Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Star Trek Enterprise Tested to Mach 5

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:22 PM
from the to-much-spare-time dept.
Sci-Fi
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Star Trek Enterprise Tested to Mach 5 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • A nifty little visualization of a wind tunnel... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tcopeland (32225) * <tom.infoether@com> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:22PM (#7328965) Homepage
    ...can be found here [mit.edu].

    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.

      • Re:A nifty little visualization of a wind tunnel.. (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:00PM (#7329423)
        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?

  • Good to know... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Squeebee (719115) <mike@@@openwin...org> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:24PM (#7328977) Homepage
    I was planning to use a scale model of the Enterprise as a hood ornament for my SR-71 Blackbird.

  • Thank goodness the Enterprise is aerodynamic. (Score:5, Funny)

    by gpinzone (531794) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:24PM (#7328979) Homepage Journal
    All that wind resistance in space could have meant certain doom for the crew!

    • Re:Thank goodness the Enterprise is aerodynamic. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jonabbey (2498) * <jonabbey@ganymeta.org> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:32PM (#7329079) Homepage

      Well, if you read the article, they do point out that they are using the shockwaves resulting from mach speeds in air as a speculative analogy to the shockwaves resulting from warp speeds in space.

      Now obviously Einstein showed everyone that that kind of analogy is not likely to be worth a bowl of warm spit, even after you get past the impossible part, but this sort of thing is still way unnecessarily cool, and precisely the sort of ilk I think we geeks should be encouraging.

      • how warp drive works (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Alien54 (180860) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:42PM (#7329855) Journal
        As seen in pages on emerging physics [washington.edu], warp drive works by generating a warp bubble around the ship. The matter inside the bubble is essentially motionless relative to itself. Sort of like a person inside a car does not have to worry about wind resistance.

        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.

  • Simple... (Score:5, Funny)

    by nebaz (453974) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:26PM (#7329015)
    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.

  • definitions? (Score:5, Funny)

    by flynt (248848) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:26PM (#7329017)
    How is ending up broken into a dozen pieces considered doing "suprisingly well"???

  • Space Debris . . . (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dausha (546002) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:28PM (#7329029) Homepage
    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."

  • Page is over 3 years old (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:28PM (#7329035)

    <!--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.

  • Last picture (Score:5, Funny)

    by British (51765) <british1500@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:28PM (#7329038) Homepage Journal
    I really guess "She canna take it anymore!"

  • Bah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrEldarion (114072) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:29PM (#7329046) Homepage
    I want to see them try this with the Borg cube.

    • Don't Be a Git (Score:4, Funny)

      by virg_mattes (230616) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:44PM (#7329878)
      > 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

  • Its a trap! (Score:5, Funny)

    by chobee (555901) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:30PM (#7329055)
    This is like an uber-geek/nerd role call.

  • Mach 5? pffft.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by PissingInTheWind (573929) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:30PM (#7329057)
    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.

    • Re:Mach 5? pffft.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by broller (74249) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:36PM (#7329146)
      5 times the speed of sound is just about 0.0005% of the speed of light.

      Duh, it was a SCALE MODEL. The real one has survived a lot more than Mach 5. Sheesh!

      Oh, and how often do you think the real Enterprise travels at the speed of light in an atomosphere?

    • Re:Mach 5? pffft.... (Score:5, Funny)

      by mchappee (22897) * on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:55PM (#7329369)
      >>it's like doing a car crash test at a speed of around 5 millimeters per hour.

      Which would result in about $2000.00 damage to any modern car. Dirty bastards...


      Matthew

  • WTF? They only tested NCC-1701A! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BenJeremy (181303) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:31PM (#7329078)
    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!)

  • Star Trek OS (Score:5, Funny)

    by Reverend528 (585549) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:32PM (#7329082) Homepage
    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.

  • Mach 5 wind tunnel?...... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ratfynk (456467) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:32PM (#7329087) Journal
    that blows me away...sorry

  • Think before you post... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:35PM (#7329132)
    ...cause you're starting to sound stupid.

    Two comments from /.'ers:

    (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 /.'ers who check this website every 15 minutes, every day, for the rest of their lives?

    Get a life.

  • Obligatory retort: give them a break! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:36PM (#7329134) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • This is pretty wild... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DarkSarin (651985) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:36PM (#7329150) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Geez people... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rdewalt (13105) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:44PM (#7329262) Homepage
    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..."

  • Well duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by jazman (9111) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:18PM (#7329564)
    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!

    • Re:What does this matter if... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Doomrat (615771) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:28PM (#7329034) Homepage
      More to the point, there is no Starship Enterprise, freak.

          • Re:What does this matter if... (Score:5, Funny)

            by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:38PM (#7329180) Homepage Journal
            "The star ship is only two inches tall! Hahaha, a very clever deception indeed!"

            I know it's an actual starship, it says so in the historical documents ;-)

          • Re:What does this matter if... (Score:5, Funny)

            by Chaset (552418) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:48PM (#7329306) Homepage Journal
            Don't get me wrong - I love fiction and escapism, I just think that the line between it and reality should be kept blurred.

            This looks like the opposite of what you're advocating. I think you meant the line should be kept clear.

            Now pardon me while I try to get this holodeck simulation to terminate.

            "Computer, End program!"

            "Computer!"

            "Computer!?"

            "End this simulation, NOW!"

            ..Crap, I'm still here.

    • Re:What does this matter if... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Tattva (53901) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:14PM (#7329537) Homepage Journal
      In space no one can hear you squeal with geekish delight...

    • Re:What does this matter if... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GreyPoopon (411036) <gpoopon.gmail@com> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:33PM (#7329750)
      In space there is no friction to stop your inertia.

      In the article, which I took the time to read, they stated that shock waves created by the model were intended to be analogous to shock waves created by passing through the space time continuum in a warp field. Obviously, this is only theoretical (if you can even call it that) and mostly just for fun, but one day space traveling people may look back and say these folks were ahead of their time.

    • OK. I just had to run the numbers on this (Score:5, Interesting)

      by b-baggins (610215) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @03:14PM (#7330920) Journal
      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.

      • Mechanics in Space (Score:5, Interesting)

        by virg_mattes (230616) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:33PM (#7329759)
        > 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

    • Re:How useless (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thegrommit (13025) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:30PM (#7329054)
      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.

    • Re:How useless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Planesdragon (210349) <slashdot@[ ]tles ... s ['cas' in gap]> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:31PM (#7329067) Homepage Journal
      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.)

      • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Informative)

        by proj_2501 (78149) <mkb@ele.uri.edu> on Tuesday October 28 2003, @12:32PM (#7329080) Journal
        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.

        • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Funny)

          by pmz (462998) on Tuesday October 28 2003, @01:01PM (#7329427) Homepage
          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...

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.