Robert Comsol wrote:
But anyway, if the okudagrams on the bridge of NCC-1701-A at the end of ST IV did not say "transwarp" than there is no reason to assume it did have transwarp.
Agreed, and it so happens the TNG TM agrees with us. I think transwarp was, quite simply, a thing that we never saw the Federation fully achieve and implement. I think having the Great Experiment be a failure, but netting a variety of successful innovations, is a happy compromise... as well as narratively interesting.
So, I'm starting to see more clearly a narrow set of warp core options. Forgive me for not providing graphics this go round, but perhaps I will later this evening.
The Two "Classic" Options:
Vertical swirl core(s) through neck, horizontal swirl core back to humpback, no reactor other than swirl core, antimatter stores at bottom of horizontal shaft (above deflector alcove)
Same as 1.0, but with non-core reactor and antimatter stores at the bottom of horizontal shaft (above deflector alcove)
Same as 1.0, but with non-core reactor in the humpback, with minimal matter and antimatter stores there also, and main matter stores elsewhere
Vertical TNG-style core(s) through neck, horizontal PTC back to humpback
The Two "Sternbach" Options:
Vertical swirl-core in secondary hull (down to "chasm" area) with horiziontal swirl-core back to humpback; no reactor elsewhere, antimatter in bottom of secondary hull
Same as 3.0, but with non-core reactor in "chasm pod" along with antimatter
Same as 3.0, but with non-core reactor in the humpback along with minimal matter and antimatter stores, main matter stored elsewhere
TNG-style core in secondary hull (down to "chasm" area) with antimatter in bottom of secondary hull
Hopefully, despite the lack of grahpics, this makes our remaining options clear. Generally, there are two overarching options remaining, as I see it, between "Classic" and "Sternbach," with some rather intriguing possiblities for variance therein.
The downside of the Sternbach, of course, is that we lose the chasm as a shuttlebay. I'm not seeing this as necessarily being a deal-breaker; designing that bay to be an intentional ease-of-access to the ship's potentially high maintenance reactors and EPS conduits could
explain it nicely. Cargo loading could easily be achieved through the flat portion of the secondary hull, in panels that I have long assumed are really doors, anyway.
What think you, fellow Treknologists?