The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Trek Tech (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=224209)

Masao August 29 2013 11:52 PM

Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Without referring to anything that came after TOS (no retconning!), where do you think the matter/antimatter reaction took place on TOS USS Enterprise: in the nacelles or in an in-hull reactor?

LET ME STRESS: TOS ENTERPRISE!!!

Robert Comsol August 30 2013 12:26 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
@ Masao

I don't think this is a matter of assumption or personal preference. In "By Any Other Name" Spock stated that the Enterprise is "propelled by matter-antimatter reactors" (i.e. more than one), there are several references to antimatter pods in the warp nacelles and "That Which Survives" suggests there is one that can be jettisoned should the need arise (given the episode's context apparently in the engineering hull).

blssdwlf compiled most of the corresponding dialogue quotes in his WIP Enterprise thread which I personally found most inspiring and eye-opening. :)

Bob

Masao August 30 2013 01:46 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Quote:

Robert Comsol wrote: (Post 8574466)
I don't think this is a matter of assumption or personal preference.

Sure it is! People have opinions regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. This is like asking if people believe in the existence of gods, human-triggered global warming, natural selection/evolution, the tooth fairy, honor among thieves or politicians, and the worldwide communist conspiracy. People have opinions about the location of the M/AM reaction, despite or because of the evidence, and I'd like to know what they think.

Please, everyone, don't turn this into an argument thread. Vote and state/explain your opinion but don't try to change anyone's mind.

Praetor August 30 2013 02:19 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
What a great idea for a poll, Masao.

I believe that in TOS, the initial thought was that the nacelles were both power and propulsion units, akin to the aviation model with which Mr. Jefferies and Gene were accustomed. Indeed, I'd say "antimatter pods = warp nacelles." However, I think this may have changed, even during the show.

Taking the universe in whole, I'd posit that there's some sort of reactor in the secondary hull, probably a multi-chamber/reactor system, and then some sort of plasma accelerator system system in the nacelles themselves... maybe some kind of final stage reactors?

blssdwlf August 30 2013 04:10 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
I vote combination. The episode dialogue supports both M/AM reaction in the nacelles and the main engineering hull and does not support exclusively one or the other.

Robert Comsol August 30 2013 08:42 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Quote:

Masao wrote: (Post 8574778)
Quote:

Robert Comsol wrote: (Post 8574466)
I don't think this is a matter of assumption or personal preference.

Sure it is! People have opinions regardless of the presence or absence of evidence.

No offense, but in the presence of evidence we are enabled to draw logical conclusions and do not need to rely on opinion, belief, assumption or preference. :)

In the absence of evidence speculation is warranted and I can immediately think of the in-universe size of the Excelsior, the function of the numbered openings at Reliant's stern, the age of the Oberth Class and other topics.

Anyway, here are the relevant TOS quotes regarding the issue. Where I reserve doubt is the function of dilithium crystals, but the location of the antimatter pods (and reactors) aboard the TOS Enterprise is made abundantly clear, IMO.

I would also like to add that Spock located the alien entity in "Day of the Dove" near "reactor number three".

Bob

Masao August 30 2013 11:15 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Robert Comsol, don't be a wet blanket! If you object to this thread and the whole idea of this poll, then just ignore it. Regardless of what you believe people should conclude, I know for a fact that people have different opinions about this issue. Let people express themselves. Please don't try to influence their opinions; I've requested that people, including you, not do that. OK?

Praetor August 30 2013 03:52 PM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Bah, I want to change my vote to nacelles after re-reading the bit about only going by TOS. :(

Timo August 30 2013 05:12 PM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
My vote goes for "the creators of the show never cared and thus never knew", the one thing for which there is rock-solid evidence.

Oh, wait, that has been left out of the choices for some reason...

Okay, it's the "combination" thing, then. Clearly, the flow of antimatter flow takes place in the secondary hull ("That Which Survives"), in addition to potentially happening elsewhere. If the antimatter pods are in the nacelles, what business would the fuel have in the secondary hull unless it went there for rest, recreation and reaction?

Basically, the one problem we face with the TOS ship is finding a part of it that does not have antimatter within! Even the saucer seems to have some, as per "Errand of Mercy".

Timo Saloniemi

Robert Comsol August 30 2013 11:12 PM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Quote:

Timo wrote: (Post 8577064)
My vote goes for "the creators of the show never cared and thus never knew", the one thing for which there is rock-solid evidence.

...which usually transforms into hot air once we actually make an effort to figure out what it is they had intended and stop drinking from G.U.T. bottles and Rectcon Brandy. :rolleyes:

Bob

Masao August 30 2013 11:34 PM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Quote:

Robert Comsol wrote: (Post 8578759)
Quote:

Timo wrote: (Post 8577064)
My vote goes for "the creators of the show never cared and thus never knew", the one thing for which there is rock-solid evidence.

...which usually transforms into hot air once we actually make an effort to figure out what it is they had intended and stop drinking from G.U.T. bottles and Rectcon Brandy. :rolleyes:

Bob

Robert Comsol, please stop it. I want to hear want people think. I don't want you trying to influence people's opinions. You've had your say. Now let others have theirs.

Melakon August 31 2013 12:03 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Quote:

Robert Comsol wrote: (Post 8575855)
. . .In the absence of evidence speculation is warranted and I can immediately think of the in-universe size of the Excelsior, the function of the numbered openings at Reliant's stern, the age of the Oberth Class and other topics. . .

Which is completely irrelevant, given the conditions presented in the first sentence of the original post:
Quote:

Without referring to anything that came after TOS. . .

yenny August 31 2013 12:26 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
Quote:

Masao wrote: (Post 8574277)
Without referring to anything that came after TOS (no retconning!), where do you think the matter/antimatter reaction took place on TOS USS Enterprise: in the nacelles or in an in-hull reactor?

LET ME STRESS: TOS ENTERPRISE!!!

It take place in the intermix chamber, which itself is located in the engineering hull, just behind main engineering.
Later it was move below main engineering in the middle with the top part of it extending into engineering itself.

Darkwing August 31 2013 12:46 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
As I understand it, Matt Jeffries intended the reactors to be in the nacelles, and TMP was supposed to be a big deal with the refit moving them. So I prefer TOS reactors in the nacelles, with the move to a single reactor in the hull as the upgrade that set the pattern for the future.
It also allows the technology change to affect ship design. A TOS Chandley might have had room for everything it was supposed to if the reactors are in the nacelles. Moving the reactor into the hull makes it way too cramped. Same with Saladins, Loknars, etc. This goes along with the ships getting bigger - part of the reason for the larger saucer on the refit E, by this thinking, is to recoup space lost to the reactor, not to balance the appearance. It also goes a ways towards explaining the Indomitable, with it's stretched Connie-refit secondary hull. To be a battleship, it needed a larger reactor to allow more weapons, shield, and maneuvering power, and needed not to take space out of the primary hull, so they stretched the secondary hull. I really like the Indomitable, especially the fan variants that switch back to an Enterprise saucer, but I've never really liked the idea of it as a battleship.
I can see the Excelsior being able to fill that role initially, until everyone catches up, even though it's supposed to be the new generation of heavy cruiser, but AFAIAC, the Federation refit is a better BB than Indomitable. But considering the switch from nacelles to secondary hulls gives an in-universe explanation for why it was intended as such. In my trek verse, it was introduced as a battle cruiser, not a battleship, and reclassified as a CH after Excelsior came online.
Also, the TOS ship was capable of warp 6/8, the refit 8/12. Part of that was, IMO, the better engines, and part was the much bigger reactor providing more power to those new engines, since the Kelvans got the TOS E up to warp 14.
And then, finally, I like to think the later recalibration of the warp scale became necessary as the new liner-intermix style reactors evolved and got bigger, allowing engines to go faster by accessing deeper layers of subspace.

Melakon August 31 2013 01:05 AM

Re: Where's the M/AM reaction in TOS Enterprise?
 
I forgot to vote earlier. I'd guess the nacelles, due to a line in "The Apple".

Quote:

Kirk: . . .Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.