Two more LCARS schematics

[Bill Morris]

I'm just getting ready to modify the Phoenix to account for Herkimer Jitty's observation about how cramped it must be with the nacelles stowed inside that rather narrow hull. While I'm at, I should account for retro fuel for a soft landing in Montana, possibly showing drogue chutes and antimatter for the main thruster, since it is so cramped for space.

And I still have two NASA MSDs and a Ferengi maruader that eed touching up.

 

[Saquist]

The Atlas V is completely new. It doesn't even look like an Atlas. The only thing it has in common with earlier Atlas's is the RD-180 engine.

The Rocket motor is the same?
Isn't that what I said before about designs that share major components.
The wiki page seems to suggest that the nose module is the same aswell with a revamped mid section.

This would still mark it as an Atlas.
I just don't often seen names carry over to completely redesigned craft. Especially in Nasa.

 

[Saquist]

I'm just getting ready to modify the Phoenix to account for Herkimer Jitty's observation about how cramped it must be with the nacelles stowed inside that rather narrow hull. While I'm at, I should account for retro fuel for a soft landing in Montana, possibly showing drogue chutes and antimatter for the main thruster, since it is so cramped for space.

And I still have two NASA MSDs and a Ferengi maruader that eed touching up.

I'm not sure you should bother LCARS.
Another one of my issues is the amount of LOX LH it would take to lower a craft this heavy back to Earth without Heat shields. The parachute would cut much of that...but...

It seems Pheonix wasn't designed to return to Earth...The capsule maybe but the main fuselage looks like once it's in space, it stays there.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yeah, I'd have just the capsule land - that was John Eaves's design intent, if I recall correctly.

 

[Birdog]

The Atlas V is completely new. It doesn't even look like an Atlas. The only thing it has in common with earlier Atlas's is the RD-180 engine.

The Rocket motor is the same?
Isn't that what I said before about designs that share major components.
The wiki page seems to suggest that the nose module is the same aswell with a revamped mid section.

This would still mark it as an Atlas.
I just don't often seen names carry over to completely redesigned craft. Especially in Nasa.

The engine and payload shroud aren't really major components. It's the rocket body itself which is supposed to determine the family. It's like saying that because my wife's 1995 Chevy S10 Blazer and my brother's 1995 Chevy 1500 pickup have the same 4.3l Vortec engine and same tires that they are the in the same family.

The fact it's an Atlas at all is purely marketing. They're taking a known and popular name and applying it to a new product to get better sales. Kind of like the new Camaro has nothing in common with the old ones because it's a brand new design that has a popular name and will sell very well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The reactor was functional.
We have two examples of the imbalance not shutting down the core untill warp was engaged. The Core would work but at the higher output the intermix ratio changes. That's why Scotty said "intermix was set" and then said impulse power. The core was powering the impulse engines.

The glowy thing in the middle of the room is the intermix chamber, not the warp core. It always glows, whether its powered by antimatter or the fusion reactor.

We don't know that it can work with out antimatter.

Yes we do. It was working in dry dock when the ship was still under umbilical power and BOTH drive systems were completely shut down.

Firstly it's nonsensical to suggest they got a Fusion reactor in that radius in stable enough conditions to launch on ICBM

Uh huh... but a magnetic bottle full of antimatter wouldn't be a problem.

in make shift format or that a TITAN could even launch such an assembly. It was right after war world III such technology would have been a high commodity to the entire Earth. If he wanted to get rich he already had the one invention that would do it. Fusion Power that small could have revitalized the Earth and cured so many issues after a holocaust.

The moment someone heard about this tech it would have been taken or bought fro Cochrane.

And you suggest wrong, as already demonstrated that the presence of an intermix chamber has NO implication for any particular power system.

The implication can only be warp. If any other device were mentioned with the intermix then I can see you point.

I repeat: "Intermix set, bridge. Impulse power at your discretion."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's an intresting proposal but I didn't know that Fission produced plasma

NERVA produced plasma.

 

[Bill Morris]

Anyway, here's the mess I've made now:

 

[Maurice]

Anyway, here's the mess I've made now:

Is it my imagination, or in this rendering are the nacelles too long to have fit in the fuselage as shown in the film?

 

[Bill Morris]

Is it my imagination, or in this rendering are the nacelles too long to have fit in the fuselage as shown in the film?

Well, I'll admit the nacelle is 9 pixels (width of the letter A in the title) too long, but I think what you mean is that you expect them to fit between the two partitions shown in dark blue in the diagram, as the image below resized to match would suggest.

But they can't go there after taking into account the need for retro rockets to soft-land the descent module, since there is very little room between the nacelles when folded. In fact, that's why I moved them back: so Cochrane, Riker, and LaForge could get back safely.

And even if they're shorter when folded, which didn't appear to be the case, it would be hard to make enough difference.

Actually, in the picture below, they seem a tad to long, as well.

The only way they'll fit like that would be to keep only the top and bottom retro rockets, remove four warp coils, shorten the nacelles by that much, and fit them snugly between those partitions.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

I'd go with tiny retro rockets - for firing at the last second - and rely mainly on a heat shield and a series of parachutes for descent and slowdown - a la' the Soyuz TMA.

That should give you plenty of space.

 

[Bill Morris]

That still shortens the nacelle by about 45 pixels, ditching four coils.

So landing like the Soyuz would put the drogue parachutes in that space aft of the cockpit of the Phoenix and the main parachute in the nose, so the front is the heat shield and the module flips around 15 minutes before landing and deploys the main chute, right?

I guess you've seen this already:

Soyuz TMA schematic

 

[Timo]

The only thing it has in common with earlier Atlas's is the RD-180 engine.

Actually, no - even the RD-180 is an all-new engine totally unrelated to any preceding American rocket engine. By virtue of being a Russian engine bought for its performance, compactness and reliability, plus an affordable price, that is.

Atlas V only remains an "Atlas" because it needs to compete with Boeing's Delta family, and it needs to maintain the impression that there's a longstanding Locheed tradition of "Atlas launchers". There isn't a single design feature, structural shape or piece of equipment remaining from Atlases I through III, really, while there was lots of commonality between the I, II and III.

So landing like the Soyuz would put the drogue parachutes in that space aft of the cockpit of the Phoenix and the main parachute in the nose, so the front is the heat shield and the module flips around 15 minutes before landing and deploys the main chute, right?

Since the rocket engine technology of that era seems futuristically advanced overall, I'd suggest the presence of very small and very powerful retro-rockets, or perhaps an alternate spatial or atmospheric propulsion technology such as gravity control. Remember that at that time, "hovercars" were decades-old news. Unless they were primitive air cushion vehicles (which are bound to be noisy as hell even when not quite so primitive), one'd think Earth invented gravity manipulation sometime in the early 21st century.

Landing would IMHO be like with an aircraft, featuring controlled gliding and perhaps even powered flight. The wing would be a parasoil deployed from one of the many boxes or hatches on the dorsal side of the capsule, and would allow the capsule to fly across a continent if need be in search of a landing site.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Bill Morris]

Well, you know I like to get things done and move on. Cochrane was probably the same way--just get up there and prove it can do warp 1 for a few seconds and worry about the amenities later, as long as has a strong sound system. I hope that's enought fuel back there for him to get back for reentry after a short burst at warp. What does it take, about 2 seconds at warp 1 to get farther out than the moon?

 

[Saquist]

That's an intresting proposal but I didn't know that Fission produced plasma

NERVA produced plasma.

By what means?

Yes we do. It was working in dry dock when the ship was still under umbilical power and BOTH drive systems were completely shut down.

It's irrelevant.
The point is conceded.

Uh huh... but a magnetic bottle full of antimatter wouldn't be a problem.

You are in error.
Magnetic antimatter containment, especially at this early period, would be highly volatile.

I repeat: "Intermix set, bridge. Impulse power at your discretion."

Repetition is irrelevant.
You have not been able to isolate the intermix as an impulse engine device.
Because you lack any other evident demostration of your claims I took the liberty to investigate myself.

Here in Engineering Section, the ENGINE THROBBING
SLOWLY BUILDS to a THUNDERING SOUND. A glow from
the central unit indicates anti-matter intermix
underway. The Engineering Section shudders as the
great engines draw more and more power.​

SCOTT
Intermix set, Bridge, impulse
power at your discretion.​

(after a moment)
KIRK
Impulse power, Mr Sulu.
Ahead Warp point-five.​

I do not really give this anymore relevance than any other script as canon. But it's blinding obvious without even considering this source is that the impulse engines are utilizing plasma from the Matter Antimatter Reactor for greater than normal impulse speeds.​

Absolutely every other reference in this movie, in every other episode of Star Trek has the intermix related to a device that balances the ratio of fuel. Ratio means a consideration of two items or elements. Your one repeated example also happens to be the sole occurance of a reactor that combines Impulse and warp. Under your reasoning the Intermix is also a device that regulates the phasers. But it's not. In terms of these other devices it merely plays the ajoining role of conduit.​

 

[Birdog]

The only thing it has in common with earlier Atlas's is the RD-180 engine.

Actually, no - even the RD-180 is an all-new engine totally unrelated to any preceding American rocket engine. By virtue of being a Russian engine bought for its performance, compactness and reliability, plus an affordable price, that is.

Atlas V only remains an "Atlas" because it needs to compete with Boeing's Delta family, and it needs to maintain the impression that there's a longstanding Locheed tradition of "Atlas launchers". There isn't a single design feature, structural shape or piece of equipment remaining from Atlases I through III, really, while there was lots of commonality between the I, II and III.

I completely agree with you on your second point. But on the first one, the Atlas IIIB and IIIA utilized the RD-180 engines and had the original balloon fuels tanks from the Atlas. The Atlas V took the engines but had a whole new airframe design.

 

[Saquist]

My knowledge of Missles and Rockets is limited.
Ultimately I can only trust source material. It wouldn't suprise me if my thoughts on Rocket naming conventions are false. It wouldn't be the first time often what is logical is not what is.

 

[Saquist]

Well, you know I like to get things done and move on. Cochrane was probably the same way--just get up there and prove it can do warp 1 for a few seconds and worry about the amenities later, as long as has a strong sound system. I hope that's enought fuel back there for him to get back for reentry after a short burst at warp. What does it take, about 2 seconds at warp 1 to get farther out than the moon?

I think it attempts a really good explanation.
I say Good Job...as usual.

 

[SonicRanger]

What does it take, about 2 seconds at warp 1 to get farther out than the moon?

The moon is 1.3 light-seconds away.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's an intresting proposal but I didn't know that Fission produced plasma

NERVA produced plasma.

By what means?

The old fashioned way: an ungodly amount of heat transferred to a reactant mass.

Magnetic antimatter containment, especially at this early period, would be highly volatile.

Indeed. Hence my "rolleyes" smiley which suggests a fusion reactor or even a fission reactor would be much less problematic than an antimatter bottle, your assertions to the contrary.

Repetition is irrelevant.

Not if you keep missing the point.

You have not been able to isolate the intermix as an impulse engine device.

I have not been attempting to. Again, the intermix chamber is NOT the warp core, and impulse engines do not run on antimatter. Post-production editing had the intermix chamber aglow even in dry dock, and the "engine throbbing to thundering sound" effect was relegated, instead, to warp drive to avoid confusing the issue.

This was done intentionally, with the intent of separating warp and impulse drive systems.

Absolutely every other reference in this movie, in every other episode of Star Trek has the intermix related to a device that balances the ratio of fuel.​

And I'll remind you that as we learned in "Coming of Age," there is only one intermix ratio where antimatter is concerned 1:1. Since we have heard other intermix ratios quoted over the years, we can directly infer from this that the intermix chamber handles plasma from other sources other than antimatter reactors.​