Engineer Wants To Build A Real Starship Enterprise

[Whitestar]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed previously, but there is an engineer who goes by the name of Dan who claims he can build a real starship Enterprise within the next 20 years. All he requires is the necessary funding, which is about $50 billion for each year, which I think is insane! Anyway, he has a website and while I found it an informative and entertaining read, I think this guy has lost his marbles.

 

See link below:

 

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/

 

Granted, I'm no engineer, but I would imagine that the starship Enterprise design would not be spaceworthy at all, considering such design flaws (in the attached photos below) such as the thin neck section that connects both the outrageously huge saucer section and secondary hull, making it look very disproportional. Plus, I would imagine that those aforementioned parts would snap off once the ship travels at full impulse speed. What does everybody else thinks?

 

 

[Phi for All]

Plus, I would imagine that those aforementioned parts would snap off once the ship travels at full impulse speed. What does everybody else thinks?

 

Why? What force is acting on them?

[Whitestar]

Why? What force is acting on them?

Well, the acceleration would be the main issue.

[pwagen]

From the site:

The Gen1 Enterprise can arrive at Mars within 90 days of leaving earth's orbit.

What, it won't have a warp engine?

[The Pragamatist]

I always love reading stuff like this. Not because of the humor in it, but I like to see science fiction that is precursor to science fact. I'm not even going to pretend to understand all of the technical stuff behind a working starship enterprise. I'm not a top ranking NASA engineer, and even if I were it is not my place to tell someone that something cannot be done. Afterall look what happened between Edison and Tesla. You really have to be careful who you put down.

 

Now, on the other hand, the guy is asking for 50 BILLION dollars (That's 50,000 million to put it in perspective) A YEAR for the next twenty years to build a working version of a fictional ship from a sci fi movie. That sounds like a complete waste of money that could be spent on something much more efficient. I get sick to my stomach thinking of someone spending money like that on such a foolhardy pursuit. I get even more sick thinking that someone might actually be willing to donate money to the guy for it.

 

But again, I'm no expert on aeronautical engineering, but I'd like to think I have enough sense to see that 50 billion dollars a year for 20 years (A total of a trillion dollars) would be better spent elsewhere... Then again, this might help explain why the USA is so far in debt. But that's a joke for another thread.

 

-The Pragamatist

[CaptainPanic]

Now, on the other hand, the guy is asking for 50 BILLION dollars (That's 50,000 million to put it in perspective) A YEAR for the next twenty years to build a working version of a fictional ship from a sci fi movie. That sounds like a complete waste of money that could be spent on something much more efficient. I get sick to my stomach thinking of someone spending money like that on such a foolhardy pursuit. I get even more sick thinking that someone might actually be willing to donate money to the guy for it.

 

The world spends 1600 billion per year (that is 32 times as much as this guy asks for) on military/defense/weapons. I think that if the whole world would spend 3% less on weapons, we would still be able to kill each other quite dead, and we would have a shot at building a starship.

 

The thing is, that we waste a lot of money already. If we would be able to allocate that waste of money on another waste of money then we at least don't waste any additional money.

 

By the way, it's my opinion that we'd be better off spending those 50 billion on multiple missions. Spread out the money, spread the risk. But I wouldn't object to spend it on spacecraft to travel to other planets.

[The Pragamatist]

The world spends 1600 billion per year (that is 32 times as much as this guy asks for) on military/defense/weapons. I think that if the whole world would spend 3% less on weapons, we would still be able to kill each other quite dead, and we would have a shot at building a starship.

 

The thing is, that we waste a lot of money already. If we would be able to allocate that waste of money on another waste of money then we at least don't waste any additional money.

 

By the way, it's my opinion that we'd be better off spending those 50 billion on multiple missions. Spread out the money, spread the risk. But I wouldn't object to spend it on spacecraft to travel to other planets.

 

Make no mistake I'm not adverse to spending money on space missions. Especially if it involves traveling to other planets. Part of the reason the spending is so high is because the money goes to ridiculous things that are on par with this (I'm trying to be funny and serious here). If we could stop spending it on ridiculous things with little practical value (A whole subject of debate in itself mind you) we probably could fully accomplish things like space colonization and interplanetary travel.

 

On the other hand I am adverse to giving someone 1/32 of the world's yearly spending for the next twenty years because they think they can replicate a working ship from a science fiction series. There have been aircraft that were specifically designed for space travel that have failed miserably due to one miscalculation or another. This person thinks that a ship designed for TV entertainment can actually fly. Now, to be fair I'm not saying it couldn't. But I would most certainly not place any chips on it. For the price of one trillion dollars, I would be very sure my funding was going to something practical. But if he were to spend his own money and make the vessel actually work, then I would definitely feel like something akin to a jack-ass all the while praising the man for attempting the absurd and achieving the impossible.

[Danijel Gorupec]

No warp drive... Still, I will pay my part if he rebuilds Seven-of-nine (Borg technology, I know, but maybe it can be done).

[Mr Monkeybat]

Structural strength is not a big issue as he plans to gently accelerate it with ion engines. But It would probably be cheaper and easier to build a space ship without the 60's style streamlining. He plans to have a nuclear reactor the large radiators required seem to be missing from his plans. If you want to copy a design from 60's special effects, 2001's Discovery would be more sensible, although the centrifuge on the Discovery might be too small and make you dizzy.