Inertia is a product of mass and changes in velocity, not gravity. Accelerate to quickly, even out of the influence of a gravity well, and your inertia will fight the acceleration, and the outcome is that you will become a meat puddle squashed into the end of the room pointed away from the direction you’re accelerating towards. You would either have to accelerate slowly enough that this doesn’t happen (the current method), or find some way to remove inertia from the picture (the Star Trek method).

Absolutely none of that matters. It doesn’t need rotation for gravity, because it uses audiovisual gravity plates. It doesn’t need room for propellant, because it doesn’t burn conventional fuel.

It’s a futuristic vision of a ship that uses technologies that don’t exist yet. It’s an unrealistic shape for a ship made *now*, but it’s a perfectly reasonable shape in that particular fictional future, using the myriad fictional technologies in the show. It has no need to look like a ship that would make sense in an age where the furthest we’ve gone is the moon, and we rely on rockets with chemical propellant to get around. It’s set in a world with inertial dampeners, structural integrity fields, teleportation, and faster than light travel.

The Enterprise was specifically designed to be entirely free of the requirements of operating under the effect of having weight or in an atmosphere. Obviously there’s a lot of technobabble on top of that but when you look at the Enterprise you should see a ship that truly belongs only in outer space.
(and to J.J. Abrams most certainly not underwater)

There wouldn’t be torque stresses on the nacelles because they don’t generate thrust. The impulse engines, which (kind of?) do are located at the back of the saucer, the most structurally durable section of the ship.

Good thing aeronautics plays no importance in the vacuum of space. Too many wrongly assume there is gravity and drag in space…sorry, no. Nothing to work against…no need for inertial dampers, or banking during turns…nothing. Gravity does not exist where there are no planetary bodies to effect routine spaceflight. Since we can only relate to effects we live with daily, separating our planetary existence with a space based flight, where gravitational effects are negligible to non existent. Space travel holds the biggest danger for human travel, due to solar radiation….Xrays, Gamma rays and so on…also add micro meteorite impacts…space debris that travels so fast, and most are grain of sand size, are greater threats than speed. Space travel holds dangers far greater than anything we face on Earth, and most, are fatal.

Ed,

Good to hear from you! 🙂 You misunderstood me when I said that Jefferies had no knowledge of aero engineering, I said that he had no knowledge of “space aero-engineering”, which is completely different from aero engineering. Plus, I have taken the liberty of reading up on his profile on Wiki and there is no indication of him having knowledge in space aero engineering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Jefferies

For the record, it was not my intention to insult or dishonor his memory, I am merely pointing out the fact that there does not seem to be any evidence that he was knowledgable in space aero engineering, compared to his aero engineering background, that’s all, it is not in my nature to insult anybody. Now, if you can prove me wrong on this by providing the necessary information, I will apologize accordingly and admit defeat.

On a side note, I agree with you in regards to Dan being, shall we say, misguided? On one hand, I applaud him for thinking outside of the box and having a vision, but on the other hand, for him to think that he can build the starship Enterprise in real life is foolhardly to say the least. You having an Aeronautical Engineering background would agree that most sci-fi starships are unrealistic, they do not subscribed to the notion of “form follows function” and that is certainly the case with the starship Enterprise. I remember the time when I assembled my own starship Enterprise A model kit and when I attempted to place it on it’s stand, it tipped forward! LOL!

Anyway, a more realistic spaceship that can be build today (if money was no object) would be the Discovery from “2001: A Space Odyssey” or the Leonov from “2010: The Year We Make Contact”.

What do you think?

Julian, you seem to have missed my point. Jeffries designed the Enterprise to look like it’s not possible with our current technology, not because he didn’t know any better. He did know better.

And pilots do have a basic knowledge of aeronautical engineering. It’s required study to get a Private Pilot license (unlike a driver’s license, which in the US anyway doesn’t even require higher brain function). The engineering part of ground school is not nearly as extensive as what I learned getting a BS in Aeronautical Engineering, but for you to say that Jeffries had no knowledge of it is an unfounded assertion that frankly insults his memory. It also implies that you need an aerospace engineer’s knowledge to be qualified to discuss the subject. In that case, may I ask whether you are qualified to discuss it?

As for BTE-Dan, I totally agree with you that what he was doing (past tense because his website is gone now) was total nonsense, placing form before function He might as well have been “designing” a spaceship that looks like the Statue of Liberty, except that it wouldn’t have gotten gullible idiots to give him money.

Hello Ed! My apologies for the late reply. Yes, it is true that the late-great Matt Jeffries was an accomplished pilot and aviation illustrator, but he had no knowledge of aero-space engineering, it’s a completely different beast. As I stated previously, unfortunately, the starship Enterprise is an unrealistic design from an aero-space engineering perspective. However, you don’t have to take my word for it, check out the following quoted statements between BTE-Dan, the engineer who created a website entitled, “Build The Enterprise” and Jim, an aero-space engineer regarding the starship Enterprise design and why it would never work:

“BTE-Dan
Member
Posts: 4
Liked: 0
Likes Given: 0
Building The Gen1 USS Enterprise, Really
« on: 05/08/2012 01:33 AM »
And now for some fun thinking outside the box about what we could do in space when ignoring the issues of politics and funding …

The BuildTheEnterprise (BTE) website describes how to build the first USS Enterprise spaceship, based on technologies within our reach, over the next twenty years.

It has 1g gravity, shielding for missions away from earth, can hold a 1000 people, and can enable the building of large underground bases on Mars and the moon also with 1g gravity. So what are we waiting for?

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org

Cheers,
BTE-Dan”

“Offline Jim
Night Gator
Senior Member
*****

Posts: 31381
Cape Canaveral Spaceport
Liked: 9652
Likes Given: 300
Re: Building The Gen1 USS Enterprise, Really
« Reply #14 on: 05/08/2012 01:41 PM »
Quote from: BTE-Dan on 05/08/2012 12:44 PM

But also, I challenge anyone to show that what I proposed on the BuildTheEnterprise site can’t be done from a technical point of view.

It can’t, period. It can’t meet the requirements you impose on it.

The structure and design is totally wrong for the task.
it is unbalanced
it has no room for propellant.
it has no radiators
The propulsion system can not meeting the 90 day to Mars requirementl
The “magnetically suspended gravity wheel” which I take to mean a centrifuge, is in the wrong plane for control of the vehicle.”

If you care to check out the full discussion in detail, check out the Nasa Spaceflight.com Forum link:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28821.0

Chère homme de sciences comme la semences bien semé pousse grâce à la chaleur.
Comme le jour se lève et se couche pour laisser la place à la nuit.
Seul Dieu n’a aucun regret d’avoir créé tout forme de vie existantes.

Les chercheurs cherche les ingénieurs sont ingénieux.
Si pour vous ils est facile de construire l’Arche de Noé avec seul équipage ( l’élite ) alors faites dont chère amis et ne vous retourner pas à l’endroit d’où vous êtes venu.

Also, “no rotating section for artificial gravity.” One of the tropes of Star Trek and all sci fi since is an artificial gravity field generated from the floor. Babylon 5 used rotation on the B5 station, but went back to artificial gravity fields for Minbari ships.

SciFi shows and movies are shot on Earth, so simulating weightlness and/or gravity from rotation, while possible, is not the easiest thing in the world. The closes we came was Apollo 13, which used a zero gravity plane for some zero g shots on the spacecraft. When movies and shows can be shot on location in orbit, there will be more accuracy. Until then, just let it go.