• Plans to Build a Real, Burj-Dubai-Sized Starship Enterprise in 20 Years
    88 replies, posted
Zero-G environment permits some structural liberties when it comes to design. To actually construct anything like this however we'd probably need a complete manufacturing chain in space, constructed by conventional means. It would probably not be feasible to transport all material required into space either. Pull a small asteroid into geostationary orbit, construct mining facilities etc.
I think this is little too soon, granted it would be awesome. But i don't see it happening now unless every country in the globe unites to share their resources. Desing's also higly impractical.
Honestly, building a Star Destroyer would probably be a better alternative since it doesn't have any flashy sci-fi designs. [img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIVD-_uVjs6FUZJV4JNF3AlTEI7GfQ0cpqWiqSPREo7I2vB8hS[/img]
Honestly we should probably just stick with building sensible ships, since you know, the cost of building either would put most of the world into poverty.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36014863]Honestly, building a Star Destroyer would probably be a better alternative since it doesn't have any flashy sci-fi designs. [img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIVD-_uVjs6FUZJV4JNF3AlTEI7GfQ0cpqWiqSPREo7I2vB8hS[/img][/QUOTE] That big bit sticking out the top? Wholly unnecessary.
What a bloody stupid idea. Why base it on something from a sci-fi show? This seems absolutely absurd beyond measure.
Is there any explanation at all as to why the engine nacelles are suspended away from the body like that? I've always reasoned it's for safety but then I realized the warp drive is located in the ship's main body... w-hat.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;36015591]Is there any explanation at all as to why the engine nacelles are suspended away from the body like that? I've always reasoned it's for safety but then I realized the warp drive is located in the ship's main body... w-hat.[/QUOTE] It's a "warp-capable" design, I don't really understand it but I think it's the equivalent of making the front of a seaship V-shaped so that it gets less resistance from the water.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36015475]I'm all for building starships, but aren't the designs for the ones in Star Trek a bit (understatement) stupid? [IMG]http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/enterprise.png[/IMG] Every time I see this image and picture the engines firing up, I can picture the nacelles [I]snapping[/I] off of their supports and flying straight past the body of the ship into the void :v: My point is if you're going to base the design of your irl starship off of a fictional design, make sure the design actually makes sense before even building it. (Or why not just take the easier way out and come up with your own design?)[/QUOTE] Although technically the engines on the nacelles don't work like conventional engines, They wrap the ship in some sort of space/time bubble that let go faster then light speed or something. But yeah, It's still a ridiculous design.
They need to make that huge Warhammer 40k spaceship.
Building a hull that massive is both unnecessary and asking for trouble. The more real estate you have on a ship, the more places it can get hit by debris. There is absolutely no need for a real starship to have that sort of design other than cosmetic reasons (which one cannot afford to indulge in space). The Nautilus X is a much more practical design. Same features. Rotating "gravity" sections, lots of storage. Motherfucker even has shuttles. [img]http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/oonautilus.jpg[/img] Dude should be putting his money toward something like that, not toward the most expensive cosplay of all time. Building a directionally-oriented, naval-inspired starship is probably the dumbest thing ever. It's a space ship, not a boat.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36015812]Why don't we all just go with "They didn't think at all about how this ship would actually fly in real life when they came up with it's design, because this is a sci-fi tv series [b]from 1966[/b]"[/QUOTE] Yeah, don't trust a man who thought of something before it could be built, they always end up wrong... [img]http://www.learning-to-fly.com/images/davinci-design-2.jpg[/img]
The show was so cheaply made, this doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
The dumbest part of his ship design is that it keeps the silly deck arrangement of a naval vessel. Any competent spacecraft designer puts 'down' as towards the engines, so any time you're under acceleration, you pressed against the floor and hey, instant gravity. Having people getting rammed sideways (or backwards) and then needing a 'gravity wheel' anyways is sci-fi being its usual inexplicable self. And, of course, his ship has no radiators, which means if it has any decently-sized engine it's going to fry from all the heat it generates. The Space Shuttle has to keep its bay doors open in space because they act as heat radiators. In short, this is a spectacularly terrible idea, whole papers have been written on just how terrible the Enterprise design is, and Popsci needs to stop reporting what every loony Ideas Guy cooks up with- surprise- no real idea of how he's going to make it happen. This hardly even qualifies as journalism.
[QUOTE=catbarf;36016320]The dumbest part of his ship design is that it keeps the silly deck arrangement of a naval vessel. Any competent spacecraft designer puts 'down' as towards the engines, so any time you're under acceleration, you pressed against the floor and hey, instant gravity. [B]Having people getting rammed sideways (or backwards) and then needing a 'gravity wheel' anyways is sci-fi being its usual inexplicable self. [/B] And, of course, his ship has no radiators, which means if it has any decently-sized engine it's going to fry from all the heat it generates. The Space Shuttle has to keep its bay doors open in space because they act as heat radiators. In short, this is a spectacularly terrible idea, whole papers have been written on just how terrible the Enterprise design is, and Popsci needs to stop reporting what every loony Ideas Guy cooks up with- surprise- no real idea of how he's going to make it happen. This hardly even qualifies as journalism.[/QUOTE] Gravity wheels are thought up because continuous thrust to mars would use up insane amounts of fuel
It wont takeoff from earth. it must be builded in orbit.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36014863]Honestly, building a Star Destroyer would probably be a better alternative since it doesn't have any flashy sci-fi designs. [img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIVD-_uVjs6FUZJV4JNF3AlTEI7GfQ0cpqWiqSPREo7I2vB8hS[/img][/QUOTE] It's also way bigger and even a model scaled down to the size of the enterprise would require more material.
If we're talking about ridiculously expensive and impractical spaceship designs, why not use this 15km long horse penis as inspiration? [IMG]http://www.eve-online-fan.co.uk/wp-content/themes/dust514/images/eve-online-ships/images/eveships/avatar.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36015976]Building a hull that massive is both unnecessary and asking for trouble. The more real estate you have on a ship, the more places it can get hit by debris. There is absolutely no need for a real starship to have that sort of design other than cosmetic reasons (which one cannot afford to indulge in space). The Nautilus X is a much more practical design. Same features. Rotating "gravity" sections, lots of storage. Motherfucker even has shuttles. [img]http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/oonautilus.jpg[/img] Dude should be putting his money toward something like that, not toward the most expensive cosplay of all time. Building a directionally-oriented, naval-inspired starship is probably the dumbest thing ever. It's a space ship, not a boat.[/QUOTE] I always imagined a really big ship would be better because you'd have a lot more space for redundancies and supplies in case something went wrong.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;36017838]I always imagined a [B]really big ship[/B] would be better because you'd have a lot more space for redundancies and supplies in case something went wrong.[/QUOTE] Would you want an entire flying planet or a compact and fast space shuttle?
[QUOTE=Mingebox;36017838]I always imagined a really big ship would be better because you'd have a lot more space for redundancies and supplies in case something went wrong.[/QUOTE] Big isn't really all that useful in space. Just more shit that will go wrong.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;36017634]It's also way bigger and even a model scaled down to the size of the enterprise would require more material.[/QUOTE] Alright, how about the Millennium Falcon? :v: [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpF7oFWkCxx_TCHI8KJAAmQBpKkC81R0Za0rccC-CCD1dKTirg[/img]
[QUOTE=pawelte1;36013787]Do they [B]really[/B] need that laser?[/QUOTE] Communication laser. [editline]19th May 2012[/editline] Though why it's mounted on the bottom instead of the top is beyond me. The engine will block it from aiming backwards. [editline]19th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36017678]If we're talking about ridiculously expensive and impractical spaceship designs, why not use this 15km long horse penis as inspiration? [IMG]http://www.eve-online-fan.co.uk/wp-content/themes/dust514/images/eve-online-ships/images/eveships/avatar.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] EVE's ships take impracticality to a whole new level because like 90% of them are asymmetric - though that one is an exception. You want at least bilateral symmetry in space, and radial symmetry is even better. At least the Enterprise is bilaterally symmetrical, even though everything else in the design is stupidly inefficient. :v:
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36018052]Alright, how about the Millennium Falcon? :v: [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpF7oFWkCxx_TCHI8KJAAmQBpKkC81R0Za0rccC-CCD1dKTirg[/img][/QUOTE] Throw a centrifuge in the saucer section and I'm game. [editline]19th May 2012[/editline] Spinning is so much cooler than not-spinning.
Should build the Daedalus: [IMG]http://images.wikia.com/stargate/images/0/03/Daedalus.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36018151]Throw a centrifuge in the saucer section and I'm game. [editline]19th May 2012[/editline] Spinning is so much cooler than not-spinning.[/QUOTE] Just like the aliens :v: [img]http://cdn.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/ufo.jpg[/img]
Dumb design for a ship, very impractical, needs to be cylindrical sorta, a block shape, not a disk with thin pieces connecting to other huge pieces. Other than that, this sounds pretty fucking cool.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;36018552]Dumb design for a ship, very impractical, needs to be cylindrical sorta, a block shape, not a disk with thin pieces connecting to other huge pieces. Other than that, this sounds pretty fucking cool.[/QUOTE] So, other than the ship they're building, it's pretty cool that they're building a ship.
[QUOTE=fskman;36017480]Gravity wheels are thought up because continuous thrust to mars would use up insane amounts of fuel[/QUOTE] Not fuel, reaction mass- fuel is of negligible concern in a nuclear-powered spacecraft. A 1G brachistochrone trajectory, of acceleration towards the destination for the first half of the journey followed by a turnover and deceleration, is possible using something like an Orion drive for propulsion, but still isn't terribly practical. The point is, yes, accelerating the whole way there is no feasible, but you misunderstand my point. Having the so-called gravity wheel have an axis perpendicular to the direction of travel is silly since it renders it completely unusable under thrust. A much better design would have it outside the hull, since that saves an enormous amount of mass on useless structural material. And, again, having the decks laid out so that acceleration throws people into the wall instead of providing something resembling gravity is just silly. The Enterprise is about as far from a practical design as you can get.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;36015475]I'm all for building starships, but aren't the designs for the ones in Star Trek a bit (understatement) stupid? [IMG]http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/enterprise.png[/IMG] Every time I see this image and picture the engines firing up, I can picture the nacelles [I]snapping[/I] off of their supports and flying straight past the body of the ship into the void :v: My point is if you're going to base the design of your irl starship off of a fictional design, make sure the design actually makes sense before even building it. (Or why not just take the easier way out and come up with your own design?)[/QUOTE] but the engines are mounted to the saucer section
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.