Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

space ship design


danielost
 Share

Recommended Posts

Always loved this design. discg.jpg

Bad design. No outside doorknobs.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad design. No outside doorknobs.

I also think is was bad design to let all of the ships vital funtions be controlled by a single computer. :P

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

I also think is was bad design to let all of the ships vital funtions be controlled by a single computer. :P

Let me put it this way, Mr. Noteverythingisaconspiracy. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way, Mr. Noteverythingisaconspiracy. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

The 9000 series does seem to have a major design flaw when it comes to handling conflicting orders. :whistle:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think any computer should be in charge of the air locks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think any computer should be in charge of the air locks.

I'm sorry Dave, err Daniel, I'm afraid I can't do that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Dave, err Daniel, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Can you sing Daisy instead ?

Its a rather sad clip, but HAL does redeem itself in 2010 though. :tu:

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

H-A-L are the letters preceding I-B-M. IBM decided they didn't want to be associated with a computer that runs amuck and kills people and denied permission to use their logo. Conceived before the microchip, HAL is a huge mainframe computer on a spaceship!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, but scientist have. i know star trek is fictional, what i said is the (original) show was as close to engineering as it can get and still have a show.

Get yourself Kerbal Space Program, build the Enterprise, and try to launch it. You will not go to space today. I'll even let you build one in orbit, and I will guarantee it will not do anything but flip and yaw uncontrollably under thrust. It does look nice though....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Always loved this design. discg.jpg

good choice.. mine was always

killr194.jpeg

Blakes 7.. classic sci fi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get yourself Kerbal Space Program, build the Enterprise, and try to launch it. You will not go to space today. I'll even let you build one in orbit, and I will guarantee it will not do anything but flip and yaw uncontrollably under thrust. It does look nice though....

a ship designed like the enterprise would not flip. you need an atmo. for that and there is no atmo in space. which is why the enterprise isn't supposed to land on a planet. although the new one uses thrusters to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a ship designed like the enterprise would not flip. you need an atmo. for that and there is no atmo in space. which is why the enterprise isn't supposed to land on a planet. although the new one uses thrusters to do so

In space there is nothing to prevent a spacecraft from changing direction, if the thrust is not along the axis of the space craft. Spacecrafts spins or use gyroscopes to maintain directional stability. The only time they use off axis thrusters is when they want to make changes in their trajectory.

In an athmosphere on the other hand you can use aerodynamic controls for stability. That is kind of hard to do in empty space, isn't it ?

So in short you have got it entirely backwards. At this point i am not really surprised about this, but I am surprised that you don't even try to research things before making sweeping statements like the one above. Thats just weird.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In space there is nothing to prevent a spacecraft from changing direction, if the thrust is not along the axis of the space craft. Spacecrafts spins or use gyroscopes to maintain directional stability. The only time they use off axis thrusters is when they want to make changes in their trajectory.

In an athmosphere on the other hand you can use aerodynamic controls for stability. That is kind of hard to do in empty space, isn't it ?

So in short you have got it entirely backwards. At this point i am not really surprised about this, but I am surprised that you don't even try to research things before making sweeping statements like the one above. Thats just weird.

you condemn me, and come up with a way to do it. the enterprise can't take the gravity pulling on the struts if it lands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you condemn me, and come up with a way to do it. the enterprise can't take the gravity pulling on the struts if it lands.

I am simply trying to explain a very simple concept to you. In space if the thrust is not symetrical along the axis of travel, the spacecraft will begin to change direction.

Look at all the launch vehicles used today, they all have their engines located on along the thrust axis. Do you really think that is a coincidence ?

In an athmosphere you don't need the same symmetry because you can use aerodynamic controls for stability, such as the wings and tail fins on an aircraft. You can't do that in space.

I am simply trying to correct your misunderstandings of spacecraft design. It is you who for some reason (?) refuse to listen to what I am saying.

If you are not willing to accept actual science (science known since the 17th century), why did you start a thread about spacecraft design in the science section ?

Maybe it would be more appropriate to make a Star Trek thread in the entertainment section instead ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you condemn me, and come up with a way to do it. the enterprise can't take the gravity pulling on the struts if it lands.

Daniel,

By all means of respect, but it was not a condemnation. It was a simply rebuttal of a very wrong claim. The latter you seem very prolific at given your obvious lack of knowledge in basic science.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything NASA comes up with looks like garbage.

Two things. One, functionality takes precedence above all else and two, working with a meager budget means aesthetics are not even a factor. Even with a larger budget I'm not sure aesthetics would be a factor, it's just completely unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Two things. One, functionality takes precedence above all else and two, working with a meager budget means aesthetics are not even a factor. Even with a larger budget I'm not sure aesthetics would be a factor, it's just completely unnecessary.

I don't think you are going to get a reasonable answer here S2F. In another thread ThisIsAlf is arguing that the Earth is flat and all NASA images to the contrary are fake.

I'm guessing that he's not a paid up member of the NASA fan club.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am simply trying to explain a very simple concept to you. In space if the thrust is not symetrical along the axis of travel, the spacecraft will begin to change direction.

Look at all the launch vehicles used today, they all have their engines located on along the thrust axis. Do you really think that is a coincidence ?

In an athmosphere you don't need the same symmetry because you can use aerodynamic controls for stability, such as the wings and tail fins on an aircraft. You can't do that in space.

I am simply trying to correct your misunderstandings of spacecraft design. It is you who for some reason (?) refuse to listen to what I am saying.

If you are not willing to accept actual science (science known since the 17th century), why did you start a thread about spacecraft design in the science section ?

Maybe it would be more appropriate to make a Star Trek thread in the entertainment section instead ?

two things. the shuttle had engines off center line. all other launch vehicles are based off of missiles. three all launch vehicles travel through the atmo. the ship I envision would be assembled in space, like the space station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two things. the shuttle had engines off center line. all other launch vehicles are based off of missiles. three all launch vehicles travel through the atmo. the ship I envision would be assembled in space, like the space station.

First of I didn't say centerline, I said thrust axis.

During the first phase of the launch most of the thrust on the Space Shuttle came from the solid rocket boosters mounted on each side of the central tank. When the solid rocket boosters seperated a lot of the fuel in the central tank had been expended, making it lighter. The shuttle could maintain stability because it had gimballed engines, aka thrust vectoring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimbal https://en.wikipedia...hrust_vectoring

The configuration of the Space Shuttle was actually less than optimal, because it was very much a compromise vehicle. It was designed to do to many things at once and consequently ended up as a quite inefficient design. It was very much a case of "Jack of all trades, master of none".

Launch vehicles travel through the athmosphere as quickly as possible, because they want to avoid the air resitance of the lower athmosphere and because rocket engines actually works better when there is little or no athmosphere. The wish to clear the athmosphere quickly is the reason why launch vehicles accelerate vertically in the start. Vertical being the fastest way out of the athmosphere. Once they have cleared the athmoshere the launch vehicle actually accelerates horizontally.

all other launch vehicles are based off of missiles.

Why does it matter if the launch vehicles are based on missiles ? I am quite interested to know why you keep bringing this up as if it is significant. The laws of physics are the same no matter what you call the vehicle, isn't it ?

What missile was Saturn V based on ? the Ariane series of launch vehicles are based on which missile ? The Falcon series is based on which missile ? The Zenit and Angara launch vehicles are based on what missile ?

It is true that most early generation launch vehicles were based on missiles, but that is not the case anymore.

the ship I envision would be assembled in space, like the space station.

It is quite possible that future spacecrafts will be assembled in space, but the basic laws of physics remains the same. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that you can ignore them.

I guess we should let Hollywood design spacecrafts from now on, they apparently are much better at engineering than NASA, ESA, ROSCOSMOS, ISRO, JAXA, CNSA and all of the private aerospace companies. :innocent:

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am simply trying to explain a very simple concept to you. In space if the thrust is not symetrical along the axis of travel, the spacecraft will begin to change direction.

Look at all the launch vehicles used today, they all have their engines located on along the thrust axis.

You have missed an important fact. The gravity plating on Enterprise's decks will produce a reactive upwards force, thus negating the need for the net thrust vector of the engines to act along the thrust axis. Science fiction is fun!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

The shuttle could maintain stability because it had gimballed engines, aka thrust vectoring.

It's also worth pointing out that uniquely (to the best of my knowledge) the SSMEs are highly angled with respect to the centreline of the stack. This was so that the centre of thrust coincided with the centre of mass.

The reason that the engines were placed in this less than optimal postition is because they were reusable and needed to return to Earth with orbiter. The Russian Buran space shuttle programme dispensed with reusable engines and placed them at the bottom of the fuel tank not on the orbiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also worth pointing out that uniquely (to the best of my knowledge) the SSMEs are highly angled with respect to the centreline of the stack. This was so that the centre of thrust coincided with the centre of mass.

I read that another reason for the angle of the SSMEs was to offset the lift produced by the orbiter's wings as it was launched. If you think about it, the wings will produce a force at right angles to the axis of the vehicle. The shuttle turns on its back as it begins its curved path to orbit, hence a downwards force will be produced by the wings and this is offset by the angle of the engines. Of course, as the shuttle gains altitude the force from the wing reduces. I also read that with the Buran this problem was dealt with by gimballing the engines on the two boosters.

If you look at the Soyuz launcher you will see that the engines of the boosters are angled slightly towards the thrust axis, as are the nozzles on the boosters of rockets such as the Titan IIIE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the ships appearance would be determined by the nature of the mission. As this is a mission to mars, a perilous destination with moons that shoot lasers at probes and mysterious rock people we would need a ship capable of handling that sort of situation.

Something like this would be optimal

eric-chu-concept-designer-battlestar-galactica-6.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the shuttle engines and as well as the engine pods on the enterprise are at the center of mass. the fuel pod on the shuttle is big, as is the secondary hull of the enterprise. but both are large warehouses. nothing inside. the center of mass on the shuttle is on the shuttle. the center of mass on the enterprise is is the on the the disk. the struts to the engine pods would be built to keep the center of mass with the engine thrust. the same with all of the other races. they just look fancier than a missile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.