The Real Starfleet?

[Navarro]

Whenever I hear a person making a fanciful claim, I'm the type of people who's always willing to entertain the idea. Just because a thing's unlikely, doesn't mean it's true. If I told you I once caught a six-hundred pound catfish, that might sound awfully extraordinary to you. The fact of the matter is, someone once did catch a nine foot long, 646 pound catfish. Of course, if you would have doubted my claim of having caught such a fish, you would've been right. I've never caught any fish at all. You however also would've also been wrong, because for all you know I'm the man who caught that 646 pound catfish. An unlikely story isn't the same thing as a false story. If you have no evidence that a claim is false, then you don't know it to be false.

At this point, you might be thinking that I'm preparing to ask you to believe that there is a real Starfleet. I'm not. Nor will I present evidence that such an organization exists in reality. Instead, I'm going only going to show you three pictures, and ask you what you make of the apparent coincidence. The first will be the fictional Starfleet emblem. The second will be the emblem of the real-life United States Air Force Space Command. The third will be the emblem of the real-life Russian Space Forces.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/Starfleet_command_emblem.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet
www.starfleet.gov/lcars

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Air_Force_Space_Command_Logo.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Space_Command
http://www.afspc.af.mil/

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...px-Russian_military_space_troops_flag.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces
http://eng.mil.ru/en/structure/forces/cosmic.htm

I could make a flimsy argument using the claims of the famous NASA hacker Gary McKinnon. About the scientists and engineers who say we could build something very similar to the Enterprise today and they can even tell you how much it would cost. I could argue a lot of things, but realistically I couldn't provide you anything better than paper tiger. That's not what this thread is about anyway. It's about the fascinating similarities between those emblems. I've long wondered about that. I've guessed and imagined why these similarities may exist. Maybe the guys running these programs happen to be Trekkies, which seems very possible. Maybe that arrow happens to be a symbol humans instinctively associate with space, in the same way our ancient ancestors seemed to be instinctively drawn to constructing pyramids across the world. After all, these arrows are pointing up, at space. Maybe there's never been a command like these before in history, and the nearest thing to these commands happens to be the fictional Starfleet Command, and so they chose to incorporate the Starfleet arrow into their emblems. Maybe a lot of things.

What I really to know though, is what do you think?

"I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences." -Elim Garak

 

[The Old Mixer]

This is one of those threads that arguably evokes Trek but isn't really about Trek itself, so I'm doing what I've done with such threads in the past and moving to Miscellaneous. I've also converted the embedded images to links because they appear to have been hotlinked. Please only embed images that are hosted on your own webspace or an image-hosting site like Photobucket. Thanks.

 

[Tenacity]

About the scientists and engineers who say we could build something very similar to the Enterprise today and they can even tell you how much it would cost

The international space station cost about 150 billion dollars, the habitable area of the ISS is a fraction of the size of the Enterprise's.

Bearing in mind we are incapable of recreating the warp drive or many of the other systems, building just the physical form of the ship would likely exceed the gross domestic product of the United States.

I'm a big fan of the show, but undertaking this project would be a completely foolish waste of money.

 

[Navarro]

The international space station cost about 150 billion dollars, the habitable area of the ISS is a fraction of the size of the Enterprise's.

Bearing in mind we are incapable of recreating the warp drive or many of the other systems, building just the physical form of the ship would likely exceed the gross domestic product of the United States.

I'm a big fan of the show, but undertaking this project would be a completely foolish waste of money.

I disagree that the "physical form of the ship" would exceed GDP. The length of Enterprise NCC-1701-A was said to be 1001 feet. The length of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier is 1040 feet. A complete Nimitz class carrier costs $6.2 billion, where USA's GDP for 2013 was $16.77 trillion. The hull of the Enterprise wouldn't necessarily cost more the entire Nimitz carrier, let alone USA's GDP. I wasn't able to quickly determine the thickness of the hull of the Nimitz class, but I was able to learn that the thickness of the Constitution class hull was 22 inches at the waterline where the 1701-D hull was 15.6 inches at its thickest point. Given that we would be building this Enterprise with the technology currently available to us, such as the materials used to construct our warships, it would appear that the we would require less materials to construct the hull of the Enterprise than was used to construct the Nimitz class, assuming the thickness of its hull is comparable to the Constitution CV.

No doubt, a modern version of the Enterprise would be expensive to produce, but not necessarily beyond our capabilities, financially or otherwise. Remember, the Nimitz cost America $6.2 billion to produce. So far, America has spent more than $1.6 trillion on the research and development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which still isn't ready for use. The estimates I've seen suggest it would cost us about $1 trillion to construct a modern version of the NCC-1701, less than the R&D for the JSF, less than 1/16th of America's GDP, and less than 1/3 of the US government's revenue in 2015.

If you think such a project would be "a foolish waste of money" though, I don't suppose I'd likely be able to convince you otherwise. I will however point out that the Iraq War cost more than double what the Enterprise is said to cost - with the Enteprise costing $1 trillion, and the Iraq War costing more than $2 trillion. Personally, I'd argue that the Iraq was was sooner a waste of money than the Enterprise would be. We could've gone to war with Iraq, or we could've built the Enterprise, and saved $1 trillion. I would've chosen the Enterprise, myself.

 

[Navarro]

Also, I'd like to point out that while the ISS may have cost $150 billion, the Mir cost Russia $4.2 billion. NASA is said to be less than tight with its budgets, and it's possible that the ISS could have cost a mere fraction of what it did had money not been squandered. Remember: NASA spent $12 billion to produce a pen capable of writing in space. Meanwhile, the Russians were content to use pencils.

It very much appears as though the private sector is on the way to taking over NASA's role in space, and I've no doubt its apparent carefree spending has a great deal to do with that.

 

[sojourner]

Remember: NASA spent $12 billion to produce a pen capable of writing in space. Meanwhile, the Russians were content to use pencils.

This is an urban myth and not true.

 

[Tenacity]

A complete Nimitz class carrier costs $6.2 billion

Constructed on the ground, in a shipyard dry-dock, on the America east coast. A Nimitz is not built in small enough sections to be individually lifted into orbit and assembled there.

Mass production of launch vehicles.

10 to 12 millions dollar per ton to low earth orbit.

Maintain a enormous work force in orbit for years, on the ground a carrier takes over 17 thousand people.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Remember: NASA spent $12 billion to produce a pen capable of writing in space. Meanwhile, the Russians were content to use pencils.

This is an urban myth and not true.

Yeah. NASA didn't make the pen. Both NASA and the Russians used pencils. The pencils sucked for space use and even posed mild danger. Both NASA and the Russians switched to the space pens NASA never make. The company that invented those pens made a profit on them, so it was a good idea all around.

You can even buy them. They work better than any other pen even in gravity. No issues using them upside down when fixing the lighting in the ceiling, or filling my tax forms or student documents against the wall as I'm waiting in line to file them and such.

 

[Navarro]

This is an urban myth and not true.

Fair enough. In retrospect, I think I might be remembering that as a quote from a movie anyhow.

 

[Navarro]

Constructed on the ground, in a shipyard dry-dock, on the America east coast. A Nimitz is not built in small enough sections to be individually lifted into orbit and assembled there.

Mass production of launch vehicles.

10 to 12 millions dollar per ton to low earth orbit.

Maintain a enormous work force in orbit for years, on the ground a carrier takes over 17 thousand people.

It's not guaranteed that it would be necessary to construct this ship in that great cost multiplier in the sky. If this faux enterprise were to be powered by conventional and currently, publically known technologies, such as a nuclear reactor, then it would very much appear that assembly in orbit would be necessary. However, it's been said the Apollo program cost a great deal more than it could have, as a result of Space Race, which meant the rockets, engines and other equipment were being designed, tested and produced at a rapid pace, which is a cost multiplier of its own. If you were to actually develop a powerful, exotic propulsion system with a potential magnitudes beyond current explosive engines, you might want to keep that fact quiet, so that you could build your ship at a more reasonable, more cost-efficient pace.

I'm not sure that it would make a great deal of sense to construct the Enterpise without such a radical, new propulsion technology, As such, I think it's reasonable to conclude that this ship may be capable of being constructed on the ground, and even achieving orbit under its own power. That radical technology might also indicate a radical price involved in its production, but it also might not. It's hard to say very much at all about a technology that we've not even conceived of.

I do agree though: a one trillion dollar price tag sounds "too good to be true," especially if the R&D for the JSF has cost the US government $1.6 trillion just to reach the point of having a fighter which is capapable of only "limited combat." It's not so much a question of money though, as it is motivation.

 

[Navarro]

Has absolutely no one any thoughts about the similarities between those three emblems though?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What I really to know though, is what do you think?

I think the NASA logo was based on a supersonic wing design developed by its predecessor NACA. I believe the fictional Starfleet logo was based on NASA's arrow design, as were the US Space Command and Russian Space Forces logos, in addition to arrows pointing at the stars being a natural symbol for aerospace. I believe it is neither coincidence nor any kind of proof of a real life Starfleet operating.

 

[Navarro]

I think the NASA logo was based on a supersonic wing design developed by its predecessor NACA. I believe the fictional Starfleet logo was based on NASA's arrow design, as were the US Space Command and Russian Space Forces logos, in addition to arrows pointing at the stars being a natural symbol for aerospace. I believe it is neither coincidence nor any kind of proof of a real life Starfleet operating.

Well how about that. I appreciate the clarity.

 

[scotpens]

I disagree that the "physical form of the ship" would exceed GDP. The length of Enterprise NCC-1701-A was said to be 1001 feet. The length of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier is 1040 feet. A complete Nimitz class carrier costs $6.2 billion, where USA's GDP for 2013 was $16.77 trillion. The hull of the Enterprise wouldn't necessarily cost more the entire Nimitz carrier, let alone USA's GDP. I wasn't able to quickly determine the thickness of the hull of the Nimitz class, but I was able to learn that the thickness of the Constitution class hull was 22 inches at the waterline where the 1701-D hull was 15.6 inches at its thickest point. Given that we would be building this Enterprise with the technology currently available to us, such as the materials used to construct our warships, it would appear that the we would require less materials to construct the hull of the Enterprise than was used to construct the Nimitz class, assuming the thickness of its hull is comparable to the Constitution CV.

It's not about overall length, it's about surface area. A Nimitz-class carrier encloses its interior volume in a single hull. A Constitution-class starship consists of four discrete forms -- saucer, secondary hull, and 2 warp nacelles -- connected by slim pylons which add more surface area but little usable volume. Basic geometry should tell you that it would take more material to build a real-life Enterprise, not less.

In any case, since we don't yet have warp drive or transporters or even true artificial gravity, the whole thing is a fanwank.

As for the arrowhead-shaped Starfleet emblem, arrowheads were a common design motif, especially for space and aviation-related business and government entities, long before Star Trek was a gleam in Gene Roddenberry's eye.

 

[Tenacity]

Arrowhead natural spring water was actually inspired by Star Trek.

(Too lazy to paste a image of a water bottle, please visualize)

 

[Navarro]

It's not about overall length, it's about surface area. A Nimitz-class carrier encloses its interior volume in a single hull. A Constitution-class starship consists of four discrete forms -- saucer, secondary hull, and 2 warp nacelles -- connected by slim pylons which add more surface area but little usable volume. Basic geometry should tell you that it would take more material to build a real-life Enterprise, not less.

In any case, since we don't yet have warp drive or transporters or even true artificial gravity, the whole thing is a fanwank.

As for the arrowhead-shaped Starfleet emblem, arrowheads were a common design motif, especially for space and aviation-related business and government entities, long before Star Trek was a gleam in Gene Roddenberry's eye.

I'm not sure about that. The whole length of the 1701-A is lesser than the total length of the Nimitz. We're not comparing the whole Nimitz to say just to saucer section of the Enterprise. The nacelles and every other structural component is included. If anything, the Nimitz is more of a "solid" shape than the Enterprise, where the Enterprise would involve a great many "gaps" compared to the Nimitz. As such, this would further the speculation that less materials would be necessary to construct the hull of the Enterprise than is used to construct the hull of the Nimitz.

Yes though. The faux Enterprise, if it were constructed using conventional known materials and technologies, would be very much a "fanwank" as you say - a massive and tremendously expensive sub-light battleship in space. Unless we have a need for a space battleship which isn't realistically capable of interstellar travel, then I can imagine more practical, far cheaper ways of getting to Mars. This however assumes that a new, practical interstellar propulsion technology isn't available. For the Enterprise to make sense, you need an FTL drive, and that's all you need for it to make sense.

I can certainly imagine humanity being sufficiently motivated to construct something comparable to the Enterprise, if practical interstellar propulsion were available. Under the right circumstances, I can even imagine a sub-light Enterprise. Our ancient ancestors build The Great Pyramid of Giza without any real good reason for doing so as far we're aware, and that was certainly a massive undertaking, especially considering how primitive our ancestors were. The faux Enterprise could become reality through the same motivation. It wouldn't be uncharacteristic of humans. Much more would we be motivated to construct such a wonder if practical interstellar propulsion were to exist. It's not beyond the real of possibilities, especially if you scaled down this faux Enterprise to something more "reasonable" of a first starship, such as the NX-01, which was 225 meters in length, or 738 feet long.

 

[Navarro]

Also keep in mind that humanity is known to make "giant leaps." The HMS Victoria was a Ship of the Line, and also the largest warship ever constructed when it was built in 1859. No doubt the Victoria's shipwrights would've been shocked to learn that a century later we would be constructing 1088 foot long ships when the "massive" Victoria was only 260 feet long. We invented the steam locomotive in 1804. A century later the Wright Brothers took their first flight in 1903. Just sixty-six years after that, within the span of a single human lifetime, we landed on the moon. It's been 47 years since we landed on the moon. It's entirely possible that we're at the cusp of our next great leap, and if that leap is equally great to going from the first flight to landing on the moon, something comparable to the Enterprise might be nearer than you think.

 

[Triskelion]

Evidence of a secret fleet? Evidence of a hunter-gatherer origin and convergent design motif, more like. The arrow would only denote movement to such cultures with similar origins.

And in the case of the Chinese National Space Administration knockoff, a Communist-indoctrinated lack of imagination, and lawless, IP-flaunting, US-undermining glee:

You can search a few other threads here on this topic, such as:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/origin-of-starfleet-logo.280772/

Secret Starfleet? What you should really be worried about are the Aristotleans who manufactured the Dark Ages for everybody else, and are zipping out of their subcavern lairs in time-traveling flying saucers.

Hey you can laugh but some religious cults were founded on less.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I'd love for us to start a Starfleet and have a Federation if we ever found intelligent life. But basic human nature would have to change drastically. We can't even agree on basic reality on this planet.

Honestly we're probably the Terran Empire, if we ever got our shit together and got off the planet.

 

[Brolan]

I'd love for us to start a Starfleet and have a Federation if we ever found intelligent life. But basic human nature would have to change drastically. We can't even agree on basic reality on this planet.

Honestly we're probably the Terran Empire, if we ever got our shit together and got off the planet.

Exactly. I always thought mankind in space would more closely resemble the Babylon 5 universe not the Star Trek one.