The Space thread

[Ryan Timothy B]

Wouldn't that be cool to have a real Enterprise in 20 years? Definitely.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-05/build-real-starship-enterprise-make-it-so-ambitious-engineer-says?cmpid=tw

Of course I believe it'll never happen. The shape in itself isn't exactly ideal for space travel. The gravity wheel seems like a large waste of space. But it's definitely cool to think about.

Now maybe in 200 years I could see something resembling what he plans but we're too young and inexperienced. Perhaps with a space elevator, but even that isn't possible even within 20 years.

[blueskirt]

Shouldn't we build a space port first or something? I was and still am under the impression the Enterprise was built in space to avoid having to escape earth's gravity and atmosphere. And yeah, it's never going to happen. There's plenty of cheaper and better spaceship design out there, choosing the cool factor over every other rational and logical reasons not to pick that design is rather stupid.

[Darth Mandarb]

This will never come to pass.  However I don't think it's a waste of time as initiatives like this can often lead to interest in similar projects.  And we (humans) NEED to get back to space exploration... it's tragic that humans haven't left low-earth orbit since 1972.  Pathetic really.

[Ryan Timothy B]

If any type of space port were to be created to create any type of ship, I believe that mining asteroids should be the cheapest method for us.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/apr/24/mining-asteroids-on-moon-precious-metals

Things would still need to be brought up from earth. Food, electronics, tools, etc. You can't start processing materials until you have the machines to do so.
All in all I find the asteroid mining possibility the most exciting.

[Darth Mandarb]

Yeah I read that article last week.  Seriously cool stuff!  I was wondering about this very subject the other day 'cause I watched Star Trek (2009) and it showed the Enterprise being built on Earth and I wondered about that.  If the majority of the materials used were mined on Earth it would make sense to build it on the planet... I just wonder how they got it off the planet... can large starships (in the Star Trek universe) fly in planetary atmospheres?

I love the concept of "lassoing" asteroids and mining them.  So cool.  Granted if the lasso broke we could destroy the planet so they'd have to build the corral a safe distance from mother-earth

[selmiak]

this reminds of of the image of the chinese space station traveling past the sun
clicky
maybe the first person on mars will be chinese. You hear that rest of the world?!
And judging from their population rate and being used to living in small spaces they could manage to send generation spaceships even deeper into space.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Well...in the Star Trek mythos, the original USS Enterprise was constructed, piece by piece, at the San Francisco Naval Yard and then transported into space for assembly, so, at least in theory, having a large construction like the Enterprise is within the realm of science fact.  Right now, though, we're dealing with extremely inefficient rocket fuel systems that could not propel the massive pieces into space to even assemble, not to mention someone rightly noticed that we don't even have the space infrastructure (a dock, or base).  20 years is a completely impossible goal, though, and even though he's reduced the scale a bit the design is still way too ambitious (960 meters!).

Another odd thing is he refers to it as the First Generation Enterprise repeatedly, so why is he using the 1701-A advanced design instead of the vintage 1701?  The 1701 seems to me like it would be the easier of the two based on my engineering experience.

Still, if the world wasn't in such economic chaos and countries were more interested in exploration than intrigue and in-fighting, it would be pretty cool to see something like this come together.

[Disco]

Surely there have got to be slightly more practical ships to build than the Enterprise at this point in our history. May I suggest a Firefly vessel such as Serenity as an alternative?

The ship is 269 feet (82 m) long, 170 feet (52 m) at its widest point, and stands 79 feet (24 m) high when landed. Serenity weighs 282,500 pounds (128,100 kg), is capable of carrying 164,900 pounds (74,800 kg) of cargo and 18 passengers, can achieve an acceleration of 4.2 g, and has a maximum range of 440 astronomical units when carrying minimal cargo.

Disregarding the mechanical and computer bits (or interior decoration), the current cost of 282,500 lbs of aerospace-grade titanium is about $11,300,000. This is close to the amount that the Emirates Palace hotel in Abu Dhabi spent on a Christmas tree in 2010.

Labor costs would be a bitch, And the rest of the components like engines and turbines would cost many times more, but probably not nearly as much as the First Generation Enterprise.

[Ryan Timothy B]

You know what I've only watched a couple episodes of that tv show and the movie. So I'm downloading it right now. The tv show was interesting as all hell when I saw it, I have no idea why I didn't get into it. It's a little late, but I'm going to now.

Another amazing leap in space exploration is the SpaceX commercial rocket that launched today, to rendezvous with the ISS dropping off food, clothing and scientific instruments.

[Eric]

Aw man, I was waiting to watch that one live when they scrubbed the launch the last time. I didn't know they'd rescheduled.

[Armageddon]

Not sure if relevant, but I just got done making a semi-coherent space style sheet for a game I'm working on.

[Anian]

1st I really can't take seriously a project that actually uses ST as a blueprint and I'm talking about being inspired by ST, plenty of good things have come from that, but to basically recreate it is just silly. Also this is not really a project, because saying that you want a 100 billion dollars and that you need 9 years for invention and prototyping and then you're going to finish in 20 years is an estimate based on no data. Many of things in ST are very borderline psychically possible as far as we know now (teleport, energy shields, powerful lasers and then even warp engines swapped for nuclear power). Other concepts are just impractical and even dated by today's technology, starting from the design of a ship. I'd even given more credit to it if they said they're going to make a 2001 Space Odyssey ship.

2nd Armageddon, so is it retro future or semirealistic/Space Odyssey or near future or pure sf, I can't tell from all the variations of themes you put together. That'll help you flesh out the setting and the story.

[Armageddon]

The further out from the top left corner it becomes more of a color and style reference, I'm trying to keep it near-future 2001 realistic.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Bonus points for the GunStar.


I pretty much agree with the consensus so far that it would be smarter to build something more realistic for our current technical capabilities than dump a trillion dollars into a zero-g equivalent to the Spruce Goose.

[Darth Mandarb]

I only quickly read the article but I have a suspicion that the author's intent wasn't so much to actually build an Enterprise...

I suspect his actual intent was to spark some interest in the concept of building "spaceships".  He is smart and realizes that we (humans) NEED to be in space... not the low-earth orbit bullshit we've been stuck with since 1972.  So he whips up some plans saying how it's feasible to build the enterprise and suddenly people take notice of space exploration again.

In that light, I think he was successful 'cause here we all are talking about the "realistic" side of his concept.

[Ryan Timothy B]

I also suspect this was his intention as well. No one would be talking about it as much as they have been if all he said was "I propose to build a large spacecraft that houses a nuclear reactor and uses ion propulsion". Nah. It wouldn't have been as popular. Add Star Trek to the design and you've got yourself an exciting conversation and hopes for a promising future.

I agree with Darth that in the past 40 years we should have sent more humans to space beyond the low-earth orbit we're doing. The biggest reason we haven't is they want to return a hero. Every design is to have someone return back to earth instead of living out their lives on the moon or mars.

I want something beyond satellite and ISS related stuff to be done, whether it's asteroid mining, going to the moon or mars, a space elevator, etc, I'd be happy. It's a lonely existence when you start to think about how slow we're evolving in our space flight.

Not sure if I'm correct on this but I believe I read once that a space elevator, if we could manage to build one, would actually slow the planet down ever so gradually? Like how I also read that every few years earth slows down by a single second just because of the moon.

The moment someone creates some kind of cheap electric propellent to send crafts into space, that'll be the most exciting thing to happen to space travel. Whether it's a laser system that launches crafts into space, some kind of electrical propulsion (anti gravity?) or whatever other option. As long as it's cheaper than sending something up by rocket fuel.

[TomatoesInTheHead]

I also suspect this was his intention as well. No one would be talking about it as much as they have been if all he said was "I propose to build a large spacecraft that houses a nuclear reactor and uses ion propulsion". Nah. It wouldn't have been as popular. Add Star Trek to the design and you've got yourself an exciting conversation and hopes for a promising future.

Yes, in fact he wrote a blog post about this:

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/alternative-ships-wont-work

It doesn’t matter if the Enterprise is not the perfect form for building a large interplanetary spaceship â€" it only has to be good enough. And it is good enough.

So just like how this website can stir public interest by contemplating the building of a real Enterprise ship â€" the US space program should do the same thing. Try building a ship like at the top of this post instead, and the broader public will yawn and it will never get funded.

[Snarky]

It's a lonely existence when you start to think about how slow we're evolving in our space flight.

I think that's a pretty shortsighted perspective. We've been around for about 200,000 years. We've been in space for about 55, only a fraction of a lifetime. I mean, my dad can remember Sputnik. Now we're driving rovers on Mars and sending probes to the outer reaches of our solar system. Why would we expect to have, I don't know, colonies on other planets within a few years of sending up our first satellite?

He is smart and realizes that we (humans) NEED to be in space... not the low-earth orbit bullshit we've been stuck with since 1972.

Do we really? Why? I have a hard time thinking of a problem that isn't easier to solve on Earth than in space.

[Ryan Timothy B]

It's because I dream of a future resembling that of Star Trek. Only because I worry we'll die here on this planet and that will be our sad existence. I want to see us starting to move beyond that mountain in the horizon (space) and spreading out. Not too far fetched though, I'm completely fine with us never leaving our solar system for the next millennium.

I agree we're advancing in our space technology, but it certainly hasn't been as fast as the computer evolution. But now that we have corporations looking into space ventures, it should likely increase much faster.

One thing I've always hoped we'd increase significantly is power consumption vs recharging - which is one thing the computer evolution is helping with. Mobile phones, laptops, etc. Things like solar panels seem quite large and heavy for what they power.

To sum it up, Snarky, I basically meant I just want to see a colony on the moon or mars before I'm dead. Even if it's only 2 people. Stuff like vegetation and water recycling. It would be very cool if there were cameras on it that would stream 24/7 - inside and outside. Do they even have that on the ISS?

[Snarky]

It's because I dream of a future resembling that of Star Trek. Only because I worry we'll die here on this planet and that will be our sad existence. I want to see us starting to move beyond that mountain in the horizon (space) and spreading out. Not too far fetched though, I'm completely fine with us never leaving our solar system for the next millennium.

That's what I mean though. What could possibly happen that would make it harder to survive on Earth than on (let's say) Mars, and which wouldn't be easier to stop from happening than it would be to set up a self-sustaining colony on another planet? I mean, even after a nuclear war, or if we're hit by a giant meteor (which again, would almost certainly be easier to nudge off-course than it would be to set up bases on other planets), or basically anything you can imagine, Earth is still going to be orders of magnitude more hospitable than any other place in the solar system. Or if we're worried about some disease wiping us all out, it would be easier to set up totally isolated bases in deep underground caves than it would be to settle Mars.

And when the sun swells up or does whatever it is it will end up doing, millions of years from now, the rest of the solar system is pretty much just as screwed as Earth is.

I understand the sentimental appeal, but rationally I don't think there are good reasons why we should try to get people off Earth.