Slashdot Mirror
Star Trek Enterprise Tested to Mach 5
Sporkinum writes "University of Queensland Laser Diagnostics Dept
has a page
where they put the Enterprise through the gauntlet in a mach 5 wind tunnel. It did surprisingly well."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...can be found here.
Fair warning - the linked-to page contains an applet, so be prepared for the usual "computer freezes for 10 seconds" effect if you're running Windows.
The Army reading list
In space there is no friction to stop your inertia. Excellent waste of time research people.!
I have a Cig, but do you have a light?
I was planning to use a scale model of the Enterprise as a hood ornament for my SR-71 Blackbird.
All that wind resistance in space could have meant certain doom for the crew!
...but can it do warp 5? not too shabby, kudos to Walter Matthew Jefferies for a great design, may he rest in peace.
Logistical Chaos Officer http://www.slagg.org - LAN Gaming in Sarasota FL,USA
It is good to know that a fictitious ship designed to operate in a vacuum in a fictitious universe can handle mach 5 winds..... no really it is.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
We all know that simply rerouting the EPS conduit to emit a low level anti-tachyon beam will nullify any damage space junk will create.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
How is ending up broken into a dozen pieces considered doing "suprisingly well"???
It appears that the space debris is a gum wrapper. This demonstrates that giant space aliens should be tidy when travelling lest their rubbish destroy our mission "to boldly go where no man has gone before."
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
<!--This file created 3/29/00 9:54 AM by Claris Home Page version 3.0-->
Nice to see some up-to-date stuff here on Slashdot.
I really guess "She canna take it anymore!"
I want to see them try this with the Borg cube.
Mach 1 at sea level is 0.0000001135 c. Warp 1 is conventionally assumed to be c.
If they have that much time on their hands, I have some important stuff they can work on... sheeesh
Like measuring how aerodynamic your self righteous ego is? Flame aside, researchers deserve a bit of fun too. Random thoughts and experiments often bring new insights.
This is like an uber-geek/nerd role call.
5 times the speed of sound is just about 0.0005% of the speed of light. That's not a conslusive test, it's like doing a car crash test at a speed of around 5 millimeters per hour.
I hope they realize they still have a *lot* of work to do.
A message from the system administrator: 'I've upped my priority. Now up yours.'
Oh, come on, FK. You know as well as I do that there are innumerable reasons to allow something like this to be done: Training, morale, fostering intellectual curiosity, testing equipment, and probably a few more.
Like, oh, boosting PR for the site, to attract new personnel. (Note the "what else we do" link at the bottom of the page.)
Now the NCC-1701D whoulc have been the one to test, after all, we know it actually made planetfall.
Did they use containment forcefields in the test?
How did the plasma conduits hold up to the stress?
(Questions Geeks REALLY want to know!)
Warp 1 is stated to be c in both the TOS and TNG warp scales in the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual.
After that the warp scales are two divergent wacky exponential sawtooth things.
Of course! Scotty is an Engineer and Kirk is just management, silly.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
For a second I misread it and thought that the article would be about Star Trek OS, Enterprise Edition running on a Mach 5 Microkernel. Imagine my disappointment.
Badass Resumes
well, id think not... mach 5 biting at your "end" is gotta burn something off!
that blows me away...sorry
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Ah, but you misunderstand. What CmdrTaco was really trying to say was "To much spare time!"
Imagine it as a sort of toast to slacking.
*clank of Mountain Dew cans*
...
...cause you're starting to sound stupid.
/.'ers:
/.'ers who check this website every 15 minutes, every day, for the rest of their lives?
Two comments from
(1) Yeah, but there's no atmosphere in space.
No sh**. They acknowledge that in the second paragraph of their description and then proceed to suggest that mach 5 in an atmosphere may be similar to warp 5 in a vacuum (where you are pushing against the fabric of space). This isn't a scientific journal -- it's just some fun they're having after doing real work.
(2) What a waste of time.
This from the first couple dozen posters -- who really is wasting their time: the kids who did the experiment in an afternoon, or the
Get a life.
Allow me to begin the second phase of stock Slashdot comments. Phase I has already taken place: "what a waste of taxpayer/foundation/whatever dollars!" Phase II begins now:
Lighten up! It is clear from a very quick look at the rest of the site that the "Enterprise" simulation is just a fun application of some very serious science. It's clear that no special apparatuses (apparati?) were constructed to provide a real simulation of the Enterprise -- in fact, it's pretty obvious that the model used came out of a cereal box, or something.
Day in and day out, it looks like these guys are engaged in cutting-edge wind tunnel science, testing object against forces so strong, they can only be simulated for tiny fractions of a second. This means that someone spends hours setting up everything within rigorous parameters, then pushes a button. "Bam!", and it's over. If the object under test was mispositioned by a fraction of a millimeter, the team gets to do it all over again.
Once -- just once -- they'd like to have a chance to do something fun with the equipment. Someone has an old Enterprise model (actually, it may be from a snow globe). After a long day (probably unpaid) of testing the frontiers of science and boredom, they load up the (already warmed up) machine and have a little fun.
Thanks to the 'net, we get to share their fun. And in another few decades, we may get to enjoy the results of their hard work when we book that vacation on Luna.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
I personally find this great. After all, I know that's exactly what I would do if I had a wind tunnel. I would also be testing the aerodynamic properties of the Millenium Falcon (which was designed for atmospheric travel), and numerous other fictitious "space ships". I would probably also test aluminum cans, coke bottles, penguins (after all I want to know how fast a penguin can go, having played too much tux racer), and numerous other objects.
Of course, this is the exact reason no one wants to give me access to a wind tunnel! I'd probably break it.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Read the other comments. Space isn't a complete vacuum. There is actually a significant amount of hydrogen in outer space, which becomes a problem when you're traveling at any appreciable fraction of the speed of light.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
But the Enterprise isn't designed to enter an atmosphere??
Very true!
Very wrong! The saucer section of the Enterprise was designed for rentry and planetside landing.
Okay, now I've shown my colors...forgive me.
You damn green-blooded vulcans are always trying to hold us humans back.
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
Not to mention the women they'll get...
All the comments seem to be of the type "Wow, what a waste of research time/money, -EVERYONE- knows there is no air in space."
What ever happened to "Because its there."? You've got the capacity of generating Mach 5 winds... So you take your Enterprise model, and bolt it in and give it a go.
OF COURSE the Enterprise isn't designed to enter atmosphere. Its also a fictional vehicle.
People who do things like this, do it Because They Can.
I sure as hell would. Ever build a kaleidoscope, and shine a laser into it? What about with one of those clear crystal isocahedrons inside it as well... I know for a fact that there was no New Science being done. I also know it was fucking cool as shit. Yes, I proved nothing with my shiny thing, except it looked good, and was fun.
The Enterprise test was perhaps just that. Dicking around with shit. It just happened that the experiment returned "Its surprisingly aerodynamic". And they wished to share their results. Its geeky news, and so it made it onto Slashdot.
Relax, science doesn't always have to have a purpose. That's how discoveries are often made. Not by "That proves my theory." but "Hey, That's funny..."
Yes, there is no atmosphere in space. But people, stop being nerdy. They were not testing the enteprise for space deployment.
Can't people separate science from fiction?
Is it hard to assume that it was just an aerodynamics test, and the object under test happened to be the enterprise just because it had a pretty, aerodynamic shape? If they test the aerodynamics of a carrot, are people going to whine about the different viscosity of common garden soil?
This was NOT a deep space test!
The truly trek geeky apparently arent here.
Plenty of people are asking why they tested the atmospheric effects, when enterprise never goes there.
In fact it did, in multiple episodes, and in multiple movies.
Star Trek 4, multiple TOS episodes, and of course plenty of times in the TNG (granted different design, but still).
The enterprise wasnt designed for it, but its definitely a valid question and test - it's occured more than a few times.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
In Mozilla, you need to download the newest CVS build. Then, apply the patch described in attachment #15 to bug #1378805. Then recompile with the APPLET_EXP_SUPPORT flag turned on. Run the moztest_applet_enable program to fix the resultant binary, and you're all set!
Isn't open source grand?
Warp 1 is stated to be c in both the TOS and TNG warp scales in the Star Trek TNG Technical Manual.
Okay, of all of us who actually do own both manuals, who are proud of it and who are slightly ashamed of it? I was proud of it, but now I tend to keep them hidden...
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Everyone bitching about what a waste of time this is, but really, does it look like they spent alot of time on this? It looks like something they threw together in a few minutes, most likely while working on another project in the wind tunnel. People need to lighten up.
Everyone knows chicks dig pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Of course it blew up. They didn't have the deflector dish or the shields activated. Any idiot would know without them that it would blow up as soon as it started moving at any significant speed.
I'd like to see them retest with shields and deflector - then let's see how well it performs!
> I'll believe its real space the moment I see someone drifting backwards.
This was touched upon in the second movie, where Spock commented on Khan's two-dimensional thinking in the cat-and-mouse hunt in that gas cloud, and the battle was won by piloting the Enterprise downward (relative to its orientation) and then back up behind the Reliant. Still, it's fairly easy to explain banking in spacecraft using relative inertia. When a spacecraft turns, the body of its pilot tries to continue in a straight line. Banking the craft causes the pilot to feel the change in direction as being pressed downward into the seat, which is both familiar and less likely to cause a g-force related blackout. On larger ships, it could be seen the same way, allowing the inertial dampers to work less to keep the crew vertical while the ship turns, and there were a number of occasions where large craft turned by spinning on center, as one would expect from spacecraft. Think of the opening credits on later versions of the above-mentioned DS9, where the Defiant backs off from the docking port and spins around its center to get to its exit heading, while drifting directly away from the station.
There are lots of failings in Star Trek, but they do make at least some effort, and one must remember that it's a TV show/movie, so entertainment value sometimes trumps reality (like when one hears the explosions ripping apart yet another version of the Enterprise, or when a shock wave moving faster than warp 3 strikes a ship and swats it along instead of pulverizing it or crushing it like a soda can). Play along.
Virg
It's actually the speed of his joke flying over your head.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
On the other hand, this has interesting implications for the physics of star trek weapons technology. No phasers at warp drive, and firing, never mind aiming, photon torpedoes could be a royal pain.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
> I want to see them try this with the Borg cube.
Fool. Borg cubes travel in transwarp conduits. They don't have to deal with this sort of problem. Fool. Federation fool.
Virg
Even one single lepton out of place in the reassembly and you've materially changed that person's psychic makeup.
Jeez... what do you think the Hiesenberg Compensators are for?
How do you suppose that we check to make sure the numerical simulations are correct?
OK, completely ignoring the fact that the Enterprise is completely fictional, etc., etc., they still didn't get the test right.
The shape of the warp bubble is what's important, not the shape of the ship. While the bubble follows the general shape of the ship, it does not conform to the outer hull in the way that the test represents.
OK, enough of that. Back to arguing about how a transporter works.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Sorry, I'm not that much of a geek. To me, Warp is always "a number approximating 7 * the priority the writers want to impart" for TOS and "10 - the inverse of the priority the writers want to impart" for the other series; with priorities being capable of reaching >1.0 for TOS and always being 1.0 for the other series. The story lines suggest Warp 1 = 1 c. The technical manuals, unless they are based upon the show bible, are non-canonical.
http://www.rz.rwth-aachen.de/vr/ more interesting site than posted on /.
regarding THIS article:
1. Their tiny model would not predict how "life-size" Enterprise would behave, as far as dynamics are concerned. Since no one can afford to build an actual 1:1 model (or wind tunnel big enough), everything should have been done in mCAD, Autocad w/ plugins or something else. Figure out how dense and thick the hull is and you are all set. Guesstimate tensile strength and properties of the "alloy" or use something that we already have on earth.
2. Warp engines work by warping space around them and not by pushing or propelling ship's body. So, no, warp5 and mach5 are totally different.
Interstellar vacuum holds about 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic centimeter.
According to the Star Trek encyclopedia, a ship's speed = (warp factor)^3 x c.
So, warp 10 is 1000c.
This translates to 3x10^11 meters per second or 3 x 10 ^13 cm/s
This means, each second, 3x10^13 atoms of hydrogen are impacting each square centimeter of the ship.
This gives us a total kinetic energy of 22.95 kJ/s for each square meter of the ship.
Let's see what that would do to Ten forward's windows, which are made from Transparent Aluminum:
Let's assume the windows are ten centimeters thick. A one meter square slab would then have the following properties:
Mass: 270 Kg
Specific Heat: 243 kJ/K
Melting point: 933.52 K
Heat of Fusion: 1.08E+05 kJ
If you run the numbers you'll find that, at warp 10, the windows of Ten Forward will rise from a space normal temperature of 4K to the melting point of 933.52 K in 2.73 hours.
Assuming the soft metal didn't blow out at this point, the windows would gradually melt away over the next 1.31 days.
Mind you, this is in the deepest interstellar space where hydrogen molecules are at their thinnest.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Space isn't a vacuum... there is a small amount of gas, mostly hydrogen, floating around even in the most desolate regions.. Its small, something on the order of one molecule per liter or something like that. So there is a TEENY TINY bit of pressure in space, that will come into play at high speeds. I would think that under extremely high speeds, even sub-light speeds, the drag created would actually be surprisingly large.
Kind of like paying to go to a Trekkie convention and laughing at the guy who has a slide rule in his pocket.
I hate to say it, but NX class Enterprise/NX-01 (ST: Enterprise) would probably give them all a run for their money in the wind tunnel.
I suppose Galaxy class/NCC-1701-D would give it a run for its money, anyway. Maybe Sovereign class/NCC-1701-E, too... (The movies after Generations)
Excelsior class (-B) (From Generations beginning) and Ambassador class (TNG: Yesterday's Enterprise) (-c) seem a bit blockier.
Since nobody else seemed to mention it, the one used in the test was the refit Constitution class. Either NCC-1701 or NCC-1701-A from movies 1 through 6
I had a sucky sig.