Launching the Phoenix

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by William Leisner, Jan 21, 2009.

  1. Plecostomus

    Plecostomus Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Location:
    Official forum sex god

    Geeze! How is a mad babbler supposed to technobabble without accurate shots to derive babble from?! :scream: :D

    ...I'll make an attempt later in Sketchup and Paint.
     
  2. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Well, not really, AFAIK. The full-scale "prop" was a real Titan II ICBM, and only its upper works were seen sitting in the museum silo they used for filming. The flying model was a totally fictional missile that some sources have dubbed Titan V (no relation to the real space launcher of that name whatsoever), and in terms of appearance this differed from the real ICBM only by having a single futuristic nozzle at the bottom, rather than the two engine bells of the real thing. So essentially the "prop" and the model were identical for all of their visible parts.

    Of course, the real Titan II of 1950s design philosophy and 1960s-1970s execution was struggling to reach an orbital trajectory for its minuscule Gemini payload by using its two stages (it had been designed to loft a similar mass of nuclear warheads for a ballistic hop), while the lower stage of this fictional Titan V alone easily achieved escape velocity for a gigantic spacecraft the size of the entire upper stage, propelling it farther away from Earth than any real-world single rocket stage has ever done.

    Here's a random shot of a Titan II (with nuclear rather than Gemini spacecraft payload), with her engines and the shape of the nose cone essentially the only things not in common with "Titan V":

    http://www.siloworld.com/ICBM/Titan%20II.jpg

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  3. Ronald Held

    Ronald Held Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Location:
    On the USS Sovereign
    I thought his warp drive was powered by a fusion plant. He must have some form of IDF to get up to near lightspeed much less warp 1. I do not recall any gravity control in the cabin.
     
  4. JuanBolio

    JuanBolio Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Florida Keys, USA
    You don't need an IDF for warp travel - no inertia is imparted. His ship was in warp from the moment Cochrane flipped the engage switch while in orbit. You don't have to get up to near light speed with conventional engines and THEN flip on the warp drive, you know.
     
  5. Ronald Held

    Ronald Held Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Location:
    On the USS Sovereign
    I will assume that in warp, one will not need an IDF. Do we know how fast the Phoenix was going when it went to Warp one?
     
  6. JuanBolio

    JuanBolio Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Florida Keys, USA
    It was in warp from the moment it broke orbit - the whole time it was building up speed toward warp one its warp drive was what was propelling it.
     
  7. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    When was the first drawing of the Phoenix ever shown? Was it in a TOS episode, or in a book or something?

    I mean before the John Eaves design


    Regarding inertial dampener fields. I don't know why you'd need them honestly.

    If you used an Alcubierre drive system, which at least one scientist working on TMP suggested more or less the same mechanism (though years before Miguel Alcubierre actually drew it up) there would be no feeling of acceleration as a result of warp-drive.


    CuttingEdge100
     
  8. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I think Jein made up a little model of Cochrane's ship for the STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, but according to Eaves, the producers didn't want that design for the movie. It was kind of l'eggs container-like, I think.
     
  9. Ronald Held

    Ronald Held Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Location:
    On the USS Sovereign
    Juan you are saying it might be going 10s of km/secs before it went into warp?
     
  10. JuanBolio

    JuanBolio Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2003
    Location:
    Florida Keys, USA
    No, I'm saying it was using its warp drive before it broke the light barrier. The whole time it was building up speed toward warp one, it was under warp drive. As such, there was no need for an IDF.

    The only times the Phoenix wasn't moving under warp drive were when it was boosting into orbit (before Cochrane says "Engage!") and after they throttle down and look back at Earth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2009
  11. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    It's more like this...

    The Phoenix used it WARP DRIVE to go subluminal speeds, AS WELL AS go to Warp 1 (1C). Because of the use of the warp drive for most of the trip, the effects of relativity, as well as inertia, are dramatically reduced.
     
  12. soot

    soot Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
  13. shipfisher

    shipfisher Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    If you go for a technically conservative approach to the Phoenix considering the limited resources of Cochrane's team, then a Titan booster shell with the original internals swapped for some "high energy density" fuel rocket might have been the most cost-effective way to keep the operational envelope of the Phoenix itself close to the minimum required for a "proof of concept" flight.

    A powerplant that would be compact and yet "exotic" enough for a quick warp 1 hop in something the size of the Phoenix in 2063 would likely be a gas core fission reactor. Leave the first use of anti-matter fuel to the unmanned "Friendship 1" of four years later for safety reasons (unlucky Delta quadrant races aside).

    As for earth return, perhaps a detachable cockpit/re-entry capsule? I like letting what will later be bussard collectors at the front of nacelles function as ionizing plasma-sheath generators to help get the entire vehicle down, followed by chutes or more likely a para-sail, before a final landing thruster burst. A 20th century style landing would be in keeping with a 20th century style launch after all.

    Once again, this scenario represents my idea of the most technically conservative explaination of what we see presented in ST:First Contact.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2009
  14. CuttingEdge100

    CuttingEdge100 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    It would have been better if Cochrane's design was a ring-ship... It sounds easier to work than using twin nacelles.
     
  15. Timo

    Timo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    What, and use foreign solutions? NIH! NIH! NIH!

    One might actually think that the ring would have to be precision-machined out of a large amount of coil material, while the nacelles would feature more manageable small coils...

    Timo Saloniemi