If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   If you don't want to wait until 2245 for the first USS Enterprise to be built BTE Dan has some good news for you   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 82
    More: Interesting, USS Enterprise, BTE Dan, BTE, Enterprise, Starship Enterprise, motive powers, point of interest, spaceport  
•       •       •

6768 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 May 2012 at 4:23 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-12 01:18:04 PM
Oh, for f***'s sake.
 
2012-05-12 01:32:08 PM
Dreaming nerd is dreaming.
 
2012-05-12 01:39:15 PM
"If someone can convince me that it is not technically possible (ignoring political and funding issues), then I will state on the BuildTheEnterprise site that I have been found to be wrong."

Well, at least he would be willing to admit it.
 
2012-05-12 01:44:14 PM
HEY GUYS! IF WE ALL DONATE $40 WE CAN GATHER UP ENOUGH MONEY FOR 600 SEASONS OF FIREFLY!
 
2012-05-12 02:11:27 PM
Except that the cost of shuttling all those materials into orbit would be insane.
 
2012-05-12 02:17:04 PM
Going to Mars in less than 1/4 impulse? Not feasible with the current ion drive for that payload and I find it doubtful it could make the Kessel run at all.

A ship needs to be engineered for the technology and environment we have instead of a sci fi design that has not been tested or engineered for optimal efficiency. This is highly illogical. I see no further purpose to this discussion.
 
2012-05-12 02:27:43 PM
As any Trek nerd can point out. The first "Star ship" Enterprise will be built in 2151. Almost 100 years before this poorly researched article points out.

Not that I am a Trekky or anything.
 
2012-05-12 02:52:20 PM

chiett: The first "Star ship" Enterprise will be built in 2151



*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*


WRONG

Link
 
2012-05-12 03:43:58 PM
chiett: The first "Star ship" Enterprise will be built in 2151


*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ*


WRONG

Link

Gee, sorry I'm not up on my Star trekky shiat, I used NX-01 as the first "Star ship" Enterprise

Link
 
2012-05-12 04:33:50 PM
Yeah, we economics or funds aren't an issue, anything is possible.

But why would you waste billions, probably trillions of dollars building a fiction spaceship replica in space (which really is a waste of space and design) when you could make that money go so much further with a realistic project.

Save this crap for space tourism in 2150. Let's get a colony on the moon and mars first, and a few trips out around Saturn.
 
2012-05-12 04:47:54 PM
All in all, I think I would prefer a ship based on the Lying Bastard.

Now who knows how to contact General Products?
 
2012-05-12 04:59:19 PM
So all it takes to get a greenlight is to link to lame crap?

Sorry, Big E.
 
2012-05-12 05:05:30 PM
first?

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-12 05:07:06 PM

tomWright: All in all, I think I would prefer a ship based on the Lying Bastard.

Now who knows how to contact General Products?


Maybe the Flatlanders would want to rethink the wing, though. Floating out of the solar system with nothing left but a hyperdrive is no way to go through life, son...
 
2012-05-12 05:08:45 PM

tomWright: All in all, I think I would prefer a ship based on the Lying Bastard.

Now who knows how to contact General Products?


Hell no, the Lying bastard is a *horrible* ship design. "let's put all our drive and defensive systems outside our otherwise invulnerable hull" shouldn't sound like a design plan to a four year old. Now hand me that Hot Needle of Inquiry so we can get to work on the articles author this plan.
 
2012-05-12 05:10:55 PM
www.firstshowing.net

Go big or go home... Maybe we could send some kind of specialized ship out into space to process asteroids into the base materials. Just built the whole thing in space.
 
2012-05-12 05:12:12 PM

Baron Harkonnen: Oh, for f***'s sake.


THIS
 
2012-05-12 05:13:05 PM
Let's get Richard Branson and James Cameron together to fund this thing!
 
2012-05-12 05:13:50 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: first?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x363]


My thought as well, and exploring Wikipedia, there were previous "USS Enterprise" ships. The earliest seems to be 1775.
 
2012-05-12 05:26:29 PM

Shostie: HEY GUYS! IF WE ALL DONATE $40 WE CAN GATHER UP ENOUGH MONEY FOR 600 SEASONS OF FIREFLY!


i586.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-12 05:32:27 PM

TyrantII: Yeah, we economics or funds aren't an issue, anything is possible.


Like a war on drugs and $22 million NBA salaries. Total pipedream. What kind of idiot would imagine that money could be found for this?

And designing large ships and architecture based on classic mythology and romanticism! God, it's not like the whole history of the USA was started by such shipbuilding and engineering cultures.

This whole thread is full of blithering farking idiots and dickbags who are not paying attention to their national budget or priorities. If you can spend billions of dollars on Hollywood movies you can spend billions of dollars on this.
 
2012-05-12 05:37:54 PM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7102280/76828659#c76828659" target="_blank">Ow! That was my feelings!</a>:</b> <i>first?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x363]</i>

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Enterpri seTripoli.jpg/640px-EnterpriseTripoli.jpg" width="640" height="362">

USS Enterprise circa <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%281799%29" target="_blank">1779</a>
 
2012-05-12 05:39:38 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: first?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 300x363]


upload.wikimedia.org


USS Enterprise circa 1779

// sorry about previous post
 
2012-05-12 05:39:45 PM

TyrantII: Yeah, we economics or funds aren't an issue, anything is possible.

But why would you waste billions, probably trillions of dollars building a fiction spaceship replica in space (which really is a waste of space and design) when you could make that money go so much further with a realistic project.

Save this crap for space tourism in 2150. Let's get a colony on the moon and mars first, and a few trips out around Saturn.


A. The Enterprise design is actually quite functional and not a waste of space (with a few adjustments)

B. Whats the harm in dreaming big? Why not build an enterprise? We could endlessly debate the overall design of a thing and never actually build it and never go anywhere. Or we can get it (or something similar) built and learn from that project on what to change in Gen 2.

/the journey of a thousand parsec's starts with a single step....er thrust?
 
2012-05-12 05:44:15 PM

Kimpak: TyrantII: Yeah, we economics or funds aren't an issue, anything is possible.

But why would you waste billions, probably trillions of dollars building a fiction spaceship replica in space (which really is a waste of space and design) when you could make that money go so much further with a realistic project.

Save this crap for space tourism in 2150. Let's get a colony on the moon and mars first, and a few trips out around Saturn.

A. The Enterprise design is actually quite functional and not a waste of space (with a few adjustments)

B. Whats the harm in dreaming big? Why not build an enterprise? We could endlessly debate the overall design of a thing and never actually build it and never go anywhere. Or we can get it (or something similar) built and learn from that project on what to change in Gen 2.

/the journey of a thousand parsec's starts with a single step....er thrust?


The problem is it would be the equivelent of a Cargo Cult spaceship.

I agree we should start with orbital, Lagrange Point and lunar colonies and settlements first, using whatever slow boats we can build. The technology will improve, if it is improvable, as we use it.

don't try to jump to a 747 when you haven't got past the bi-plane stage.
 
2012-05-12 05:46:10 PM
This is the only movie spaceship I want to ride on see get built:

i42.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-12 05:46:24 PM

Bennie Crabtree: you can spend billions of dollars on this.


Billions? Now who's the blithering idiot? The Space Shuttle Endeavor cost over $2 billion, and it was made from spare parts. This guy is ballparking $1 trillion. My own experience suggests this is wildly optimistic. Just ask the people who tried to build nuclear power plants in the late 1970s about out of control cost escalation. This guy is probably off by a factor of 10.
 
2012-05-12 05:49:17 PM

tomWright: Kimpak: TyrantII: Yeah, we economics or funds aren't an issue, anything is possible.

But why would you waste billions, probably trillions of dollars building a fiction spaceship replica in space (which really is a waste of space and design) when you could make that money go so much further with a realistic project.

Save this crap for space tourism in 2150. Let's get a colony on the moon and mars first, and a few trips out around Saturn.

A. The Enterprise design is actually quite functional and not a waste of space (with a few adjustments)

B. Whats the harm in dreaming big? Why not build an enterprise? We could endlessly debate the overall design of a thing and never actually build it and never go anywhere. Or we can get it (or something similar) built and learn from that project on what to change in Gen 2.

/the journey of a thousand parsec's starts with a single step....er thrust?

The problem is it would be the equivelent of a Cargo Cult spaceship.

I agree we should start with orbital, Lagrange Point and lunar colonies and settlements first, using whatever slow boats we can build. The technology will improve, if it is improvable, as we use it.

don't try to jump to a 747 when you haven't got past the bi-plane stage.


Well then, prove the guy's math and engineering wrong and he will admit defeat. Maybe he has the plans for that 747. His site seems to be farked so I can't read anything from it.
 
2012-05-12 06:09:24 PM
Meanwhile, SpaceX and Bigelow announced a couple of days ago that they're forming a partnership to launch and taxi to private space stations within the next 5 years.

The launch for the ISS rendezvous is next week, too.
 
2012-05-12 06:10:56 PM
Can someone help me with my math?

This guy's website says an estimate 187 million pounds for the weight.

A little brief searching has a wide range in costs for getting material into space, but $10,000/pound seems about right. One website has $4000/pound for low earth orbit.

187 million pounds times $10,000/pound is $1.87 trillion just to get the material into space using existing technology. That doesn't include design, construction or assembly. The lower cost of $4000/pound is still $784 billion, again, just for transport.

Did I miss something? Is he building a space elevator as part of this?
 
2012-05-12 06:11:14 PM
msnbcmedia4.msn.com

So, the whole back part is just for show?

could probably save a couple bucks not adding engines that don't work.

or the lower sections.
 
2012-05-12 06:22:54 PM

Kimpak:
don't try to jump to a 747 when you haven't got past the bi-plane stage.

Well then, prove the guy's math and engineering wrong and he will admit defeat. Maybe he has the plans for that 747. His site seems to be farked so I can't read anything from it.


I think he needs to prove he is right, and attract private investors. Heck he could be completely right, just financially impractical. Or he could be a visionary. Not for me to prove or disprove.

I just think building a cruise ship before you have a destination to cruise to is jumping the gun a bit.

Lets get some destinations built out there first.
 
2012-05-12 06:32:41 PM
I think the world should collectively say "fark it" and throw a few trillion at this crazy guy and see what he does...

/I am betting he redirects the funds to build a supervilian volcano fortress lair with a crocodile moat and nuclear weapons...
 
2012-05-12 06:35:31 PM
Where's the Kickstarter page for it?
 
2012-05-12 06:46:04 PM
Ehh... if you have constant thrust you don't need a Von Braun wheel.

I don't know if a Von Braun wheel and constant thrust would even work together. You'd have a tilt to the artificial gravity.

If you want to build a ship with constant thrust that can launch and receive smaller space craft I think you need to look at the USS Enterprise (CVN 65). Constant thrust while launching and recovering aircraft, nuclear powered, air tight compartments.

You'd wind up with something like the JMC Red Dwarf, Spaceball 1, maybe the BSG ships (I never actually watched that show).

I always thought Roddenberry's design seemed more artful than functional.
 
2012-05-12 06:47:08 PM

tomWright: Kimpak:
don't try to jump to a 747 when you haven't got past the bi-plane stage.

Well then, prove the guy's math and engineering wrong and he will admit defeat. Maybe he has the plans for that 747. His site seems to be farked so I can't read anything from it.

I think he needs to prove he is right, and attract private investors. Heck he could be completely right, just financially impractical. Or he could be a visionary. Not for me to prove or disprove.

I just think building a cruise ship before you have a destination to cruise to is jumping the gun a bit.

Lets get some destinations built out there first.


The destinations were outlined in the news article. First it would be an orbiting space station/spaceport . Then missions to mars, Europa, other solar system destinations.
 
2012-05-12 06:48:27 PM
tomWright:

I agree we should start with orbital, Lagrange Point and lunar colonies and settlements first, using whatever slow boats we can build. The technology will improve, if it is improvable, as we use it.

don't try to jump to a 747 when you haven't got past the bi-plane stage.


This.

Now don't get me wrong, she's a fine (fictional) ship. But she's about as functional in our reality as a yugo.

Unless we're going to be developing deflector shields, ablative hull plating, and a multitude of other fictional technologies. Right off the bat there's no reason for the nacelles and pylons, and even if they were converted to ion drive engines, you're going to run into a lot of engineering problems trying to push a ship on those stilts. That's on top of being a waste of space, materials, and not tailored to our intra-planetary needs.

I'd rather someone fund, and paramount to approve, of that damn life sized replica in Vegas and turn it into a combination Trek / Spaceflight museum. That's money well spent.

Especially cause we could then make a fleet of spaceships and colonies for what it cost to make this damn thing. A fleet that in all likelyhood would look something more like Andrew Proberts XCV 330 Enterprise, which would more functional.

Even in Trek, they didn't jump from Nuclear War to the mile long, trans-universe Enterprise J in years.

/Time travel paradoxes non withstanding
 
2012-05-12 06:49:50 PM
XCV-330: http://images.wikia.com/startrek/images/b/b2/Enterprise_XCV-330.jpg btw.

A fine ship that's a little more realistic to base a current planetary star ship off of.
 
2012-05-12 06:55:19 PM
StingerJ: Can someone help me with my math?

This guy's website says an estimate 187 million pounds for the weight.

A little brief searching has a wide range in costs for getting material into space, but $10,000/pound seems about right. One website has $4000/pound for low earth orbit.

187 million pounds times $10,000/pound is $1.87 trillion just to get the material into space using existing technology. That doesn't include design, construction or assembly. The lower cost of $4000/pound is still $784 billion, again, just for transport.

Did I miss something? Is he building a space elevator as part of this?


Maybe he's assuming James Cameron's operation is already up and running now, and not 30 years from now as it is scheduled? Plus then there's the pesky fact that we don't have ore and steel refineries in space, let alone high precision micro gravity fabrication plants.

We're still working on, and only starting to, find ways to mine asteroids for oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen; and put them into easy to reach orbits. We got a long way to go, and multiple steps to take, to make this feasible.
 
2012-05-12 06:58:41 PM

Kimpak: tomWright: Kimpak:
don't try to jump to a 747 when you haven't got past the bi-plane stage.

Well then, prove the guy's math and engineering wrong and he will admit defeat. Maybe he has the plans for that 747. His site seems to be farked so I can't read anything from it.

I think he needs to prove he is right, and attract private investors. Heck he could be completely right, just financially impractical. Or he could be a visionary. Not for me to prove or disprove.

I just think building a cruise ship before you have a destination to cruise to is jumping the gun a bit.

Lets get some destinations built out there first.

The destinations were outlined in the news article. First it would be an orbiting space station/spaceport . Then missions to mars, Europa, other solar system destinations.


While i think a complete Enterprise design is a bit silly, I like the idea overall, but I disagree with his assessments of destinations. I would think the best first things that ship should do is 'eco-tourism' to other planets moon systems while towing a chain of self-sufficient small base stations for deposit in orbits around planets and/or moons. Not necessarily all in one trip, mind you. You'd get billionaires with money to spend to be the first to look out at something with human eyes instead of cameras (can you imagine the great red spot - holy crap, that would be awesome) - er, where was I... oh yeah, billionaires paying to see that and thus helping fund more trips/stations etc. Even if the stations were the equivalent of small hunting cabins - they'd be a place for permanent (if automated) research stations.

Forget the Enterprise design. Do all the same missions, plus above, and call it it an Enterprise. Cuz it sure as hell would be, and would be all sorts of friggin' awesome.

Well, at least if that Ion drive can do what is claimed. I've heard good things, but I've never seen any real specs given for a mission like this. Hope it's feasible at least in theory. We can hammer theory into practice with effort.

And don't cut social spending for this. Assign a good portion of the Pentagon budget and personnel into getting this shiat done. NASA guides, Pentagon pushes. Nobody loses jobs, and the politics of defense spending is mitigated... at least a little. Just get someone trustworthy and 'untouchable' to keep an eye on the contractors and the quality of their materials and workmanship. NASA understands this, Pentagon... not so much, i think.
 
2012-05-12 06:59:56 PM
Stuff like this is why Trekkies are the most insufferable sci-fi fans.

At least Browncoats only just want their TV show back, and when Star Wars fans build their own X-Wings, it only gets one person killed.
 
X15
2012-05-12 07:17:10 PM

StingerJ: Can someone help me with my math?

This guy's website says an estimate 187 million pounds for the weight.

A little brief searching has a wide range in costs for getting material into space, but $10,000/pound seems about right. One website has $4000/pound for low earth orbit.

187 million pounds times $10,000/pound is $1.87 trillion just to get the material into space using existing technology. That doesn't include design, construction or assembly. The lower cost of $4000/pound is still $784 billion, again, just for transport.

Did I miss something? Is he building a space elevator as part of this?


SpaceX is currently offering their Falcon Heavy for ~$1,000 a pound to LEO.

Regardless of if SpaceX actually pulls it off or not, prices would go way down due to the massive economies of scale created by this guys project.
 
2012-05-12 08:01:23 PM
Libtards would never allow such a ship to be built. The rules and regulations would be too burdensome too get the thing off the ground and they need working peoples cash to buy votes not silly science projects.
 
2012-05-12 08:02:40 PM
aliens
 
2012-05-12 08:10:43 PM
did he at least remember to include a shiatter?
 
2012-05-12 08:12:35 PM

tomWright: All in all, I think I would prefer a ship based on the Lying Bastard.

Now who knows how to contact General Products?


Well, if we check around pluto we may find some outsiders
 
2012-05-12 08:23:53 PM
With the rotating section or centrifuge; it seems to be more analogous to the "Discovery 1" in the Movie "2001". Also nuclear powered with an Ionized exhaust.

They'd do better to make an actual fusion reactor; which hasn't been done yet >.

Further; I don't see any need to, ever, journey to Mars. It is just another gravity well. This ship could not land there, and any landing craft would have to muscle their way back up to the ship? Be awesome if there were extra solar originated ruins on Mars (archeological reasons) but that's another movie. ;-)

They'd do better going to the asteroids, easier access; easier minerals.
 
2012-05-12 09:27:45 PM

tomWright: All in all, I think I would prefer a ship based on the Lying Bastard.

Now who knows how to contact General Products?


They're currently known as Monsanto and Dow Chemical. They merge down the road.
 
2012-05-12 09:48:42 PM
It wouldn't be the first space ship named Enterprise:

oi45.tinypic.com

/Ya, ya, I know. It was still a space ship.
 
2012-05-12 10:06:52 PM
That's about the dumbest damned thing I ever read.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report