Possible Defense for Enterprise

Enterprise

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby stitch626 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 3:10 pm

Sionnach Glic wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:No, it means they could build physical structures that large. It does not mean that they could build physical structures that large that could move.


I had intended to mention that myself. The stresses you'd put on a ship that large just by shoving a sublight engine on it would be incredible. You'd need to almost completely redesign the interior to stop the entire structure just falling apart under the stress of its own engines. Let alone trying to get it to move FTL.

I'm sure Tyyr or someone else with engineering experience could explain this a bit better than I can.

Yes, that is a very good explanation. I just had failed to think of that when replying before.
The SIF would need to be much stronger, as would the basic structure of the ship. Which would explain the thicker and more slanted neck of the new E.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9523
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Sonic Glitch » Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:24 pm

Sionnach Glic wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:No, it means they could build physical structures that large. It does not mean that they could build physical structures that large that could move.


I had intended to mention that myself. The stresses you'd put on a ship that large just by shoving a sublight engine on it would be incredible. You'd need to almost completely redesign the interior to stop the entire structure just falling apart under the stress of its own engines. Let alone trying to get it to move FTL.

I'm sure Tyyr or someone else with engineering experience could explain this a bit better than I can.

But hasn't it been mentioned that Trek engines work with some sort of mass-lightening technology?
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby stitch626 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:06 pm

Yes, but even if you lower the mass of an object (in a theoretical sense, I guess), you don't change its size. Therefore the physical stresses of the engines would still effect the structure, and the larger it is, the greater the stress on the extremities of the structure.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9523
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Atekimogus » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:26 pm

stitch626 wrote:Yes, but even if you lower the mass of an object (in a theoretical sense, I guess), you don't change its size. Therefore the physical stresses of the engines would still effect the structure, and the larger it is, the greater the stress on the extremities of the structure.


Well maybe the impulse engine not only lowers the mass of the ship but also manages to distribute the thrust of the engine almost equally through the whole hull-structure depending on the direction you are currently heading.

I don't see how this could work but then the same is true for FTL flight :wink: ! I call this effect the Atekimogus' Quantum-redistribution-field or just the AQRD-Field:twisted:
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Reliant121 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:39 pm

Ah the all powerful quantum, the ever abundant resource in Star Trek which, in the real world, roughly equates to "technical sounding bullsh*t"
"He was the best of us. They struck without provocation, there was no reason. Animals! Brutal! They deserve no mercy! Strike them down, follow them back to their base and kill all of them, all of them! No mercy!" - Delenn
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 12098
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:00 pm
Location: Hampshire, UK

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Mark » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:36 am

Another point just came to me. Enterprise being in the Abramsverse would explain the disappearance of the Daedulus class as well.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Sonic Glitch » Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:41 am

Mark wrote:Another point just came to me. Enterprise being in the Abramsverse hash would explain the disappearance of the Daedulus class as well.

Fixed.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Mark » Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:05 pm

Did you go and visit Shran recently? Seems like to might have stopped off at a certain "bar" at some point during the trip :mrgreen:
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Mikey » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:32 pm

Sonic Glitch wrote:
Mark wrote:Another point just came to me. Enterprise being in the Abramsverse hash would explain the disappearance of the Daedulus class as well.

Fixed.


Trust me on this one - no, it wouldn't. At best, it would make yo forget about the issue for a few hours.

And go get some cookies.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Sonic Glitch » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:00 pm

Mikey wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:
Mark wrote:Another point just came to me. Enterprise being in the Abramsverse hash would explain the disappearance of the Daedulus class as well.

Fixed.


Trust me on this one - no, it wouldn't. At best, it would make yo forget about the issue for a few hours.

And go get some cookies.

Would it make Enterprise as a whole more or less bearable to watch?
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 1:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Mikey » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:19 pm

Sure - after about 5 minutes, you'd be gone to the bodega for some Doritos.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Mark » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:45 am

The one time I made the mistake of watching Enterprise "under the influence" two things happened. It made LESS sense than usual, and I had a irresistible craving for pecan pie....thanks to Trip.
They say that in the Army,
the women are mighty fine.
They look like Phyllis Diller,
and walk like Frankenstein.
User avatar
Mark
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 17671
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:49 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Granitehewer » Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:46 am

what i don't get is all those whimperings about how crap 'enterprise' is yet the same people have either not watched it fully (thus their judgment is impaired) or watched every episode (which goes against the whole 'crap' thing).
personally am a big 'enterprise' (and pecan pie) fan
PTLLS (Tees Achieve), DipHE App Bio (Northumbria), BSc Psychology (Teesside), Comparative Planetology (LJMU), High Energy Astrophysics (LJMU), Mobile Robotics/Physics (Swinburne), Genetics (SAC), Quant Meths (SAC)
https://www.facebook.com/PeterBrayshay
User avatar
Granitehewer
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:03 am
Location: Teesside, England

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Tyyr » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:02 pm

Sionnach Glic wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:No, it means they could build physical structures that large. It does not mean that they could build physical structures that large that could move.


I had intended to mention that myself. The stresses you'd put on a ship that large just by shoving a sublight engine on it would be incredible. You'd need to almost completely redesign the interior to stop the entire structure just falling apart under the stress of its own engines. Let alone trying to get it to move FTL.

I'm sure Tyyr or someone else with engineering experience could explain this a bit better than I can.


( Kind of old but someone else necro'd it and I was called out without my knowledge )

It's very very simple. The forces acting on a fixed structure in zero G are so small as to be pretty much ignorable. Since it doesn't move Starbase 74's structure is really only there to give the builders a framework to hang things off of and keep it from all floating off.

Now take a Trek starship. Got one? Ok, not turn it vertical so the bow is up and aft is down. Now, put a finger directly under the impluse engine so the ship is resting on the tip of your finger with the only contact being the impulse engine. Got it? Ok, that's how forces are loaded on a starship traveling at sublight. Only it wouldn't be resting on your finger, your finger would be made of solid stainless steel and fired out of a cannon striking the ship directly on that point, constantly. You see when it's under thrust all the force being put on the ship, and we'll get to just how much that is, is being transferred to the ship's structure from the few points where the impulse engines are anchored to the frame. To keep the ship together all that force has be to transmitted through the ship's frame to every point of the ship, and hold together, so that the ship is accelerated rather than ripped to shreds.

That's why modern rockets are shaped like poles. You simplify the job of the engineer by loading all the forces on the frame in a single direction and its compression. It's very simple to design structures like that, steel is very good in compression and except around the engine mounts all the loads are perfectly vertical.

Now take a look at our starship. It's nothing like that. All kinds of angles and off axis protuberances. Look at the relationship between the secondary hull and the impulse engines, all that thrust that far off that huge mass? The stress on the interconnect of the ship must be tremendous! Forget about the nacelles. Those two huge chunks of metal hanging off the ends of those flimsy supports. Again, the forces in action on them are tremendous. The real science fiction here isn't the warp drive, it's the points where the interconnect and nacelle pylons intersect with the ship's structure, how those acute angled joints don't rip apart under these forces is mind boggling.

And it's important to remember the kind of accelerations we're dealing with. Shot from a cannon doesn't even come close to covering it. These ships accelerate from a dead stop to a 1/4 the speed of light in a matter of moments. Accelerations of hundred of kilometers per second at a bare minimum. 100,000 G's easy.

Even if we invoke things like the structural integrity field it is still far, far, FAR more complicated to make a structure mobile than to just make one stationary.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Possible Defense for Enterprise

Postby Tyyr » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:03 pm

Granitehewer wrote:what i don't get is all those whimperings about how crap 'enterprise' is yet the same people have either not watched it fully (thus their judgment is impaired) or watched every episode (which goes against the whole 'crap' thing).
personally am a big 'enterprise' (and pecan pie) fan

Ok, so what you're saying is that anyone who says Enterprise is crap is either misinformed or a liar? That's a bold claim.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

PreviousNext

Return to ENT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest