ST-One
Vice Admiral
How did you arrive at that conclusion? (I'm not saying it's wrong...)
The New Enterprise Reveald
- Thread starter Jefferies
- Start date
How did you arrive at that conclusion? (I'm not saying it's wrong...)
I've seen a couple of people on here coming up with that scale based on the teaser's use of people on the hull for comparison.
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
Geosynchronous orbits are generally at a very high altitude... the lower the orbit, the faster the orbit velocity needs to be in order for the centripetal and gravitational forces to balance each other out. It's fairly clear that in TOS, if they needed to remain geosynchronous over a landing-party site, they'd remain at a fairly low altitude, and yet at a low enough speed that WITHOUT COURSE CORRECTIONS the ship's orbit would rapidly decay. So they needed impulse power to provide a little correction from time to time.
We all know that there was antigravity included in shuttlecraft. But then again, we also know that shuttlecraft were designed to make planetfall, so they NEEDED it. The Enterprise wasn't designed to make planetfall... and thus there's no rational justification for putting a system which would only be useful if the ship was going to do so onto the ship. Otherwise, it would be WASTED MASS and WASTED SPACE... and yes, wasted cost too (even if they "don't use money")
But assume that your number is correct. Now... look at the total mass of the entire ship, and scale up those devices proportionally to be able to support the entire mass of the ship. How large would such a device be?
It would be possible to have them, but it'd be awfully WASTEFUL to put them in on a ship that was never supposed to land.
I'm pretty impressed by the Airbus A-380... it's an impressive sight to see. But it's not as though it's a lot of new, groundbreaking technology incorporated... just the largest-scale example of that we've had so far.
Which isn't at all related to "hovering" (ie, using antigravity or other lift-generating systems). What we DO know is that the orbit (there's that term again... and it's a term with a very specific technical meaning) would decay rapidly under some circumstances, though it was also possible to create an orbit which would be stable for much longer periods of time (see the Exeter, for instance).
Geosynchronous orbits are generally at a very high altitude... the lower the orbit, the faster the orbit velocity needs to be in order for the centripetal and gravitational forces to balance each other out. It's fairly clear that in TOS, if they needed to remain geosynchronous over a landing-party site, they'd remain at a fairly low altitude, and yet at a low enough speed that WITHOUT COURSE CORRECTIONS the ship's orbit would rapidly decay. So they needed impulse power to provide a little correction from time to time.
See above
That would be a great counter-argument if I, or anyone, had argued that there was no such thing as antigravity in the Trek universe.
We all know that there was antigravity included in shuttlecraft. But then again, we also know that shuttlecraft were designed to make planetfall, so they NEEDED it. The Enterprise wasn't designed to make planetfall... and thus there's no rational justification for putting a system which would only be useful if the ship was going to do so onto the ship. Otherwise, it would be WASTED MASS and WASTED SPACE... and yes, wasted cost too (even if they "don't use money")
I believe you're making up numbers there. All we know for certain is that two of them were sufficient to carry an antimatter containment sphere, or Nomad. We don't know anything more, or less, than that about those devices.
But assume that your number is correct. Now... look at the total mass of the entire ship, and scale up those devices proportionally to be able to support the entire mass of the ship. How large would such a device be?
It would be possible to have them, but it'd be awfully WASTEFUL to put them in on a ship that was never supposed to land.
Yeah... of course, Stratos was burning up massive amounts of energy to do that, and that would have been 99.999% of all power consumption in the city, it would seem... and who knows how much of the volume of Stratos was occupied by the anti-gravity system?
I'm pretty impressed by the Airbus A-380... it's an impressive sight to see. But it's not as though it's a lot of new, groundbreaking technology incorporated... just the largest-scale example of that we've had so far.
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
Most people are basing this on comments made in interviews by Abrams, aren't they?
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
I don't think there have been any quotes by Abrams about the kind of system they use to lift the Enterprise into space. All we know is she was built on the ground, and somehow gets into space. How she gets there I don't think has ever been mentioned. Personally, I think some sort of tug system is the best solution.
I don't think there have been any quotes by Abrams about the kind of system they use to lift the Enterprise into space. All we know is she was built on the ground, and somehow gets into space. How she gets there I don't think has ever been mentioned. Personally, I think some sort of tug system is the best solution.
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
Not to interrupt this facinating discussion on launching the Enterprise Part MCXXIII, but I revised my earlier diagram, and made it slightly more detailed and (I think) more accurate. I noticed that the art deco texture isn't just on the saucer rim, it's also on the nacelles and at the base of the pylons. I wonder what exactly they are. They were never given a function on the TMP ship, as far as I know.
ETA: YEah, so the saucer is bigger, me thinks. The new version almost swallows the old version here:
Not to interrupt this facinating discussion on launching the Enterprise Part MCXXIII, but I revised my earlier diagram, and made it slightly more detailed and (I think) more accurate. I noticed that the art deco texture isn't just on the saucer rim, it's also on the nacelles and at the base of the pylons. I wonder what exactly they are. They were never given a function on the TMP ship, as far as I know.
ETA: YEah, so the saucer is bigger, me thinks. The new version almost swallows the old version here:
Last edited:
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
I would disagree with the first but agree with the second.
This looks right to me. Do you mean "too short compared to what you've seen in the images" or "too short by your personal sense of taste?"
I would disagree with the first but agree with the second.
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
Too short as compared with the images. I mean, most of the people who have seen the ship in action in the footage screening have commented on how large the nacelles are. When I see these I don't see that the nacelles that are so large they multiple people would comment on them. I can agree about making the size of the saucer larger compared to the secondary hull, however, I do not think that nacelles are that small.
Too short as compared with the images. I mean, most of the people who have seen the ship in action in the footage screening have commented on how large the nacelles are. When I see these I don't see that the nacelles that are so large they multiple people would comment on them. I can agree about making the size of the saucer larger compared to the secondary hull, however, I do not think that nacelles are that small.
Rama, I just hate the new Enteprise. I respect your ideas but the production design on this production is very bad in my opinion!Here's a front view. Proportions ara guesstimations.
Just goes to show you how close they are.
RAMA
Re: The New Enterprise Revealed
Cary L Brown
Not sure yet how to quote the quoted stuff and break it up so I will respond to them here in order.
Orbits: Yes i know how they work-that's why TOS's "orbits" make me suspicious.
Let me use a non-Trek example to illustrate what I have been getting at.
The ISS only sits about 190 miles up and travels at 17210 mph. In order to maintain its orbit, it needs to be accelerated from time to time to maintain that average speed, so that it will continue to freefall around the Earth at that altitude. How many times? About four times a year.
Now if we could make the ISS geostationary at that altitude then it would only travel at about 1100 mph. Obviously, we in the 21 century can't do this and the ISS traveling at that speed at that altitude would rapidly fall to Earth (and by fall to Earth I mean follow a trajectory arc down to the surface).
What would be needed in this case would be a way to "hover" against the acceleration of gravity without increasing the ISS's tangential velocity.
Method: You say "impulse power" by which I guess you mean the impulse engines. Yes this would work IF the thrust were continuously applied against the direction of gravity's acceleration. I think a more elegant method is antigravity.
Purpose (after launch): To provide the starship the ability to park itself over a specific planetary location for scientific, logistical, and tactical reasons. Like geogical surveys. Like resupply missions. Like firing on imitative gangstas and fruit-hungry machine-gods at a moments notice.
About the Antigrav capacity: A rough estimate based on the mass of Nomad(500 kilograms or about 1100 lbs) divided by the number of units 2. I also see that I have a typo up there: should be 550 lbs no 5500 lbs.
Stratos: I think energy efficiency is irrelevant (although I think that if your civilization can produce a hand-held weapon that can "vaporize" a person, I think you've got efficient power sources licked). They maintain a city above the ground. And the fact that Stratos is the FINEST example and not the ONLY example suggests that it is done elsewhere too. So if it can be done for a city, it can be done for a starship.
Why build it on the ground? One of the things the Federation is about is improved quality of life for the individual. Building it one the ground is better for the workers. No spacesuits, no radiation therapies, no bone mass loss, no lost tool bags in orbit :-).
Doesn't mean I like the new ship, just that building it on the ground and lifting it into orbit is not a problem.
Anyway probably hiijacked this thread enough...
Cary L Brown
Not sure yet how to quote the quoted stuff and break it up so I will respond to them here in order.
Orbits: Yes i know how they work-that's why TOS's "orbits" make me suspicious.
Let me use a non-Trek example to illustrate what I have been getting at.
The ISS only sits about 190 miles up and travels at 17210 mph. In order to maintain its orbit, it needs to be accelerated from time to time to maintain that average speed, so that it will continue to freefall around the Earth at that altitude. How many times? About four times a year.
Now if we could make the ISS geostationary at that altitude then it would only travel at about 1100 mph. Obviously, we in the 21 century can't do this and the ISS traveling at that speed at that altitude would rapidly fall to Earth (and by fall to Earth I mean follow a trajectory arc down to the surface).
What would be needed in this case would be a way to "hover" against the acceleration of gravity without increasing the ISS's tangential velocity.
Method: You say "impulse power" by which I guess you mean the impulse engines. Yes this would work IF the thrust were continuously applied against the direction of gravity's acceleration. I think a more elegant method is antigravity.
Purpose (after launch): To provide the starship the ability to park itself over a specific planetary location for scientific, logistical, and tactical reasons. Like geogical surveys. Like resupply missions. Like firing on imitative gangstas and fruit-hungry machine-gods at a moments notice.
About the Antigrav capacity: A rough estimate based on the mass of Nomad(500 kilograms or about 1100 lbs) divided by the number of units 2. I also see that I have a typo up there: should be 550 lbs no 5500 lbs.
Stratos: I think energy efficiency is irrelevant (although I think that if your civilization can produce a hand-held weapon that can "vaporize" a person, I think you've got efficient power sources licked). They maintain a city above the ground. And the fact that Stratos is the FINEST example and not the ONLY example suggests that it is done elsewhere too. So if it can be done for a city, it can be done for a starship.
Why build it on the ground? One of the things the Federation is about is improved quality of life for the individual. Building it one the ground is better for the workers. No spacesuits, no radiation therapies, no bone mass loss, no lost tool bags in orbit :-).
Doesn't mean I like the new ship, just that building it on the ground and lifting it into orbit is not a problem.
Anyway probably hiijacked this thread enough...
Erm, Cogley,
The higher the geosync orbit, the faster the object must be travelling in order to maintain it, pretty much by definition, nae? Higher orbits mean larger elipses to travel, and if you're maintaining the geosync position, you're going faster and faster relative to planet center....
The higher the geosync orbit, the faster the object must be travelling in order to maintain it, pretty much by definition, nae? Higher orbits mean larger elipses to travel, and if you're maintaining the geosync position, you're going faster and faster relative to planet center....
Yes and freefall geostationary orbit is about 22000 miles out with a tangential velocity of about 6800 mph. I know.
The point is, if I want to be closer to the planet and be geostationary, I must push against the downward acceleration of gravity because I am going slower than what is necessary to "miss the Earth" in my falling.
Just goes to show you how close they are.
RAMA
If I put up a picture of Kate Beckinsale next to a picture of Rosie O'Donnel, they'd be equally as close. Two eyes, two ears, nose, mouth...
Other than that, one isn't nearly as attractive as the other.
Just goes to show you how close they are.
RAMA
If I put up a picture of Kate Beckinsale next to a picture of Rosie O'Donnel, they'd be equally as close. Two eyes, two ears, nose, mouth...
Other than that, one isn't nearly as attractive as the other.
let my guess Kate Beckinsale aka new Enterprise and Rosie O'Donnel aka TOS Enterprise
Just goes to show you how close they are.
RAMA
If I put up a picture of Kate Beckinsale next to a picture of Rosie O'Donnel, they'd be equally as close. Two eyes, two ears, nose, mouth...
Other than that, one isn't nearly as attractive as the other.
let my guess Kate Beckinsale aka new Enterprise and Rosie O'Donnel aka TOS Enterprise
He might just kill you for that...
I like the new ship in general. I have some nitpicks with it, as I do most designs (cept the Refit...unmatched beauty), but over all I think its a pretty nice updating of the TOS design. They could have done A LOT worse.
He had it coming, He had it coming to him. Nobody is going to link Rosie O´Donnell with beautiful new Enterprise. NobodyUh, Scott I think you got that the wrong way round...
Similar threads
