How to reinvent the Enterprise. Now with pictures!

[Gargamel]

Saw the thread and had to chime in, as they just finished decommissioning "BIG E".    And this post is on topic for two reasons:  1) It 's about the Enterprise, and 2) Big E was featured in Star Trek 4 I believe. 

[Toonu]

Eh eh...

[SpaceMouse]

17 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

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

I bet your fun at parties.

 

8 hours ago, gargamel said:

Saw the thread and had to chime in, as they just finished decommissioning "BIG E".    And this post is on topic for two reasons:  1) It 's about the Enterprise, and 2) Big E was featured in Star Trek 4 I believe. 

Further breaking from tradition, I might not even call it "Enterprise" I'm much fore fond of "Endeavor" or "Discovery". The word enterprise feels to rooted in business personally.

@Toonu about the only thing I'm keeping for sure is the rings. 'Tis pretty though.

[DerekL1963]

19 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

Please excuse the crudeness, i was doing a basic layout. Feel free to criticize Everything from a scientific and artistic standpoint

First thing you need to figure out is what G level you want the centrifuge to simulate...  Then, knowing you want to keep it below around 1.5 RPM you can calculate your centrifuge diameter.  (Above around 1.5RPM, people start getting dizzy.)

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, Toonu said:

Eh eh...

Yes, I liked that design, looks good and realistic, only change I would made is to move the bride back on top where the top pod is, This let you use front for other stuff and keep the bride more protected, note that you don't need an real bridge but its cool. 

Read an book about that, ship to mars with an cool bride, one of the engineers in book said it was so taxpayers should get an cool ship for their money. 
Putting the control room in the habitation ring would be more practical 

[SpaceMouse]

51 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

First thing you need to figure out is what G level you want the centrifuge to simulate...  Then, knowing you want to keep it below around 1.5 RPM you can calculate your centrifuge diameter.  (Above around 1.5RPM, people start getting dizzy.)

I've always been a tad confused about how we would really know how artificial gravity would effect people. I know there were some tests done but I'm pretty sure we haven't done any real test in micro-gravity. Although I've generally felt in the long run its probably easier to run it at a lower level. Generally, I wanted to do as small a crew as really possible (maybe a dozen or so), The size would probably also be based on how small you could make a SSTO. Since that has to come along.

I know there was some discussion as to what powered the *magic* SSTO's in Interstellar. Did anyone figure out a realistic way to do that or was it just because movie?

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, I liked that design, looks good and realistic, only change I would made is to move the bride back on top where the top pod is, This let you use front for other stuff and keep the bride more protected, note that you don't need an real bridge but its cool. 

Read an book about that, ship to mars with an cool bride, one of the engineers in book said it was so taxpayers should get an cool ship for their money. 
Putting the control room in the habitation ring would be more practical 

A book about the IXS or another mars ship? Most designs I've looked at place most of the crew parts together. Probably for a number of reasons. I'd also like to put a escape pod on the front section. It'll probably get a actual bridge. If just as a redundancy.
I know they probably did the front disc-shaped to look like the enterprise but, that's a pretty inefficient usage of space.

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

A book about the IXS or another mars ship? Most designs I've looked at place most of the crew parts together. Probably for a number of reasons. I'd also like to put a escape pod on the front section. It'll probably get a actual bridge. If just as a redundancy.
I know they probably did the front disc-shaped to look like the enterprise but, that's a pretty inefficient usage of space.

Some ship for an mars mission, think the ship in The Martian. Larger crew section because its diameter is a bit small and this mission had a larger crew. 
Having an command central for running the ship is smart as you can communicate easier then doing complex stuff. 
Having it in front with an large window forward is for coolness, I have them on most of my large interplanetary ships in KSP too. 
Not totally stupid, especially if you have an forward docking port or have activity in front. 

[Bill Phil]

11 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

First thing you need to figure out is what G level you want the centrifuge to simulate...  Then, knowing you want to keep it below around 1.5 RPM you can calculate your centrifuge diameter.  (Above around 1.5RPM, people start getting dizzy.)

Actually this may not be the case. We don't have enough data. It may take getting used to, but high RPMs might be fine, after adjusting. 4 could work out well, maybe 6, if we get lucky.

[0111narwhalz]

10 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

I know there was some discussion as to what powered the *magic* SSTO's in Interstellar. Did anyone figure out a realistic way to do that or was it just because movie?

Whatever it was, it got a huge acceleration and high delta-v, implying a ridiculous thrust power. And the Endurance likewise achieved enough acceleration to push the crew into their seats, yet still managed some six km/s, though that's explained away by fusion.

[DerekL1963]

38 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Actually this may not be the case. We don't have enough data. It may take getting used to, but high RPMs might be fine, after adjusting. 4 could work out well, maybe 6, if we get lucky.

It might not be the case, but it's what the data we have says.

[Shpaget]

Is that a pitot tube?

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

It might not be the case, but it's what the data we have says.

The data we have also suggests that 4 RPM can be adapted to over a few hours to a day. These studies looked at small radii, and weren't producing 1g. The data is wholly incomplete. We need to do some more experiments to find out.

[TheSaint]

On 2/9/2017 at 8:15 AM, SpaceMouse said:

Further breaking from tradition, I might not even call it "Enterprise" I'm much fore fond of "Endeavor" or "Discovery". The word enterprise feels to rooted in business personally.

Actually, the name Enterprise is deeply rooted in American naval history, most notably CV-6, which was the most decorated ship of World War II. I suspect that tradition will dictate that there always be an Enterprise in commission or on the ways in the United States Navy.

[SpaceMouse]

10 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Is that a pitot tube?

hmm. It does look like a pitot tube on the front.

1 hour ago, TheSaint said:

Actually, the name Enterprise is deeply rooted in American naval history, most notably CV-6, which was the most decorated ship of World War II. I suspect that tradition will dictate that there always be an Enterprise in commission or on the ways in the United States Navy.

Oh I'm not debating its Naval history. There WILL probably always be a Enterprise. Starfleet/ Star Trek isn't really a Military thing, while it certainly has elements of it. Endeavor or Discovery feels much more Star Trek.

[FleshJeb]

@DerekL1963

@Bill Phil

I posted these links a long time ago, but they're very relevant background info to this discussion.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930020462.pdf

http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/Chapt3.html

[Bill Phil]

27 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

@DerekL1963

@Bill Phil

I posted these links a long time ago, but they're very relevant background info to this discussion.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930020462.pdf

http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/Chapt3.html

Yeah. High RPM will likely have an effect on other animal species more than humans.

There are problems with most of the studies, if not all of them, when it comes to rotation tolerance.

Here's a paper: http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RotationPaper.pdf

It's about rotating colonies in orbit, however, it also mentions why the current studies we've done aren't exactly perfect, and that more research needs to be done. The following quote is from the above source.

Quote

The studies

1. have very few subjects, usually 10 or less. 

2. show great variability in rotation tolerance from person to person. 

3. sometimes chose subjects for higher than normal rotation tolerance. 

4. have only adult subjects. 

5. are only a few weeks or less in duration. 

6. often rotate subjects around a different body axis than would a free­space settlement (e.g. upright on a turntable, spine perpendicular to the centripetal acceleration, versus spine parallel to the centripetal acceleration). 

7. do not consider how environmental design might help or hinder adaptation. 

8. use rotational experiment environments with very short radii of rotation, typically under 4m (there is one exception). This means the effects observed in these experiments are likely much more severe than in a  settlement as most effects attenuate with larger radii.  

9. are almost all on the surface of the Earth and there is evidence that the negative effects of rotation are much less in an otherwise weightless environment

[Nibb31]

5 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

hmm. It does look like a pitot tube on the front.

Which proves the point that there is very little science and a lot of PR in that "IXS" picture. The whole idea of an aerodynamic front-facing windscreen on spaceship is purely for aesthetics.

There is also the misconception that it represents some sort of NASA design, which is wrong. The picture originated from a dutch artist who was hired on DeviantArt by a NASA scientist who wanted a sexy illustration for one of his papers.

[SpaceMouse]

6 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Which proves the point that there is very little science and a lot of PR in that "IXS" picture. The whole idea of an aerodynamic front-facing windscreen on spaceship is purely for aesthetics.

There is also the misconception that it represents some sort of NASA design, which is wrong. The picture originated from a dutch artist who was hired on DeviantArt by a NASA scientist who wanted a sexy illustration for one of his papers.

I dont know if it really has any bearing on it. kinda hard to say for a fact its a pitot tube and not a antenna. Rather hard to see the hole from that scale.

[FleshJeb]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

Here's a paper: http://space.alglobus.net/papers/RotationPaper.pdf

Great paper, thank you. I read the whole thing

[StrandedonEarth]

8 hours ago, TheSaint said:

Actually, the name Enterprise is deeply rooted in American naval history, most notably CV-6

Thanks for the link, the history of CV-6 made for some interesting reading

[TheSaint]

4 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Thanks for the link, the history of CV-6 made for some interesting reading

Makes you stand a little straighter, doesn't it? I still think it tragic that The Big E was broken up and not preserved as a museum ship. Senseless.

Roddenberry was originally going to name his series' starship Yorktown (which is an only slightly less storied name in American naval history). But then he got wind of the brand-new, nuclear-powered carrier named Enterprise, and, well, the rest is history.

Sorry, thread-jacking again. I can't help it.

[kerbiloid]

This IXS/Enterprise "flying shovel" design looks (not) absolutely perfect.

The upper deck is large and flat. That's very good, they can have a parade on top, when the IXS deorbits and lands.
The cabin will be a speaker's tribune.
It's obvious that this flat shovel-like thing is designed for normal gravity, pulling things down, rather than for zero-g.

Also those two hyderdrive wheels can be used like... wheels. The ship can roll across the land.
If the shovel-head is attached by bearings, they even don't need to stop the parade, the deck will stay horizontal.

(Otherwise hard to imagine why make a wide and flat cabin for the space).

The bay door in the nose is also good.
This allows to grab goods and catch floating astronauts even without switching engines off.
It's a big space whale with a tiny mouth.
Or a space ro-ro.

Also when then parade on the upper deck they can extend stairway from the ship's mouth.
Then the Commodore can walk down to the Earth in shining fame.
If the door were aside, this wouldn't look enough magnificent.

(Otherwise at least one reason to place the door here?)

23 hours ago, Shpaget said:

Is that a pitot tube?

Yes, that;s a pitot tube. It measures the dynamical pressure of space aether. Problems?
Otherwise how could they know their velocity in the open space?
They also have an aetherial barometer on the rear side.

P.S.
A little bit disappointed by submarine designers.
They blindly put the command post in the middle, without windows.

Edited February 11, 2017 by kerbiloid

[TheSaint]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

A little bit disappointed by submarine designers.

They blindly put the command post in the middle, without windows.

Why would you have windows? What would you look at? Once you get below a couple hundred feet it's mostly pitch black. Control is in the middle so you can put the sonar dome in the front. That's what you really need to see where you are going, not windows. Also, Control needs to be underneath the sail, because that is where the periscopes are.

[Shpaget]

Aww... I was hoping it was a shish kebab spike for skewering space aliens which would then be roasted and grilled (options include slow grill in the noon sun and aerobrake blasted).

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, TheSaint said:

Why would you have windows? What would you look at?

That's the right question to the IXS/Enterpsrise/Discovery designers!
A submarine has a blind command post in the middle, a tower atop and from time to time an additional navigator's cabin in the nose.(some of old ones).
And it maneuvers in a hundred meters from the landscape details, rather than in the empty open space.
While a stylish spaceship has a wall-wide window to look at nothing.

P.S.
Btw, a nice page about centrifuges on projectrho, ith pictures.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php

Edited February 11, 2017 by kerbiloid