US to build "Battlestar Galactica" space battlecruiser | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 62251 United States 06/17/2006 02:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 32062 United States 06/17/2006 02:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 300 United States 06/17/2006 03:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
entropy User ID: 418436 United States 05/18/2008 05:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ok so there may be no official confirmation that this will happen. Quoting: AC 2741But my point is it could be done now. we have the technology. If you watch BG then do you agree we could build a battlestar now minus the faster than light drive? i think we could. Have the Tech? We couldn't build a frak'n viper with the tech we have now. The tech is possible just not doable. Anyway what would we need one for? my re-imaging(cover) of "Piggies" (The Beatles) and "Lights in the Sky" (Nine Inch Nails) is available to listen to now. Won't cost you a dime. Click below to hear it. [link to www.myspace.com] Over 1 Million plays, Most popular NIN Remix / Re imaging artist on myspace. I keep it separate: [link to www.myspace.com] archive: [link to www.vampirefreaks.com] Thanks. [link to www.facebook.com] aSBhbSB5b3VyIHNhdmlvcg0KaSBhbSBjb3JydXB0aW9uDQppIGFtIHRoZSBhbmdlbA0Kb2YgeW91ciBkZXN0cnVjdGlvbg0KaSBhbSBwZXJ2ZXJzaW9uDQpzZWNyZXQgZGVzaXJlDQppIGFtIHlvdXIgZnV0dXJlDQpzd2FsbG93ZWQgdXAgaW4gZmlyZQ== |
entropy User ID: 418436 United States 05/18/2008 05:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If the ship is built as poorly as the series is acted, it will self-destruct. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32062my re-imaging(cover) of "Piggies" (The Beatles) and "Lights in the Sky" (Nine Inch Nails) is available to listen to now. Won't cost you a dime. Click below to hear it. [link to www.myspace.com] Over 1 Million plays, Most popular NIN Remix / Re imaging artist on myspace. I keep it separate: [link to www.myspace.com] archive: [link to www.vampirefreaks.com] Thanks. [link to www.facebook.com] aSBhbSB5b3VyIHNhdmlvcg0KaSBhbSBjb3JydXB0aW9uDQppIGFtIHRoZSBhbmdlbA0Kb2YgeW91ciBkZXN0cnVjdGlvbg0KaSBhbSBwZXJ2ZXJzaW9uDQpzZWNyZXQgZGVzaXJlDQppIGFtIHlvdXIgZnV0dXJlDQpzd2FsbG93ZWQgdXAgaW4gZmlyZQ== |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435239 Australia 05/18/2008 05:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Shouldn't be a problem. Submarine building is not that much different than building a space craft and we're damned good at that""""""""""""" yes! and have been for quite a long time now. kinda makes you wonder what they have been up to all these years......... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 281483 United States 05/18/2008 05:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Bao2 User ID: 432848 Spain 05/18/2008 05:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ok so there may be no official confirmation that this will happen. Quoting: AC 2741But my point is it could be done now. we have the technology. i think we could. We even don't have the technology to go in a manned mission to the moon. You need first fields of energy to protect the ship, we even don't have this. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 371314 United Kingdom 05/18/2008 05:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 379883 United States 05/18/2008 05:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435255 Greece 05/18/2008 06:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For the propulsion system, look no further than the Orion project. For the artificial gravity, a system based on centrifugal forces may be employed, as in the novels of Arthur Clarke. The transport vessel should be built in orbit, just like the ISS. The vessel will not land on planets, but it would be used as an interplanetary vessel. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 423072 United Kingdom 05/18/2008 06:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The US was looking at giant spaceships back in the 1960s as part of Project Orion. Some of these studies were for ships capable of taking 200 people to the Moon or Mars - see this Flickr presentation: [link to www.flickr.com] Unfortunately Project Orion had one big drawback. Its power source consisted of hundreds of nuclear bomblets that would create explosions under the craft to propel it skywards! A bit of a problem in Earth's atmosphere... But nuclear powered engines of a different variety might return one day. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 423072 United Kingdom 05/18/2008 06:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 423072 United Kingdom 05/18/2008 06:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And Jerry Pournelle investigated the Dean Drive in the 1950s or 60s. [link to www.jerrypournelle.com] The article states that two of his associates saw it working and it was on the basis of their report that he tried to get funding for it. Unfortunately Dean was too cagey about it. Perhaps the US military later cracked the secret on their own. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 397790 United States 05/18/2008 07:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ok so there may be no official confirmation that this will happen. Quoting: AC 2741But my point is it could be done now. we have the technology. If you watch BG then do you agree we could build a battlestar now minus the faster than light drive? i think we could. There is a simple device that can be used to tow something like a specially retro fitted submarine into space.. And we are already using particle cascade windows in CPU die manufacture(penetrable vacuum chamber window). No reason we couldn't incorporate that into a launch bay to allow shuttle craft to be launched with ease. We still need to come up with some sort of gravity plating. NASA has managed to create the sort of field we would need but the technology needs to micronised into a material we could use for flooring. The crude way it is done now tends to break one's DNA. The artificial gravity field needs to be below the person without the person actually being in the field where the slight spacial stretch damages fragile DNA chains. For propulsion we either need to dramatically increase the thrust capability of our ion drives or get David Adair to build a few fusion rocket engines for us... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 397790 United States 05/18/2008 07:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Duncan Kunz User ID: 434952 United States 05/18/2008 07:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | yeah - there was an idea in the 70's to use subs as space ships, hinged on the "dean drive" as a power source. Quoting: AC 2741needless to say the "dean drive" didn't work though. The fifties, actually. John Campbell, editor of "Astounding" (later "Analog") was a big supporter of the Dean Drive, until he found out it didn't work. Where's the EVIDENCE, Jim? |
Duncan Kunz User ID: 434952 United States 05/18/2008 07:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And if we cover it in stealth skin and incorprate a mental control system we should be able to create some sort of shield system just like the Pear institute and McDonald Douglas are currently working on for the F-22 Raptor.. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790My former employer, McDonnell (not "McDonald") Douglas, ceased to exist when we merged with The Boeing Company in 1997. The only "artifact" is the company that builds AH-64D Apache helicopters, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company. Boeing is not building the F-22 Raptor; the prime contractor is the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, with Boeing subcontracting. And although Boeing's role in the system includes development of stealthy coating to reduce the F-22’s vulnerability to infrared threats, it is not a "shielding". Finally, the PEAR organization (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research), while a legitimate (although not overly-successful) research outfit, does not have any portion of the development of the F-22. Where's the EVIDENCE, Jim? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435294 New Zealand 05/18/2008 08:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Whats the point? If we literally can't get the car out of the garage. And besides..where would we go, and what propulsion system would we use? Notwithstanding just about anything and everything that we don't know about deep space exploration (radiation, gravity, physiological impacts, distance, time, temperature.. blah blah). This would be so premature. Instead, why don't we get our own house in order first before we start crapping on someone elses? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435294 New Zealand 05/18/2008 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And if we cover it in stealth skin and incorprate a mental control system we should be able to create some sort of shield system just like the Pear institute and McDonald Douglas are currently working on for the F-22 Raptor.. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790 |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435294 New Zealand 05/18/2008 08:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And if we cover it in stealth skin and incorprate a mental control system we should be able to create some sort of shield system just like the Pear institute and McDonald Douglas are currently working on for the F-22 Raptor.. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790You obviously read way too much science fiction dude! |
rathmussen User ID: 383866 Canada 05/18/2008 08:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | maybe one day we'll build that space elevator some people have been dreaming up. [link to en.wikipedia.org] ...but isn't there a radiation problem for humans in space? Plus we don't know how to simulate gravity yet... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 397790 United States 05/18/2008 08:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And if we cover it in stealth skin and incorprate a mental control system we should be able to create some sort of shield system just like the Pear institute and McDonald Douglas are currently working on for the F-22 Raptor.. Quoting: Duncan KunzMy former employer, McDonnell (not "McDonald") Douglas, ceased to exist when we merged with The Boeing Company in 1997. The only "artifact" is the company that builds AH-64D Apache helicopters, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems, a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Boeing Company. Boeing is not building the F-22 Raptor; the prime contractor is the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, with Boeing subcontracting. And although Boeing's role in the system includes development of stealthy coating to reduce the F-22’s vulnerability to infrared threats, it is not a "shielding". Finally, the PEAR organization (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research), while a legitimate (although not overly-successful) research outfit, does not have any portion of the development of the F-22. "Let me bring you up to date here on current events... they have a contract from McDonald Douglas to build mental controlled shielding and firing systems on the new F-22 fighters..." All the F-22 Raptors have the same stealth skin as the F-117 Nighthawks. With the proper control systems this skin is capable of variable reflection angles and possible field output capabilities. The reason the SR-71 didn't have the same angular design as the F-117 is because the Blackbird had a computer controlled stealth system which could manipulate the radar reflection angles. You would be very surprised at what else it could do too! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 397790 United States 05/18/2008 08:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Boeing is not building the F-22 Raptor; the prime contractor is the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, with Boeing subcontracting. And although Boeing's role in the system includes development of stealthy coating to reduce the F-22’s vulnerability to infrared threats, it is not a "shielding". Quoting: Duncan KunzMcDonald Dooglass merged with Boeing... so they are part of Boeing now... same difference. Thanks for verifying that "Boeing" is the one responsible for the stealth systems. And I don't think you realize what I mean by "shielding"... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 387251 Greece 05/18/2008 08:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Building is not the problem...getting it up there is... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 696you don't get it up there... you *build* it up there like this you don't have problems of size you need to put in orbit only small pieces (modules) not the whole spaceship your only problem is time. Not size. |
Duncan Kunz User ID: 435431 United States 05/19/2008 12:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Let me bring you up to date here on current events... they have a contract from McDonald Douglas to build mental controlled shielding and firing systems on the new F-22 fighters..." Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790Okay, I can see why you have the wrong information; he has the wrong information, too. All the F-22 Raptors have the same stealth skin as the F-117 Nighthawks. With the proper control systems this skin is capable of variable reflection angles and possible field output capabilities. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790I doubt you have access to the details of the fuselages of the aircraft; that information requires an access in excess of any clearance I've ever had. But common sense should tell you diffferently; the F-117's fuselage was angular, and was designed to reflect radar signals away from the emitter and not bounce it back at them. The F-22, on the other hand, does not need this angularity approach; obviously, there is something in the makeup of the passive and active systems providing low observable results that is substantially better than that of the F-117. The reason the SR-71 didn't have the same angular design as the F-117 is because the Blackbird had a computer controlled stealth system which could manipulate the radar reflection angles. You would be very surprised at what else it could do too! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790Horsefeathers. The SR-71's success was based on the fact that it could fly faster and higher than any triple-A or interceptor aircraft at the time. The Soviet radars could see it fine, they just couldn't reach out and touch it. When the SR-71 was developed in 1962, the state of the art computer systems were just transiting from vacuum tubes to transistors, and the best transistorized computers were still discrete. If there were such a thing as "computer-controlled stealth systems" which could "manipulate the radar reflection angles", then why did the F-117 have to rely on a clunky physical radar angle approach which kept the plane subsonic and impossible to control without computers? Where's the EVIDENCE, Jim? |
Duncan Kunz User ID: 435431 United States 05/19/2008 12:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Thanks for verifying that "Boeing" is the one responsible for the stealth systems. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 397790Not at all, although I doubt they're responsible for all of them. I was able to provide the information because it's in the public domain. If you yourself actually researched the stuff available on the internet, your posts would be more accurate. I recommend a search engine called "Google". Where's the EVIDENCE, Jim? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435441 Australia 05/19/2008 12:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 290624 United States 05/19/2008 12:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 435441 Australia 05/19/2008 12:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The aliens out there are watching earth closely, any attempt at deep exploration will be met with the destruction of the earth. The aliens will not let human viruses infest another planet and spread its evil. End of story. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 290624Go shoot yourself GOON if you feel that way. |