|
John_S4x4
Original Poster
954 posts
127 months
|
|
|
bob1179
13,481 posts
79 months
|
How awesome would that actually be? Can I be Bones ' He's dead Jim...'? 
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,692 posts
68 months
|
lol crazy.. but i'd prefer a Battlestar tbh  if it wanted something with the slimmest possibility of actually being functional then id go for the babylon 5 Omega class destroyer http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg585/scaled.php?se...and for somethnig we could actually build with our current tech level then i'd go for the Valkyre antimatter starship ( The design was utilised in Avatar )  some light reading if you're interested http://www.charlespellegrino.com/propulsion.htm <-- website of original valkyre designer
|
|
|
Tim330
452 posts
82 months
|
I hope he included 10 forward
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,692 posts
68 months
|
that was created in the enterprise D ... the kirk era ones never had it lol
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Tim330
452 posts
82 months
|
Ah yes, I looked at the length given in meters (960) & thought it was a galaxy class ship but it actually looks more like the enterprise A.
|
|
|
Simpo Two
54,618 posts
135 months
|
I liked this comment:
'Plus if aliens do show up, having the Enterprise in orbit would be a great deterrent. "Hey, we thought it was just a TV show!" '
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
28 months
|
The fantasy of travelling any significant distance in space is what keeps NASA funded and is tantamount to a fraud.
These sort of things help their cause in gaining more funds.
Space Travel, of any significance is not possible yet and won't be for a few thousand years at the very least.
I grew up in the era where, as children, we thought it could happen, as I've grown up I've realised it is a complete non-starter and there is no hope for it on the horizon... we ain't boldly going anywhere... not even to our nearest star, Proxima Centauri for at least 30 thousand years and by then the nearest star will be one of the Ross Group!
We're too fragile, we can't survive at much over 1g for sustained periods of time and we' have to accelerate within that strict confine to survive, unless frozen solid [in which we case die!] so for year upon year we'd have to accelerate at approx 12m. per sec/sec until we reached half way then turn the ship around and decelerate at the same rate for the remaining half, each half taking many years... the motors on line all the way! Unless these first star pilots were sacrificial then we'd have to provide resources to get them back again... well their grandchildren anyway, as the people who started the journey would all be long dead by the time this ship returned.
That friends is the reality.
The resource to build a ship that big would bankrupt the earth of resources, some of the rarer ones more than a thousand times over... so there is barely enough resource in our entire solar system to do it!
Some numbers for you...
9,460,730,472,580,800m x 4.2421 = 40,133,364,737,735,011m (distance to our nearest star in metres)
So, half way is about 20,066,682,368,867,000m
Escape velocity / orbital velocity and subsequent start off speed 7000m/sec
Sustained human acceleration rate 12m/sec/sec (this is likely to result in a 40% shorter lifespan for the ship occupants)
|
|
|
rxtx
4,250 posts
80 months
|
Gene Vincent said: The fantasy of travelling any significant distance in space is what keeps NASA funded Is it?
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,692 posts
68 months
|
of course it is!
the Valkyrie is just a steel cables with an engine at both ends weighing in at just 100 tonnes and perfectly able to approach c.
all we need is either a cheap way to get "stuff" into space, or like the other thread, build the facilities to enable us to never need to ship up anything but people.
the money spent by the western governments bailing out the banks could have built us both options.
governments have the money, they just wont spend it... unless its to bail out banks
|
|
|
rxtx
4,250 posts
80 months
|
I thought it was more science and exploration, rather than human expansion amongst the stars, that NASA was funded for.
I'm all for both.
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,998 posts
73 months
|
SystemParanoia said: and for somethnig we could actually build with our current tech level
then i'd go for the Valkyre antimatter starship The anti matter drives too much of a stretch and, to my mind, unnecessary. Project Orion style nuclear pulse propulsion for me. Fairly low tech and it'd work, probably.
|
|
|
hairykrishna
8,998 posts
73 months
|
hairykrishna said: SystemParanoia said: and for somethnig we could actually build with our current tech level
then i'd go for the Valkyre antimatter starship The anti matter drive's too much of a stretch and, to my mind, unnecessary. Project Orion style nuclear pulse propulsion for me. Fairly low tech and it'd work, probably.
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,692 posts
68 months
|
hairykrishna said: SystemParanoia said: and for somethnig we could actually build with our current tech level
then i'd go for the Valkyre antimatter starship The anti matter drives too much of a stretch and, to my mind, unnecessary. Project Orion style nuclear pulse propulsion for me. Fairly low tech and it'd work, probably. i love orion  but due to the eco mentalists, we have no way of getting it into orbit... construction would be a very simple case of welding thick as you like steel together at a shipyard or something. project Daedalus could be done with current tech. we have places in the US doing laser initilised nuclear fusion. they can only do pulses at the moment, but thats all that is needed for the daedalus. 
|
|
|
CBR JGWRR
5,177 posts
19 months
|
Why not just make the Earth move instead?
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,692 posts
68 months
|
CBR JGWRR said: Why not just make the Earth move instead? lol you just reminded me of that cgi cartoon Shadow raiders... thats exactly what they did  
|
|
|
CBR JGWRR
5,177 posts
19 months
|
 But, being serious, if we had a big enough engine...
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,692 posts
68 months
|
CBR JGWRR said:  But, being serious, if we had a big enough engine... technically.. it could work. practically.. no everything in line of sight of the engines will be cooked and irradiated ( and some beyond line of sight as gamma rays are powerful little buggers! ) everything else will get COOOOOOOOLD ! move far enough away from the sun and the atmosphere itself will freeze solid, quickly followed by the Marianas trench ( although key areas around volcanic hot spots will stay liquid. but before all of that.. the dynamics of the molton core and process of stopping the rotation of the planet so i can be navigated will probably rip it apart! example.. spin a raw egg on the counter top. stop it then immediately let go.. you will see it start to spin again! scale this up and you can see bad things will happen!
|
|
|
Gene Vincent
4,002 posts
28 months
|
Tearing the Earth away from its orbit?
The energy required would be a sensational number!
I'll give it a go though...
Mass of the Sun is currently about 2 x 10^30 kg. Mass of Earth = 6 x 10^24 kg. Difference 6 x 10^5 kg (convert to energy) then square it... convert back to mass... 6 x 10^10 kg...
60,000,000,000 tons of mass converted directly to energy. (that's rather a lot)
|
|
|
CBR JGWRR
5,177 posts
19 months
|
|