Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft

[Rhinocrates]

Crossing the borders of fact and fiction, but then Kubrick and Clarke wanted 2001: A Space Odyssey to be as much like a documentary as possible.

Realizing "2001: A Space Odyssey": Piloted Spherical Torus Nuclear Fusion Propulsion - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

A conceptual vehicle design enabling fast, piloted outer solar system travel was created predicated on a small aspect ratio spherical torus nuclear fusion reactor. The initial requirements were satisfied by the vehicle concept, which could deliver a 172 mt crew payload from Earth to Jupiter...

ntrs.nasa.gov

ABSTRACT A conceptual vehicle design enabling fast, piloted outer solar system travel was created predicated on a small aspect ratio spherical torus nuclear fusion reactor. The initial requirements were satisfied by the vehicle concept, which could deliver a 172 mt crew payload from Earth to Jupiter rendezvous in 118 days, with an initial mass in low Earth orbit of 1,690 mt. Engineering conceptual design, analysis, and assessment was performed on all major systems including artificial gravity payload, central truss, nuclear fusion reactor, power conversion, magnetic nozzle, fast wave plasma heating, tankage, fuel pellet injector, startup/re-start fission reactor and battery bank, refrigeration, reaction control, communications, mission design, and space operations. Detailed fusion reactor design included analysis of plasma characteristics, power balance/utilization, first wall, toroidal field coils, heat transfer, and neutron/x-ray radiation. Technical comparisons are made between the vehicle concept and the interplanetary spacecraft depicted in the motion picture 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Rhinocrates]

On the other hand...

While the C-57D flying saucer from Forbidden Planet may not be very plausible to us now, I think the film deserves a lot of credit for creating a spacecraft that would be recognisable to audiences who would have served aboard real ships and planes in WWII. There is an overall organisation like an air force or navy, there is a chain of command, procedures to follow, and the technology is detailed with specific purposes, capabilities and limits. The set and prop designers thought carefully about how the interior and exterior would be related and where the machinery would go. If the hardware isn't as credible as 2001's Discovery, the detail, discipline, and coherence shown were revolutionary at the time.

 

[martinbayer]

This fictional craft doesn'took half-badl

https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/srm-columbus/2.png

Star Fleet Starship Recognition Manual: Columbus: Interstellar Sublight Explorer

Cygnus-X1.Net: A Tribute to Star Trek

www.cygnus-x1.net

Fictional spacecraft rarely ever *look* half-bad, because that's their *very* one and only design objective! Just please, don't confuse movie fantasy design *purely* based on optical appeal with actual engineering.

 

[martinbayer]

On the other hand...

While the C-57D flying saucer from Forbidden Planet may not be very plausible to us now, I think the film deserves a lot of credit for creating a spacecraft that would be recognisable to audiences who would have served aboard real ships and planes in WWII. There is an overall organisation like an air force or navy, there is a chain of command, procedures to follow, and the technology is detailed with specific purposes, capabilities and limits. The set and prop designers thought carefully about how the interior and exterior would be related and where the machinery would go. If the hardware isn't as credible as 2001's Discovery, the detail, discipline, and coherence shown were revolutionary at the time.

Again, I'll refer you to the NASA TRL concept, see https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_level. If your postulated TRL is literally waaay off the chart (as in yet undefined 0 [or perhaps even negative {or, worse yet, imaginary} number territory - who can really tell for sure?!]), you're just talking fantasy fairy dust territory, but *NOT* HARD Science Fiction.

 

[publiusr]

Fictional spacecraft rarely ever *look* half-bad, because that's their *very* one and only design objective! Just please, don't confuse movie fantasy design *purely* based on optical appeal with actual engineering.

I this case of Columbus…you have a good chunky nozzle…much better tankage than 2001’s Discovery.

Maybe NSWR would look like that if doable.

Maybe Dumbo NTR:

Dumbo: America’s First Forgotten NTR – Beyond NERVA

beyondnerva.com

From the Angry Astronaut

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4AylYuaDfw&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo

 

[martinbayer]

I this case of Columbus…you have a good chunky nozzle…much better tankage than 2001’s Discovery.

Maybe NSWR would look like that if doable.

To the best of your knowledge, insight, and understanding, what is the NASA TRL for a nuclear salt-water rocket (assuming that is what you are refererring to in your post - if I'm wrong in my assumption, please, do not only feel free but also urged on by me to correct me)?

 

[publiusr]

That I could not tell you—though Manley did have a program about it:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cvZjhWE-3zM

My overall point is that…unlike flying saucers…craft with big tanks and big nozzles don’t need new physics.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Again, I'll refer you to the NASA TRL concept, see https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_level. If your postulated TRL is literally waaay off the chart (as in yet undefined 0 [or perhaps even negative {or, worse yet, imaginary} number territory - who can really tell for sure?!]), you're just talking fantasy fairy dust territory, but *NOT* HARD Science Fiction.

True, it's not buildable and any spacecraft with FTL would be automatically disqualified. However, my point is that Forbidden Planet is significant in the history of film because it represents a turning point in attitudes towards the presentation of spacecraft in fiction. I think it's the beginning of a path that does not follow but converges with the TRL scale leading to 2001's Discovery and The Martian's Hermes, not its end.

Don't worry, I won't start posting about the Heart of Gold.

 

[Scott Kenny]

To the best of your knowledge, insight, and understanding, what is the NASA TRL for a nuclear salt-water rocket (assuming that is what you are refererring to in your post - if I'm wrong in my assumption, please, do not only feel free but also urged on by me to correct me)?

NSWR is TRL2 or 3. We know how the fission works in general. We can build the system, but nobody's done it yet even in the lab, so it's not TRL4

 

[martinbayer]

All I can say in all honesty is that to me Forbidden Planet is just yet another pulpy, trashy, schlocky mid fifties pseudo sci-fi (where's any actual hard science?) mildly sexploitation (ooh, short skirts, anyone?) flic, starting with conveniently landing on a planet with perfectly agreeable gravity and breathable atmosphere to then quite literally air out all sorts of interpersonal pseudo drama/grievances. Just look at the movie poster at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet. If I'm in the mood to watch a play by The Bard, I'll stick to the actual original, so no thanks. Sitting through that truly wretched stinker of a movie on late night weekend German TV as just one of the misspent parts of my youth where I'll never get back the wasted time is now just part of my life story, but to quote my boss, I'm not bitter...

 

[Rhinocrates]

Well, one way to wash a bad taste out of your mouth is to fill it with a different bad taste. Between Battlestar Galactica and For All Mankind, Ron Moore was working on this:

https://www.salon.com/2009/06/25/virtuality/

It never made it past a pilot because it wasn't very good but its cancellation made Nicolaj Coster-Waldau available for Game of Thrones (and some elements seem to have inspired the scenario of 1899, which was also cancelled).

The starship Phaeton is an Orion type. There are some stupid details for 'dramatic reasons' - the magazine is pretty inadequate for a starship and the charges are picked and loaded by a teleoperated arm. On the other hand, there's the nice touch of the habitat being centrifugal and the segments of the ring rotate about their individual axes depending on whether the ship is under thrust or cruising.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Jupiter 2

 

[Justo Miranda]

C-57D

 

[Justo Miranda]

Invaders

 

[Justo Miranda]

Martian machine

 

[The K2]

Martian machine

Good gravy! Seeing all this (Jupiter 2, C57D, Invaders, Martian War Machine) is making me have flashbacks.

I could add the titular craft from the TV series UFO (1969) and my interpretation of its interior, but I won’t. ‍

 

[martinbayer]

Well, one way to wash a bad taste out of your mouth is to fill it with a different bad taste. Between Battlestar Galactica and For All Mankind, Ron Moore was working on this:

https://www.salon.com/2009/06/25/virtuality/

It never made it past a pilot because it wasn't very good but its cancellation made Nicolaj Coster-Waldau available for Game of Thrones (and some elements seem to have inspired the scenario of 1899, which was also cancelled).

The starship Phaeton is an Orion type. There are some stupid details for 'dramatic reasons' - the magazine is pretty inadequate for a starship and the charges are picked and loaded by a teleoperated arm. On the other hand, there's the nice touch of the habitat being centrifugal and the segments of the ring rotate about their individual axes depending on whether the ship is under thrust or cruising.

Thanks for the warning, Rhinocrates ! You COMPLETELY lost me at "stupid details" and "inadequate"... do you even recognize the utterly *FUNDAMENTAL* flaws in your own reasoning in a thread EXPLICITLY titled "Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft??? THIS MEANS TRL 6 AT THE VERY LEAST, see https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf!!!

 

[TsrJoe]

The excellent Spaceship Handbook from ARA press is probably the 'bible' to this thread

 

[Justo Miranda]

Good gravy! Seeing all this (Jupiter 2, C57D, Invaders, Martian War Machine) is making me have flashbacks.

I could add the titular craft from the TV series UFO (1969) and my interpretation of its interior, but I won’t. ‍

Hi

 

[Justo Miranda]

Supercar

 

[Justo Miranda]

Battlestar Galactica

 

[Justo Miranda]

Proteus

 

[Justo Miranda]

Spindrift

 

[Justo Miranda]

Icarus

 

[Arjen]

Either a change of direction for this thread is needed, or a change of this thread's title: Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft.

 

[The K2]

Either a change of direction for this thread is needed, or a change of this thread's title: Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft.

From elsewhere on the forum: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/robinson-crusoe-on-mars.4879/
Mars Gravity Probe-1

 

[Justo Miranda]

Either a change of direction for this thread is needed, or a change of this thread's title: Fictional (But Realistic) Spacecraft.

Define "realistic"

 

[martinbayer]

Define "realistic"

TRL of 6 or higher, see https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_level.

 

[Arjen]

I would settle for plausible. Even with the bar as low as that, none of the Chris Foss/Gerry Anderson/Galactica stuff would qualify. In my opinion, very little of the book covers, and nothing resembling saucers would qualify either.
I love the movie, but even 2001's Discovery (better than most) is problematic - an early design sensibly featured big radiators - they were dropped because, if I remember correctly, they looked too much like wings - thus, too much like an aircraft. Even when it was designed, the huge pod bay made no sense at all for a practical design - imagine pumping it empty for every excursion, then pumping air in again on returning.

 

[The K2]

Define "realistic"

Plausible, concepts within our technological limits (at least in our lifetime).
Nothing wrong with iconic vehicles from our past looking at a possible future. And I do appreciate the posts.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TRL of 6 or higher, see https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/technology_readiness_level.

By that standard, Saturn 5 and the Space Shuttle barely qualify.

 

[martinbayer]

Both were actual systems flight proven through successful mission operations, i.e. TRL 9 per definition. The fact that they are no longer in use does not invalidate the fact that the underlying technologies and principles remain known and well understood.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Both were actual systems flight proven through successful mission operations, i.e. TRL 9 per definition. The fact that they are no longer in use does not invalidate the fact that the underlying technologies and principles remain known and well understood.

Flying prototypes are TRL7 by definition. There were what, 15 total Saturn 5s built? and 5 Shuttles?

Prototypes.

 

[martinbayer]

Not just prototypes, but small series production runs.

 

[Justo Miranda]

OK, realistic

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-2

 

[southwestforests]

By that standard, Saturn 5 and the Space Shuttle barely qualify.

From what I'm aware of, both Saturn V and STS were used "...during a succesful mission ..."

Once a technology has been "flight proven" during a successful mission, it can be called TRL 9.

NASA's published criteria state that it only takes a succesful mission and both technologies flew multiple successful missions.

From:

A TRL 6 technology has a fully functional prototype or representational model.
TRL 7 technology requires that the working model or prototype be demonstrated in a space environment. TRL 8 technology has been tested and "flight qualified" and it's ready for implementation into an already existing technology or technology system. Once a technology has been "flight proven" during a successful mission, it can be called TRL 9.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-3

 

[Justo Miranda]

From what I'm aware of, both Saturn V and STS were used "...during a succesful mission ..."


NASA's published criteria state that it only takes a succesful mission and both technologies flew multiple successful missions.

From:

a succesful mission

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-4