Engineer: Star Trek's Enterprise ship could be built in 20 years at acost of $1 trillion

"Whether you're a Trekkie or not, you have to admit that there's
some sense of wonder to exploring the stars and trying to find
life on distant planets. Of course, the U.S.S. Enterprise is a
fictional ship, but have you ever put in the thought as to what it
would take to actually build it, and when we could get it done
if we really put in the effort? The man behind the well-researched
site buildtheenterprise.org has, and he's determined that a fully
functional Enterprise is only 20 years away if we put in the effort.

Created by a systems and electrical engineer with 30 years'
experience, the BuildTheEnterprise site sets out a very specific
timeline for the research and construction of such a massive
space-related undertaking. The first nine years are dedicated
to research, component testing, and drawing up a number of
possible blueprints. The following 11 years are dedicated to
development, where components will be manufactured and
launched into space for assembly.

See:

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/05/18...ise-star-trek/

On 19/05/2012 6:49 AM, wrote:
"Whether you're a Trekkie or not, you have to admit that there's
some sense of wonder to exploring the stars and trying to find
life on distant planets. Of course, the U.S.S. Enterprise is a
fictional ship, but have you ever put in the thought as to what it
would take to actually build it, and when we could get it done
if we really put in the effort? The man behind the well-researched
site buildtheenterprise.org has, and he's determined that a fully
functional Enterprise is only 20 years away if we put in the effort.

Created by a systems and electrical engineer with 30 years'
experience, the BuildTheEnterprise site sets out a very specific
timeline for the research and construction of such a massive
space-related undertaking. The first nine years are dedicated
to research, component testing, and drawing up a number of
possible blueprints. The following 11 years are dedicated to
development, where components will be manufactured and
launched into space for assembly.

See:

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/05/18...ise-star-trek/

Given the total lack of any theoretical underpinning for the core
technology - the warp drive - there is no possible basis for thinking
that a starship could be achieved within 20 years, or indeeed, any other
time frame.

Sylvia.

On Friday, May 18, 2012 7:03:21 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19/05/2012 6:49 AM, wrote:
"Whether you're a Trekkie or not, you have to admit that there's
some sense of wonder to exploring the stars and trying to find
life on distant planets. Of course, the U.S.S. Enterprise is a
fictional ship, but have you ever put in the thought as to what it
would take to actually build it, and when we could get it done
if we really put in the effort? The man behind the well-researched
site buildtheenterprise.org has, and he's determined that a fully
functional Enterprise is only 20 years away if we put in the effort.

Created by a systems and electrical engineer with 30 years'
experience, the BuildTheEnterprise site sets out a very specific
timeline for the research and construction of such a massive
space-related undertaking. The first nine years are dedicated
to research, component testing, and drawing up a number of
possible blueprints. The following 11 years are dedicated to
development, where components will be manufactured and
launched into space for assembly.

See:

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/05/18...ise-star-trek/

Given the total lack of any theoretical underpinning for the core
technology - the warp drive - there is no possible basis for thinking
that a starship could be achieved within 20 years, or indeeed, any other
time frame.

Sylvia.

I agree though a solar system class ship might be possible. Getting
people and their projects out there might help on the more
distant goal. Getting a lower cost mode to orbit would help.
This might be different for Earth as compared to shallower gravity
wells. The latter solution might and likely would look like the old
lunar landing module except perhaps in one stage and reusable.

Changing the importance of the trip time frame would shift the
frame of reference. That is to say engineering of longer
lived human for an interstellar mission. If you've got a
human species that lives 1000's of years, a trip out beyond the
"edge" looks more possible. Throw in the possiblity of
humans that can deep hiberate and you've got game.
Biological science seems to be advancing more rapidly than
propulsion science. Perhaps an "individual based stem cell
generator" might even permit this for standard humans.
Such the individual receive a dose of fresh stem cells
every 10 years or 20 years?

out to the edge and beyond.................Trig
Large space based telescopes the make the current
project look tiny would help reveal if there is
a there out there that is in reach of uber humans.

On 20/05/2012 5:35 AM, wrote:

Changing the importance of the trip time frame would shift the
frame of reference. That is to say engineering of longer
lived human for an interstellar mission. If you've got a
human species that lives 1000's of years, a trip out beyond the
"edge" looks more possible. Throw in the possiblity of
humans that can deep hiberate and you've got game.

Long lives might help a bit, but as for hibernation, you have the
problem that the people back on Earth who've paid for this project won't
live to see its completion. Well, not unless they themselves go into
hibernation on Earth. Absent a compelling reason for launching a mission
that lasts decades, or hundreds of years, I doubt the stay-at-homes will
be willing to fund it.

Sylvia.

wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Given the total lack of any theoretical underpinning for the core
technology - the warp drive - there is no possible basis for thinking
that a starship could be achieved within 20 years, or indeeed, any other
time frame.

I only read a summary but it does mention that it's only the impulse
drive part so it would be a ship to the planets not to the stars.

I agree though a solar system class ship might be possible. Getting
people and their projects out there might help on the more
distant goal. Getting a lower cost mode to orbit would help.
This might be different for Earth as compared to shallower gravity
wells. The latter solution might and likely would look like the old
lunar landing module except perhaps in one stage and reusable.

A fusion drive would change the game for ships already in space.
Lowering launch costs remains a large hurdle.

Changing the importance of the trip time frame would shift the
frame of reference. That is to say engineering of longer
lived human for an interstellar mission. If you've got a
human species that lives 1000's of years, a trip out beyond the
"edge" looks more possible. Throw in the possiblity of
humans that can deep hiberate and you've got game.
Biological science seems to be advancing more rapidly than
propulsion science. Perhaps an "individual based stem cell
generator" might even permit this for standard humans.
Such the individual receive a dose of fresh stem cells
every 10 years or 20 years?

Planets, asteriods, Kuiper belt, Oort cloud. With a fusion drive that
sequence eventually works. An interesting point of the Oort cloud is it
grows more difuse as the distance grows but it does overlap with the
clouds of other stars and there are likely clouds that have dicoupled
with their stars. Once in the Oort cloud humanity spreads across the
galaxy no longer doomed to extinction when Sol goes red giant. The time
scale of species/genus extinction and Sol going red giant don't match
but once out there we'd evolve there.

Given this I figure no warp drive is needed. Just fusion drive and the
reality that time lasts a very long time.

On 5/18/2012 10:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

Given the total lack of any theoretical underpinning for the core technology - the warp drive - there is no possible basis for
thinking that a starship could be achieved within 20 years, or indeeed, any other time frame.


Or artificial gravity.

Maybe if you can get one you can get the other?

OTOH if Bigelow is looking for design ideas of how to shape a new generation of space habs,
to promote space tourism, well... It could be either this or mouse ears....

8:-)

Dave

On 21/05/2012 5:26 AM, David Spain wrote:
On 5/18/2012 10:03 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

Given the total lack of any theoretical underpinning for the core
technology - the warp drive - there is no possible basis for
thinking that a starship could be achieved within 20 years, or
indeeed, any other time frame.


Or artificial gravity.

Well, I'd be happy to spin my starship, if I had one, so it's not so
important. But the warp drive...

Sylvia.

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:10:43 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/05/2012 5:35 AM, @gmail.com wrote:

Changing the importance of the trip time frame would shift the
frame of reference. That is to say engineering of longer
lived human for an interstellar mission. If you've got a
human species that lives 1000's of years, a trip out beyond the
"edge" looks more possible. Throw in the possiblity of
humans that can deep hiberate and you've got game.

Long lives might help a bit, but as for hibernation, you have the
problem that the people back on Earth who've paid for this project won't
live to see its completion. Well, not unless they themselves go into
hibernation on Earth. Absent a compelling reason for launching a mission
that lasts decades, or hundreds of years, I doubt the stay-at-homes will
be willing to fund it.

Sylvia.

It is a step by step thing. First the solar system then further.
Perhaps the model isn't the Enterprise so much as Red Dwarf, the
mining ship ;-)

I'd suggest hibernation would be more for boredom and reduction
of food and oxygen intakes. If humans started living longer
this might well be true on this Earth so longer term thinking
might actually happen. Granted this world would mean
a much smaller breeding population here on the planet.
The configuration of society would certainly change. Far less
basic education, much less little crime (perhaps), and much less
in the way of elderly social security.

Get more people into the great vacuum, would likely mean more
physic experiments in the vacuum of space. Perhaps tech would
advance to at least a decent fraction of the speed of light
say 1/20 or 1/10. Who knows even some thing like warp drive?

wrote:

It is a step by step thing. First the solar system then further.
Perhaps the model isn't the Enterprise so much as Red Dwarf, the
mining ship ;-)
...
Get more people into the great vacuum, would likely mean more
physic experiments in the vacuum of space. Perhaps tech would
advance to at least a decent fraction of the speed of light
say 1/20 or 1/10. Who knows even some thing like warp drive?

Try running the arithmetic on colonizing the galaxy at 0.1 C. Give each
step a couple of centuries to build an industrial base on the colony
planet then hop again. The end result is an outward wave moving 20
light years (to the next colony world) every 400 years (half travel,
half growth) or 0.05C. For a galaxy with a diameter of 200,000 LY it
takes 4 million years to fill the galaxy. There was a Scientific
American article that did this arithmetic maybe 20 years ago.

So now need for a warp drive. We can get there is regular space.
We would have experienced divergent evolution to be many species in the
process but so what. Jumping galaxy to galaxy would be a very
different topic.

On 22/05/2012 1:55 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

It is a step by step thing. First the solar system then further.
Perhaps the model isn't the Enterprise so much as Red Dwarf, the
mining ship ;-)
...
Get more people into the great vacuum, would likely mean more
physic experiments in the vacuum of space. Perhaps tech would
advance to at least a decent fraction of the speed of light
say 1/20 or 1/10. Who knows even some thing like warp drive?

Try running the arithmetic on colonizing the galaxy at 0.1 C. Give each
step a couple of centuries to build an industrial base on the colony
planet then hop again. The end result is an outward wave moving 20
light years (to the next colony world) every 400 years (half travel,
half growth) or 0.05C. For a galaxy with a diameter of 200,000 LY it
takes 4 million years to fill the galaxy. There was a Scientific
American article that did this arithmetic maybe 20 years ago.

Which just begs the question of why bother? In particular, why would
each colony want to invest significant resources into establishing
another one?

Sylvia.