If Soverigns could land...
- LaughingCheese
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am
If Soverigns could land...
So I have [img=http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/20 ... nting2.jpg]this[/img] as my wallpaper now and was staring at it thinking "Sovereigns would make a sweet yacht for a super rich Fed (however that would work ).
http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/20 ... nting2.jpg
Would be even cooler if they could land and then take off like the Enterprise in ID.
I think its been said tho that the placement for Voyager's landing struts are incorrect or something?
And that would be basically what I was thinking for Sovereigns. Also they would probably take up a huge amount of space in the engineering hull?
So is there any possible realistic way landing struts could support a Sovereign class starship?
http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/20 ... nting2.jpg
Would be even cooler if they could land and then take off like the Enterprise in ID.
I think its been said tho that the placement for Voyager's landing struts are incorrect or something?
And that would be basically what I was thinking for Sovereigns. Also they would probably take up a huge amount of space in the engineering hull?
So is there any possible realistic way landing struts could support a Sovereign class starship?
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Quantum struts should support the whole ship.
Seriously something as large as a Sovereign would require a large number of them to be small or small number of them but really large.
It also depends on the strength of the materials Star Trek uses.
Seriously something as large as a Sovereign would require a large number of them to be small or small number of them but really large.
It also depends on the strength of the materials Star Trek uses.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
- Teaos
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15368
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: Behind you!
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Ships have mass reduction technology.
What does defeat mean to you?
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Teaos wrote:Ships have mass reduction technology.
So do all fat chicks.... yes baby chickens.
Anyway, seems oddball that for a ship to land in an emergency would require anti g tech.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: If Soverigns could land...
The problem with Voyager is that they have those anemic little nacelles and that huge fat saucer extending way out to the front. You'd need super dense nacelles compared to the rest of the ship to have a prayer of that thing being even remotely balanced. You also have to deal with the issue of such a huge overhang and that it would likely require the structural integrity field to still be operational to prevent the saucer ripping off the hull.
Then there's the size of the landing feet. We have a concrete number for the mass of Voyager, 700,000 tons, and you can pretty quickly estimate an area for the landing feet. They had 700,000 tons sitting on maybe 160m square. That's about 2.88 tons per square inch, 5,760 pounds per square inch. For comparison the surface pressure of an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank is only about 10psi. Without anti-gravity canceling out about 99.5% of Voyager's mass it would instantly sink into the ground until it hit bedrock or the bottom of the hull was crushed until it reached a ground pressure able to support the ship.
Then there's the size of the landing feet. We have a concrete number for the mass of Voyager, 700,000 tons, and you can pretty quickly estimate an area for the landing feet. They had 700,000 tons sitting on maybe 160m square. That's about 2.88 tons per square inch, 5,760 pounds per square inch. For comparison the surface pressure of an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank is only about 10psi. Without anti-gravity canceling out about 99.5% of Voyager's mass it would instantly sink into the ground until it hit bedrock or the bottom of the hull was crushed until it reached a ground pressure able to support the ship.
- LaughingCheese
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Teaos wrote:Ships have mass reduction technology.
I dunno, that seems kind of liability, I thought one of the points of landing was for repairs but you can't land too well without power I guess and some repairs are easier to do in space, vice versa.
I guess that rules out landing to conserve power....Tyyr wrote:The problem with Voyager is that they have those anemic little nacelles and that huge fat saucer extending way out to the front. You'd need super dense nacelles compared to the rest of the ship to have a prayer of that thing being even remotely balanced. You also have to deal with the issue of such a huge overhang and that it would likely require the structural integrity field to still be operational to prevent the saucer ripping off the hull.
Then there's the size of the landing feet. We have a concrete number for the mass of Voyager, 700,000 tons, and you can pretty quickly estimate an area for the landing feet. They had 700,000 tons sitting on maybe 160m square. That's about 2.88 tons per square inch, 5,760 pounds per square inch. For comparison the surface pressure of an M1A2 Abrams main battle tank is only about 10psi. Without anti-gravity canceling out about 99.5% of Voyager's mass it would instantly sink into the ground until it hit bedrock or the bottom of the hull was crushed until it reached a ground pressure able to support the ship.
I have no reference for this and I'm just not that great at math in general, so I looked up the saturn 5 which apparently had a mass of 6.2 million pounds; 700,000 tons apparently equates to 1.4 million pounds??
I'm sure I'm missing something there...
Last edited by LaughingCheese on Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: If Soverigns could land...
700,000 tons is 1,400,000,000lbs. 1.4 Billion pounds.
The Saturn V also sat on a prepared pad designed to handle it's weight.
The Saturn V also sat on a prepared pad designed to handle it's weight.
- Captain Seafort
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 15548
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
- Location: Blighty
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Yep. More than three orders of magnitude. One ton is 2240lb. Ergo Voyager's mass is close to 1.6 billion lbs.LaughingCheese wrote:700,000 tons apparently equates to 1.4 million pounds??
I'm sure I'm missing something there...
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
- LaughingCheese
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Oops...
So with all that said....how in the heck would that Star Trek hotel have worked??
Wouldn't that be kind of impossible for steel?
http://collider.com/star-trek-enterprise-vegas/
So with all that said....how in the heck would that Star Trek hotel have worked??
Wouldn't that be kind of impossible for steel?
http://collider.com/star-trek-enterprise-vegas/
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Well, it wouldn't have massed anywhere near that much and they'd have likely have had a support system in place to help hold it up, simple towers or towers and cable stays.
Re: If Soverigns could land...
I hate paramount CEO... that would have been awesome.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
- LaughingCheese
- Lieutenant Commander
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:57 am
Re: If Soverigns could land...
stitch626 wrote:I hate paramount CEO... that would have been awesome.
Agreed. The stupid things people do.
Given the popularity of the new movies, they should JUST FREAKING DO IT ALLREADYYYYYYYYY.
But which Enterprise should it be?
I'd think the GCS would be pretty difficult if not impossible.
I'd love to see the Enterprise E.
Maybe go with they're original plans and build the A, then others if that's successful.
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 21747
- Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
- Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
- Contact:
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Structurally, I'd think the E would be easiest, due to its mass distribution, and lack of really flimsy thin segments.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Re: If Soverigns could land...
Nebula Class? Provided they put a layer or bubble wrap 20 meters thick round the warp nacelles.
"You ain't gonna get off down the trail a mile or two, and go missing your wife or something, like our last cook done, are you?"
"My wife is in hell, where I sent her. She could make good biscuits, but her behavior was terrible."
"My wife is in hell, where I sent her. She could make good biscuits, but her behavior was terrible."
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: If Soverigns could land...
The E is better balanced but the saucer section still projects out a long ways with little holding it up.