:34 PM	#40
Spearsab Ensign	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? Silvercrest I guess you missed it then. Here is a link. http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/gravity-wheel

January 24 2013, 04:48 PM	#41
Silvercrest Rear Admiral Location: Lost in Moria (Arlington, WA, USA)	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? No, I saw it just fine. But you thought it would convince me. It didn't.

January 24 2013, 05:17 PM	#43
Draculasaurus Lieutenant Commander	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? I like the idea of a solar system cruiser a lot! I don't think the flat, wide saucer works very well for centrifugal "gravity" though. It seems like a terrible waste of space and materials to just have full "gravity" at the relatively tiny outer rim. A big fat squatty cylinder seems like a better idea. Wouldn't look as cool though.

January 24 2013, 05:26 PM	#44
Carcazoid Captain Location: Planet Carcazed	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? Frankly, I don't want to see an Enterprise until it can do everything the 'historical documents' depict. It would be really embarrassing for aliens to make first contact only to find out we're just pretending to have warp drive. Nothing worse than a Vulcan laughing at you. __________________ =Carcazoid=

January 24 2013, 08:40 PM	#45
Silvercrest Rear Admiral Location: Lost in Moria (Arlington, WA, USA)	Re: Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime? Look, here's the problem. You're not building the real Enterprise. Repeating that over and over isn't going to make it any more true. You're building a mobile space habitat that happens to be shaped more or less like the Enterprise. And no one here has said anything convincing about why it should be shaped that way, other than, "It would be kewl!" Because there's no good reason to shape it that way. That website talks about "form following function". It tries to convince us that the ship's main function is to inspire all of humanity and that this is the best form for that purpose. Who says that's true? What makes it so awe-inspiring to anyone other than Trekkies? You give us a survey that proves that specific form is more inspiring to most of the people on Earth than any other. Heck, even a significant number of people. Say a tenth of the population, 700 million people. Then you'll have a case. Until then, all you're doing is aping the outline of a fictional ship with no other commonalities. It will be a different size. Different internal layout. Different power source. Different propulsion (and located in different places). Different speed and range. Why bother? Not to say that the whole concept is invalid. It has validity. But trying to make it look like the Enterprise or tie it into Trek is a pointless exercise in geekdom that's likely to turn off any of your audience that don't happen to be Trekkies. You could make the exact same proposal for a ship that is shaped differently and more efficiently (wherein form really does follow function) with no Trek connection. The proposal would be equally valid. More valid, probably. Can you sell that on anyone? That should be the first question. If the answer is no, then you sure won't convince anyone of the Enterprise thing.