What could a future earth space ship look like.
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
First of all, even if you have an FTL ship, you don't have anywhere to go outside the solar system. Everything is just too far away... sadly.
You can't really use any of the designs proposed in sci-fi productions, because they're all based on fantasy... They're glamorous to appeal to what we want to see, but unfortunately it doesn't match reality.
Someone said we might have something that looks like the NX-01 (no FTL drive) in about 150-200 years. I say it makes no sense, because again--the ship wouldn't be propelled in the same manner.
We will probably go to Mars someday... and maybe even to Europa (one of Jupiter's moons). But it won't be for a very, VERY long time from now. We've got too many problems to solve here first before we can venture out that far in manned ships. Unmanned will no doubt continue to be sent. Manned ships will not be very visually appealing, but very practical. As others have cited, long cylindrical shapes would make the most sense. They'll have numerous solar panels to recharge power cells and some kind of shielding to protect against particle intrusion. Or some kind of targeting system that can help disintegrate/deflect larger matter in the flight path. But Newtype's suggestion about a type of "aerogel" might make the most sense. It would be great if there was some means of creating artificial gravity, but the centrifuge design we saw depicted aboard the Discovery One in "2001: A Space Odyssey" is supposedly not very effective.
I believe in time we'll have created such incredibly believable fantasy simulations of the outer space we'd like to see, that they'll satisfy most people. We can "explore" to our heart's content, in whatever ship designs we can imagine.
You can't really use any of the designs proposed in sci-fi productions, because they're all based on fantasy... They're glamorous to appeal to what we want to see, but unfortunately it doesn't match reality.
Someone said we might have something that looks like the NX-01 (no FTL drive) in about 150-200 years. I say it makes no sense, because again--the ship wouldn't be propelled in the same manner.
We will probably go to Mars someday... and maybe even to Europa (one of Jupiter's moons). But it won't be for a very, VERY long time from now. We've got too many problems to solve here first before we can venture out that far in manned ships. Unmanned will no doubt continue to be sent. Manned ships will not be very visually appealing, but very practical. As others have cited, long cylindrical shapes would make the most sense. They'll have numerous solar panels to recharge power cells and some kind of shielding to protect against particle intrusion. Or some kind of targeting system that can help disintegrate/deflect larger matter in the flight path. But Newtype's suggestion about a type of "aerogel" might make the most sense. It would be great if there was some means of creating artificial gravity, but the centrifuge design we saw depicted aboard the Discovery One in "2001: A Space Odyssey" is supposedly not very effective.
I believe in time we'll have created such incredibly believable fantasy simulations of the outer space we'd like to see, that they'll satisfy most people. We can "explore" to our heart's content, in whatever ship designs we can imagine.
I get really tired of the "we have to fix things here before we can go there" statement. Very glad comments like that didn't stop Columbus. If you wait for the perfect time to go, you will never go.
Centrifuge designs are actually our best bet for artificial gravity. Not sure where you got the idea they are not very effective. Unless you mean on the Discovery itself wherein the centrifuge was too small in real life to be effective due to Coriolis effects.
First of all, even if you have an FTL ship, you don't have anywhere to go outside the solar system. Everything is just too far away... sadly.
You can't really use any of the designs proposed in sci-fi productions, because they're all based on fantasy... They're glamorous to appeal to what we want to see, but unfortunately it doesn't match reality.
Someone said we might have something that looks like the NX-01 (no FTL drive) in about 150-200 years. I say it makes no sense, because again--the ship wouldn't be propelled in the same manner.
We will probably go to Mars someday... and maybe even to Europa (one of Jupiter's moons). But it won't be for a very, VERY long time from now. We've got too many problems to solve here first before we can venture out that far in manned ships. Unmanned will no doubt continue to be sent. Manned ships will not be very visually appealing, but very practical. As others have cited, long cylindrical shapes would make the most sense. They'll have numerous solar panels to recharge power cells and some kind of shielding to protect against particle intrusion. Or some kind of targeting system that can help disintegrate/deflect larger matter in the flight path. But Newtype's suggestion about a type of "aerogel" might make the most sense. It would be great if there was some means of creating artificial gravity, but the centrifuge design we saw depicted aboard the Discovery One in "2001: A Space Odyssey" is supposedly not very effective.
I believe in time we'll have created such incredibly believable fantasy simulations of the outer space we'd like to see, that they'll satisfy most people. We can "explore" to our heart's content, in whatever ship designs we can imagine.
1. If the point of making a star fleet is to find another earth, than there is no point in having one. A FTL ship would be able to reach the star that is nearest to us is just a couple of days, that planet that we think could be another earth could be reached in a couple weeks.
Siruis-B which if you research has some interesting history to it would be a destination, its all about gaining knowledge and just exploring. Finding different minerals and metals, finding different types of energy. There is actually alot of reasons to explore and to make an FTL ship. It doesn't have to be just about finding another habitual planet
2. Agreed, but you have to remember that some of these sci-fi ships do make sense with their designs. Look at ship designs of stargate, you could actually see its built for function its no a big ship, its built for what it needs to function. Yes, star trek ships are a bit big and are mostly for show, but use the design, make it smaller and you have a functional ship.
3. well yes we might need to fix some problems, but I think that since we haven't blown each other up yet, there might be some hope. Yes, we will contuine to send unmanned but that is only because we don't have the tech to send a human ship that far and be cost effective, but once tech knowledge increases you might see a 3 person ship or 5 person ship being sent to mars. Aerogel is already used in NASA programs, so if they wanted to build a ship from it they would of by now. Centrifuge is actually better for AG than this aerogel is, becuase in order for it get AG it would still need to spin or have constant accel.
4. Well that might be true but people are going to want to explore for themselves eventually holograms can only go so far.
Listen this is for the most part a happy forum, lets not upset poeple with the world is doomed stuff please. This is a purely opinion based forum about what people in their imagination think a future ship will look like, if they want it to be NX let them, whats the harm. Lets no be one of those people who challenge what everyone says to start arguements or try to increase our ego by making it seem like we are smarter than everyone else, we already have someone who does it in this server we don't need another.
It's starting to seem like you're simply trying to superimpose Star Trek technology on real-world (if speculative) aerospace engineering. It just doesn't work that way. "FTL" includes everything from 1.1C to 1000C, and unless we invent Trek-style warp drive "a couple of days" is out of the question. Even the most likely candidate for a REAL warp drive--the Alcubierre Metric--would be able to accelerate the ship to just about any velocity, but it still needs time to reach those velocities; depending on the engine, it might take several months to reach light speed at all, several years to reach any speed that would make long interstellar voyages feasible, and then your top speed is limited by the amount of runtime you need to slow down back to orbital velocity of your target.
The nearest candidate for an Earthlike planet is about 20 light years away orbiting Giese 581. With an Alcubierre Drive accelerating you at 5Gs, let's say, it would take a little more than two months to accelerate just to the speed of light. If you accelerate up to about 6C and then reverse power and decelerate, you could make that trip in about three years.
Sleeper ships could make the journey, or a very large and sophisticated craft designed to sustain a crew for that period of time and then sustain them again on the way home. A robot spacecraft, however, would be able to do the exact same job far more efficiently and with far less physical and financial risk.
The VAST MAJORITY of them do not, so it makes no sense to model future theories on the most fanciful and self-conceited themes in space opera.
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Given conventions of artificial gravity and what is apparently a basis on reverse engineered alien technology, it's safe to say that no human-built spacecraft will EVER look anything like the craft on Stargate.
Strictly speaking, exploration doesn't occur when conditions are good, it occurs when conditions are BAD, and the demand for new resources is at an all time high. We would, in fact, take our first serious steps into space with the intention of fixing things here.
Columbus, after all, was not a romantic, and nothing in his background suggests he was sailing to the new world "To boldly go where no man has gone before." He was, in fact, looking to open a trade route with India, "to boldly profit like no man has profited before."
It has to do with the desired gravity and rotational velocity. Anything more than about 2 rpms tends to produce some disorientation for the crew, so the speed would have to be closer--and probably lower than--one and a half revolution per minute. The problem with Discovery's centrifuge is that it's just too small to build up appreciable gravities and still remain below that speed; the best it could accomplish would be about 1/7th Earth gravity before Bowman and Poole become incredibly dizzy and loose the ability to turn their heads without passing out.
OK newtype alpha I don't know how many times I am going to have to say this but once again its in the FUTURE!!
You don't know what will be in the future, everyone knows I am not talking about 50yrs a hundred years yes, but not in my or your life time. So stop thinking modern because once again thats what your doing besides trying to sound smarter than everyone else by correcting what you don't know. Last time I knew some didn't mean all so all you did was say what I already said just in different words, same thing with Sojourner's post, said the same thing he said just different words. He stated that the centrifuge was too small, just as you repeated in different words.
SO PLEASE STOP WITH THE BROKEN RECORD CRAP.
Now your good at reading everyone's post try reading the last thing I said and follow it for the sake of everyone who wants to have a nice conversation about what their imagination can come up with.
I know it won't be Stargate SG-1, and no amount of "It's the future, dangit!" is going to make it so.
Since 50 to 100 years in the future IS, in fact, the future, this is a bit of special pleading. If you're asking about a thousand years from now... who the hell knows? We might not even need space ships anymore at that point.
100 years in the future is not "modern" in any conventional sense of the word and is, in fact, "the future." Besides, I don't really expect technology to advance as quickly as you do, and I fully expect that most of the space technologies we're using now won't reach full maturity for AT LEAST another century or more.
You're in the wrong forum if you're looking for free-association "Whatever your imagination can come up with" answers. I and others in this thread are answering this question BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY. If you want something with an only passing basis in real-world science, I suggest you start a whole new thread over in the Stargate forum.
Pretty sure in a round about way your agreeing with me?
Sorry, Stargate ships and Star Trek ships have no basis in reality. They are fiction and defy several laws of physics. The laws of physics do not change because its "TEH FUTURE!!!"
Um, aerogel would be used to insulate the skin of a spacecraft against micrometeors. It has nothing to do with artificial gravity. You need to re-read the original post in which it was brought up in this thread.
Well, I can dream can't I, I would personally love to see the NX, but fine.
I stated that it was used in ships, my statement was that there was no ship made from just that, but I understand. I didn't say anything about it and AG, it was someone else, I responded to that person, that might have been what you saw.
I stated that it was used in ships, my statement was that there was no ship made from just that, but I understand. I didn't say anything about it and AG, it was someone else, I responded to that person, that might have been what you saw.
Yeah, but did you read actually read it closely. I said exactly what you're saying. I may have put the wrong words in, but if you look at the bottom sentence it says that its no spinning or have constant accel. its doesn't have AG.
I even said in order for it get AG. which means I know it doesn't have it.
OK thats your opinion, it may be true, it might not be true, neither you or I am ever going to know.
Since 50 to 100 years in the future IS, in fact, the future, this is a bit of special pleading. If you're asking about a thousand years from now... who the hell knows? We might not even need space ships anymore at that point.[/QUOTE]
Obviously you need to read and understand, instead of just copying and pasting.
OK, not everyone. This is purely opinion, as its says in the very beginning. Oh and 1 more thing, since this is opinion based, that means that your opinion is that technology won't be anybetter in your wrong timeline of 50-100yrs. So saying that you can't assume that your opinion is more valid than others in this forum, who haven't attacked what anybody says, repeat it in different words to look smarter.
The fact is your opinion isn't more valid than anybody else, all posts in this forum are great ideas and opinions, but nobody is purely wrong, due to the fact that the actual timeline is past our lifespans and our children's, their children, etc.
And if somebody does feel the urge to correct someone, which hardly anybody has. This isn't a serious thread, I suggest you want to have a fact thread, you can start one. How you can tell this is a opinion based forum is that nobody has been as serious as you, theres been sexual joke ships, no-one got into a arguement like this one.
Yeah, but did you read actually read it closely. I said exactly what you're saying. I may have put the wrong words in, but if you look at the bottom sentence it says that its no spinning or have constant accel. its doesn't have AG.
I even said in order for it get AG. which means I know it doesn't have it.
Then I am at a loss as to why you would say:
Maybe if you intend to carry on conversations you should try taking more care in what you type. We can't guess what you meant by your incoherent rambling. We can only take what you typed at face value.
If you don't like my opinion, you probably shouldn't have asked for it in the first place.
Then don't take it seriously. And also don't mind if other posters choose to do so.
If you don't like my opinion, you probably shouldn't have asked for it in the first place.
Then don't take it seriously. And also don't mind if other posters choose to do so.
Just becuase I say your opinion isn't scientifical fact, doesn't mean that you can't post it. Trying quote what I wrote around it. I asked for opinions, you haven't been giving opinions, your correcting people's post like they're saying something wrong. Its all opinion, what I said is that nobody is wrong, nobody is right, now you can take that as I don't want your opinion or not, your choice.
It isn't serious thread in that people just like to write down something, like I said for the most part your the only one who has gone around stating that people are wrong in the way they think. But theres not a faster way to take the joy out of a fun thread by having someone go around saying people are wrong, when all he does is just repeat what they say in different words.
Instead of posting a one sentence quote, try quoting the things I say around it, which usually contains more of an explanation and or answer questions like this already.
Then for the time being I shall continue to do so. If you want to keep whining about it, that's your prerogative.If you don't like my opinion, you probably shouldn't have asked for it in the first place.
Then don't take it seriously. And also don't mind if other posters choose to do so.
Just becuase I say your opinion isn't scientifical fact, doesn't mean that you can't post it.
I'm quoting the sentence for your benefit, not for mine. I don't generally begin a response until I've read the whole post.
Am I incorrect in assuming you know the contents of your own posts, or do I really need to post the context around them so that YOU'LL remember what you said and why you said it?
Similar threads
