The USS Enterprise: Just how practical?

[crazyeddie]

It seems to me that the simulation of gravity-without the old centrifugal force solution- is not all that far out or unlikely. After all, if memory serves me correctly, gravity is the weakest of the four known forces of the Universe.

We have no problem "artificially" producing electricity or magnetism, so why not gravity in the not-so-distant future?

Well, we know how to produce electromagnetic particles and energy, but we haven't a clue about how to generate gravitons....we can't even detect them, yet. It takes huge amounts of mass to produce a natural gravitational field, so I imagine it would also require a huge amount of energy to generate an artificial gravitational field.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Ed- Fusion reactors maybe? How about matter-antimatter reactors?

 

[drwayne]

It seems to me that the simulation of gravity-without the old centrifugal force solution- is not all that far out or unlikely. After all, if memory serves me correctly, gravity is the weakest of the four known forces of the Universe.

We have no problem "artificially" producing electricity or magnetism, so why not gravity in the not-so-distant future?

Well, we know how to produce electromagnetic particles and energy, but we haven't a clue about how to generate gravitons....we can't even detect them, yet. It takes huge amounts of mass to produce a natural gravitational field, so I imagine it would also require a huge amount of energy to generate an artificial gravitational field.

Given the energy requirements for various Star Trek ship functions, it appears that they have "energy out the
wabo" in that universe. :roll:

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Given the energy requirements for various Star Trek ship functions, it appears that they have "energy out the wabo" in that universe. :roll:

Abso-plasma-lutely! Unlimited energy never seemed to be a problem on the Enterprise, unless they lost their dialithium crystals!!

I wish we had one of those matter-antimatter reactors!

 

[docm]

As to rotating decks for artificial gravity: you would need two counter-rotating decks to nullify torque effects or a constant sideways thrust from the stationary part (engineering section?), otherwise it'll just spin around like a helicopter with a defective tail rotor.

 

[StarRider1701]

I present, the CNS Improbable on her main-engine burn shakedown cruise. No paintjob (no textures, just a simple procedural), not all of her lighting is installed (only a few lights), her windows aren't finished (get to those later) and she's very good at traveling in two dimensions... (no maneuvering engines installed atm.)

That might not be a bad design for our first Generation ship, lost. The design does have at least one major, obvious flaw. When the saucer is turning providing gravity for those inside I'm thinking it would act like a giant rotating stabilizer (cant think of the name of those things right now for the life of me!) which might make maneuvering in certian directions a bit difficult. I guess you'd need to make sure you're pretty much lined up and pointed in the right direction at the time of launch.

 

[bdewoody]

I don't see how anything spinning in a saucer could induce gravity to the inhitants of the saucer. The only way I know of that spinning can produce an artificial gravity is on the inside walls of a spinning cylinder. Or in the case of some sci fi ships I've seen compartments on either end of a spinning strut with it's axis along the centerline of the rest of the non gravity ship. I guess a third configuration would be the spinning ring of something that looks like the traditional space station as seen in 2001 A Space Odessy.

 

[docm]

Rotation can definitely induce simulated gravity inside a saucer section. Ever been in the carnival ride called "Gravitron"? It can generate 2-3 G's easily. The saucer discs would be similar but with multiple interior 'floors' - each counter-rotating 'disc' would be a section of a cylinder.

 

[bdewoody]

Rotation can definitely induce simulated gravity inside a saucer section. Ever been in the carnival ride called "Gravitron"? It can generate 2-3 G's easily. The saucer discs would be similar but with multiple interior 'floors' - each counter-rotating 'disc' would be a section of a cylinder.

Well not in the traditional ways we think of the orientation of the decks in the saucer section of the Enterprise.

 

[docm]

No, not with top to bottom decks - but in space there is no up and down

 

[a_lost_packet_]

As to rotating decks for artificial gravity: you would need two counter-rotating decks to nullify torque effects or a constant sideways thrust from the stationary part (engineering section?), otherwise it'll just spin around like a helicopter with a defective tail rotor.

Yeah, I didn't have the time to put on the extra stabilizing engines. I was busy getting ready to go out of town. Besides, it's just a mockup trying to be as faithful as possible with the Trek style with a few limited (noted somewhere above) physical problems.

One design I saw from a NASA discussion on artificial gravity looked especially interesting: A Hammer/Pendulum type design. Basically, two objects tethered together and then set rotating about each-other. Course changes, by necessity, would be tricky though. Kind of like a big bolo floating through space... with engines on it.

 

[cookie_thief]

Regarding the vulnerable position of the bridge of the USS Enterprise, I recalled an episode (or two) of TNG that a second "battle bridge" was located deep inside the ship. I must admit, however, that I've never seen them use it in any of the big battles.

 

[docm]

Regarding the vulnerable position of the bridge of the USS Enterprise, I recalled an episode (or two) of TNG that a second "battle bridge" was located deep inside the ship. I must admit, however, that I've never seen them use it in any of the big battles.

The Battle Bridge was in the Engineering section, the center section attached to the nacelles and under the saucer.

It was first used in the pilot episode Encounter at Farpoint then in The Arsenal of Freedom and The Best of Both Worlds, Part II. It was referenced in several episodes.

 

[bdewoody]

Regarding the vulnerable position of the bridge of the USS Enterprise, I recalled an episode (or two) of TNG that a second "battle bridge" was located deep inside the ship. I must admit, however, that I've never seen them use it in any of the big battles.

A current analogy would be the CIC (combat information center) on modern warships. The think in WW I it was referred to as the battle plot room deep inside the superstructure.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Regarding the vulnerable position of the bridge of the USS Enterprise, I recalled an episode (or two) of TNG that a second "battle bridge" was located deep inside the ship. I must admit, however, that I've never seen them use it in any of the big battles.

The Battle Bridge was in the Engineering section, the center section attached to the nacelles and under the saucer.

It was first used in the pilot episode Encounter at Farpoint then in The Arsenal of Freedom and The Best of Both Worlds, Part II. It was referenced in several episodes.

It was also in the TOS, IIRC. Somewhere, in some story portion or another, there was some mention of using the secondary bridge to thwart some dastardly plot. I can't remember the specifics and don't have my blueprints handy atm.

(It's possible I remember it from reading Foster's adaptions of the cartoon series though.)

 

[bdewoody]

As I recall the original Enterprise was supposed to be able to separate the saucer but they never had a big enough budget to make the separate models. Remember that show was way before computer graphics and models were expensive. I was at a convention where GR stated one reason they had beaming was because early on they didn't have a big enough budget to build shuttle models or the studio mock ups.

 

[crazyeddie]

As I recall the original Enterprise was supposed to be able to separate the saucer but they never had a big enough budget to make the separate models. Remember that show was way before computer graphics and models were expensive. I was at a convention where GR stated one reason they had beaming was because early on they didn't have a big enough budget to build shuttle models or the studio mock ups.

It's sort of interesting to know that the budget to construct the models and interiors of the Jupiter II for Lost in Space (reported to be $600,000 at the time, an extraordinary amount of money for the day) far exceeded anything Gene Roddenberry had to work with for Star Trek. The J2 had real Burroughs B-205 computer modules and electronics, whereas the Enterprise sets basically just had blinking lights and buttons. And the cost of the Robot suit in LIS was $30,000 alone. Imagine what Roddenberry could have done with that kind of money!

 

[drwayne]

Of course Irwin Allen got to use the stuff over many TV series, which reduced the cost somewhat.

And of course, the Chariot was a real vehicle as well....

 

[ZenGalacticore]

The J2 had real Burroughs B-205 computer modules and electronics, whereas the Enterprise sets basically just had blinking lights and buttons. And the cost of the Robot suit in LIS was $30,000 alone. Imagine what Roddenberry could have done with that kind of money!

Yeah, but, I remember seeing a "making of" program once about Star Trek, and they mentioned that ST was the first futuristic scifi series where when buttons were pushed a reaction took place. And IIRC, it was LIT that used mostly flashing lights that had no relationship within the context of what was happening, and they never used the gadgets as plot devices, like the tricorder in ST.

Incidentally, on a similar thread a while back, I think Jim48 posted that the Robot in LIT cost $40,000. I think Allen got ripped off on that one, since 40 g then would be like a quarter million or more now. (Going by home values in 1966 compared to today.)

 

[crazyeddie]

Incidentally, on a similar thread a while back, I think Jim48 posted that the Robot in LIT cost $40,000. I think Allen got ripped off on that one, since 40 g then would be like a quarter million or more now. (Going by home values in 1966 compared to today.)

Actually, that sounds about right. And it pales in comparison to the $125,000 (some sources say one million dollars!) that MGM spent building Robbie the Robot for Forbidden Planet, which was a much more sophisticated design by the same builder, Robert Kinoshata (who also, incidentally, re-designed the Jupiter II to accommodate the lower deck that was absent in the pilot). What would that be in 1956 dollars? :shock:

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Actually, that sounds about right. And it pales in comparison to the $125,000 (some sources say one million dollars!) that MGM spent building Robbie the Robot for Forbidden Planet, which was a much more sophisticated design by the same builder, Robert Kinoshata (who also, incidentally, re-designed the Jupiter II to accommodate the lower deck that was absent in the pilot). What would that be in 1956 dollars? :shock:

Easily well over a million, I would think. $125,000 grand in 1956? I mean jeepers, a salary of $100 a week at that time was living high! Maybe Blass might know the actual relative values. I know that in 1969, my parents bought a nice house in Roswell for $32,000, and in 1999 they sold it for over $300,000 grand. So, we're talking a 100% increase in 30 years.

 

[vladdrac]

Forget "Enterprise" Go "Planet Class Starship"

 

[knightinexile]

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.

Although I think the Enterprise A is the most beautiful of all its incarnations, the neck and warp pylons have always bothered me too. I completely agree with you that they are way too thin and fragile, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed those design flaws. Recall that in TWoK, the Reliant fired on the Enterprise's neck section and it was a miracle that it didn't come apart. Realistically, it should have broken off. Plus, I would imagine that if the Enterprise were to travel at maximum impulse speed, the neck and warp pylons would snap off like twigs. What do you think?

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.

The Discovery is one of the most elegant and beautiful sci-fi ships to grace the big screen and its way underrated in my opinion.

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

Now, you're talking coolness! The Battlestar Galactica (both old and new) is my most favorite sci-fi starship of all time, well said. It puts the Enterprise to shame.

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

Agreed. The ships in Babylon 5 were cool, unique, and very creative. I love the Omega Class Destroyers and the White Stars. It would be cool to see Galactica vs. the Omega. I don't know who would really win, but I would imagine that both ships would take on significant damage. Still, it would be a great battle to see. I'd pay good money to see that.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

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.

Although I think the Enterprise A is the most beautiful of all its incarnations, the neck and warp pylons have always bothered me too. I completely agree with you that they are way too thin and fragile, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed those design flaws. Recall that in TWoK, the Reliant fired on the Enterprise's neck section and it was a miracle that it didn't come apart. Realistically, it should have broken off. Plus, I would imagine that if the Enterprise were to travel at maximum impulse speed, the neck and warp pylons would snap off like twigs. What do you think?

[/quote]

The Impulse Engines are actually on the main saucer section. It's the red, boxy thing at the back of the saucer. Traditionally, the engine room's main scenes are shot there, with a backdrop looking down the shafts of the Impulse Engines. Under Impulse power, the Warp engines are only used for power to certain systems, not for sublight propulsion. (ie: They were also converted for use in the first movie for additional phaser power.)

The Discovery is one of the most elegant and beautiful sci-fi ships to grace the big screen and its way underrated in my opinion.

/agree

Now, you're talking coolness! The Battlestar Galactica (both old and new) is my most favorite sci-fi starship of all time, well said. It puts the Enterprise to shame.

For clean lines, the Enterprise wins out. But, for sheer representation of power, the Battlestar Galactica is a winner. Don't forget, the Stardestroyer and Superstardestroyer of Star Wars fame either. Still, not as "hefty" looking as a Battlestar.

I love the Omega Class Destroyers and the White Stars. It would be cool to see Galactica vs. the Omega. I don't know who would really win, but I would imagine that both ships would take on significant damage. Still, it would be a great battle to see. I'd pay good money to see that.

Easily the Battlestar, no question about it. In the first series, the Battlestar Galactica even had a huge, forward firing main cannon. Big boom booms... Would split a Omega in half. But, even without it, the Battlestar's fighter/bomber compliment would waste an Omega even with fighter cover.

 

[knightinexile]

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.

Although I think the Enterprise A is the most beautiful of all its incarnations, the neck and warp pylons have always bothered me too. I completely agree with you that they are way too thin and fragile, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed those design flaws. Recall that in TWoK, the Reliant fired on the Enterprise's neck section and it was a miracle that it didn't come apart. Realistically, it should have broken off. Plus, I would imagine that if the Enterprise were to travel at maximum impulse speed, the neck and warp pylons would snap off like twigs. What do you think?

The Impulse Engines are actually on the main saucer section. It's the red, boxy thing at the back of the saucer. Traditionally, the engine room's main scenes are shot there, with a backdrop looking down the shafts of the Impulse Engines. Under Impulse power, the Warp engines are only used for power to certain systems, not for sublight propulsion. (ie: They were also converted for use in the first movie for additional phaser power.)

Yes, I'm aware that the impulse engines are located at the back of the saucer section, but the thing to consider is that the warp pylons could rip off if it travel at maximum impulse speed. What do you think?

The Discovery is one of the most elegant and beautiful sci-fi ships to grace the big screen and its way underrated in my opinion.

/agree

Cool. Its nice to see more people sticking up for the Discovery.

Now, you're talking coolness! The Battlestar Galactica (both old and new) is my most favorite sci-fi starship of all time, well said. It puts the Enterprise to shame.

For clean lines, the Enterprise wins out. But, for sheer representation of power, the Battlestar Galactica is a winner. Don't forget, the Stardestroyer and Superstardestroyer of Star Wars fame either. Still, not as "hefty" looking as a Battlestar.

Yes, the Enterprise may be smoother than the Galactica, but she doesn't look all that convincing as a starship. And of course, I have not forgotten about the Stardestroyer and the Superstardestroyer, those ships are way awesome! Which ship do you think would win in a battle: the Galactica or the Stardestroyer?

I love the Omega Class Destroyers and the White Stars. It would be cool to see Galactica vs. the Omega. I don't know who would really win, but I would imagine that both ships would take on significant damage. Still, it would be a great battle to see. I'd pay good money to see that.

Easily the Battlestar, no question about it. In the first series, the Battlestar Galactica even had a huge, forward firing main cannon. Big boom booms... Would split a Omega in half. But, even without it, the Battlestar's fighter/bomber compliment would waste an Omega even with fighter cover.

Yeah, I kind of figured that the Galactica would win over the Omega just because of its huge size. That being the case, I'm sure that the Galactica would wipe out the Enterprise. Which do you think?

But I've always thought that the Vipers and Starfuries were more or less equal in terms of firepower. How do you figure that the Vipers are more powerful than the Starfuries?