How to reinvent the Enterprise. Now with pictures!

[SpaceMouse]

Hello all. Ever since the announcement that the math behind a warp drive is semi-plausible, And NASA's own (very optimistic) concept released, I've wanted to essentially reinvent the ship (or perhaps the concept of the series) In a more realistic fashion. The concepts in the show redone in a way that could be done now or in the near future. (Obviously the ability to create a space-warp is assumed) Perhaps without fundamentally changing the ship too much, but that's not set in stone. Wanting to incorporate things like a warp ring, a centrifuge for 'gravity' and semi long-term habitation A semi sustaining ship. likely incorporating a greenhouse. Mostly Self-sustaining and ISRU is assumed. Capacity to land on planets (Without fancy beaming). This would likely require one or multiple SSTO's attached. A primary drive capable of significant deltaV changes (likely using some form of nuclear rocket, or perhaps a EM drive variant. A large scientific capacity. This ship would likely be designed for a fraction of the Enterprise's crew in the show. Otherwise all these things would grow exponentially rather quickly.
Now i realize there are concepts here that are not totally set in stone. Such as the warp drive and EM drive.

I want to use this as a project to get myself back into 3D modeling and perhaps programming. Eventually I'd like to make a parts pack but that's not set in stone. Not yet at least. I'm curious as to peoples thoughts on this.

While i have had a interest in science and science fiction and the universe as a whole my whole life most of my knowledge is limited to documentaries wiki and KSP. Go easy on me.

Edited February 8, 2017 by SpaceMouse

[WestAir]

A realistic ST series would be focused on the lavish lifestyle of the guy who discovers and mass produces negative mass.

The season finale will end when he removes his virtual reality helmet snd returns to his real life writing science fiction novels. XD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill Phil]

Go with Vulcan designs, but also use the negative mass ring for a centrifuge, if at all possible.

[sevenperforce]

Unless, of course, you can use the negative mass ring to generate artificial gravity.

[SpaceMouse]

I've had that thought before. If you can generate negative mass, wouldn't you fall up in a gravity field? 

Edited February 24, 2016 by SpaceMouse

[andrewas]

Yes, but I think the gradient from a warp drive is too sharp to use like that. You have a large flat region with no apparent gravity, surrounded by a region that goes from 'weightless' to 'spaghettification' before you can say 'hey, don't touch that!'

Edited February 24, 2016 by andrewas

[SpaceMouse]

Also,  i was intending to semi- integrate the centrifuge with the warp ring, but i wanted to keep them slightly separate to keep them modular for maintenance,  etc.

Assuming fusion is a thing,  isn't engine efficiency more or less limited by the metal it's contained in? I would assume if we can separate the reaction from the chamber,  the isp and thus fuel needed would be orders of magnitude better than what we can do today? 

[PB666]

14 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

Hello all. Ever since the announcement that the math behind a warp drive is semi-plausible, And NASA's own (very optimistic) concept released, I've wanted to essentially reinvent the ship (or perhaps the concept of the series) In a more realistic fashion. The concepts in the show redone in a way that could be done now or in the near future. (Obviously the ability to create a space-warp is assumed) Perhaps without fundamentally changing the ship too much, but that's not set in stone. Wanting to incorporate things like a warp ring, a centrifuge for 'gravity' and semi long-term habitation A semi sustaining ship. likely incorporating a greenhouse. Mostly Self-sustaining and ISRU is assumed. Capacity to land on planets (Without fancy beaming). This would likely require one or multiple SSTO's attached. A primary drive capable of significant deltaV changes (likely using some form of nuclear rocket, or perhaps a EM drive variant. A large scientific capacity. This ship would likely be designed for a fraction of the Enterprise's crew in the show. Otherwise all these things would grow exponentially rather quickly.
Now i realize there are concepts here that are not totally set in stone. Such as the warp drive and EM drive.

I want to use this as a project to get myself back into 3D modeling and perhaps programming. Eventually I'd like to make a parts pack but that's not set in stone. Not yet at least. I'm curious as to peoples thoughts on this.

While i have had a interest in science and science fiction and the universe as a whole my whole life most of my knowledge is limited to documentaries wiki and KSP. Go easy on me.

If you are talking about Star Treks enterprise, love the show, but the ship, not realistic. The Nacelles should have been opposed not like a v, if it was making a warp field then the generartors should have been in front or back. Its not even balanced from an impulse point of view. Somehow I wish star trek would dispose of that design and make a more intelligent one.

 

[SpaceMouse]

While there are definite similarities to the enterprise series,  it takes no direct inspiration from it. Although there will probably be a passing resemblance to the Vulcan ships. I have already put thought into balancing this. All the enterprises have been pretty notoriously unbalanced anyway. 

Edited February 24, 2016 by SpaceMouse

[fredinno]

21 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

Hello all. Ever since the announcement that the math behind a warp drive is semi-plausible, And NASA's own (very optimistic) concept released, I've wanted to essentially reinvent the ship (or perhaps the concept of the series) In a more realistic fashion. The concepts in the show redone in a way that could be done now or in the near future. (Obviously the ability to create a space-warp is assumed) Perhaps without fundamentally changing the ship too much, but that's not set in stone. Wanting to incorporate things like a warp ring, a centrifuge for 'gravity' and semi long-term habitation A semi sustaining ship. likely incorporating a greenhouse. Mostly Self-sustaining and ISRU is assumed. Capacity to land on planets (Without fancy beaming). This would likely require one or multiple SSTO's attached. A primary drive capable of significant deltaV changes (likely using some form of nuclear rocket, or perhaps a EM drive variant. A large scientific capacity. This ship would likely be designed for a fraction of the Enterprise's crew in the show. Otherwise all these things would grow exponentially rather quickly.
Now i realize there are concepts here that are not totally set in stone. Such as the warp drive and EM drive.

I want to use this as a project to get myself back into 3D modeling and perhaps programming. Eventually I'd like to make a parts pack but that's not set in stone. Not yet at least. I'm curious as to peoples thoughts on this.

While i have had a interest in science and science fiction and the universe as a whole my whole life most of my knowledge is limited to documentaries wiki and KSP. Go easy on me.

What's the point? Star Trek is soft scifi- so redesigning something that has little basis in reality might as well just be making an entirely new ship using warp drives.

[sevenperforce]

Not superluminal, but damn if it ain't pretty.

Of course I'm always also a sucker for the fastest ship in the 'verse.

[SpaceMouse]

A very interesting read! I was toying with the idea of going with a more conventional saucer layout for the whole ship, although i didn't have any plans to drag the whole thing up and down. Admittedly any realistic SSTO would probably take up a significant portion of the ship though. Back on the subject of negative mass though briefly, if this matter has to be generated anyway, wouldn't holding it in some fashion negate gravity? Even if your not funneling it into a giant bubble?

I've had a few thoughts addressing radiation i hadn't gotten to yet. One of the simplest ones is just to sit behind a planet geostationary to use it as a shield. There are the other ones that have been discussed, using water, or fuel as you suggested. I also felt Hydrogen might be ideal fuel. I've read some talk of using magnets to replicate the magnetic field of a planet. It was mentioned it hasn't been tested because of the size and weight of hauling it up to space. but if you can get this ship up there to begin with... I've also had the thought if we can contain things with magnetic fields than a artificial atmosphere wouldn't be impossible. This might have the amusing side effect of being able to go for a float around the immediate vicinity of the spaceship without a spacesuit.

I must be the only SciFi nerd that hasn't finished Firefly.

Edited February 25, 2016 by SpaceMouse

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, SpaceMouse said:

A very interesting read! I was toying with the idea of going with a more conventional saucer layout for the whole ship, although i didn't have any plans to drag the whole thing up and down. Admittedly any realistic SSTO would probably take up a significant portion of the ship though. 

Well, it does; most of the volume of any SSTO is tankage.

[fredinno]

18 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

A very interesting read! I was toying with the idea of going with a more conventional saucer layout for the whole ship, although i didn't have any plans to drag the whole thing up and down. Admittedly any realistic SSTO would probably take up a significant portion of the ship though. Back on the subject of negative mass though briefly, if this matter has to be generated anyway, wouldn't holding it in some fashion negate gravity? Even if your not funneling it into a giant bubble?

I've had a few thoughts addressing radiation i hadn't gotten to yet. One of the simplest ones is just to sit behind a planet geostationary to use it as a shield. There are the other ones that have been discussed, using water, or fuel as you suggested. I also felt Hydrogen might be ideal fuel. I've read some talk of using magnets to replicate the magnetic field of a planet. It was mentioned it hasn't been tested because of the size and weight of hauling it up to space. but if you can get this ship up there to begin with... I've also had the thought if we can contain things with magnetic fields than a artificial atmosphere wouldn't be impossible. This might have the amusing side effect of being able to go for a float around the immediate vicinity of the spaceship without a spacesuit.

I must be the only SciFi nerd that hasn't finished Firefly.

Yeah, being in GEO isn't going to help because solar wind hits a spacecraft in all directions, not just out, due to the solar mag. field.

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

19 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

I've had a few thoughts addressing radiation i hadn't gotten to yet. One of the simplest ones is just to sit behind a planet geostationary to use it as a shield. There are the other ones that have been discussed, using water, or fuel as you suggested. I also felt Hydrogen might be ideal fuel. I've read some talk of using magnets to replicate the magnetic field of a planet. It was mentioned it hasn't been tested because of the size and weight of hauling it up to space. but if you can get this ship up there to begin with... I've also had the thought if we can contain things with magnetic fields than a artificial atmosphere wouldn't be impossible. This might have the amusing side effect of being able to go for a float around the immediate vicinity of the spaceship without a spacesuit.

Yeah, being in GEO isn't going to help because solar wind hits a spacecraft in all directions, not just out, due to the solar mag. field.

More importantly, "geostationary" isn't stationary. It's geostationary. You're still orbiting; you just happen to be orbiting with the same period as the planet, so the planet keeps the same face to you all the time. With Earth, a geostationary orbit is an orbit with a period of 24 hours approximately 6.6 Earth radii away, meaning you're in Earth's "shadow" only 10% of the orbit, or about 140 minutes each day. If you want to use Earth as a shield for part of the time, then stick to LEO, where you are in Earth's shadow for almost half of each orbit.

[Bill Phil]

17 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

More importantly, "geostationary" isn't stationary. It's geostationary. You're still orbiting; you just happen to be orbiting with the same period as the planet, so the planet keeps the same face to you all the time. With Earth, a geostationary orbit is an orbit with a period of 24 hours approximately 6.6 Earth radii away, meaning you're in Earth's "shadow" only 10% of the orbit, or about 140 minutes each day. If you want to use Earth as a shield for part of the time, then stick to LEO, where you are in Earth's shadow for almost half of each orbit.

What about SEL-2?

[sevenperforce]

20 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

What about SEL-2?

Hmm, good question. I don't know whether the Lissajous orbit around L₂ would keep a spacecraft in Earth's shadow or not.

[SpaceMouse]

I know geostationary isn't really stationary,  knew that idea had some flaws.

[fredinno]

13 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

What about SEL-2?

probably, but some light would still pass around the earth sue to SEL-2 being pretty far from Earth.

[Bill Phil]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

probably, but some light would still pass around the earth sue to SEL-2 being pretty far from Earth.

Well it won't be completely dark, that's for sure. But we need more than that to really find out.

[sevenperforce]

Perhaps more critically, SEL2 is not actually stable. You either have to sit still with constant station-keeping, or you have to stay in a kidney-bean-shaped orbit that takes you above and below the ecliptic, exposing you to sunlight for most of the time.

[fredinno]

On February 27, 2016 at 8:29 AM, sevenperforce said:

Perhaps more critically, SEL2 is not actually stable. You either have to sit still with constant station-keeping, or you have to stay in a kidney-bean-shaped orbit that takes you above and below the ecliptic, exposing you to sunlight for most of the time.

Well, I think a spacecraft can do constant station-keeping, it can't be that much delta-V?

[sevenperforce]

14 hours ago, fredinno said:

Well, I think a spacecraft can do constant station-keeping, it can't be that much delta-V?

Fair enough.

[SpaceMouse]

Alright. I'm gonna be that guy that resurrects a dead thread but its my own so i think its ok.
I also brought pictures. Please excuse the crudeness, i was doing a basic layout. Feel free to criticize Everything from a scientific and artistic standpoint

I'd sort of like to start by cutting the bottom and top 1/4 out of the warp rings or, no go because science?

Edited February 8, 2017 by SpaceMouse

[Nibb31]

Star Trek has never been about Science Fiction. It's fantasy in a futuristic setting where technobabble replaces magic.