Tell the voices in your head to give it a rest, already.
New Enterprise May Have Nacelles That...
- Thread starter STARTREK11
- Start date
- Status
I don't think STARTREK11 should reveal the secret. I don't think we can handle it.
Not entirely true... only if they want the job. ILM has turned down plenty of jobs in the past, and has pulled out of others, due to unprofessionalism on the part of the other folks. I'm not saying it's COMMON, but it's an option. They do have a choice. But I'll grant it's not very likely to occur unless they insistence of the producer is to do something so unspeakably stupid that it will tar the SFX house with "collateral damage" from screwing things up so royally.
Nope. I'd assume that you have a basic training in mechanics... and that you know how to calculate torques, angular velocities and angular accelerations and so forth.
Now, think for a moment about any irregular object with mass. If you apply a force offset from the center-of-mass of that object, you create a torque (basically a "force of twisting") which, depending on the mass it's acting on, gives some value of an angular acceleration. The acceleration creates a change to the angular velocity of the object.
Now, consider the amount of thrust that is required to achieve any useful "sublight travel." It's also based upon mass of the object and upon the thrust force, but we're talking about LINEAR rather than ANGULAR velocity and acceleration.
We're talking about massive linear accelerations... massive thrust levels.
Apply such a thrust even a degree off-axis with the center of mass of the object and you get a pretty damned speedy angular acceleration. Basically, a ship that can travel at Trekkian "Impulse" velocities can also spin around 180 degree and STOP rotating, all in a few thousandths of a second.
Additionally, it's well-established that Trek ships have steering thrusters. This is not a "Treknology" invention, it's a real design element which has been used on all real spacecraft design since Sputnik. Relatively TINY jets on various spots on the hull can cause precise lateral translation, or finely-controlled rotation without causing any translational impact for that matter. In TMP and forward these have been quite visible, and the terminology used is a REAL WORLD term called "reaction control thrusters." The most visible example of this would be the thruster quads seen on the sides of the Apollo service module, by the way.
Next, there's the fact that articulation frames, such as is REQUIRED for the sort of thing you're suggesting, are relatively fragile pieces of equipment. Not good at all for load-bearing applications, particularly not for primary-thrust-bearing applications. A rigid connection is ALWAYS far stronger than anything you could possibly achieve with an articulated structure made from the same materials and with the same technologies.
SO...
1) You don't need this when in transit...
2) You don't need it when stationary...
3) If you DO have it you've weakened your design by a massive measure.
COULD Abrams be directing ILM to do this? Possibly. But I don't buy it.
"Remember?" While it's not unreasonable to think that the warp engines on Pike's Enterprise were a bit less advanced than the upgraded version on Kirk's 5-year-mission version, they weren't dramatically different. So what are we supposed to be "remembering?"
You can't make up something and then say that we have to "remember" it. You have to support your proposition with facts, or at least with a compelling argument. You've done neither. You've just made an unsupported claim as though it were to be taken as fact.
See, this is just more evidence to support a belief that you're "making this all up." Nobody knows WHAT those were "really for" except that Matt Jeffries was adamant, as was Gene Roddenberry, that these were not exhausts.
You say this as though it's a "given fact" yet it's not. And I doubt that anyone at ILM would be telling you anything like this. So it just supports the supposition that you're making this all up.
Actually, the whole WING on the Osprey tilts... and it's a nightmare. The Osprey is a disaster...a boondoggle. It's less effective than the CH-53 series helicopters in every possible way. They're slower than the design spec required, have less range, less lift capability... they're failing to meet the specs in virtually every category. And they're fragile... I became involved in a Marine V-22 breakdown just last week, in fact.
So, using this as an example of "good design" is... well, I'd avoid that particular point if I were you.
(FYI, you can see both Ospreys and a big Marine variant of the CH-53 in the opening sequence of the "Transformers" movie. Just realize that the Osprey program is foundering, which is why they're ramping up orders for the CH-53K right now... it's better in every way than the Osprey and it's not considered a deathtrap by the troops, either!)
Sheesh...
Okay, I'll bite. If you have a plot point, you must share it now. And we can let the folks from PPC check it out and see if they agree. If it's bullshit, your friend will still have his job next week.
I want that info... NOW
Leading to a new series of ships in the next Trek series:
USS Viagra
USS Cialis
USS Levitra
Yes, you heard it here. The entire series will be funded by the erectile dysfunction pharmaceuticals. Clever product placement will abound. Ironic when you consider it's being watched by Trek nerds...
Jesus. The genius doesn't have a plot point, and the fact that you even entertained his quest for attention makes me want to Kirk-chop you in the ass.Cary L. Brown said:
Okay, I'll bite. If you have a plot point, you must share it now. And we can let the folks from PPC check it out and see if they agree. If it's bullshit, your friend will still have his job next week.
I can handle the secret. Now the truth...that's something I just cannot handle.
But the voices in his head say it's true! You can't argue with head voices.Dr. Acula said:
Jesus. The genius doesn't have a plot point, and the fact that you even entertained his quest for attention makes me want to Kirk-chop you in the ass.Cary L. Brown said:
Okay, I'll bite. If you have a plot point, you must share it now. And we can let the folks from PPC check it out and see if they agree. If it's bullshit, your friend will still have his job next week.
Ah, c'mon... I just always like to give people the opportunity to prove themselves... or to get a really good hard run towards that cliff edge...Dr. Acula said:
Jesus. The genius doesn't have a plot point, and the fact that you even entertained his quest for attention makes me want to Kirk-chop you in the ass.Cary L. Brown said:
Okay, I'll bite. If you have a plot point, you must share it now. And we can let the folks from PPC check it out and see if they agree. If it's bullshit, your friend will still have his job next week.
By the way... for anyone interested in my comments re: the Osprey, you might find this article entertaining.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html
Cary L. Brown said:
Ah, c'mon... I just always like to give people the opportunity to prove themselves... or to get a really good hard run towards that cliff edge...Dr. Acula said:
Jesus. The genius doesn't have a plot point, and the fact that you even entertained his quest for attention makes me want to Kirk-chop you in the ass.Cary L. Brown said:
Okay, I'll bite. If you have a plot point, you must share it now. And we can let the folks from PPC check it out and see if they agree. If it's bullshit, your friend will still have his job next week.
By the way... for anyone interested in my comments re: the Osprey, you might find this article entertaining.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html
I agree with you the Osprey is a bad design.Just looking at it looks ungainly.It is very expensive,unstable,fragile,and a deathtrap.
The rotating nacelles operate in zero gravity and of course do's not suffer these problems and remember if they are hit they will move or rotate to absorb the impact in much the same way as a boxers punchbag.
By having fluid gimbals at the joins in certain circumstances the nacelles instead of taking the full force of the impact will rotate away from the explosion and reduce damage to the ship by acting like shock absorbers.
I have still not been given a clear mandate by the trekbbs members to reveal or not to reveal the key plot point mentioned above.At the moment the undecided members are level pegging with the curious members.
This shows the fragmented nature of Trek fandom.A matter of much lament to certain people.
I need to ask you to answer something. What technical/engineering training or knowledge do you have?STARTREK11 said:
Cary L. Brown said:
Ah, c'mon... I just always like to give people the opportunity to prove themselves... or to get a really good hard run towards that cliff edge...Dr. Acula said:
Jesus. The genius doesn't have a plot point, and the fact that you even entertained his quest for attention makes me want to Kirk-chop you in the ass.Cary L. Brown said:
Okay, I'll bite. If you have a plot point, you must share it now. And we can let the folks from PPC check it out and see if they agree. If it's bullshit, your friend will still have his job next week.
By the way... for anyone interested in my comments re: the Osprey, you might find this article entertaining.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html
I agree with you the Osprey is a bad design.Just looking at it looks ungainly.It is very expensive,unstable,fragile,and a deathtrap.
The rotating nacelles operate in zero gravity and of course do's not suffer these problems and remember if they are hit they will move or rotate to absorb the impact in much the same way as a boxers punchbag.
By having fluid gimbals at the joins in certain circumstances the nacelles instead of taking the full force of the impact will rotate away from the explosion and reduce damage to the ship by acting like shock absorbers.
I design equipment which is used in military aircraft. I've worked on hardware that's installed on the F-22, the V-22, the T-38, the CH-53K, the General Dynamics "Future Combat Systems" manned ground vehicle platform, plus civilian aircraft like the Cessna Citation X (the fastest non-military aircraft in the world). I deal with these sort of issues every day.
And when I read the comments you make above, I don't see any hint of understanding of the real underlying issues. You're TRYING to be smart, it seems, but you're really... and I mean REALLY... stretching. You say things that seem to make sense to you, but (as pointed out above, for example) you're really missing the points.
By the way, a fluidic bearing system CAN be effective for absorbing certain types of shock loads... but not TRANSLATIONAL loads. It all depends on how it's designed. For instance, I submitted a patent for a fluidic leveling leg system for home appliances. The idea was that you had four fluid pistons serving as legs, all linked by tubing and sharing a common fluid supply, and with a spring-loaded accumulator in the system as well. By opening a valve, you could "redistribute" the fluid in the cylinders easily, allowing the thing to be leveled by hand without using a wrench or anything, and with the accumulator, you could absorb bouncing and vibration. It was actually pretty slick. (I don't OWN the patent... my old employer does... that's how these things normally work.)
So... there ARE ways that fluidics can provide advantages. But not in the fashion you're describing here, to buffer translational loads at a joint. It just won't work.
What the hell do you mean, "a mandate?" You're hedging and you know it. Say what you mean or don't say it. Playing this "I've got a seeecret... nyah, nyah-nyah-NYAAAAAAA-nyah... " bit is the sort of stuff that you're supposed to get past before you even leave puberty.
I think the post above me has answered the fluid points very nicely, so I just thought I'd chime in on this - torpedoes in Star Trek (as with missile weapons even today) are not 'impact damage' weapons. They're not bullets, where it is the penetration and impact (i.e. the kinetic energy) that does the damage. They're explosives, meaning it is the antimatter explosion within their warhead which does the damage. a rotating nacelle would do sod all to minimise this, and probably leave the ship unable to escape because its nacelle is whirling around like a chopper blade. That is if the sudden violent shock from the explosion didn't wrench the whole thing off its frame in the first place.
Don't do it, STAR TREK11!!!
Keep your finger in that dike for as long as you can!
- Status
Similar threads
