Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Looney247

Favorite U.S.S. Enterprise


Recommended Posts

I had a couple I was torn between,

but in the end the "Captain's Yacht" B) tipped the scales on my vote.

 

lilente.jpg

sov_yacht.jpg.8a2f368e17f7c0813bda40cda49cef2c.jpg

sovereign-class-starship-ncc-1701.thumb.jpg.b51205f67b2326ddcf808a4fcc224eb3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My choice for favorite enterprise has not changed. It remains the famous movie enterprise shown from STI-VI. For me though the best ship interior for the movie enterprise was the one shown from STI-IV. Granted the one in STIV was the 1701-A I think it was still quite a ship, very sleek, futuristic lines and oh so beautiful. If only they had kept that good interior set for STV-VI as well that would have been awesome. However it would have been quite odd having the same interior sets for six consecutive movies.

 

'The human adventure is just beginning'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for the Enterprise E

It was either that or NX-01, and I know that has shown it's colours in battle but the Enterprise E has been pretty damn damaged as in Nemesis. That tipped it for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sovereign Class Enterprise was too cutesy future. I wish people in the 24th century were all as tired of tapping backlit panels as Tom Paris was when he built the Delta Flyer.

The Galaxy Class Enterprise looks really good from a lot of angles, but has too many awkward spots. Plus the UFO-shaped captain's yacht that never got seen.

The Ambassador Enterprise is just goofy.

The Excelsior Class Enterprise is where it's at. Panels AND switches! Hoorah! The Excelsior Class had just enough perseverance of style to look as good now as it did in 1984 when we first saw it. It doesn't suffer from 60s and 70s design ideals. The classic Enterprise has its charm; but let's be honest. It's time for that sucker to get shown the door.

 

I Voted Enterprise B

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note to Ulysses: The movie Enterprise from Star Trek II and III wasn't the -A. The Enterprise-A first appeared in Star Trek IV, right at the end. You're referring to the first Enterprise. It was just refit for the films.

 

It is a pretty good ship, though. : )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn between the NX-01 and the E... The NX-01 because I can see that 150 years in the future, the E because of the sure power and crew that she has. It's a toss up for me, so I tossed a coin and it came up E, got my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason I find it hard to believe that Earth could go through a horrific 3rd world war where so many people and advanced countries (governments, infrastructure, etc) die, recover and advance well beyond pre WW3 levels, and build a big interstellar warpship full of weapons and a crew of 83 by 2151. The NX-01 was such an incredible achievement for Earth. It was a complete starship. I wonder how long it took to build it. I even wonder when they started to build it. They must have had a development timeline where they tried out some things and tried some other things to perfect the technology. A big question to ask would have been if the warp 5 engine wasn't a concern and flight closer to home was acceptable to Earth governments, how long before 2151 did Earth have the technology to build a starship like Enterprise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see star trek just as an artist's expression of the future, besides that it's a soap opera. Gene Roddenberry, thought of star trek in the mid sixties, twenty or so years after WWII, tensions with the Russians were at a high point. He saw that we needed some time of major change to get the world together and for them to realize how insignificant we all are, hence WWIII.  NASA has plans for lunar bases by 2012, mars just a few years after that. It takes six months to travel to mars during optimal conditions. Too long for normal travel, normal travel to me meaning a few hours from one major metropolitan city to another, necessity is the mother of invention, so I don't see why the human population wouldn't invent another means of propulsion by 2150. To go from planet to planet in a few hours doesn't seem hard to me at all. We already have the theorys, we just need the hardware, thats why I don't see the NX-01 too far fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. There are times I wonder if we already have this starship building technology. If going to the moon is far enough, could we build an NX-01 like ship just go to the moon and back? It would make a great way of starting a lunar base. This is just a hypothetical question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. There are times I wonder if we already have this starship building technology. If going to the moon is far enough, could we build an NX-01 like ship just go to the moon and back? It would make a great way of starting a lunar base. This is just a hypothetical question.

 

I would just see that as a bit of overkill. All we need to set up a lunar colony is a transport of some sort. 10-15 people per transport, small ships that can be re-used is the way to go, it's greener, less expensive, and just easier to use.

 

It would be like an armada of speed boats vs one supertanker.

 

The speed boats can go more places; faster, cheapier, and easier.

 

The supertanker has a single destination to unload it's cargo, it goes to drop off it's cargo and goes to where it needs to go to get more cargo, it's slow, laborous.

 

Also, if it breaks down, has a major malfunction or something like that it would take even more time for repairs.

 

Smaller ships to me, just make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller ships indeed. I like the idea of speed boats. I wonder how long it would take to get to the moon with modern spacecraft technology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller ships indeed. I like the idea of speed boats. I wonder how long it would take to get to the moon with modern spacecraft technology?

 

Well with the Space Shuttle traveling at speeds of 28,291KPH, in orbit, and the distance between the center of the earth to the center of the moon being 384,403 km, simple logic would dictate that it would take approx. 13.587465978579760347813792372132 hours. Of course with developing tech and ongoing research that time should be ever decreasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well with the Space Shuttle traveling at speeds of 28,291KPH, in orbit, and the distance between the center of the earth to the center of the moon being 384,403 km, simple logic would dictate that it would take approx. 13.587465978579760347813792372132 hours. Of course with developing tech and ongoing research that time should be ever decreasing.

 

Approximately eh... right...

 

Anyway, I'm affraid simple logic won't do, not as simple as you put in anyway, but that's something for another time and another thread. ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also have to take into account orbiting speed of the moon around the Earth - plus the fact that a vessel would have to acheive a semi orbit before making a descent to the moon's surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How fast do you think the good ol 1701 orbited planets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How fast do you think the good ol 1701 orbited planets?

 

I think it could vary depending on the need for geostationary orbits and just sight-seeing the new planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the normal speed for a geostationary orbit? This second question may sound odd as well but does a probe have the same speed in that kind of orbit as a bigger/heavier object?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The International Space Station is not very far up into orbit (comparatively), and it has no real engines to speak of (only boosters to maintain altitude). It's orbital momentum is somewhere in the 27000 kph area. I would imagine that any object would have to maintain a similar velocity (from a greater distance than the ISS, obviously) to keep a "Standard Orbit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What is the normal speed for a geostationary orbit? This second question may sound odd as well but does a probe have the same speed in that kind of orbit as a bigger/heavier object?

 

The speed required to maintain such an orbit is 3.07 km/s.. A quick google search yielded that one..

 

As for the second question, i don't know why i know, but i do.. and yes it would. The idea behind a geostationary orbit is for a satellite to appear stationary with respect to a fixed point on the rotating Earth, this then has advantages in dealing with communications. Thus, is the reason why we can global communications today.

 

Geostat.gif

 

However when you mentioned the weight of the object, i assume you mean due to the gravitational pull from the earth... I don't think this would matter because it becomes all relative. We can say, because the orbit is stationary with respect to earth, that:

 

F(g) [force Gravitational] = F© [force centripetal].

 

Equating this we have:

 

Fg = Fc

 

Ms x Ag = Ms x Ac

 

[mass of satellite] x [acceleration due to gravity(9.81ms^2)] = [mass of satellite] x [acceleration due to centripetal forces]

 

Because the mass of the satellite is on both sides of the equation it is independent of geosynchronous orbit. Meaning the mass of the object doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's 0. :p

(there's still discussion on which specific particles may have mass and which don't, but somehow I think that's beyond the scope of what you intended :cyclops: )

[me=TetsuoShima]seems to be a smart**s today ^^[/me]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×