Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I'd say the more substantial issue would be fuel. A Federation Starship would have to carry enough fusionable matter (presumably deuterium) and antimatter to power the ship for a sustained voyage.

Shaw, your drawings are very illuminating. Looks like the TOS Enterprise must've stored a significant quantity of fuel in the forward half of the warp nacelles, and also some reserves in the outboard compartments of the saucer and secondary hull. Maybe it's time to assume, unlike TNG, that fuel storage aboard a starship is decentralized to balance the ship's mass. (It would make sense to store at least some fuel in the saucer for the impulse engines and photon torpedoes anyway.)

 

^ Slush tanks in the saucer? Got those in my version...

 

Franz Joseph said:

At various times, I've dismissed this statement, thought it a hamfisted explanation of something with more substance, and wondered if there might be anything there. Of late I've been sitting in the hospital with an IV in my arm, fighting a damned antibiotic-resistant infection, and occasionally looking at this website on a Blackberry. Wingsley's latest post got me thinking about ol' Franz and the above comment.

Really, if the ship bends spacetime around it, and if the nacelles are the prime actors in this process, then it's easy to see how an intense gravity source at the nacelle dome would not only start the space warping process into motion, but also draw whatever goodies float on the surface of spacetime into the nacelle's maw. Franz says it sucks in the energy of the entire universe, and by equating mass with its energy alter ego you can pretty clearly see how this isn't far from true. Maybe not the entire universe, maybe just your local part, but still all the energy/matter in that part.

So, if you're bending space towards you, you are sucking fuel towards you. It might not be enough to make the system self sustaining, and I think the ship would carry an onboard, superdense fuel supply. But I think that superdense fuel supply isn't all there is. In warping space, the ship would also partly replenish its fuel supply -- enough to take a "truck" that might otherwise get five gallons to the mile and turn it into one that might get ten miles to the gallon. Eventually fuel would run out, but it would take longer than if this space-bending process wasn't going on.

This setup has made me rethink calling anything in front of the nacelle a "Bussard collector," and drawn me back to Franz Joseph's term "sink". Also, I think the place for this "collecting" should be in those "ridges" immediately behind the dome. The dome should be the hypergravity source, and the ridges should draw off whatever goodies the dome sucks in.

 

Problem: That's now how the functioning of the warp drive is described in the show. And that's kinda the point of these projects, to figure out a way to make what we saw and heard on the show work. I'm sure all of us here could come up with a thousand different ways to design a starship and figure out what makes it go, but those aren't the toys we find in the sandbox at this time. We're stuck with the Enterprise.

It might do for an explanation of how the Romulan warp drive works, with its artificial singularity, but the Enterprise's engines have been explicitly described as being powered by matter/antimatter annihilation. FJ's design provides for neither the matter, nor the antimatter.

 

I'm sorry... I didn't recall that the warp drive was ever explained to that extent in TOS. And since it was my impression that it was Shaw's intent to describe the Enterprise as it was portrayed in that show, and only that show, I thought there was some latitude.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood.

And FYI, the use of matter and antimatter was explicitly provided for in Franz Joseph's explanation.

 

So if I'm reading this right, the dome in the front starts the warping of space-time... then the addition of the rear dome could be designed to help restore space-time behind the ship (in the same way that rear spoilers are designed to keep from creating a vacuum behind a vehicle that would reduce it's efficiency).

It wouldn't be originally recognized that restoring space-time would be of any benefit, so the earlier starships would have been missing this feature.

This sort of reminds me of what happen to the Porsche 928 (which though originally looked fast, actually had a drag coefficient equivalent to a stationwagon) or even commercial jet aircraft before the addition of the winglets (which as I recall started popping up on aircraft in the 1980s to help reduce fuel costs). The benefits wouldn't make themselves obvious while on the drawing board, but would become clear as a result of data from actual operations.

I don't know about anyone else, but I like the geometry of this (even if it runs counter to later Trek) and the placement of the matter/antimatter collection gives a nice explanation of those parts as well.

Specially when you take into account the existence of virtual pairs. Everywhere in the universe a pair of matter and antimatter particles pop into and then out of existence. Their life span is so short that they are undetectable, but in areas where space-time is warped significantly, their life spans can be either increased, or they can be pulled apart from each other.

Because of conservation of energy, you wouldn't get these antimatter particles for free... but it would make for a nice way to supplement a ship's supply.

On a completely ungeekie note, I'm sorry to here about your stay in the hospital and hope for your quick recovery.

 

I'll dig up some relevant references when I have more time.

He just dismissed the whole matter/antimatter bit as technobabble.

Since when have dilithium crystals EVER been described as "unstable"?

Sorry, but it looks like the amount of research FJ did for his plans was even less than originally thought.

 

CRA wrote:

Try this one on for size.

Nope. He said "We shall use it, however, to keep it in there." You wrote that "FJ's design provides for neither the matter, nor the antimatter," and he said he would be using it to keep it there. Not remotely the same thing.

It depends on whether you consider them cracking and getting scorched beyond repair every time the ship gets into a serious scrape to mean "unstable" or just "easily prone to damage".

 

Yeah, you've got it right. However, I believe the "restoration" part is essential -- the ship needs to almost close the bubble to make anything like a wormhole. So, I'd say even the nacelles without the domes at the aft end had them -- just inside. The vents might have been openings through which they worked.

Instead of the rear dome being the innovation on the series 1701, I'd suggest it be the spinning fan and multiple blinking lights. That really seems to be unique to that ship, among all other Trek ships. I like to think of the lights as individual microsingularities, blinking into and out of existence, and the fan as a kind of "Podkletnov" gravity shield, directing the attractive force of those microsingularities forward and around the saucer.

But following a "black box" approach, these things might just go nameless. It is nevertheless very cool that there are features on that model that sensibly link to contemporary ideas about gravity manipulation.

Thanks very much. I'm home now, but I'll tell you, take my advice -- don't get any antibiotic resistant infections. I'm a big, strong guy that had never been admitted to a hospital, and this thing leveled me like being hit by a bus.

 

Well, I tend to discount pretty much anything FJ said about Starship engines, but that's just me.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go suck in some space energy.

 

Why? There is something like 9 x 10-¹⁰ joules of energy in every cubic meter of space.

That's 2.7⁶⁹ joules of "space energy" in the universe.

 

Mr. Shaw, you might want to step in before another edition of that argument threatens to overwhelm what, up till now, has been a rather enjoyable thread.

 

Well, considering how argumentative I can be, I would hardly think that I would be anyone's first choice for peace maker.

But I should point out that arguing a technical topic can be beneficial to all sides. I've learned a lot from people on the other side of debates even if I was not swayed to their overall position. And as all of us have spent vast amounts of time pondering the original Enterprise and have a great amount of expertise in this subject, I would think that listening to what others have to say should be considered an important resource for all of us.

I mean when you think about it, all of us are either attempting to extrapolate the past or envision a future based on an incomplete set of source information. We all pretty much have those same sources at our disposal, so it is very rare that something new like that will be brought to the table. So in the end the only true source of new and interesting aspects of the Enterprise has to come from we few who spend hours thinking about how it might have been or could possibly be.

So we don't always agree on everything... I don't think that should be cause for splintering us up. It should be the reason to want to return to this subject again and again and again. Because even when not agreeing with something that someone else puts forward, you might find yourself examining an aspect of the Enterprise that you hadn't considered.


Besides, while I'm so tied up that I can't put anything of interest forward, it is great to take this time to look at the subject from a number of other people's perspectives. I mean after all, I'm not just interested in putting forward my ideas, I also want to see what other people come up with after rummaging through all the bits and pieces I've collected.

I don't want my work here to be definitive, I want it to be inspirational.

And part of that inspiration has to come from mixing in different ideas... even those that I may or may not subscribe to myself.


On a completely different note, my attempt at recreating a likeness of the 1964 Jefferies Construction Plans is now online (here). I'm pretty sure that most of you guys have copies of these drawings already, but for those that don't, I wanted to make sure that they were available.

 

Shaw, I'm curious why you include only the "dish antenna" front for the secondary hull. I was under the impression that one of the very last things to be changed on the plan for the 33" model, as it went to Datin for building, was to swap the "baby bottle" front for the dish you have shown. Perhaps both this one...



and the dish should be included?

I should also say just how impressed I am by your effort. The idea of integrating the "hull pressure diagram" as interlocking modular parts, with the Jefferies cross section, is wholly original and inspired. I played with that "hull pressure diagram" for a long time, and it never occurred to me to do such a thing, even though I was committed to depicting a modular mode of construction. This way of looking at it is far, far more interesting, better reflects 1960s thinking about space construction techniques, AND incorporates even more of Jefferies thinking about the ship than if you had depended on the cross section alone. I truly think these plans have a chance of being both inspirational AND the definitive word on the TOS ship.

 

Here's a thought, with all the debate lately stirred by the movie trailer over building the ship on earth, and then (presumebly) launching or lifting the componenets into space, maybe we could consider the abandoned 'baby bottle' nose as an aerodynamic cover used only while launching the secondary hull 'rocket style' into orbit?

 

I always figured it was pretty basic, matter+antimatter=ginormous kaboom, the energy of which is used to warp space.

How that translates into some sort of subspace turbojet is beyond me.

 

How the hell does a reference to the use of the term "quartermaster" have anything to do with how the warp drive worked?

 

I just wanted to say I'm enjoying this discussion immensely and this was an excellent post.

I absolutely love a lot of the ideas flowing forth from this fountain of thought.

 

Because I feel like it. His style of interior technical decorating doesn't appeal to me.

 

Great stuff dude, very cool.

deg