No, I saw it just fine. But you thought it would convince me. It didn't.
Do you want to see the Enterprise in your lifetime?
- Thread starter MST1987
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Frankly, I don't want to see an Enterprise until it can do everything the 'historical documents' depict.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.
Nothing worse than a Vulcan laughing at you.
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.
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.
^ All quite true. I daresay trying to sell the idea of building an actual spaceship that "looks like the Enterprise from Star Trek!" as a serious proposal would elicit much more ridicule than support from the general public.
^ Damn straight! I've been trying to license those Minnow blueprints to NASA for decades now! Tight-fisted bunch of bureaucratic bastards! 
Last edited:
Similar threads
