norm from canada Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 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) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxtype Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 ( my brother,a Microsoft programmer,doesn't think sentient AI is even possible! ) Just curious, why is that? Regards, Murph Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tancist Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 Just curious, why is that?Regards, Murph Maybe because he work in Microsoft? :D Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxtype Posted April 30, 2008 Share Posted April 30, 2008 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. Cheers, -Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deke Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 (edited) No bucks, no Buck Rogers. Deke Edited July 28, 2010 by Deke Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DiaboliCole Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 The Hammerhead from Space: Above and Beyond seems feasible, yet completely implausible given the current direction of airframe design. A Macross Varitek would be cool. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bullitt3980 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmike Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
niart17 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 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) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxtype Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Dave, Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Murph Murph,you are quite welcome! Cheers, -Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 The Leonov...or what is was called in the movie 2010 looks at least plausible.....And it reminds me of the Earth destroyers in B5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmike Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 (edited) 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 May 2, 2008 by madmike Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mkimages Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 So like.....this'll never happen? Bummer 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rjwood_uk Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 we could easily build a borg cube just need thrust vectorers instead of trans-worp engin lol Richard Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenlilly106 Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 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 Like the Daedalus and such. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenlilly106 Posted May 3, 2008 Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) 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 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 May 4, 2008 by kenlilly106 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Mmmmm...then we´d send up real spaceships 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) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
madmike Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 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!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kenlilly106 Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 Mmmmm...then we´d send up real spaceships 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted May 4, 2008 Share Posted May 4, 2008 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: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.