Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Well, i don't see how they are all fake.
-------
Getting back on topic, Popular Science did a great article on the engineer

who created buildtheenterprise.org website.

He estimates the cost to be $1 Trillion !

It's hard to confirm. His website keeps crashing.

I wonder how many hits he received on his site.

LilDudeissocoo to Eurisko2012. Come in Eurisko2012?

Well, i don't see how they are all fake.

That also would be a matter of personal belief.
-------

Getting back on topic, Popular Science did a great article on the engineer

who created buildtheenterprise.org website.

He estimates the cost to be $1 Trillion !

It's hard to confirm. His website keeps crashing.

I wonder how many hits he received on his site.

ummmmm One trillion bot hits per second.

It's what I believe, now prove my figures wrong.

He estimates the cost to be $1 Trillion !

reply to post by LilDudeissocool
That's pretty much all of the U.S. Treasury!!! we would be in more debt than we already are.

reply to post by paranormal78


Why have the USG involved when you can simply sell the idea to some royal oil sheiks who basically own the FED that bails out the USG and every other government in the world through purchasing their bonds as the oil sheiks need their security to protect their positions of power and control within their kingdoms, and their trade of their oil on the open market which is coincidentally refereed to as the Enterprise, the protection in exchange for credit racket? They have trillions in assets. They own the majority of the paper on mortgages, auto loads, credit cards, revolving business credit account and debt and... public debt. That's in exchange for security protection which will never be paid back of course because protection is not free, and so a trillion is not that big of a deal to the ones who deal the cards. They're Trekkie fans. The king of UAE is at least I know. His true worth is in the trillions. Then you have the Saudi royal family members who are for the most part space science proponents and advocates. Where do you think GWB got the juice to promote the moon base idea from? Prince bandar bin sultan who would go to the Moon if given the chance without a second thought.


Collect them all www.pbs.org... accessories not included with action figures, sold separately.

To clarify and be more specific, when I mentioned the UAE I should have stated "Dubai" to be more exact, and not king, but crowned prince.

I've been out of the loop on that sort of stuff for so long I'm slipping. Probably stupidity is a cause too which is why I'm out of the loop in the first place, and for being consistently loopy. You can't be loopy in the loop because your job will be in the noose.

He better build it because since we pumped all this oil out of Earth....the crust won't have oil inside to maintain the constant temperature which prevented the planet from freezing over.

Build it or die....there's a species motivation.

Originally posted by Pervius
He better build it because since we pumped all this oil out of Earth....the crust won't have oil inside to maintain the constant temperature which prevented the planet from freezing over.

Build it or die....there's a species motivation.

The oil is replaced with aqua. Not sure if oil has the values you espouse regarding crust temp and what it means if it does. Magma, the mantel rather, volume in ratio to the crust is quite a contrast. Speaking to the mantel's influences on the constant temp of the crust, which btw, has had a slight steady decrease in temp overtime of course. I'm not a geologist so I don't know really what I'm trying to say here.


Is there a geologist in the house?

Originally posted by Pervius
He better build it because since we pumped all this oil out of Earth....the crust won't have oil inside to maintain the constant temperature which prevented the planet from freezing over.

Build it or die....there's a species motivation.

Seriously dewd?
Compared to the size of the earth and the crust, every drop of oil that's already been pumped out (and every drop of oil that's still there) would be like a bead of sweat dropping off your forehead. When the oil is pumped out, it doesn't leave some empty vaccum there, it fills with everything around it. Whether that be water, dirt, magma, pockets of air, whatever is surrounding it. Pumping oil out doesn't leave some massive void that swallows stuff up like a black hole and changes the temperature of the entire earth.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

The oil is replaced with aqua. Not sure if oil has the values you espouse regarding crust temp and what it means if it does. Magma, the mantel rather, volume in ratio to the crust is quite a contrast. Speaking to the mantel's influences on the constant temp of the crust, which btw, has had a slight steady decrease in temp overtime of course. I'm not a geologist so I don't know really what I'm trying to say here.


Is there a geologist in the house?

Well, from a drilling perspective you're right, traditionally water moves in (usually on purpose) to replace oil. Oil itself in it's crude form, has slight geothermic properties associated with it, but nothing like the above guy was suggesting. I too, am no geologist, but do have some knowledge of the geo sciences and know that dilling for oil is the LEAST of things to worry about with respect to any cataclysmic events (unless of course you figure into the equation peak oil and over-consumption)....the REAL cataclysm would be to STOP drilling for oil at this point; the lost jobs, the lost revenue, the lost power, the loss of day to day products that we take for granted by the use of fossil fuels (like the electricity used to fire up our computers to begin with, the keyboards and monitors and mice and PCB's made of plastic....that bottled water you have on your desk made of plastic made from oil LOL....I could go on and on).

Personally, I would love to see the Enterprise built, but there is no way in our time, our childrens time or our grandchildrens time that it will be built and usable in the fashion that most people associate it. 2 or 300 years, perhaps, but no way now.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


It up and running now . The stats say 384,000 hits on buildtheenterprise.org.

- It's too big - USS Enterprise should be 300 Meters Long

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

It up and running now . The stats say 384,000 hits on buildtheenterprise.org.

- It's too big - USS Enterprise should be 300 Meters Long

People read it, see a link posted, then click on it out of curiosity's sake. So given the exposure it's received from the media online, then I'm surprised it's not been more.

As to the project itself, a trillion dollars on a ship with 100 feet high ceilings, restaurants, basketball court etc, etc Not only that, but all you get is a slow arsed ship with Ion drives.

Scale the ship size back, cut the crew down by a factor of 5/10. Cut out all the luxuries & give it a proper propulsion system. You could do it for hundreds of billions less than the trillion proposed by the starship guy.

Scale the ship size back, cut the crew down by a factor of 5/10. Cut out all the luxuries & give it a proper propulsion system. You could do it for hundreds of billions less than the trillion proposed by the starship guy.

reply to post by big_BHOYI agree with that logic. A ship like The X304 Daeduls class ship from stargate SG1 would be much cheaper. Its a powerfull ship because of its fewer luxuries and smaller size.

Originally posted by paranormal78

Scale the ship size back, cut the crew down by a factor of 5/10. Cut out all the luxuries & give it a proper propulsion system. You could do it for hundreds of billions less than the trillion proposed by the starship guy.

reply to post by big_BHOYI agree with that logic. A ship like The X304 Daeduls class ship from stargate SG1 would be much cheaper. Its a powerfull ship because of its fewer luxuries and smaller size.

 

And Way way cooler then Enterprise...
Actually, the Deadalous would be a more viable build too...

Originally posted by paranormal78

Scale the ship size back, cut the crew down by a factor of 5/10. Cut out all the luxuries & give it a proper propulsion system. You could do it for hundreds of billions less than the trillion proposed by the starship guy.

reply to post by big_BHOYI agree with that logic. A ship like The X304 Daeduls class ship from stargate SG1 would be much cheaper. Its a powerfull ship because of its fewer luxuries and smaller size.

 

It's gotta have the luxuries so the rich fat cats will want to go spend time there and spend a buttload of money to help finish building it for their "vacations in space" to make money to go toward building the "other ship" that doesn't look anything like it but will be used to actually do the space exploration

reply to post by elevatedone


A few questions:

1. Have we figured out how to walk normally on the decks of a spaceship in zero gravity?
2. Has a bathroom in space been perfected yet?
3. If magnetism is going to play a major role in space travel, our bodies have trace elements of iron. How come we aren't harmed by magnetism, or would we be harmed under constant exposure to it?

There is a problem NASA doesn't ell people about space. The problem isn't can we build a ship that can travel fast from point to point. The problem they have come up against is sustaining human life in space. We can't even sustain plant life in space that would be required to keep a human alive. Yes, it is plants that would be required to keep humans alive in space. Everything from producing oxygen for you, to producing food. Then come the water problem they have run into. There isn't enough storage tank capacity to keep enough water on board to sustain life for years. So how would you produce water from air. Then there comes human waste. How do you get rid of all of the human waste on board. Then How do you give human beings on board the amount of sunlight needed on your skin to produce vitamin D and calcium? Lastly, What do you do about sickness. Remember, you will far far away for any help.

It is these things that baffle science and not the machines.

reply to post by big_BHOY


Actually, I am a hydroponic grower and it doesn't work very well in space. Why? You grow in water. Water acts differently in space then on earth. Don't believe me, google it. It doesn't work as the bubblers normally in water don't bubble the water right in space and the plants die.

It would be much more efficient to colonize a small asteroid and convert it into a space craft. You would have many resources right there to turn it into a space craft. Plenty of protection,live underground, resources. Place to build nuclear plant to power the thing, space to put water, may even have ice already on it! etc...lots less to launch.

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by big_BHOY

 

Actually, I am a hydroponic grower and it doesn't work very well in space. Why? You grow in water. Water acts differently in space then on earth. Don't believe me, google it. It doesn't work as the bubblers normally in water don't bubble the water right in space and the plants die.

Read up on Aeroponics. It's been successfully tested by NASA.

Originally posted by big_BHOY

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
reply to post by big_BHOY

 

Actually, I am a hydroponic grower and it doesn't work very well in space. Why? You grow in water. Water acts differently in space then on earth. Don't believe me, google it. It doesn't work as the bubblers normally in water don't bubble the water right in space and the plants die.

Read up on Aeroponics. It's been successfully tested by NASA.

Yes, i saw it on the Discovery Channel. They use - dwarf wheat -.

Some guy lived with the dwarf wheat for weeks. - It works! -