The USS Enterprise: Just how practical?

[JasonChapman]

Ok here's a quick one.
Forget your warp drives, Holodecks, and replicators, they're the least of your worries if your building a starship. So how practical is the design of the enterprise off Star Trek, does the shape of a ship matter when you're exploring space. I designed this a few years back for a freind who complained that all the ships I create were not from any scifi show he watched. Lets start with the saucer section shall we.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Difficult..

The forces on the riser between the main body and the saucer would be pretty significant as well as the supports for the engines.

It "could" be done on a smaller scale, I suppose. But, it'd be a tremendous waste of space and materials, not optimized at all, IMO. Heck, I don't even know how the thing would fly considering the engines aren't along the central axis.

Sure, one day my dream would be to see a USS Enterprise cranked out by human spaceyards. But, that's going to be a long time coming though and it's going to take someone who is very nostalgic concerning ancient pop-culture.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

For any "practical" spacetravel utilizing the present laws of physics ... I'd vote the Ramans had it correct. Boring, perhaps, but the principles seem right.

Though for short jaunts about the solar system I think the Discovery looks good

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Discovery is awesome. I have a 3D model of that. Been trying to rework it though. Needs bay doors that open and an interior.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Jason wrote, "the least of our worries is a warp-drive when building a starship"

I have to disagree with you here, Jason. I think that developing a warp-drive would be the number one concern, at least, in developing a starship capable of warping space and cancelling out time-dilation.

Unless you want to stick with lower relativity fusion ships, say, 84% speed of light. (There's a chart you can google that shows the optimum speeds with the least time dilation. IIRC, it said around 84% light speed is the optimum because anything beyond that and your mass begins to increase exponentially.)

At any rate, it's all dreaming for now.

IIRC, I googled "Speed of Light time-dilation chart", or something like that.

 

[docm]

Discovery's rotating deck for synthetic "gravity" is a must. A saucer section could work if set up like the decks in Mission To Mars' Mars Recovery 2 but rotated 90 degrees. Lots of similarities between Discovery and Mars Recovery 2.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

I always though it was funny how the ship in 2001 was a metaphor for a sperm cell. Head and tail. :lol:

 

[JasonChapman]

I like what I see and hear with your replies, I like that ship Discovery off 2001 its one of those few spaceships that stands the test of time, a lot like the Eagles off Space 1999. I knew it would be a difficult one concerning the design of the Enterprise. Stresses at high speed would tear the Warp cells of the ship. However the saucer section could be adapted so that the warp engines attach to the back. The only hang up I have with the new film is that the Enterprise is built in a dry dock on earth, for a ship that size you need to build it in Zero G otherwise you are looking at having to lift an object thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of tonnes off the ground unless you had some sort of super duper anti-grav field generator it would be impossible. Anyway it was just a thought, there are many ships created in science fiction which are much more practical including the one from 2001 A Space Odyssey.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Jason- Well I'd swear on the Federation Bible that in the original Roddenberry concepts the Constitution Class Starships WERE built in zero g. But some here insist otherwise, and they're mostly folks who still have their Starship Enterprise technical manuals!! :lol:

But remember Jason, when a ship is in warpdrive, it's not so much speeding through space as it is "warping" space, ie, folding the fabric of space point 'A' to destination, or leg of trek, to point 'B'. And warp 10, for example, is ten warps of the fabric of space, thereby folding point 'A' over to point 'K'. Or something like that!

 

[bdewoody]

We (me and my three brothers) commented back in the 1960's that the Enterprise appeared fatally flawed with the warp nacelles mounted way out on those thin pylons. If you accept the concept of artificial gravity by means other than spinning, the saucer shape is as good as any. Granted the concept of a warp bubble around the ship negates any shearing problems with the pylons while at warp. But just like with jet fighters doing most of their fighting below the speed of sound most of the Star Trek episodes where the Enterprise was in a fight it happened at sub-light speeds and any sharp manuvering would rip the nacelles off the pylons.

I have always thought the Discovery from 2001 a Space Odessy was right on and within the capability of us human beings. I think we will need something similar to go to Mars and definetely to Jupiter or Saturn.

My favorite Sci-Fi space ship is Battlestar Galactica. Again it needs some form of artificial gravity but it otherwise looks formidable.

The ships in Babylon 5 all looked plausible and the station itself is great.

 

[bdewoody]

For any "practical" spacetravel utilizing the present laws of physics ... I'd vote the Ramans had it correct. Boring, perhaps, but the principles seem right.

Though for short jaunts about the solar system I think the Discovery looks good

Did you mean Ramans or Romulans? The ship in the upper image looks more like a Romulan ship. The Raman ship as descibed in the books was a very long cylinder with very few exterior protrusions

 

[JasonChapman]

Jason- Well I'd swear on the Federation Bible that in the original Roddenberry concepts the Constitution Class Starships WERE built in zero g. But some here insist otherwise, and they're mostly folks who still have their Starship Enterprise technical manuals!! :lol:

But remember Jason, when a ship is in warpdrive, it's not so much speeding through space as it is "warping" space, ie, folding the fabric of space point 'A' to destination, or leg of trek, to point 'B'. And warp 10, for example, is ten warps of the fabric of space, thereby folding point 'A' over to point 'K'. Or something like that!

I had one of those technical manuals, I gave it to a freind, I alway thought the way warp drive worked is that the engines generate a pocket of another universe around the ship, a kind of warp bubble, a universe where it is possible to travel faster than light, hmm.. perhaps I should of held on to that manual

 

[docm]

Closest thing is the Alcubierre drive

The Alcubierre Metric defines the so-called warp drive spacetime. This is a Lorentzian manifold which, if interpreted in the context of general relativity, exhibits features reminiscent of the warp drive from Star Trek: a warp bubble appears in previously flat spacetime and moves off at effectively superluminal speed. Inhabitants of the bubble feel no inertial effects. The object(s) within the bubble are not moving (locally) faster than light, instead, the space around them shifts so that the object(s) arrives at its destination faster than light would in normal space.

Alcubierre chose a specific form for the function f, but other choices give a simpler spacetime exhibiting the desired "warp drive" effects more clearly and simply.

 

[JasonChapman]

It fascinates me when on one side you have those hard nose scientific types who reject everything that science fiction theorises and then you have those other scientific types who actually take time to write down these wonderful equations and consider the possibilities, ‘what if science’ here’s another link about Warp drive, it seems even NASA has considered warp drive at one stage, there may be hope for them yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

Did you mean Ramans or Romulans? The ship in the upper image looks more like a Romulan ship. The Raman ship as descibed in the books was a very long cylinder with very few exterior protrusions

Raman. It might be hard to see on your browser/LCD but just behind the "fancy" Earth ship (which looks somewhat Ferengi to me) is the big boring cylinder just occulting a bright star.

 

[CalliArcale]

Okay, someone has to say it.

The USS Enterprise is totally impractical. The original version is completely and utterly lacking in bathroom facilities, and the Enterprise D appears to have only showers. No toilets. Major oversight. I mean, astronauts may be willing to wear diapers for ascent, EVA, and entry, but I'd draw the line on diapers somewhat before the first week of the mission was over. ;-)

 

[ZenGalacticore]

They wore crotch plasma-directed underwear. Kind of like a phaser made by Fruit of the Loom. Waste is vaporized. :lol: But Scotty hated working on them when they mal-functioned.

 

[docm]

Situation: Kirk is on a space walk checking out the deflector array.

Kirk: Rand, I need to evacuate!

Rand: but you're already off the ship, sir.

Kirk: no you blond bimbo, I need to take a crap!!

Rand: oooohhh, ok. Number one or number two?

Kirk: two!

Rand: yes sir!! I'll beam it to the septic containment ASAP.

Kirk: Rand?

Rand: yes sir?

Kirk: next time you beam excrement out of someone narrow the field a bit more.

Rand: why sir?

Kirk: because you just beamed my entire colon into the septic containment! Call McCoy NOW!!

McCoy: whatcha want, Jim?

Kirk: how about putting my guts back where they belong?

McCoy: sorry Jim, I'll have replicate you a new set. Your originals were just dumped with the rest of the sewage.

Kirk: then beam me to sick bay and put me in stasis NOW!!

Rand: beaming now sir!

Kirk: Rand?

Rand: yes, sir?

Kirk: did you change the transporter settings before beaming me?

Rand: why, sir?

Kirk: because I just caught up with the rest of me you ninny!! McCoy!! Help!!

McCoy: dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a plumber!!

 

[Valcan]

I never really like the startrek ships. One of the funny things is a star destroyer is accually very plausable.

My bet though barring AG of some kind and using a Vasimr Drive would be a aship looking somthing like a barbell with a rotating ring near the front. And behinf the rotating habitat would be fuel supplies etc.

By far my favorite Scifi ships gotta be BSG galactica and Omega destroyer from B5. Though i also liked the saratoga from Space above and beyond.

 

[Eman_3]

Unfortunately, we have no idea of what kind of engineering is required to FTL. Thus, we cannot predict whether podded nacelles are required.

But assuming that a vehicle designed to travel between the stars will never have to land directly on a planet, aerodynamics won't matter. The most efficient shape is a sphere, and it's very strong too.

The triangular shape of the Imperial Battle Cruiser from Star Wars almost makes sense, but the command bridge makes no sense, apart from artistic licence and drama. You don't stick your command and control facilities into an exposed position.

 

[StarRider1701]

My favorite SciFi spaceship was the original Battlestar Galactica. One look told you exactly what that ship was made for - Battle! The newer versions of the Galactica and the Pegasus were ok. I also thought the original versions of the Cylon base ships were more practical than the new versions. IMO, the originals were more like what a species of robots would build, rather than the flimsy, snowflake newer design.

The Saratoga was cool, too.

As for the above picture, the Enterprise D would win hands down! Two or three torpedoes and that Star Destroyer would be an expanding ball of space dust.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

"who would win picture- empire versus federation"

Awesome! I get to repost a picture I made on the old forum, years ago!

Fullsize available here.

Oh, there is little doubt who would win....

(The ships represented are to scale. Standard "Enterprise D" versus an Imperial Super Stardestroyer. No contest, pick up the pieces and scraps of the Federation ships after it's done with them...

Oh, and in case anyone is interested, the Borg wouldn't fair too well either.

Full Size Available Here

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Nonsense. With bearskins and flintlocks Scotty could rig something up to vaporize the wussy little Emperor and his henchman Dark Daddy. :lol:

You can't deflect a phaser beam (directed plasma) with a light-saber. And of course the Star Wars "hyper-drive" is nonsense as well. At "light-speed" one would still be going painfully slow through the galaxy. And dog-fights in space? Ha-ha, there's no where to maneuver to as there is no up or down.

Sorry guys. The Enterprise would run cirles around Dark Daddy's Super Star Destroyer. And Battlestar Galactica's cheap imitation of Dark Daddy's regular star destroyers is not worth mentioning. :lol:

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Just a note: Star Wars ships had shields. For instance, the big round ball near the bridge portion of a Star Destroyer is the shield generator. The Death Star had shields as well. Though, it seems anyone could fly through them just like the Federation's and Borg's shields.

I don't know about "lightspeed" being equal to c in Star Wars. Considering the distances traveled, it would seem that it's just an expression for "exceeding" the speed of light. Otherwise, all those planets would be mighty close to each other. I'm sure someone can dig up some Star Wars fan chart of all the planets and give us distances and such.

I will say that I think the big Star Wars ships were more practical than Star Treks capital-sized ships. But, they're technology is pretty different. After all, Star Trek capital ships don't land on the surface of worlds routinely. Star Wars capital ships, at least the Empire's, seem to have that capability.

One thing I always wondered.. The Death Star.. where's its means of propulsion?

Another thing, all that armor on Storm Troopers yet.. it didn't seem effective. Or, was it all just PVC for some weird Empire-wide fetish? You'd think "armor" would.. armor something.

Oh well, questions for another thread I suppose.

 

[CalliArcale]

Just a note: Star Wars ships had shields. For instance, the big round ball near the bridge portion of a Star Destroyer is the shield generator. The Death Star had shields as well. Though, it seems anyone could fly through them just like the Federation's and Borg's shields.

Most of the time, anyway. Recall that the stolen shuttle used by the rebels in "Return of the Jedi" had to request lowering of the deflection barriers so they could land on Endor. This was, of course, only to provide a macguffin for the Endor portion of the movie: capturing and disabling the shield generator. At no other time did shields appear to deflect actual vehicles in the least.

One other point: it can't be that Star Wars shields deflect energy but not matter, since a) they can communicate through them just fine, and b) their weapons include "proton torpedoes" which, one would think, are matter.

I don't know about "lightspeed" being equal to c in Star Wars. Considering the distances traveled, it would seem that it's just an expression for "exceeding" the speed of light. Otherwise, all those planets would be mighty close to each other. I'm sure someone can dig up some Star Wars fan chart of all the planets and give us distances and such.

As J. Michael Strazynski said when asked how fast the Starfuries and other Babylon 5 craft travel, "they travel at the speed of plot." (Mind you, JMS went to extra care to make sure the speed of plot was somewhat practical and generally internally consistent. He just didn't point it out very often so that audiences wouldn't notice when he cheated.)

I will say that I think the big Star Wars ships were more practical than Star Treks capital-sized ships. But, they're technology is pretty different. After all, Star Trek capital ships don't land on the surface of worlds routinely. Star Wars capital ships, at least the Empire's, seem to have that capability.

The old Republic had capital ships capable of landing; I don't think all the Empire's capital ships can do so. They are definitely larger, for one thing. I find that highly implausible in any case.

One thing I always wondered.. The Death Star.. where's its means of propulsion?

Plot!

Another thing, all that armor on Storm Troopers yet.. it didn't seem effective. Or, was it all just PVC for some weird Empire-wide fetish? You'd think "armor" would.. armor something.

I've been watching "The Clone Wars" with my kids. It's worth noting that Storm Troopers die a lot more readily than Clone Troopers do. Obviously there is some "hero battle death exemption" going on, and I think it's safe to say that the effectiveness of * Trooper armor is directly related to whether they are currently good guys, bad guys, or expendable extras.