backtop


Print 121 comment(s) - last by Fritzr.. on May 18 at 12:49 AM


  (Source: flickr.com)
The Star Trek-like Gen1 ship will be capable of reaching Mars in 90 days and the moon in three days

A man only known as "BTE Dan" has devised a way to create a real-life version of Star Trek's USS Enterprise.

Build the Enterprise, or BTE, is a website that offers detailed plans on how to build the first Starship Enterprise. The Starship Enterprise is the name of several fictional spacecraft in the Star Trek TV show and movies.

According to the Star Trek storyline, the first Starship Enterprise will be built by 2245. However, BTE Dan, the creator of the potential real-life USS Enterprise and a systems engineer/electrical engineer who worked at a Fortune 500 company for the last 30 years, plans to materialize the real deal in only 20 years.

BTE Dan refers to the first USS Enterprise a "Gen1," meaning the first generation. BTE Dan mapped out every detail of the Gen1 from ship specifications, design, and government funding schedules.

According to BTE Dan's plans, the Gen1 will have an ion propulsion engine powered by a 1.5 gigawatt nuclear reactor. There will also be three additional nuclear reactors to create the electricity necessary for the entire ship.

The USS Enterprise will have a saucer, which will be 0.3 miles in diameter and rotate as a suspended gravity wheel that creates 1G of gravity.

The Gen1 will be capable of reaching Mars in 90 days and the moon in three days. It will have a few different purposes, such as acting as a space station/spaceport, traveling to planets and asteroids, and using the laser to cut through tough surfaces like the moon's crust in order to reach the ocean underneath. The idea will be to create a next generation ship every 33 years, with each new generation becoming more technologically advanced than the previous.

"We have the technological reach to build the first generation of the spaceship known as the USS Enterprise -- so lets do it," said BTE Dan. "It ends up that this ship configuration is quite functional."

How does BTE Dan plan to fund such a project? Through tax increases and by spreading out budget cuts to certain areas like education, energy, defense and health and human services. BTE Dan said the tax increases will "barely be noticed."

BTE Dan has challenged other engineers to find any flaws with his plans that are not money-related, saying that his Gen1 could absolutely be built using current technology in a 20-year period.

"If someone can convince me that it is not technically possible (ignoring political and funding issues), then I will state on the BuildTheEnterprise site that I have been found to be wrong," wrote BTE Dan. "In that case, building the first Enterprise will have to wait for, say, another half century. But I don't think that anyone will be able to convince me it can't be done. My position is that we can -- and should -- immediately start working on it."

Source: MSNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good luck with that
By PopPopCaptn on 5/15/2012 1:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
A Battlestar Galactica-esque ship is way more plausible




RE: Good luck with that
By mitchrj on 5/15/2012 1:38:08 AM , Rating: 5
Besides...assuming we find intelligent life out there, and also assuming they've picked up old re-runs of Star Trek TOS mysteriously beamed out into space...

Well, if we show up in the Enterprise A, they're going to assume that they're going to be attacked by Shattner while he seduces any women they have (if they have any to begin with).

Dun dun duNNNNNN!


RE: Good luck with that
By Amiga500 on 5/15/2012 2:12:09 AM , Rating: 3
So they will climb into a Rubber lizard suit and do mortal battle with him!


RE: Good luck with that
By Samus on 5/15/2012 4:49:17 AM , Rating: 1
A battlestar layout is definately more plausable (and simple) but BSG never touches on the technology used to create artificial gravity, which is essential for long periods of space travel as it is massively fatiguing to move around in space, about as much work as swimming.

I like this concept, but with our culture in limbo the way it is (constant spending on war instead of technology) we basically need a human threat and political overhaul to even consider something like this.


RE: Good luck with that
By ShieTar on 5/15/2012 8:36:54 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, as far as artificial gravity goes, the rotating saucer is a horribly inefficient solution. You would want a large area with a constant distance from your rotational axis. Also you probably want every place where the crew spends any amount of time to be at a significant distance from the axis, so the gravity at your feet is not significantly higher than it is at your head.

So the most efficient starship design will likely be a hollow cylinder, probably with the engine and other parts that don't need gravity placed closer to the center.

Of course the second solution to artificial gravity, rarely discussed in Sci-Fi but in principle possible, is to just never travel at a fixed speed, but instead accelerate at 1g for the first half of a flight, than turn around and hit the breaks at 1g for the second half. Of course that requires a ship that is mostly engine. On the plus side, you would reach Mars in about 2 days.

Of course the main problem about such plans remains the cost that the excited engineer in this case plans to fix with "minor tax raises". Considering that launch costs are about 5 to 10 Million $ per ton, and assuming that a spaceship of 500m would weigh about as much as a regular ship of that dimension (~ 100,000 tons) we are looking at more than 500 billion cost just to get all the materials into space. Take into account that you also need to get a lot of personal and tools up and down, and you are looking at a cost of several trillion $. That exceeds the combined budgets of all space agencies over the full duration of the proposed 20 years plan.

And all that just so we can attack Mars with a laser?


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 9:53:53 AM , Rating: 4
1G by constant acceleration would put the stars within reach and the remote reaches of the solar system within a few weeks.

The drawback is that the only engine designs we have that are capable also require massive amounts of reaction mass to maintain acceleration and are nuclear. Currently NERVA and the other high power nukes are off the table.

Ion drive and the other constant boost engines that are presently usable for long trips max out at about .1G.

A saucer suffers from being accelerated edge on so that the leading edge will experience rotational force minus acceleration, the trailing edge will experience rotational force plus acceleration and the sides will experience accleration force (local gravity is the net perceived force and it will be pulsing at a frequency equal to the rpms of the disk. The magnitude of the pulse will be equal to twice the acceleration. That is a .1G accel will cause the internal gravity to pulse with a .2G variation from high to low.

Most ships using a habitat ring and constant boost use an umbrella or girdle instead. there is a center fusalage containing the drive and various compartments that do not need gravity and supports tying the habitat ring to the fuselage. The exact design varies widely from concept to concept. In fact a habitat disk with the drive in the hub would allow multiple internal decks with perceived gravity increasing as you approach the outermost ring (bottom deck). Shielding a massive shield shaped ship from debris that you are driving through is an engineering problem.

The rotating cylinder design (Arthur C. Clarke's Rama) requires massive construction and will have a very large mass weight that needs to be accelerated. It may be a good design for an interstellar due to the interior living space, but is a bad design for an early generation runabout.

Later when our drive tech has improved and we can provide a high mass weight ship with a relatively high acceleration, the cylinder will be better for passenger ships, with rings being used for long duration military and courier ships.


RE: Good luck with that
By MZperX on 5/15/2012 12:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
What is "mass weight"? <scratching head>


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 3:41:30 PM , Rating: 3
1kg of mass exerts 1kg of force in a 1G environment (on a spring balance adjusted for 1G). This mass weighs 1kg

1kg of mass exerts 2kg of force in a 2G environment (on a spring balance adjusted for 1G). This mass weighs 2kg. To confuse people it still has only 1kg of mass.

In a .1 G environment (aboard an accelerating ion drive ship for example, the 1Kg mass weighs 100g (on a spring balance adjusted for 1G). Just to confuse people the mass remains 1kg.

When weight is spoken of it is generally assumed to be the measured weight of a given mass in the local gravity without adjusting the balance to the local G force.

A true balance using counterweights will always give the mass as the measure of the weight.

A spring balance (bathroom scale for example) will always give the mass*G as the measure of the weight

Mass weight is the measure of the mass in weight units in a 1.0000G field. The only environment where the M in acceleration formulas is the same as the weight in ordinary conversation.

In free fall objects are said to be weightless (not true, but microgravity is low enough to be ordinarily ignored), however their mass is unaltered. It requires the same amount of energy to hover a 1kg brick in a 1G field as is required to give it a 1G constant acceleration in a true weightless environment. To hover in a gravity field requires a constant acceleration force equal to the mass of the object that is hovering. Ordinary gravity is one of the original space propulsion systems and is occasionally used by spacecraft. (Planetary slingshot and similar maneuvers use gravity to accelerate or brake)

When a ship is referred to as a 100 ton ship, (sea, air or space) it is the mass of the vessel that is being spoken of. After all a 10,000 ton ship in orbit with a .00001G local gravity 'weighs' 1 ton. It masses 10,000 tons regardless of the gravity field, but if you told someone they mass 190lbs I suspect you would be looked at a little strange, even though baggage allowances for space trips will limit the mass not the weight :P

Mass weight may not be the 'correct' term, but it eliminates the confusion of 1Kg giving a totally different weight when it is put on an ordinary scale.


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 4:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mass weight may not be the 'correct' term, but it eliminates the confusion of 1Kg giving a totally different weight when it is put on an ordinary scale.


The correct term for weight in SI units is Newton. 1Kg=9.81N since 1N=1Kg*1m/1s^2and the acceleration of Gravity is 9.81m/s^2.

Even most countries using the metric system full time still refer to weight in Kilogram units instead of Newton units so trying to explain mass to weight relationships for microgravity conditions can be difficult when talking to non scientific types.


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 6:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
The apparent weight of 1kg of mass under 1G of acceleration=9.81 Newtons.

1kg of mass in a (1/9.81)G field would weigh (1/9.81)kg on an unadjusted spring scale. Making a kilogram in reduced gravity weigh 1N if you were not paying attention to the G force difference. This is where the confusion of mass vs weight originates as that unspoken instinctive assumption of all measurements being made in Earth normal gravity is often in error.

Stating that 9.81N==1kg of mass eliminates the confusion for anyone familiar with the difference between mass & apparent acceleration in a gravity field. Apparent acceleration is what a spring scale measures. Mass (true inertial weight) is what a balance scale measures.

The Newton is a measurement designed to merge the two measurements. It allows you to use a spring scale of known calibration in any gravity field and generate a universal measurement of inertial mass as long as the local G force measurement is known.

Simpler is to use a balance scale which gives the mass in kilograms under 1G regardless of the local G force.

The only advantage of the Newton is that when speaking, it is clear what the mass of the object is. That is the important number when you are working on thrust/acceleration ratios and orbital mechanics.

Simplest of all is to use a balance with a dial calibrated to readout in Newtons. A 100kg man would get on the scale and be shocked to discover his weight is 981. Yes that is Newtons, but the same man would not be surprised to see his weight register as 220...pounds.

Exactly the same amount of force being measured, just a change in units. Problems often occur when people plug the unit they use at home when the data assumes a different unit.

NASA lost a Mars probe one year when their European collaborators sent them some data using Newtons and the recipient at NASA simply copied the numbers...into an application that assumed foot-pounds...oops.

No change at all in the measurement AS LONG AS the appropriate conversion from one measure to the other was done ... a straight forward multiplication by ratio is all that is required.

Of course even simpler would have been if the people sending the data to NASA had not been using a non-standard (for NASA) system of measurements or automatically translated the measurements into the scale they knew NASA used. No conversion prior to transmission meant that someone in NASA had to realize that the numbers were useless without translation. Unfortunately the data went straight to the person responsible for entering the data, who then simply read the numbers off the page and entered them in the appropriate places for the Mars mission.

SI is great, Standard is great ... when sharing data, using both is a disaster waiting to happen. They measure the same things. In lab use both are clear as to what is measured. Accidents happen when one is used and a data entry person automatically uses the other one because it is 'correct'


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 6:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simplest of all is to use a balance with a dial calibrated to readout in Newtons. A 100kg man would get on the scale and be shocked to discover his weight is 981. Yes that is Newtons, but the same man would not be surprised to see his weight register as 220...pounds.


The same problem would still exist in that most people would assume their mass was also 220 pounds, when actually their mass would be 6.839 Slugs. In Imperial units Slug is to Pound as Kilogram is to Newton in SI units. The biggest problem is that in school, unless a student takes a class that is higher than basic science, they are rarely if ever told the difference between Mass and Weight. Mass is an intrinsic value which is the same in all frames of reference while weight is a variable depending on the frame of reference(in the case of weight the frame of reference depends on the gravitational field present).


RE: Good luck with that
By geekman1024 on 5/15/2012 10:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
oooh, Mass Effect, but no thanks, Shepperd blown the thing out of universe not long ago.


RE: Good luck with that
By MZperX on 5/16/2012 1:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
I am very familiar with the concepts of mass vs. weight. I just asked the question because it's the first time I've seen the term "mass weight" and it makes no sense. It's either mass or it's weight. AFAIK there is no "mass weight".

As others have already pointed it out, mass is measured in kilograms (per SI anyway) and weight is in measured in Newtons (N).

Even if the term "mass weight" was in use in some obscure corners of academia, perhaps in parts of the world I have yet to travel to, it would be wise to avoid its use so as not to confuse the issue. Physics students have a tough enough time understanding and that there is a distinction without muddying the waters with the term "mass weight".


RE: Good luck with that
By MrBlastman on 5/15/2012 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Or we could just bypass all these clunky mechanics with a gravity well. Only one slight problem with it, though, is we're centuries away from being able to do this considering we don't know what "nothing" is yet. It would effectually be a far more elegant solution until we enter the tier of technology above even that.

Dreaming aside, the mechanics behind Clarke's proposals were always logically thought out and addressed technological goals just beyond the cusp of achievability within a reasonable time. His fiction was realistic for the most part.

This... idea to build an "Enterprise" in twenty years, as far as I can see it, would be wonderful if it were done but, realistically, is impossible. The amount of money alone to satisfy the design and construction of the craft I fear exceeds the annual gross of free disposable income in the world that people would be willing to "part" with as a sacrifice for humanity. Remember, most of humanity could give two craps about "humanity" itself, beyond the simplistic idea of "peace on earth."

Thus, the notion that we would raise money for this through taxation is ludicrous. The material costs to place in orbit, plus the construction costs are monstrous. Then, we have the sobering fact we don't have a "space truck" anymore thus an orbital platform far beyond the ISS would be required to collimate and dispense all these supplies into a trained orbital fabrication team.

It just isn't possible right now. Not with the poor state of the world's economy. People would have to sacrifice a gigantic sum to achieve this--26k or more per citizen in a year assuming just the US population supporting it... for something most will never touch. It won't happen. People are too concerned about other ludicrous crap to even entertain this idea.

About the only reasonable financial structure that could be put in place to get us to where we need to be would be a supermassive space fund trust that all the worlds billionaires contribute to when they die. Even that would take decades to build up and would have a negative effect on free money in the system along with a positive side effect of curbing inflation.

Then, we get to your point--the saucer on edge is just silly for a rotational artificial gravity environment. I want to see this happen, it is just the design is terrible and the size is far too great to be reasonable right now.


RE: Good luck with that
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 1:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like a waste to pour all that money into building a ship. I would much rather pour money into R&D. Even if you build the ship, we haven't gotten any further with propulsion technology. Metallurgy. Ships systems. Not to mention minor things like artificial gravity and "inertia dampeners" heh.

Basically what is this guy thinking? Let's just tax the world so he can have his "Enterprise"! Brilliant...


RE: Good luck with that
By MrBlastman on 5/15/2012 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's just tax the world so he can have his "Enterprise"! Brilliant...


That's the new mentality man. That was what "change" was all about. Change out of our pockets... into theirs. :-|


RE: Good luck with that
By BSMonitor on 5/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good luck with that
By MrBlastman on 5/15/2012 3:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
We have little in the form of legislation or tax breaks to encourage creation and employment of US citizens in US based manufacturing jobs and facilities. Instead, we joined the stupid WTO in the 90's which only exacerbated the already encroached foreign sweatshops.

Theirs is collectively everyone "else" in America. Spread it around, like a bowl full of jam, right on the crunchy burnt out toast with a generous helping of mold growing on the crust.

The space program, however, can and does directly employ Americans to work on it and provide for it. Too bad it has been butchered in the name of "savings."


RE: Good luck with that
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 4:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh so raising taxes means people no longer buy goods from China? Sorry but was there some logical point or purpose to this statement?

BS you have a drug problem. Get help.


RE: Good luck with that
By Jeffk464 on 5/15/2012 6:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
What used to balance out american goods with foreign goods was import taxes. So yeah, that could discourage people from buying cheap products from China. If you were watching the news recently you would have caught the South Koreans angrily protesting new free trade agreements. They are informed enough to realize what it will do to the standard of living for working class in their country.


RE: Good luck with that
By Jeffk464 on 5/15/2012 1:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that since we send everything into space on rockets everything sent up basically is cylindrical in shape. So I figure the most logical type of construction is similar to the space station where you have a structure of connected tubes. Possibly you connect the crew quarter tubes in a circle radiating out from the center of the ship which contains fuel, reactors, engines, life support, etc.

But personally I always felt startrek ships looked ridiculous and unrealistic compared to practical look designs like in the aliens movies(basically a long structure with the engines at the rear).


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 3:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
Star Trek has artificial gravity that allows high gravity fields in a limited volume as well as very efficient engines and collision shielding.

They designed for convenience and weapons platform, centrifigal gravity was not part of the Star Trek design requirement.

The saucer is the crew section, the engines were in pods to allow for easy disposal should they become dangerous. Crew habitat in the pylon and engine modules just gave them more usable space and was disposed of if they needed to abandon the antimatter fuel and engines.

Being able to fly the propulsion unit separately is a logical extension of that section having the ships engines. Being able to fly the saucer in sublight mode is a logical extension of it being the ship's primary lifeboat. These vessels do not carry enough shuttles to offload the crew in the event of a disaster out of transporter range of shelter.

For the BTE project the Star Trek designs are ridiculous due to technical issues such as the 'gravity' felt by the crew of the spinning & accelerating crew module.


RE: Good luck with that
By Jeffk464 on 5/15/2012 5:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, you kind of missed that my statement was in two parts. Obviously the first part was for current technology. And basically the 2nd part was for movie/fantasy technology.

PS as far as the fantasy tech, the part that seems to always blow up in star trek is the warp core which is located in the center of the ship, no?


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 6:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
No. The warp core is the heart of a warp engine. The twin nacelle ships have two warp cores, one in each engine pod.

When separated from the Engineering Section (pylon and engine nacelles) the saucer uses impulse drive and draws it's power from the auxiliary power units (sometimes referred to as impulse engines)

It is because of the severity of a warp core failure that the entire engineering section can be jettisoned.


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 6:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
No. The warp core is the heart of a warp engine. The twin nacelle ships have two warp cores, one in each engine pod.

When separated from the Engineering Section (pylon and engine nacelles) the saucer uses impulse drive and draws it's power from the auxiliary power units (sometimes referred to as impulse engines)

It is because of the severity of a warp core failure that the entire engineering section can be jettisoned.


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 6:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually there is only one warp core in the Enterprise, but the warp plasma is channeled into the two nacelles to power the warp fields for propulsion. The warp core is in the lower fat portion of the ship as far away from the crew portion (saucer section) as possible. Simple show reference would be that Jordi never had to tell the captain that he had to run to the other nacelle to eject that core when it was about to explode, and when they did eject a warp core, they never had another to limp home on, which would be the case if there were two, one located in each nacelle.

Oh man, never knew I could geek out that much!


RE: Good luck with that
By Jeffk464 on 5/15/2012 7:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
You know I was just thinking this argument would fit perfectly in a "The Big Bang" episode. :)


RE: Good luck with that
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 6:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't miss the first part. Your statement agreed with something I'd said earlier, so I simply didn't add a ditto your views comment :)


RE: Good luck with that
By Jeffk464 on 5/15/2012 5:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sulaco.jpg

See here is a "proper" scifi spaceship


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 5:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The drawback is that the only engine designs we have that are capable also require massive amounts of reaction mass to maintain acceleration and are nuclear. Currently NERVA and the other high power nukes are off the table.


I actually like how the author did the nuclear engines in this book "Rip Foster Rides the Grey Planet"

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20147

He uses Thorium for the nuclear fuel and Zinc for the reaction mass. He also treats the physics fairly accurately compared to most Science Fiction books using space travel. Check it out for free on Gutenberg.org, it is a short novella written for young readers but anyone interested in reality based space travel should find it a good read.


RE: Good luck with that
By thorr2 on 5/15/2012 6:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ion drive and the other constant boost engines that are presently usable for long trips max out at about .1G.


Couldn't you just use 10 of them?


RE: Good luck with that
By dgingerich on 5/15/2012 12:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering that launch costs are about 5 to 10 Million $ per ton, and assuming that a spaceship of 500m would weigh about as much as a regular ship of that dimension (~ 100,000 tons) we are looking at more than 500 billion cost just to get all the materials into space.


There is a way around this: use what is already up there. If we build it in the asteroid belt, we can probably get more than enough resources at a much cheaper energy cost, and avoid the dangers of launching nuclear fuel into space for the reactors. This could easily be done in space, even by automatons. We build the robots, they mine, smelt, build, and finish the production then send the ship to an earth orbit.


RE: Good luck with that
By MrBlastman on 5/15/2012 4:14:33 PM , Rating: 3
You make it sound so easy but in reality, it isn't. So, to "build it in the asteroid belt," we have to:

a. Build a station farther away from earth than Mars is.
b. Provide food and water to that station along with atmosphere
c. Provide fuel to that station
d. Provide for fuel to allow equipment/parts/etc. to _reach_ that station
e. Find people that will crew that station that might not see Earth again for many years

We're not nearly to the point where we can use "robots" to do all this work. The distance alone is prohibative for remote operation of these drones due to the speed of light. Our computational power and ability to create an AI advanced enough... that's a whole different problem.


RE: Good luck with that
By 91TTZ on 5/15/2012 2:41:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Of course the main problem about such plans remains the cost that the excited engineer in this case plans to fix with "minor tax raises". Considering that launch costs are about 5 to 10 Million $ per ton, and assuming that a spaceship of 500m would weigh about as much as a regular ship of that dimension (~ 100,000 tons) we are looking at more than 500 billion cost just to get all the materials into space. Take into account that you also need to get a lot of personal and tools up and down, and you are looking at a cost of several trillion $.


But let's put that into perspective: The unnecessary wars we've waged over the last 10 years have cost about $4 trillion and what was the final result? It didn't really accomplish anything other than to waste lives and money.

I think this idea is a bit ridiculous but the idea of spending money on space research seems to be thrown out as being too expensive while we happily enter wars which cost hundreds of times as much.


RE: Good luck with that
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 4:11:13 PM , Rating: 2
We'll just take our wars to space then. Then what?

I don't know about you, but I'm joining the Browncoats if it comes to that.

p.s. yeah just sorta having fun, because your post was pacifist nonsensical bullshit that doesn't deserve justification.


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 5:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just hope he never runs into the Reavers out there!


RE: Good luck with that
By boobo on 5/16/2012 2:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
...but a rotating saucer is just a series of concentric, hollow cylinders, with ladders to climb between them. The largest (therefore the one where most activities would take place) is, indeed, the farthest one from the center.


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/16/2012 2:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
But the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the direction of travel not parallel to it, that is what causes the problem. When you are in the "forward" arc of rotation you will be facing the problem if the centrifugal force pushing you "forward" towards the floor while the linear acceleration of the ship will be pushing you "rearward" towards the ceiling. At the rear arc of rotation you will have those forces both pushing you to the floor. Overall in the period of one rotation you will be getting heavier and lighter causing a rhythmic cycle that is bound to cause nausea at least. When in the side parts of the rotational arc you would be experiencing forces trying to slide you along the floor sideways which would also be disorienting.


RE: Good luck with that
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/15/2012 8:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides...assuming we find intelligent life out there, and also assuming they've picked up old re-runs of Star Trek TOS mysteriously beamed out into space...


Galaxy Quest? ;)


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 5:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged.


RE: Good luck with that
By superPC on 5/15/2012 11:49:41 AM , Rating: 2
a couple of points:
1. in star trek the first enterprise will be launched around 2150 (star trek enterprise)
2. reaching the moon in 3 days? the apollo mission can do that.

it's not that impressive IMHO


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 2:18:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
2. reaching the moon in 3 days? the apollo mission can do that. it's not that impressive IMHO


250,000 miles in three days with a few hundred people aboard is not such a small feat. Especially if you are not going to feel as if you were being shot out of a cannon for the first few minutes of your trip. The Apollo mission was like riding a covered wagon down the sides of the Grand Canyon at 100mph, this should be more like riding a Grey Hound bus down the interstate.


RE: Good luck with that
By Gondor on 5/15/2012 4:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Good luck with that
By GPig on 5/15/2012 9:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
I would say a fairy washing up bottle and tin foil would be a good start for this kid. Followed by a lot of engineering education.

quote:
BTE Dan has challenged other engineers to find any flaws with his plans that are not money-related, saying that his Gen1 could absolutely be built using current technology in a 20-year period.


I think Youtube links to the perpetual motion attempts on his website clearly show this kid is uneducated/deluded sci-fi fanboi/retarded (probably a bit of all 3).


RE: Good luck with that
By Obujuwami on 5/15/2012 11:34:36 AM , Rating: 3
If no one has stated this yet, Babylon 5 EAS Destroyers are FAR more feasible than just about anything else I have seen. There is no artifical gravity, the ships are spinning to create gravity and the fighters are designed to work with physics and engineering as we know it today.

Only thing they don't touch on is the propulsion those big ships are using.


RE: Good luck with that
By kattanna on 5/15/2012 11:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
LOL I just got done watching that series again. so awesome


RE: Good luck with that
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Gimme a White Star anyday :)

Would have to replace the beds though.... (extremely inside joke. Only a true B5 geek would get it.)


RE: Good luck with that
By maven81 on 5/15/2012 12:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not a problem, you would collect the pillows and pile them up on the floor like Ivanova did.


RE: Good luck with that
By dgingerich on 5/15/2012 12:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
What? you like to tempt death?


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 1:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
But those beds are great if you have acid reflux disease :)


RE: Good luck with that
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 2:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
lol yeah. Reaaaal great! I actually have acid reflex (big shock I know) and just looking at those beds makes food come up hahah.


RE: Good luck with that
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 5:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, you put your head at the top, not the bottom ;)


RE: Good luck with that
By Trisped on 5/15/2012 2:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh, SciFi and physics in one.

Yes, I would defiantly prefer one of the more reasonably designed ships as the ships in Star Treck, Star Wars, Star Gate, and BSG all use gravity generators not currently possible.


RE: Good luck with that
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 3:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
And of all those shows, it seems more and more likely that Star Gate is closer to the truth about travelling between planets. At least for one individual to do it in their lifetime. Unless we find ways for humans to live 10's of thousands of years. Or survive without gravity for such long distances.

And then the need for artificial gravity is mute.


RE: Good luck with that
By Jeffk464 on 5/15/2012 5:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Stargate eventually turned into star wars where they were zipping around the universe in big ships.


RE: Good luck with that
By Trisped on 5/15/2012 2:11:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Battlestar Galactica-esque ship is way more plausible
Why? they both use gravity generators and engines not possible with current tech.


Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By SpartanJet on 5/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By FITCamaro on 5/15/2012 8:47:09 AM , Rating: 4
Yup those evil 1%ers and corporations.

So where do you work again? Or who do you do work for? My guess, "evil" corporation.


By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 2:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
No you are right, they are just ~noble~.


By kattanna on 5/15/2012 10:31:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
humans will play the roll of the Ferengi.


and hopefully one day we will evolve up to that point


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 11:40:20 AM , Rating: 5
Better to be a Ferengi than a Federation communist imo :)

Let's see here shall we? The Federation is a Communist dream of a "one-world" unified Government that has eliminated money, private investments, gotten rid of all the lawyers so nobody has rights, controls ALL transportation and ALL communications because the Federation owns all the subspace arrays. So basically the idea of privacy is foreign.

Their culture is also incredibly decadent and has regressed thousands of years. Everyone speaks in the same formal tone. No new music or art is apparently created, because there's no incentive to create. Everyone reads Shakespeare and listens to classical music hundreds and thousands of years old. Basically, new ideas are not just challenged, but outright rejected.

Only Liberal idiots want to live in the Star Trek universe as seen in the Next Generation forward.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By ClownPuncher on 5/15/2012 12:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's all fiction, they tell me...


By GulWestfale on 5/15/2012 1:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
LIES! IT'S ALL TRUE! ALL HAIL GUL DUKAT!!


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 1:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Has it been what? 2 years since this argument. The federation is not Starfleet!!! The show was about the military arm of the Federation!!

Everyone on Earth did whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted. Had transporters and replicators in EVERY house.

LMAO


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 2:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO?

The problem with Star Trek is that we never see PAST the glossy cover of Starfleet into the day to day lives of "Federation" citizens. Exactly where are you seeing people doing "whatever the hell they want, whenever they want, and transporters in every house"???

Yes Starfleet is the military arm. So it should be quite troubling to you how broad and sweeping their power and responsibilities are. The concept of separation of powers and "checks and balances" isn't even vaguely represented.

How many times did Captain Picard or an Admiral arbitrarily make decisions that affected individuals, entire cultures, even entire PLANETS with no form of arbitration, legal council, or even a process to ensure rights and protections under the law? We would absolutely go NUTS today if the military held such sway over all types of matters with nobody to answer to but themselves.

Here's someone that put way more thought and provided more evidence than you. And to me, he's proven that Star Trek from TNG on, is a communist utopia and not an ideal future.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Ma...

If it's too long for you, footnotes:

"Conclusion

The Federation is communist. Accept it. If you think communism is wonderful, I guess that means you'll love this aspect of Star Trek. If you think it's terrible, I guess this means you'll hate this aspect of Star Trek.

The Federation is a suffocatingly patriarchal society, where the endless rhetoric about rights and freedoms and individuality is never backed up by actual working examples. The military has such sway over the government that civilians can be sentenced by military judges, and the government has such sway over personal activity that individual wealth has been eradicated.

Ever since the first episode of Gene Roddenberry's emasculated TNG revision of the Star Trek mythos, Star Trek has been plagued by a persistent "have your cake and eat it too" mentality. Cause and consequence are never tied together, and though there are many examples of this mentality in action, the most blatant is the writers' attitude toward freedom and strong government.

You simply can't have unbridled freedom and strong government at the same time, because one acts directly against the other. The Federation claims to offer virtually unlimited personal freedom to every citizen, but no one ever tests this claim. Billions of people live quiet, spartan, communist lifestyles. They never covet wealth, they never go ripping through space in a personal vehicle, they never expect compensation for their achievements, they never challenge the government with rebellious propaganda, they never push the envelope by producing offensive art, they never accumulate private arsenals ... in short, they never do anything to test the limits of their freedom. Supposedly, they have all the benefits of a strong government, without any of the negatives.

In real life, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Give people freedom and they'll abuse it. Give the government more power and it will abuse it. I've been accused of cynicism for saying these things, but I have yet to see anyone produce a shred of evidence to prove that this isn't true. The balance between social stability and individual freedom is one that all societies must walk very carefully; you can't simply have both. In my opinion, the only way to produce the Federation's smiley-faced corps of perfectly well-behaved citizens is to push that balance to the left. All the way left."


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 2:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, actually we do. Picard's brother and his father lived and worked on a vineyard. Their family home. Picard had offers to do other things, scientific, administrate underwater communities, etc.. He CHOSE Star Fleet, and on countless occasions, they make reference to very few individuals being good enough to make it there. Star Fleet itself is a tiny drop in the bucket of the population. At different times we see people socializing in bars, cities, etc... Again, the way Star Fleet, the military, forces people to behave is DIFFERENT than the rest of the population. Anyone in Star Fleet can choose to stop being there and drink their faces off with real alcohol ANY time they choose.

Communism itself cannot exist in the way that article describes. His points are based in OUR world. In STNG everyone has access to UNLIMITED raw materials. There is no need to specialize workers. No need to make anyone DO anything. A technological advancement made the economics of OUR world mute. The guy is completely stuck in our world. Red Corvettes? Their is no "traffic" because people teleport anywhere in the world in a moment, any time they want.

Most of his examples are from the individuals living aboard Star Fleet vessels. Aboard Star Fleet stations. In Space their is a finite set of options aboard the space craft, because heaven forbid the ship is called upon to defend the federation from those who do not believe in peace and freedom for everyone.

Some day you will understand exactly what the replicators do. Energy into whatever form, atoms, compounds, etc. the person needs. And since their is an infinite amount of energy available in the 24th century, the standard definition of supply and demand DOES NOT EXIST.

The ONLY thing STNG does do, is assume that in a world where EVERYONE's basic needs are met. That people would evolve to a point where they get enjoyment and every day satisfaction from doing whatever they can to better all of life.

...

Militarily, most of these interactions are relayed to SF and the ruling body of the Federation. The concept is similar to colonial exploration here 400 years ago. The military, those who can defend themselves, make initial contact. Sometimes its disaster, other times it works. You simple give them a prime directive to follow in dealing with new people. What good would sending civilians out into a hostile galaxy be. Again not everyone in the galaxy lives by live and let live. And dealing with that, is what made the plot of the show.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 4:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
Okay well if you don't want to read it or listen to the major points like currency being eliminated etc etc, than this is silly. There's no need to be condescending or insulting. I'm a Star Trek fan. Hello? I'm not bashing the series or being "paranoid", or accusing people of trying to turn me Liberal. What the hell? Can we just debate this rationally or what.

quote:
In STNG everyone has access to UNLIMITED raw materials.


Uhh this is patently false because there's countless mentions and examples of mining facilities. Why are there mining operations if EVERYTHING can be replicated? And it's been said the replicators cannot make EVERYTHING. They cannot make complex elements or some such.

Anyway I guess I'm talking to a brick wall. The Next Generation Star Trek universe is inherently communist in nature, and therefore not a realistic or preferable system one would want to live in. If as you say EVERYTHING is provided for someone, a massive portion of the population wouldn't choose to work so hard for the betterment of the whole. What would be the point? But we never see that gritty reality because the TNG universe is a completely unrealistic idealist Communist utopia.

quote:
The ONLY thing STNG does do, is assume that in a world where EVERYONE's basic needs are met. That people would evolve to a point where they get enjoyment and every day satisfaction from doing whatever they can to better all of life.


LOL exactly. Hello? You just don't get it. You're basically saying that Welfare on an galactic scale would produce the best result for a society as a whole. It's frankly absurd.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 4:47:59 PM , Rating: 1
You started by insulting me with your article, posting conclusions if I was to lazy to read. So why would I read every point, when he is essentially repeating the same argument based on a false assumption.

True enough on the mining. For COMPLEX elements used to power the engines and such. They DO not explain why not, but it essentially is a plot hole. But throughout the series there is no indication of a shortage of those materials in the CORE of the Federation. Hence for all intents and purposes, energy production is limitless, especially on the planets themselves. The "vacation planet", Risa, where everyone goes as a joke, is nothing but embellishing in frivolities. People from all over the federation go there. It isn't occupied solely by SF officers and SF personnel on vacation.

I am sorry, but if because you don't see direct and repeated evidence of a utopia society alongside the SF activities in the show.. I cannot help your paranoid conclusions that it's all some communist state subduing everyone. The show is about SF. What drama or interest would their be showing a bunch of happy people going about their lives??

...

In point of fact, I read the article. The evidence he presents is based in an economic system OUTDATED by the replicators. Period.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 5:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
You simply don't know your Star Trek. The replicators did not "outdate" our economic system. They explained what happened to our system in First Contact and why. It's unbelievable and the actual details are left out, but there you have it. Stop insisting the replication had ANYTHING to do with it when not a single time in the show this was given as the reason for the incredible and seemingly overnight transformation of the entirety of Earth culture into a Communist society.

Even if we COULD replicate items today, we would still have money. As long as humans labor, they will expect to be compensated for that labor. And no, transporters and replicators are NOT adequate compensation because, like you said, apparently "everyone" already has those.

A society where EVERYTHING is just provided for you could not possibly lead to the ultra-advanced technological level in TNG Star Trek. Think about it please.

I'm starting to think you ARE one of those aliens in Star Trek because you act like you don't comprehend human nature at all. Or you believe thousands of years of it can be turned off like a switch overnight.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Kurz on 5/15/2012 4:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
There is supply and demand, There is the Demand of Human hours to produce new technology/art/run various computers. And there are a limit amount of hours in the day to do them all.

There is an economy in StarTrek... except no one is getting paid for their time and effort.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 4:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
In Star Fleet. There is demand. And people have volunteered to be a part of Star Fleet and perform those tasks. In the rest of the Federation, all of the that is taken care of by individuals who simply see needs in the population and take care of it. Their own moral responsibility to bettering humanity mans those hours.

The assumption is, that without the struggle for survival, people will broaden on their own. Filling gaps as they see them. In this society it takes fewer and fewer people to made the devices that make the civilization work. Computers do almost everything.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 4:47:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And people have volunteered to be a part of Star Fleet and perform those tasks. In the rest of the Federation, all of the that is taken care of by individuals who simply see needs in the population and take care of it. Their own moral responsibility to bettering humanity mans those hours.


And then the acid trip ended and you realized how insane this sounds and how it would never happen by choice. Ever.

The Federation doesn't give you a choice because they've eliminated all other possibilities. No economy, no currency, no rights for whatever you develop or invent. No chance to invest in your future. You either work for the Federation in exchange for a very spartan communist standard of living, or you...ummm, well we don't know what because we're never shown an alternative. Is there a form of Federation Welfare for all the people who just decide to not work for the betterment of everyone else, because there's no point?

BS I get the feeling you view humanity as robots instead of individuals.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 4:56:01 PM , Rating: 1
Really. I am staring at a robot, repeating the drivel of someone on some BS website. There is repeated evidence throughout the show that the rest of humanity is free to do whatever they want. Enterprise encounters ALL kinds of these people everywhere. People who started their own colonies. People who spend all their time study ancient cultures. People who spent their time trying to attract bearded SF first officers.

Yet you stick to a false premise based on nothing but someone else's conjecture.

What you fail to understand is that human behavior would change when we no longer are forced to compete for limited resources. It takes a mythological device for the resources to not be limited. But that is what STNG is trying to say. Sorry you cannot see that.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2012 5:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't involve making money, obtaining possessions, having private transportation, leaving behind something real and tangible to your family.....etc etc etc.

quote:
What you fail to understand is that human behavior would change when we no longer are forced to compete for limited resources.


Oh it would, for the WORST.

Also I guess you didn't watch First Contact. The replicator didn't cause this amazing change as you keep insisting. The discovery that we're not alone in the Universe suddenly caused everyone to come together, get rid of all money and personal assets, and work together for a common goal.

In other words, a fantasy land that would never, could never, happen without a centralized communist Government taking over completely and making it so.

You simply cannot have unlimited personal freedom and a ultra-centralized all-powerful one world government at the same time. I'm sorry you cannot see THAT.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 9:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
For a similar economy to TNG where there is NO money & people are rewarded for their effort try reading The Anguished Dawn and it's sequel Cradle of Saturn by James P. Hogan. Ignore the science. The story started with the assumption that Velikovsky is right and the rest follows from that assumption.

The experimental colony that set up their new society in orbit around Saturn is a sideshow to the main story line, but is well described. The major difference is that Hogan's society does not have a replicator.

For a look at what can happen to a society where a replicator type device is available and people decide to do nothing beyond what the replicator provides for can be found in The Duplicators by Murray Leinster. The hero solves the local problems by reintroducing the idea of people becoming educated, creating original art and creating new technology. Communism does not prevent these things. It is the Leninist vision of a transitional Marxist society that has left a bad taste for communism in most people's mouths.

A number of religious communisms show it can be done IF the entire population is happy with the leadership and the leadership can be removed if they are not doing a good job.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Black1969ta on 5/16/2012 5:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
That is the problem, when people hear or read "Communism," they think Tzarist Russia or Fascist Cuba, but in a "Pure," Communist State the "leaders" are representative of the population and they are accountable to the people.

I think that the great men that founded our country would be appalled by the state of politicians today. Gone are the days when men served the country from a place of personal conviction, instead men serve from a desire for power, a greed for wealth and fame. I realize that Washington, Jefferson, or Madison were not perfect men, I know that the history that I was allowed to read in school was written for a biased system that wanted a history written in Kool-aid. But, I also understand the sacrifice that our founding fathers risked and/or suffered for the betterment of the Colonies. We can bemoan the constitution and its' ambiguity, but it can not be denied that it has, and likely will remain more pertinent and all encompassing than any similar document ever written.

I do not pretend to think that even a pure communist society would be utopian, but it is not the evilness that tzars and dictators have made it out to be.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2012 10:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
Of course they think that! Because there's never been a "pure" Communist state in practice that actually lead to the supposed utopia that ideology can provide. I've listened to proponents of Communism endlessly defend it by citing all the failed applications of it, but I've never seen one able to actually provide a good working example of Communism in action.

quote:
I do not pretend to think that even a pure communist society would be utopian, but it is not the evilness that tzars and dictators have made it out to be.


I disagree. Communism is morally wrong in my opinion. Any system that forcibly lessens the individual for the sake of the all, is inherently wrong. Because in reality you don't get a stronger better "all", you just end up with a society of lesser people's while those at the top reap all the prosperity.


By Fritzr on 5/18/2012 12:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
On a large scale it tends to fall apart due to the necessity for cooperation by all members of the community and keeping control of the leadership in the hands of the community as a whole.

On a small scale, Mennonite communities are economically communist but are politically pure democracies. There are other examples of communities living communally, the Mennonites are just one example that have made it work for many long years.

Real communism is communal living with all members of the community pitching in to do necessary chores and maintain the community's property. Real Marxism is an academics dream of a perfect society. They are similar, but definitely not the same thing. Marxism as implemented in USSR, Mainland China and North Korea is Totalitarian Socialism.


By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 3:27:38 PM , Rating: 1
"Here's someone that put way more thought and provided more evidence than you. And to me, he's proven that Star Trek from TNG on, is a communist utopia and not an ideal future."

Reclaimer, we KNOW you are paranoid. But not everything is the someone trying to make you liberal.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By MrBlastman on 5/15/2012 4:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Without reading all of this I can attest to the communist assumption being accurate regarding Star Trek. I'd put it at a borderline commu-socialist society... but, that is what it is. Idealism at its best.


By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 6:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
I can see that, and one of the biggest misconceptions is that Communism is what the Russian government was, but if it was truly a communistic government then there would never have been people like Stalin who could hold absolute power over the government. By definition true Communism means that every person in the society has equal standing and receives and equal portion of the resources while contributing an equal amount to the society. There has never been a true Communist society on the planet yet. The Federation in Star Trek would definitely be an example of what a true Communistic society is like, where all things are equal and all people contribute equally, to the extent they can. But with the portrayal that there is no need for money and people can more or less do what they want when they want, including flitting around the galaxy as they wish doing trivial things like exploring ruins of ancient cultures just for the fun of it, then it is more like a pure Utopian society than even a Communistic society, since the need for everyone to contribute equally seems to have been removed.

I also know from experience that if we did somehow enact such a society, there are many people here now who would simply sit around all day getting high, or watching sports or game shows or whatever entertainment they could manage to use to be entertained instead of getting out in the world and bettering themselves. The idea that if we eliminated all stress about survival everyone would magically aspire to be intellectual giants is truly absurd. Given a chance much of our society would become more like those in Wall-E than the people in Star Trek.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 4:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. The replicator is not available to the general public. They are ubiquitous on the star ships because they draw on the engines for the necessary power and eliminate the need for onboard stores.

The lack of replicators for ordinary Terrans was mentioned in one of the ST movies which has a segment where the captain was enjoying retirement.

The explanation given was the energy required to use a replicator. These devices apparently convert Csquared to M rather than just transporting the required elements from source material and building a duplicate (The Duplicators, Murray Leinster).

The transporters are a replicator variant that scan an original and then generate a one off replica. The scanning is so efficient that the replicant thinks it was just transported :P

Stepping disks and stepping disk based 'elevators' (Known Space series, Larry Niven) are also missing from the Star Trek universe even though with a transporter tech that does not need a receiver, they would be a simple advance. Power requirements again most likely.


RE: Tax increase and Defense cuts????
By BSMonitor on 5/15/2012 5:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
In point of fact by STNG it is. And in DS9, repeated trips to Earth take us to Sisko's father's restaurant where he is using them alongside the naturally grown foods.

What do you think powers SF HQ. The cities, weather control devices, etc. etc??


By Ringold on 5/16/2012 12:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
Can't believe I'm wading in to this, but..

It was in a paperback book, so I can't link it, but I'm pretty sure I've read Michael Okuda stating the vision he had of the average citizen was quite a bit less energy-consuming than Sisko's father. Whole planets like Bajor still engaged in farming not out of necessity (note the episodes where you occasionally see the destitute even on Federation worlds) but because, even in that era, it's a fuckton more efficient to feed a planet by growing things than conjuring up antimatter and annihilating it in controlled mayhem. Even though Bajorans had replicators, don't try to suggest they farmed for pleasure, as there's a ton of occasions where the threat of mass famine is said to loom at the prospect of massive crop damage.

Such processes also require the mystical dilithium, which can't be replicated and must be mined and, from references in every series, is at least somewhat of a rare commodity.

Then, during the Dominion War, communism really hit its limits, and we saw O'Brien & co outright bartering (dirty capitalism!) for parts that your supposed limitless society was incapable of providing in sufficient number. Indeed, for an ultra-powerful society with replicators in every home, the Federation, by all accounts, was stretched to the breaking point.

Fact of the matter is, like it or not, Gene Roddenberry was a starry-eyed socialist and didn't particularly bother trying to hide it. You'll never, ever find a reference to an election on-screen, not for President, not for the Councilors or any other position. All evidence points towards a communist society in every way except class distinction; some members of it appear to be favored over others, primarily Starfleet members and their families, but also scientists and philosophers favored and raised to the plutocracy. Those folks got to enjoy vacations on planets like Risa, full of hot young chicks willing to screw anything that moved. Other folks.. econ 101, there's only a handful of Risa's, but billions (trillions) of humans. Wit history as a guide, how do you think time there really got divvied up? And if limited resources weren't the case, everyone would have a starship and say to hell with the surly bonds of being on a planet, and that level of opulence just is not something supported by anything you EVER see on screen. What you do see is shots of various cities... with government shuttles dotting around.

Most civilian traffic is seen in DS9; at the outskirts of the Federation, and its mostly alien or unaffiliated.

The only question is, asides from run around, read philosophy, and engage in totally free sex lives, what do the countless masses do to pass their time? I guess with enough computing power and just enough to keep MOST worlds out of hunger and people comfortable, Star Trek's premise is that the masses can be controlled.

Tl;dr: Reclaimer, you've been nailing it. BSMonitor's a common Marxist poster, you think he'd appreciate and promote communism painted in a good light where he sees it, but goes to show there's no appeasing them. Star Trek is communism presented in its purest, most-dreamiest form; total government control, a completely pacified and cottled from cradle-to-grave populace, and a government thats somehow completely devoid of any corruption at all, asides from the occasional alien-infested Admiral and whatnot.


Millenium Falcon?
By Wilcomhs on 5/15/2012 1:41:21 AM , Rating: 5
Enterprise seems a tad big...how bout the Falcon? It'll be a lot faster, and much more cost effective. Just throwing it out there...




RE: Millenium Falcon?
By ViroMan on 5/15/2012 1:57:34 AM , Rating: 2
but where are you going to find a guy with a smile 12 parsects wide?(who is not a politician)


RE: Millenium Falcon?
By mitchrj on 5/15/2012 2:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
Kessel run, y'all!


RE: Millenium Falcon?
By frobizzle on 5/15/2012 9:03:46 AM , Rating: 5
Nah...you're all thinking too small!

I think he needs to build a Death Star!


RE: Millenium Falcon?
By JediJeb on 5/15/2012 2:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
The Falcon would get my vote! Though you would not be able to transport all that much on it. After the Falcon I would move up to a Mon Cal design, those just look so much better than the Star Destroyers.


Uhm...
By Souka on 5/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: Uhm...
By Visual on 5/15/2012 3:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry pal, you have confused a thousands separator sign for a decimal sign.

Still, an engine of that calibre is largely science fiction. Ion engines do not simply need energy, but also reactive mass as fuel.

I think he should definitely scale things down a bit.


RE: Uhm...
By silverblue on 5/15/2012 3:10:22 AM , Rating: 2
Just under 4 gigawatts.

In any case, you're right; if the Enterprise was supposedly about 300 metres long, his plans seem to have it at about 3 times that length (rough guess). 0.3 miles is about 500 metres so we're talking a ship that's much larger than any other Fed ship seen on-screen. Did he take the incorrect dimensions for the last film to heart? :P


RE: Uhm...
By Natch on 5/15/2012 8:11:31 AM , Rating: 5
As already pointed out, you've misplaced your decimal point.

USS Enterprise (the aircraft carrier), designed in the late 50's, has 8 reactors that, combined, have an output of ~1GW. If I remember correctly, the Nimitz class carriers have 2x 550MW plants (total output 1.1GW).

Personally, I'd rather see them put a 1.21GW reactor in this proposed space ship. ;)


RE: Uhm...
By geddarkstorm on 5/15/2012 1:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
I just hope they work out the bugs in 1.21 GW reactors. Don't want to see it disappear in a blinding light with only two flaming skid marks shooting into the sky to mark its passage.


better propulsion idea
By shin0bi272 on 5/15/2012 9:41:04 AM , Rating: 2
As I discussed this very topic with an astrophysicist (who shall remain nameless), you could use matter/antimatter reaction (assuming you could make enough antimatter) and shoot the antimatter particles towards the front of a nacelle. The resulting explosion would expand in a spherical shape but since the explosion occurred near the front of the tube that's attached to the ship it would push the ship forward ever so slightly. Now shoot these particles faster and faster and you now have something comparable to an internal combustion engine in space instead of a rubber band car.

Then you additionally can gather some of the explosion and siphon it down a tube toward a large turbine. That turbine could be hooked to a very large electric generator which would power the ship.

The only issue is finding a way to make antimatter cheaply and quickly in massive quantities.




RE: better propulsion idea
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 10:13:29 AM , Rating: 2
The design exists and these engines have been proposed in a lower power version. They use A-bombs or H-bombs as "fuel pellets"

Project Orion is the Model T of this drive type.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propuls...


RE: better propulsion idea
By Amiga500 on 5/15/2012 11:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only issue is finding a way to make antimatter cheaply and quickly in massive quantities.


Its quite convenient then that there is a significant quantity of anti-matter produced from cosmic rays hitting the earth's upper atmosphere.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/earth-an...


RE: better propulsion idea
By Etsp on 5/15/2012 12:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read that article? They found 28 anti-protons. 28 of em! It only took two years!

Of course, an anti-matter propulsion system would need a few billion moles of them to be consumed as fuel...

Now, if we could refract cosmic rays and bombard hydrogen atoms with it in a controlled area, we may be on to something.


RE: better propulsion idea
By shin0bi272 on 5/15/2012 9:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
so THATs what the bussard collectors are for... good call!


o.O
By macca007 on 5/15/2012 5:12:37 AM , Rating: 2
That seems like a pretty crap propulsion system.
Reach Mars in 90 days and the Moon in 3 days, Umm it had only taken a little over 3 days to get to the Moon with Apollo 11 mission back in 1969. LOL
Or are they reffering to another satellite(Moon)orbiting another planet?

The shortest trip to the Moon took place in January 2006 by the NASA Pluto probe New Horizons. With the speed of 58,000 km/hr, It only took 8 hours and 35 minutes to get to the Moon from Earth. The longest trip took place in 2003 by the ESA SMART-1 lunar probe. It took 1 year and 6 weeks because it used ion engine which was very fuel efficient. However, these two missions did not return to Earth.

So yeah not sure the U.S.S. Enterprise should be using an Ion drive, Kind of ruin it's reputation and annoy all those Trekkie fans out there. :)




RE: o.O
By Fritzr on 5/15/2012 10:04:50 AM , Rating: 3
The Apollo mission was flown with an engine that could provide a multiple G boost for very short periods.

An ion engine provides very low boost for very long periods.

Time of travel is dependent on average speed. The ion engine takes time to reach peak velocity, it does not have time to move quickly on the LEO-Luna trip so it takes roughly the same time as the rocket. On the trip to Mars it has time to reach a high velocity, so the rocket which is taking it easy and just coasting along is left far behind.

Think tortoise and hare ... the tortoise plods along while the rabbit takes a nap :P


Make it so...
By Amiga500 on 5/15/2012 2:11:15 AM , Rating: 2
(But just don't expect us to chase down the Klingons in a hurry!)




RE: Make it so...
By cyberserf on 5/16/2012 5:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
WARF Son of Mogh. LOL


radiation dangers
By macawvet on 5/15/2012 2:12:58 PM , Rating: 2
Did he address the threat of radiation exposure to the crew from cosmic rays, solar flares, etc? I thought I read somewhere that a 90 day trip to Mars without the proper shielding would fatally poison a human. The type of shielding required either hasn't been invented yet (magnetic fields or ions) or would weigh huge amounts (like lead or water).




RE: radiation dangers
By JediJeb on 5/16/2012 2:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
I read somewhere that they have found that polyethylene is an even better radiation shield than water and much less mass is required. Make the whole saucer out of plastic may be the way to make shielding.


Forget about propulsion
By bug77 on 5/15/2012 6:42:17 AM , Rating: 3
I want to know how he plans to make the photon torpedoes. And shields.




Beam me up
By Lord 666 on 5/15/2012 7:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
Oh wait, he didn't say this part was addressed.




/facepalm
By Colin1497 on 5/15/2012 9:56:27 AM , Rating: 2
Everybody knows you never go full retard.




"Starship"
By rdhood on 5/15/12, Rating: 0
RE: "Starship"
By geekman1024 on 5/15/2012 10:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you'll be riding on a "Starship" launched directly into the stars, or into the Sun if you stayed in the Solar System.

Dicktionaryhore.


The main issue...
By CZroe on 5/15/2012 10:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
The main issue would be that we don't have any technology the would protect it from small impacts. No "shield" or "deflector dish."

This isn't a little probe that *might* hit something when flying around the solar system. Investing that much in what is essentially a big target would be dangerous and irresponsible. I guess that's related to money, so he probably dismisses it for that reason.

Also, I would make a second counter-spinning saucer so that half of the mass and energy spent creating gravity isn't being wasted on spinning a useless counter weight .




1.5 Gigawatts
By thorr2 on 5/15/2012 6:35:07 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't it be 1.21 Gigawatts? What the h... is a gigawatt?! Maybe it will run on plutonium from Libya.




Really? 20 years?
By geekman1024 on 5/15/2012 10:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
Hyperspace, Holodeck, Tractor Beam, all in 20 years time? I didn't know Earth technology has been so advanced already.




Have You...
By mmatis on 5/15/2012 1:38:57 PM , Rating: 1
seen who they're inviting to be on Dancing with the Stars this season? And where's my friggin' EBT card, bro?




bleh
By OS on 5/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: bleh
By aliasfox on 5/15/2012 11:02:29 AM , Rating: 5
China, 2009: This high speed rail network will destroy us! Our $500B investment will never see a return!

USA, circa 1961: Let's never try for the moon. How expensive and dangerous would that be?

Spain, circa 1492: Let's never send ships into the Atlantic past the Canary Islands. How dangerous and ruinously expensive could that be?

Paris, circa ~1000: Why would we ever build Notre Dame? How expensive would that be? How dangerous for the workers? How long will it take to complete?

China, circa ~100 BC: This Great Wall will suck the empire into economic ruin!

Africa, 100,000 yrs ago: Why would we ever leave the Great Plains? There could be lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) out there!

Shooting down ideas just because they're expensive or potentially dangerous is short sighted and slows advancement. Expenses and dangers are issues that are meant to be confronted and solved through technology, ingenuity, and bravery.

Thinking that we can build the Enterprise within the decade is perhaps too optimistic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be exploring different solutions that may one day make it feasible.

Personally, I look forward to the day when I can give Elon Musk, Richard Branson, or some government my money to fly me to the moon or Mars and stay in a Hilton for a week.


dfadfadfadsf
By Ashley001 on 5/15/12, Rating: -1
RE: dfadfadfadsf
By retrospooty on 5/15/2012 9:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Do you really think a spam post in a comment section with a title of "dfadfadfadsf" and a (non-hyper) link to a website will really strum up business for you? Do you seriously think a single person is going to copy/paste that link and go there?

I know we arent supposed to comment on obvious spam, but I just had to point out how incredibly stupid you are. Good luck with your "apf grade" education


RE: dfadfadfadsf
By bug77 on 5/15/2012 9:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think arguing with a bot will solve anything?

And yes, people fall for that, otherwise spammers wouldn't be worth their money.


RE: dfadfadfadsf
By retrospooty on 5/15/2012 12:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
LOL... No, of course not... But I argue with Pirks here all the time for the same zero effect. Sometimes you just gotta point out the absurdity.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki