They want to build the Starship Enterprise!

[kiwi_2005]

A trekkies dream come true

Build the Enterprise
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/compare-to-star-trek

source
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/ga...a-takes-flight

A space-worthy replica of Gene Rodenberry's 23rd-century Star Trek starship has been proposed at buildtheenterprise.org.
The project requires nine years of research and 11 years of development, with the ship built in space. It would be powered by a 1.5-gigawatt nuclear reactor and include three landing craft. The project attempts to solve the problem of gravity by including a gravity wheel in the ship's saucer section. At 960 metres long, the Enterprise would be the largest craft made by man. "The Enterprise will inspire us," the website says. "The ship will be over a half mile in length. The size and technological achievement will be truly awe-inspiring a worthy successor to the Apollo space programme. "It will be bigger than any craft or building ever constructed by humans. We can finally demonstrate that the human race has figured out how to build comfortable and sustainable living quarters in space and that we are there to stay."

If the idea seems far-fetched, most of the gadgets conceived in the Star Trek series are now a reality and the United States government spent almost US$1 trillion (NZ$1.3 trillion) bailing out banks when the latest recession hit. Hamilton Astronomical Society president Dave Owen loved the idea, but thought it impractical, because the Enterprise was designed to travel vast interstellar distances, rather than within the solar system.
"It's possible to build a large ship like this with modern technology, but the idea of making it look like the Enterprise is unnecessary," he said. "You will spend huge amounts of money trying to get it a certain shape and there's no way it's going to have warp drive."

A better idea would be to build a space station resembling one of Star Trek's starbases, like Deep Space Nine.
"That's much more realistic than the Enterprise," he said.

[TLAM Strike]

"It's possible to build a large ship like this with modern technology, but the idea of making it look like the Enterprise is unnecessary," he said. "You will spend huge amounts of money trying to get it a certain shape and there's no way it's going to have warp drive."

A better idea would be to build a space station resembling one of Star Trek's starbases, like Deep Space Nine.
"That's much more realistic than the Enterprise," he said.

QFT

It is totally unnecessary to built a spacecraft that looks like the Enterprise.

The iconic shape of the Enterprise was more to make it look different than the flying saucers and V1 shaped rockets of 1960's sci fi. It has very little actual engineering value IRL.

It would be far more sensible to build a spacecraft that resembles the ships in 2001 and 2010.

But I would agree to name the next major spacecraft we build the Enterprise.

[Oberon]

If they build DS9 then the Cardies are just going to come along and try and take it back, or turn it into a uranium processing plant and enslave the planet.

[Raptor1]

So they're going to build a 960 meter long ship, but the mass is only going to be ~85,000 tons? That's pretty impressive, I didn't know you could build a spacecraft out of thin smoke...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

So they're going to build a 960 meter long ship, but the mass is only going to be ~85,000 tons? That's pretty impressive, I didn't know you could build a spacecraft out of thin smoke...

You can't...

Unless we transfer auxiliary power to the structural integrity field...

Originally Posted by Oberon

If they build DS9 then the Cardies are just going to come along and try and take it back, or turn it into a uranium processing plant and enslave the planet.

I for one welcome our new spoon headed overloads...

[Hinrich Schwab]

It's kind of funny that the pictures on the website of the Enterprise (1701-A) are of the one version that has the greatest structural flaw of all of the models; the base of the nacelle pylons. I had no less than six models of this ship and all of them fractured at the base joint where the pylons meet the hull. Even in a zero-g environment, it is a critical stress point that is not structurally sound. I have also had models of the other variations as well as the Reliant*. All of them are more sound than the 1701-A variant.

EDIT: I also think that 20 years total to build it is foolishly optimistic. Technology is not that advanced yet. If they said 120 years, I could take this seriously.

* The Reliant's design seems more pragmatic to me and would be a better research goal.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Hinrich Schwab

It's kind of funny that the pictures on the website of the Enterprise (1701-A) are of the one version that has the greatest structural flaw of all of the models; the base of the nacelle pylons. I had no less than six models of this ship and all of them fractured at the base joint where the pylons meet the hull. Even in a zero-g environment, it is a critical stress point that is not structurally sound. I have also had models of the other variations as well as the Reliant*. All of them are more sound than the 1701-A variant.

EDIT: I also think that 20 years total to build it is foolishly optimistic. Technology is not that advanced yet. If they said 120 years, I could take this seriously.

* The Reliant's design seems more pragmatic to me and would be a better research goal.

The change it the nacelle pylons was required because of the taller large warp core installed in the 2271 refit. This core ran from the top of the saucer section to the bottom of the engineering hull resulting in the the intermix chamber being moved forward (Originality it was located directly forward of the shuttle bay hense the straight nacelle pylons). Thus the nacelle pylon connections would have to be moved forward otherwise the engineering sections would take up even more space. Moving the warp core forward allowed for the majority of the secondary hull to be devoted to cargo space directly accessible though the shuttle bay.

Basically a design flaw made a ship from 2245 still viable until 2293.

[Spoon 11th]

The problem with Enterprise is that it's butt ugly. If you want to "disguise" a spinning wheel, make it look like Millennium Falcon. And give a free ticket to Harrison Ford.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The change it the nacelle pylons was required because of the taller large warp core installed in the 2271 refit. This core ran from the top of the saucer section to the bottom of the engineering hull resulting in the the intermix chamber being moved forward (Originality it was located directly forward of the shuttle bay hense the straight nacelle pylons). Thus the nacelle pylon connections would have to be moved forward otherwise the engineering sections would take up even more space. Moving the warp core forward allowed for the majority of the secondary hull to be devoted to cargo space directly accessible though the shuttle bay.

Basically a design flaw made a ship from 2245 still viable until 2293.

Careful. Your nerd is showing.

[kiwi_2005]

I'm still finding this amazing. The Enterprise parked in space, who would of believed it.

Lets build the tallest skyscraper that will reach outside of our atmosphere! Nah, what about the largest ocean vessel that will come with its own mini city on top and can submerge! Nah well come on team we need to build some 7th wonder of the world!!... I know lets build the Starship Enterprise
20 yrs from now I'll be in my 60's damn if I were 20 I would be changing my goals in life right now and making to work /live on the enterprise my number one goal. 20yrs from now mabe with there nuclear powered drive they be making long trips to Mars and back or who knows the first warp drive might be invented