Starship Enterprise could be a reality by 2032, engineer says

reply to post by ProudBird


Yes... "Forbidden Planet"! High technology, far above NASA pay-grade. All the way into Area 51 pay-grade.

Maybe a Trekkie can help me here, but from what I can find there was no 'observation deck' on the original Enterprise. I've looked at what plans I can find and don't see anything, and models of the Bridge all show many display screens, but no windows or viewing ports. Why would there be no windows to look out of?

Originally posted by GaryN
Maybe a Trekkie can help me here, but from what I can find there was no 'observation deck' on the original Enterprise. I've looked at what plans I can find and don't see anything, and models of the Bridge all show many display screens, but no windows or viewing ports. Why would there be no windows to look out of?

They do on Enterprise - A .

DO a Google Search.

As nice as the idea for building the Enterprise sounds, judging by what I've seen, I'm going to guess that the engineer proposing this idea didn't graduate at the top of his class. It's going to take a little more than 1 magnetic field and an ion drive to achieve interstellar travel.

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
As nice as the idea for building the Enterprise sounds, judging by what I've seen, I'm going to guess that the engineer proposing this idea didn't graduate at the top of his class. It's going to take a little more than 1 magnetic field and an ion drive to achieve interstellar travel.

What's wrong with just traveling around our solar system?

It sounds like fun.

reply to post by GaryN


Trekker....not "trekkie":

Maybe a Trekkie can help me here, but from what I can find there was no 'observation deck' on the original Enterprise.

Here:

U.S.S. Enterprise, (Constitution class), launched originally in 2245

And, here:

"Observation Deck"

In that starship design, the "Observation Deck" was devoted to viewing the Flight Deck ('hangar bay' in the vernacular). Through the open 'hangar bay' doors, real space could be viewed directly.

The observation deck was an area on Constitution-class starships, overlooking the flight deck.

Of course, there were also many exterior ports, and places to view real space, without the need for computer-generated images.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by intergalactic fire

 

Space exploration is one thing that is not necessary for our survival.

I'd not assume that earth will always support life if i were you, after all, exploration into new areas is always for survival.
Being sedentary usually dries up the land and its' resources at some point because it is finite, not even our universe is infinite and one day, if we wish to survive, we will even need to leave our universe too.

lol @ the idea of having an USS Enterprise 1701 by ca. 2030. I seriously doubt we will even have returned to the moon by then, OR have brought back 1 sample from Mars, OR even sent a surface probe to Europa by then.

Maybe it would be remotely possible, if by some miracle the world's leading countries set aside their stupid differences and work together--TOMORROW. It would also mean that the US and the rest of the world would have to ditch their economies driven capital and profit, and move to one that is centered on advancing as a species.

reply to post by ProudBird


That's the wrong one. Build the cool Enterprise - A ( 1701-A)

Lets do it right.

- Enterprise - A -

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by satron

 

We're going to have hoover boards in 2015, right Marty?

Oh, a "Hoover" board?

That will make cleaning the house less of a chore, and more "fun"......

By the time it does come out in 2015, it probably will be a hoover board, or Obama, or even a Romney board. Get it?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
As nice as the idea for building the Enterprise sounds, judging by what I've seen, I'm going to guess that the engineer proposing this idea didn't graduate at the top of his class. It's going to take a little more than 1 magnetic field and an ion drive to achieve interstellar travel.

What's wrong with just traveling around our solar system?

It sounds like fun.

Hi eur,
Well it just sounds FUNNY.
If you can make it to Neptune why stop there.
Why have warp speed. You would crash into things like space junk if you hang out in the confines of the suns gravity.lol ljb
Get those SHIELDS up Scotty and beam me back to THE GROVE.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by ProudBird

 

That's the wrong one. Build the cool Enterprise - A ( 1701-A)

Lets do it right.

- Enterprise - A -

To "do it right"... use the ship in your avatar, for the Enterprise shuttlecraft.

reply to post by Larryman


I was waiting for someone to make that connection.

According to Bob Lazar that one has a manual load matter / antimatter reactor

and a Gravity Wave Caterpillar Drive.

We need to put the GWCD in the port & starboard nacelles.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
As nice as the idea for building the Enterprise sounds, judging by what I've seen, I'm going to guess that the engineer proposing this idea didn't graduate at the top of his class. It's going to take a little more than 1 magnetic field and an ion drive to achieve interstellar travel.

What's wrong with just traveling around our solar system?

It sounds like fun.

Nothing wrong with that, but first we need to solve the problem of creating artificial gravity to keep our muscles and bodies in good shape. Then we're going to need a deflector dish to ionize the particles floating in space ahead of the ship and then a rotating magnetic field to sweep those particles out of the way, and ION drive wouldn't be a very efficient steering system to have. I don't think that just one magnetic field is going to work. When we can overcome the little obstacles, then we can become the explorers we were born to be. Remember that the PHOENIX was developed before the Enterprise. I feel small steps at time is the best route to take rather than rushing. Rushing things too quickly tends to lead to disasters.

Originally posted by DevineWisdom

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
As nice as the idea for building the Enterprise sounds, judging by what I've seen, I'm going to guess that the engineer proposing this idea didn't graduate at the top of his class. It's going to take a little more than 1 magnetic field and an ion drive to achieve interstellar travel.

What's wrong with just traveling around our solar system?

It sounds like fun.

Nothing wrong with that, but first we need to solve the problem of creating artificial gravity to keep our muscles and bodies in good shape. Then we're going to need a deflector dish to ionize the particles floating in space ahead of the ship and then a rotating magnetic field to sweep those particles out of the way, and ION drive wouldn't be a very efficient steering system to have. I don't think that just one magnetic field is going to work. When we can overcome the little obstacles, then we can become the explorers we were born to be. Remember that the PHOENIX was developed before the Enterprise. I feel small steps at time is the best route to take rather than rushing. Rushing things too quickly tends to lead to disasters.

edit on 14-5-2012 by DevineWisdom because: I felt like it

We already have. Lockheed Martin is sitting on the solution.

- Ben Rich -

The life support system is even more impressive.

- No burned cookies. -

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by DevineWisdom

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by DevineWisdom
As nice as the idea for building the Enterprise sounds, judging by what I've seen, I'm going to guess that the engineer proposing this idea didn't graduate at the top of his class. It's going to take a little more than 1 magnetic field and an ion drive to achieve interstellar travel.

What's wrong with just traveling around our solar system?

It sounds like fun.

Nothing wrong with that, but first we need to solve the problem of creating artificial gravity to keep our muscles and bodies in good shape. Then we're going to need a deflector dish to ionize the particles floating in space ahead of the ship and then a rotating magnetic field to sweep those particles out of the way, and ION drive wouldn't be a very efficient steering system to have. I don't think that just one magnetic field is going to work. When we can overcome the little obstacles, then we can become the explorers we were born to be. Remember that the PHOENIX was developed before the Enterprise. I feel small steps at time is the best route to take rather than rushing. Rushing things too quickly tends to lead to disasters.

edit on 14-5-2012 by DevineWisdom because: I felt like it

We already have. Lockheed Martin is sitting on the solution.

- Ben Rich -

The life support system is even more impressive.

- No burned cookies. -

As long as we got air and cookies then we're good to go!

Originally posted by liejunkie01
This is cool and all but I see a problem with too much material that really is not needed for the design.

Lets face it. Currently it costs alot of money to launch any materials into space. I see any spaceship being as being as cheap as can be built without wasteful use of materials. Why make it look like the Enterprise if the cost will go up dramatically? We live in an age where people complain about 15-16 billion dollars are spent on the space program. The private investing people really are not moving along at a pace to do anything that significant for a very, very long time.

I like the idea and the attitude to get it done, but we also are limited by economics.

We have to be realistic here.

I am not trying to be a buz kill, this is just how I see the situation.

Although this is one way that Nasa could win my full support back with.

That is why capitalism has always been the big thorn on eveyone's back. Too much money is being funneled up by the same people who issue the money in the first place. They decide where the money should be spent and most of the time it is either mundane or evil.

if hardcore capitalists spent as much money fighting communists as they did reverse-engineering zeti reticulean craft I think we would have been to pluto by now. But nahhh, lets fight those big bad commies where everyone has a roof over their head, a job, a car, a vacation, etc. Socialism/Communism can evolve, whereas with capitalism the same people always decide everything against the majority.

Money is just goodwill paper when you look at it. It has value because government says so and everyone agrees. If I print my own money tomorrow and everyone agreed to that it would be the same thing. Only when we get the last drop of oil and create the last enviromental mess we can get away with, will we find out money is worthless.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


The NCC 1701-A was merely a re-fit of the same design as the other "re-fit" of the original Enterprise NCC 1701, from Kirk's era (and Captain Pike, and Captain April before him).

The 'Enterprise' designated as NCC 1701-A was originally going to be christened the 'U.S.S. Yorktown' (still a "Constitution' class version of the design).....designation NCC 1717.

However, the destruction of the "original" 'Enterprise' (see movie canon 'Star Trek III: The Search for Spock', and the follow-on film, 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home'). Those explain the "confusion" in the ship NCC (Naval Contract Commission **) number designations.

(**)...the "NCC" is also, familiarly, the acronym for Naval Construction Contract.....however, "NCC" fits the previous acronym, once the vessel is commissioned.........

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

The NCC 1701-A was merely a re-fit of the same design as the other "re-fit" of the original Enterprise NCC 1701, from Kirk's era (and Captain Pike, and Captain April before him).

The 'Enterprise' designated as NCC 1701-A was originally going to be christened the 'U.S.S. Yorktown' (still a "Constitution' class version of the design).....designation NCC 1717.

However, the destruction of the "original" 'Enterprise' (see movie canon 'Star Trek III: The Search for Spock', and the follow-on film, 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home'). Those explain the "confusion" in the ship NCC (Naval Contract Commission **) number designations.

(**)...the "NCC" is also, familiarly, the acronym for Naval Construction Contract.....however, "NCC" fits the previous acronym, once the vessel is commissioned.........

YES! another Trekkie! I knew I liked you!

I'll be honest, I don't care "why" they do it or even "how" they do it, I just want to be there "when" they do it because it's going to be very awesome!

...well, ok, it would be nice to know how they do it and I'll show appropriate interest, but still, very awesome!