Build the Enterprise

[Ben]

Interesting article. As cool as the Enterprise was in the Star Trek universe, I would take this idea and build a ship with a more utilitarian hull design.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47396187/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T6_tUMWE70k

ETA: Though upon fully reading the article, I see he uses the saucer section as a rotating section to produce gravity, so that does actually seem to be a good design.

[TommyGunn]

 
Meh .... I'd hold out for warp drive, real PHasers, photon torps, shuttle bay in the CORRECT PLACE.
I mean, who wants to putz around in our own solar system.
One needs to go somewhere where there are atleast pretty alien ladies.....

[230RN]

This Enterprise would be built entirely in space, have a rotating gravity section inside of the saucer, and be similar in size with the same look as the USS Enterprise that we know from classic "Star Trek."

<snip>

The saucer section would be a 0.3-mile-diameter (536-meter-diameter) rotating, magnetically suspended gravity wheel that would create 1G of gravity.

You'd need a hell of a lot of sliprings or little radio communications devices to get all the data from the "stationary" outside sensors to the internal rotating saucer.  Of course, "out there," you'd have the whole EM spectrum for data transfer bandwidth.

Magnetically suspended central saucer?  Hmmmmmm.  Granted, with no other outside gravity fields.... hmmmm...  Supercoducting suspension coils?  Why not just have mechanical bearings? In Jack Benny's words, "I'm thinking, I'm thinking."

Somebody (Willy Ley?) once figured out that with a reasonably-sized rotating artificial gravity, you'd get dizzy from the g-force difference between sitting and standing "up," and the Coriolus effect. Or would that be "standing 'central'?"

Besides, what do you need any artificial gravity for in the first place?  Why is that even in the design goals? That which must be stationary can be screwed or buckled down.  For the rest,  what, nobody ever heard of bungee cords? Just think what an inconvenience gravity is here on Earth except for reproduction-related activities asnd weighing stuff.

The saucer section would be a 0.3-mile-diameter (536-meter-diameter) rotating, magnetically suspended gravity wheel that would create 1G of gravity.

Just to see what we're talkin' about here, that works out to 0.35 RPM at the circumference if my arithmetic is correct.

Seems to me that under the constant acceleration of the voyage and its own attendant gee forces, you'd need to "hammock" (gimbal) the control section, so that "down" is wherever you're coming from.  Strikes me that the rotating gee of the saucer versus the direction of gee from this acceleration needs to be dealt with somehow.

Perhaps with Dramamine(sp?)... or everybody just stays put.

Simple solution?  No rotating central section.

Jes' bein' feisty.

Terry, 230RN

[Hawkmoon]

One needs to go somewhere where there are atleast pretty alien ladies.....

Some of the "ladies" one encounters at Wal-Mart seem pretty alien ...

[erictank]

The listed saucer size alone is close to 5x that of the Enterprise they're showing -and 60+% longer than the entire Enterprise-A, which in the fictional universe was 302m long overall. Granted, we'd be using real-world Earth tech rather than Federation tech, but still, we can build a BIGGER ship than the Federation, within the next 20 years?

Having said that, I applaud the notion of building a real, honest-to-God interplanetary spaceship.

[White Horseradish]

Besides, what do you need any artificial gravity for in the first place?  Why is that even in the design goals?

So that the crew of a long mission doesn't go blind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness#Human_health_effects

[230RN]

^ Huh.  Interesting.  "OK, spin 'er up, Scotty!"

[TommyGunn]

Some of the "ladies" one encounters at Wal-Mart seem pretty alien ...

I said "PRETTY" alien women, Hawkmoon....

[Perd Hapley]

There's one question to ask before NASA gets tasked with this - how would this help Muslims feel better about their historic contributions to science and engineering?

[cordex]

Seems to me that under the constant acceleration of the voyage and its own attendant gee forces, you'd need to "hammock" (gimbal) the control section, so that "down" is wherever you're coming from.  Strikes me that the rotating gee of the saucer versus the direction of gee from this acceleration needs to be dealt with somehow.

Ion drive acceleration is typically pretty mild.  The website mentions .002g for this concept:  http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/ship-specs

[Hawkmoon]

There's one question to ask before NASA gets tasked with this - how would this help Muslims feel better about their historic contributions to science and engineering?

I think we need to commission a study to investigate that question. But first we need a feasability study to determine the best way to study it, and the projected cost ...

[seeker_two]

I think I'll hold out for a Star Destroyer....
 

[French G.]

I think we need to commission a study to investigate that question. But first we need a feasability study to determine the best way to study it, and the projected cost ...

Release select muslims outside a space station and see if they need gravity? Got some candidates in Cuba.

[AJ Dual]

It seems to me that the Enterprise is still a very inefficient planform (Can I really say "planform" for a spacecraft with no wings that will permanently operate in vacuum?) for a interplanetary long-duration spacecraft.

Even with the low-g constant thrust from ion engines, it seems to me that off-axis masses require at least some additional structural strength, which means more weight, which means more mass, which means less fuel, less reactor, less crew, less equipment, less shielding for Solar CME's and places like the Jovian radiation belts. And on and on and on.

With a ship that size, the extra trusswork or girders or whatever needed to hold those masses out from each other at oddball angles and away from the main thrust axis of the craft... I'm guessing it adds up. At least it would over a most efficient solution that kept all the major components in line with the main axis of thrust. The one thing I think he gets right though is putting the gravity-wheel habitat for the crew parallel to the main thrust axis.  Much like how a current-day Ferris Wheel stands upright against the Earth's gravity. The constant thrust will be light, fractional g, and this will cause the crew to experience a 3x a minute fractional gravity change, but if the crew can adapt w/o sickness or disorientation it might be worth the material/mass savings than mounting it perpendicular to the thrust axis. Although if mounted perpendicular, they could just slant the floor of the wheel habitat areas so the outward centrifugal vector and the average constant thrust vector of the ion engines combines to provide an apparent level surface to the occupants.

Someone would have to do the math on both approaches and decide which is better.

My biggest beef so far... unless I couldn't find it before his site got overwhelmed... He seems to have totally forgotten radiator panels. Hell, the ISS has radiators that are roughly 1700sqft (maybe more by now with additional modules?), to service the waste heat the energy utilization of the 27k sqft of solar panel, and incidental solar heating generates... (I'm guessing the ISS is always "power thirsty", and waste heat is that big an issue already.) The big reactor pile of this "Mk1 Enterprise" is going to have huge amounts of waste heat. Even with tech 20 to 100 years in the future it'll never be 100% thermally efficient. The best I've heard fourth-gen reactors (that nobody gets to build due to politics, save for test units, although the Chinese will I guess...) can do is about 45% thermal efficiency, and that's ground based, where there's no mass-fraction to think about. You can build stuff as heavy, or as thick, or as much piping or machinery as you want. Even if it's 75% thermally efficient, (probably a gross overestimation) the 1.5GW fission reactor is going to create 375,000,000 Watts of waste heat.

I suppose some exotic liquid metal cooling system will be possible. But even if it uses liquid sodium, lead.. whatever is the most efficient, I dunno... The radiator "fins" will be BIG.

If the guy is really that smart, and can plan all of this, I think he knows about these issues, but wants to keep it looking like "the Enterprise" as long as possible, should he be able to create some sort of groundswell of support from Trek fans, and have the project reach some sort of critical mass before major design changes, or "real" design work gets underway, assuming it ever gets that far.

If true, that implies a certain level of Machiavellian deviousness, which frankly will probably be required should this get anywhere beyond some excited buzz and some web pages. 

[Tallpine]

With a ship that size, the extra trusswork or girders or whatever needed to hold those masses out from each other at oddball angles and away from the main thrust axis of the craft... I'm guessing it adds up. At least it would over a most efficient solution that kept all the major components in line with the main axis of thrust.

I've played with space ship ideas a bit, mostly for the purpose of a possible fictional ship that at least follows the rules of known and/or postulated physics.

I always come up with something akin to a skyscraper, either cylindrical or square in cross section. 
The power plant/propulsion could even be separated from the living spaces by "vertical" (in terms of thrust) girders.

If some significant percentage of 1g acceleration could be achieved, then the problem of artificial gravity is solved.  Halfway "there" (wherever that is...?) the ship would have to be turned around and decelerated.


But why need earth-like gravity at all   It's not inconceivable that future humans could evolve into a spacefaring race that could thrive in a micro-gravity environment.  There's plenty of raw materials floating around the universe, while the probablity of another earth-like world within reasonable distance is very low.  A race adapted to micro-gravity might also have much lower nutritional requirments.

[Claude Clay]

im going with Police Call Boxes to stand in as shuttles. and escape pods must all be named HAL

....20ish years ago Las Veges came close to building a full sized Enterprise on the main drag. a head of Paramount nixed it for fear it would be a monumental failour that could affect ticket sales of Star Trek movies.

http://collider.com/star-trek-enterprise-vegas/157942/

[Fitz]

Paging birdman

[AJ Dual]

I've played with space ship ideas a bit, mostly for the purpose of a possible fictional ship that at least follows the rules of known and/or postulated physics.

I always come up with something akin to a skyscraper, either cylindrical or square in cross section. 
The power plant/propulsion could even be separated from the living spaces by "vertical" (in terms of thrust) girders.

If some significant percentage of 1g acceleration could be achieved, then the problem of artificial gravity is solved.  Halfway "there" (wherever that is...?) the ship would have to be turned around and decelerated.


But why need earth-like gravity at all   It's not inconceivable that future humans could evolve into a spacefaring race that could thrive in a micro-gravity environment.  There's plenty of raw materials floating around the universe, while the probablity of another earth-like world within reasonable distance is very low.  A race adapted to micro-gravity might also have much lower nutritional requirments.

Well, first off, we don't know if people will be able to be bred or adapt to zero G. From what some long-term studies suggest during MIR or ISS stays that the effects after a few years may be debilitating to the point it's not just a matter of "I don't care if I ever come back to Earth".

Plus there may be an issue of recruiting talent and skills or "the right" people if they feel they're signing up to live the rest of their lives in space. While there may be plenty who'd be willing to go even if it was an outright suicide mission, public pressures, friends, family, politics needs to be considered. It would be a hard sell to go with a zero-g, or thrust-g only ship (even fair fractions of a g ain't happening soon w/o discovery of some very exotic tech, IMO...) if it were common knowledge that after five or so years, the astronauts would be "used up" and would be blind, bloated drooling blobs that had to be warehoused in a zero-g nursing home thereafter...

Also there's the issue of keeping at least enough strength if manned landings/visits to the various moons and other planets in the Solar System are to be conducted. (would seem a waste to go all that way...)

One more thought, any large scale human presence off-Earth should maintain a certain minimum core group that could re-populate Earth in the event of an "oops", be it asteroidal, Solar, biological, or technological. Just as a matter of policy IMO. It would minimize the "all our eggs in one basket" factor ASAP.

Also, Venus and Saturn are two "1g environments" in our Solar System. Although in this case I'd be talking about "balloon cities" or aerostat bases etc. At least until Venus is terraformed. Mars is roughly (what?) 1/3rd g?  

So I think long-duration space missions will require artificial gravity, at least until medical and genetic science gets to the point we can prevent the changes, or reverse them on-demand when required. Or if we become post-human blended cybernetic entities of some sort. (then you need no pesky life support systems at all...)

[Pharmacology]

lol, I'll run this by my brother and see what he thinks about it.  (Dude's a braniac when it comes to aerospace stuff. )

[Ben]

I've played with space ship ideas a bit, mostly for the purpose of a possible fictional ship that at least follows the rules of known and/or postulated physics.

I always come up with something akin to a skyscraper, either cylindrical or square in cross section. 

[Tallpine]

blind, bloated drooling blobs

I've seen some people like that  



My other idea for a rotating space ship/station uses roughly traincar/semi trailer sized cylindrical habitat sections with swivel hatches/docking rings on each end.  Some minimum number of these could be linked together like sausages to form a ring.  The assembly would probably need a hub and some cable "spokes" to keep it mostly circular.  The fact that the docking hatches allowed some swivel means that you could add more units over time to make a larger structure.  Each unit would be conceivably launchable, sorta like the Saturn 3rd stage that they used for Skylab.

Anyway, until we get some practical space stations in earth orbit then I don't see us getting much farther than that.

[Tallpine]

Are you sanguine about what kind of reception you are likely to receive with that design ?   

[brimic]

Though upon fully reading the article, I see he uses the saucer section as a rotating section to produce gravity, so that does actually seem to be a good design.

So humans wouldn't be debillitated to the point where they couldn't return to earth with the tradeoff being that they have to live inside a barf machine gravitron?

[AJ Dual]

I've seen some people like that  



My other idea for a rotating space ship/station uses roughly traincar/semi trailer sized cylindrical habitat sections with swivel hatches/docking rings on each end.  Some minimum number of these could be linked together like sausages to form a ring.  The assembly would probably need a hub and some cable "spokes" to keep it mostly circular.  The fact that the docking hatches allowed some swivel means that you could add more units over time to make a larger structure.  Each unit would be conceivably launchable, sorta like the Saturn 3rd stage that they used for Skylab.

Anyway, until we get some practical space stations in earth orbit then I don't see us getting much farther than that.

There were some plans to use Shuttle External Tanks like that. They were to have a small kick thruster attached, and maybe a H2/LOX scavenger system as well that would save up any left over propellants/oxidizer. Then they'd send up a crew, or robotic machines to cut hatches, string them together with tension cables etc. Maybe even a electron gun/vapor deposition satellite to coat the thing in aluminum to provide better thermal control until radiator systems could be installed.

Imagine a station, microgravity or spun, that was the size of about a dozen-odd Skylabs. I imagine there was some fiddly cost/weight/power/engineering reason that it was actually better to let the ET's burn up instead.

I think we tried for a "practical" space-station, and it tied up all our resources and "mojo" leaving us going nowhere. I say we decide on a mission, then if it needs a space-station to support THAT, then we build another one.

So humans wouldn't be debillitated to the point where they couldn't return to earth with the tradeoff being that they have to live inside a barf machine gravitron?

At least the diameter of this "Enterprise" is one of the largest wheel habitats someone's seriously suggested building with current tech to date.

Centrifuge tests seem to indicate that anything below 2rpm is acceptable to the average/mean "hump" and the iron stomach tail of the bell curve in terms of motion sickness or Coriolis force sensitive folks.

[brimic]

Centrifuge tests seem to indicate that anything below 2rpm is acceptable to the average/mean "hump" and the iron stomach tail of the bell curve in terms of motion sickness or Coriolis force sensitive folks.

I guess I'm just G/spinny sensitive.
I rode the 'Mission to Mars' ride at Disney and screamed like a little girl the whole time- it felt like my eyes were getting sucked out the back of my head. Never again.