Jump to content

SCI-FI Spacecraft that can be constructed now


Recommended Posts

Cool idea!

I agree with your choices.

I have a one with a modification:Discovery from 2001.

Obviously,we don't save sentient AI like HAL( my brother,a Microsoft programmer,doesn't think sentient AI is even possible! ) or Hypersleep systems,but neither is a no-go for a deep-space explorer.

Otherwise,she seems expensive but do-able to me.

-Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, why is that?

Regards,

Murph

Hi Murph. First off,if I say anything dumb in this response,it's my error,not my brother. He told me it's basically two things: Networked expert-systems are a more elegant and efficent solution to the kind of management that say HAL or Data would represent then trying for a single processor solution-especially the programming hours it would take to even try (note-that's the part I have to check with Jim on to see if I'm quoteing him accurately)

Secondly:he believes,as do I,that human brain function is so complex and so mysterious,with chemical interactions,that there is essentially no way for a computer to mimic what we can't even comprehend.So as he says-no 'living' computer. Being able to process equations at Gigabytes per second isn't a brain.

Anyhoo.........this is the kind of thing my brother and I talk about over a beer. :salute:

Cheers,

-Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Eagle is the most "attainable" design. As for AI I really think some bonehead will build it and once out of the box-there will be lot of ethical questions that could lead to conflict with our creations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Murph. First off,if I say anything dumb in this response,it's my error,not my brother. He told me it's basically two things: Networked expert-systems are a more elegant and efficent solution to the kind of management that say HAL or Data would represent then trying for a single processor solution-especially the programming hours it would take to even try (note-that's the part I have to check with Jim on to see if I'm quoteing him accurately)

Secondly:he believes,as do I,that human brain function is so complex and so mysterious,with chemical interactions,that there is essentially no way for a computer to mimic what we can't even comprehend.So as he says-no 'living' computer. Being able to process equations at Gigabytes per second isn't a brain.

Anyhoo.........this is the kind of thing my brother and I talk about over a beer. :D

Cheers,

-Dave

Dave,

Thanks for the explanation.

Regards,

Murph

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey there. Just wondering what movie/tv space vehicles can actually be put into production today. I always thought that the following may be able to be made now. Any thoughts on this or am I totally off?

1) SHADO Interceptor

2) Eagle Transport

3) Star Fury

Norm (with time to waste)

At the time the Star Fury appeared in B5, NASA were most keen on it as it can be built now. The direction thrust system with the deflector vanes would make it most manoeuvrable in space.

I would also add the fighters in the Lost in Space Movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i always felt the ship in "Mission to Mars" seemed feasible. maybe not practical, but buildable.

and oh yea, i don't know the name of it, but buck rogers ship from the 70's series...i mean it was a space shuttle. it would have to work right?

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing most S.F. space vehicles lack is reaction mass. That takes volume. The Eagle lander would probably work as long as it didn't have to fly around for more than about 90 seconds.

And sentient AI? Never say never. How long ago were they saying computer processor speeds could not possibly surpass 1Ghz? (I think it was about the time I bought a 33Mhz 486)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The main thing most S.F. space vehicles lack is reaction mass. That takes volume. The Eagle lander would probably work as long as it didn't have to fly around for more than about 90 seconds.

And sentient AI? Never say never. How long ago were they saying computer processor speeds could not possibly surpass 1Ghz? (I think it was about the time I bought a 33Mhz 486)

Until they ditch chemically powered rockets for something that produces far more thrust without needing vast volumes of fuel, these ships are not going to happen.

At least NASA are now looking at the ion/plasma thrust systems powered by nuclear reactors, having pioneered smaller systems in the outer system probes.

Edited by madmike
Link to post
Share on other sites
So like.....this'll never happen?

Bummer

summer-glau-sarah-connor-chronicles.jpg

That's entirely within the realm of possibility, so long as you're like me and couldn't care less about the brain (J/K ladies, I'm thoroughly impressed by your massive, uh, intellects).

On topic, first thing that came to my mind were the Space 1999 Eagles, though GreyGhost's point about reaction mass is pretty valid. The main problem seems to be propulsion rather than construction, though. Given enough resources we could probably build a Death Star type station so long as it doesn't really need to move much. Maybe spin it for "gravity" and construct appropriately (concentric shells rather than horizontal levels). We could put one each in the Earth-Sun L4 & L5 points. They'd make awesome science stations for all kinds of research & experimentation.

:crying2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My pick is the Discovery from 2001, the technology to create it exists now or can be created within a decade or so.

The ship was designed based on what was available at the time or in the near future, using a form of nuclear propulsion.

Various nuclear propulsion options were tested in the late 60's and early 70's and showed promise, but were canceled due to problems with the metals of the time and political issues of launching a nuclear reactor.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, going nuclear is probably the only way to reach the planets with manned missons......read up on Project Orion for example, not to mention the really heavy nuclear engines which uses small atomboms or thermonuclear devices :trolls: Like the Daedalus and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, going nuclear is probably the only way to reach the planets with manned missons......read up on Project Orion for example, not to mention the really heavy nuclear engines which uses small atomboms or thermonuclear devices :thumbsup: Like the Daedalus and such.

Project Orion is the only one we could conceivably build right now, all the technology exists, we just need to do a few test flights. What's odd is that while chemical rocket designs focus on controlling weight across the board, Orion ships become more efficient as they get larger, since a larger diameter pusher plate can absorb more from the blast and larger bombs have higher plasma velocities.

The power available from the nuclear pulse propulsion on an Orion ship is amazing, especially compared with existing technologies:

Space Shuttle solid Rocket boosters - 268

Space Shuttle Main Engine - 453 (currently the most powerful rocket engine)

Tripropellant test in the 60's - 542 (record for chemical rockets)

NERVA Rocket design from the late 60's - 900+

Small Orion ship - 5000+ (remember, this was based on what was available in 1960, maximum is around 100,000s)

(All figures are specific impulse in a vacuum, measured in seconds)

The power available from an Orion ship could be used to go to Mars and back in 4 weeks from Earth's surface. (12 months best case scenario with current chemical rockets)

Or 7-9 months for a round trip to Saturn (9 years with current technologies), or one year round trip to Pluto (15+ years each way now)

Ion propulsion systems can have very high specific impulses due to the efficiency in the engine, however they can only provide a small amount of thrust over a long period of time.

Ken (speculative space engineering is an interest of mine)

Edit:

One of the advantages to the Orion ships is that it would be huge in comparison to existing spacecraft, think of launching a small destroyer into space in terms of size and tonnage, plenty of room for the crew, science labs, support equipment, etc. the idea at the time was to build the ship using standard shipyard construction methods and materials.

Edited by kenlilly106
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm...then we´d send up real spaceships :worship: Only there would be some enviromental issues I bet.....that with blowing nuclear devices on the surface of the Earth. ( I´d say it´s a small price to pay......but then again, it ain´t up to me) :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mars mission will be launched from near orbit or a lunar base. So there is no reason that a nuclear or ion propulsion system could not be considered. Constant thrust provides artificial gravity and a much shorter mission transit time.

Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe...but since I don´t have any sence à think it´s sexier with throwing out A-bombs to propell yourself forward instead of a puny charged particle engine with perhaps 0.0001 G (arbitrary number) of thrust. So much cooler if you could accelerate with 3-4 G instead!!! what a headrush!! :salute:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mmmmm...then we´d send up real spaceships :coolio: Only there would be some enviromental issues I bet.....that with blowing nuclear devices on the surface of the Earth. ( I´d say it´s a small price to pay......but then again, it ain´t up to me) :o

Estimates at the time were that each launch would cause fatal cancers in 10 people from the fallout, however to counter the worst of the fallout it was proposed to use conventional explosives to get the ship off the ground, where fallout would be the worst if using a nuclear bomb.

However the fallout could be minimized by launching a larger ship, since the large vessels could use thermonuclear (fusion) bombs vs the pure fission devices a smaller ship would use, fission bombs having more fallout particles than a fusion bomb.

It would take the fallout equivalent of a single 10megaton blast to launch a 6000 ton Orion ship into orbit from the surface, assuming fission bombs only, this estimate was based on what was available around 1960, with the better bomb designs available now, fallout may not be the issue it was in the past.

It should be noted that one of the big roadblocks then and now are the design particulars of nuclear weapons.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn´t it be more ellegant to build a fusion engine to lobbing out nuclear devices that go boom? It must surely be easier than building a fusion reactor (which seems to have some difficulties even now after, what 30 years of research?) since you don´t have to contain the reaction in the same way, you just blast it out in to space to propell you the other way....

What´s the hold up there? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...