It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says

page: 13
77
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
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.


They did that on an episode of Star Trek: Voyager.

It worked but they were destroyed by the Borg.




posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
So in 2030, we get this thing into space, turn on the warp drive, hit a speck of dust and bye bye starship.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone

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.


Put the BTE - Dan USS Enterprise on hold.

Start small and just build the Bob Lazar 50' diameter Sport Model first.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bodhi7
So in 2030, we get this thing into space, turn on the warp drive, hit a speck of dust and bye bye starship.


The starship hull has armor characteristics.

A speck of dust would bounce off. So would a small asteroid. Just watch where you're

going.



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
do they need fitted bathrooms/bedrooms/kitchens?.........sign me up
2nd



posted on May, 25 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Bodhi7
So in 2030, we get this thing into space, turn on the warp drive, hit a speck of dust and bye bye starship.


The starship hull has armor characteristics.

A speck of dust would bounce off. So would a small asteroid. Just watch where you're

going.



Unless it has a forcefield protecting it, it would be very vulnerable to serious damage & that's even when parked in orbit.. Your talking about things hitting your ship at up just under 30,000 mph.

Right now there is no material we have that would simply bounce off any impacts from micrometeorites or what have you!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I believe it has been discussed before in this thread - but the major problem involved with building a ship in space relate to zero gravity. The ship, itself, is fine in Zero-G... but humans are a little more finicky.

Perhaps the largest problem, ironically, is simply the process of pooping. Bone loss, vertigo, atrophy - all of those were areas of high concern (even concerns over the heart's ability to pump blood existed). But the simple process of pooping has never been adequately resolved.

We need gravity to pull it free from us and let it fall away. Without it - it just kind of curls up like a malformed tail and stays. Apollo astronauts had issues with poop floating around the cabin from their bags not functioning as ideally as NASA engineers would have liked (and the astronauts).

Thermal management is also more difficult. "Up" doesn't really exist in zero gravity - so heat can't really rise. This poses all kinds of problems for self-sustained environments.

What it all boils down to is that we need something to simulate gravity. That means a rotating cylinder/toroid or some yet-to-be-developed/discovered technology capable of emitting a universal attractor.

Which horribly complicates the design of a ship habitat that you would want to spend long periods of time in. Ship stabilization becomes a more complicated issue. It's not simply "spinning" the ship - only the outboard bulkheads (or decks... depending upon how you define the orientation of the ship) will experience simulated gravity. You don't just spin a ship and start sticking to the floor where you would like.

The whole Zero-G problem also complicates the very idea of building a ship in space. Manned crews would have to be rotated frequently (much like the crews of the space stations - though likely more frequently to prevent critical bone loss that would result in injury during labor) - and likely aren't an option, to begin with.

Further, many construction methods have not been checked for practicality in zero-G. Welding was one that was recently investigated aboard parabolic flights (within the past two years). It's a relatively simple process - but if you stop and think about it a minute - there is reason to believe that it would be a good idea to make sure it works as you need it to in a zero gravity environment.

Entire manufacturing processes will have to be developed for zero gravity. I'm not saying it will be impossible - but that a lot of things that we take for granted here on Earth will not necessarily apply to doing them aboard a space dock. Which means time - money - and frustration.

It's another thing, entirely, if we want to try to simulate gravity (build a structure big enough to simulate gravity) while building the ship to make the industrial transition easier.

So - if they do it - awesome. ... I just don't think their end product is going to look very much like what we can identify with as a space ship. They want the enterprise.... it's going to look more like a large sewer pipe that spins - I would imagine.... though if they had counter-rotating sections to offset centrifugal force - one could make some fun games out of jumping from one rapidly spinning side to the other and getting hit by walls or other people.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by big_BHOY

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Bodhi7
So in 2030, we get this thing into space, turn on the warp drive, hit a speck of dust and bye bye starship.


The starship hull has armor characteristics.

A speck of dust would bounce off. So would a small asteroid. Just watch where you're

going.



Unless it has a forcefield protecting it, it would be very vulnerable to serious damage & that's even when parked in orbit.. Your talking about things hitting your ship at up just under 30,000 mph.

Right now there is no material we have that would simply bounce off any impacts from micrometeorites or what have you!


We have the magic formula. It's over at Surmet.com.

They call it transparent aluminium. It's an Aluminium Ceramic.

They have bulletproof videos on YouTube.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Only downside of building the enterprise is having to protect it against Klingons and space monsters. The Klingons can cloak, for example. How do we counteract that? Maybe if we put Obama on the ship it will make all the Klingons die of laughter. But I doubt that'll work. So what will we do?

I bet if the Klingons finds us we're toast anyway, with or without the enterprise ship.

But I like hte idea of building a ship out of a asteroid. As a added bonus you have access to minerals and possibly water-ice so you can make your own sh** without the middle man gouging you.

Broadly, earth itself is a spaceship, but directing it to other places is not so easy. I imagine that if we got advanced enough we could turn this whole planet into something like the death star. I wonder how many years it'll be before someone brings up the idea of doing just that?

Who knows, maybe it'll be the same guy.

Look here, this is probably why the enterprise idea has limited foreseeable use:

edit on 29-5-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


Do you actually suggest they should build the whole 1000m ship out of this?

It's far more expensive that the other materials. Can't be produced in large sections. Then there is the extreme temperatures in space etc, etc.

For reference, go check up on STS-7. In 1983, the Challenger shuttle was hit by a paint fleck 0.2mm in size. Look at what it done to the window. Now imagine, something the size of a marble impacting the ALOM at the same speed, or even double it.

Short of some super scientist producing a real-life equivalent of Vibranium, then you will need a force field of sorts because nothing we have would stand up to such high impacts. Either that or nanotechnology that would quickly self repair after every hit.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by big_BHOY
 


What do you think my Avatar spaceship is made out of? Bubble gum?

A ceramic solution is the best. Start small and then scale it up.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by big_BHOY
 


What do you think my Avatar spaceship is made out of? Bubble gum?

A ceramic solution is the best. Start small and then scale it up.


What Avatar spaceship?

As for the other part, if you propose using this material on the Enterprise, then how can you possibly start small.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by big_BHOY
 


Build a small Starfleet Runabout.

Make it about 75' long.

-------
Eventually, it could land in the Enterprise hanger bay.



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join