Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Actually it would take a while to get to the internal space where a warp core would be. First, you'd have to penetrate the hull...okay, easy enough. But most ships are equipped with 10 centimeters of hull armor to deflect fire. Then, you have to get into the ship, past multiple walls, rooms with stuff in them, internal shields, etc etc. it's like boring a hole to reach oil, it takes longer, especially if the ship is moving. Unlike being a blatant target in the nacelles, going through meters of hull as the ship is moving is more daunting, and gives the ship enough time to react or at least get the shields back up. I don't know where the whole distance thing is, that wasn't a part of my argument. The only way that would factor in is if a phaser beam is fired from 10 miles away versus 100 miles away, the beam loses intesity as it travels via dissapation.

Would it create damage? Yes.
Would it probably takes weeks in space dock to repair? Yes.
But unlike being in the nacelles, being in the secondary hull offers what such a huge target IE nacelles don't offer: Time to react.

As for the Enterprise-D being destroyed so quickly? That's sad. It shouldn't have been so easy and the writers flubbed that one. Although, the ship did score pretty devistating hits...one to the secondary hull on deck 33 or 34 where the dueterium tankage would be, or close, one to the port nacelle, one to the main impulse engine, and several others. I'd say considering the hits to the main propulsion systems (impulse, near the dueterium tank, port nacelle) combined are probably what did the trick. They should've ejected the core though, they'd save the whole ship. I guess they just wanted some new fangled ship, which in my opinion is pretty redundant considering Starfleet already has ships to fill every role (Galaxy class, Intrepid class, Defiant class, Prometheus class, Akira class, Steamrunner class, Nova class, etc etc, all of which are pretty modern.)

 

Yeah, 'cause we've seen how well hull armor works in Star Trek. And, heck, in the unusual case where the intermix chamber was deliberately hit by Kahn, who deliberately set up a situation where he could cripple the ship, it took a grand total of one hit to cut through the 'ship's armor' and nail it, didn't it?

These ain't ironclads, boy. And when you're talking about weapons that can destroy continents, 10cm of triple-fold titanium alloy is about as useful as your average sheet of European toilet paper.

 

I'm all up for debate but don't call me boy. I've grown up thank you, that's a little insulting.

Granted these weapons are extremely powerful, but the technologies and metals that can defend against these types of weapons are also equally as powerful, it's all about balance.

And i maintain that it's more difficult to slice through layers and layers of ship to target ONE location as the ship is moving. It would have to sit perfectly still while the beam cut its way to the heart of the secondary hull. Contrary, there is virtually nothing that would stand between a weapon and penetrating the nacelle providing direct access to the core. It's also a massive piece of equipment, easily targetable from any angle. It's more difficult to, like i said, target a specific point through layers and layers of hull as the ship itself is moving. It offers time to react versus time to die.

 

Very well, it was meant to be, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

There is not one example, anywhere in Trek, aside from the batmobile, where the 'armor' is so powerful that it will do jack/shit to stop even mild attacks from other ships. Indeed, the basic truism of Trek is that 'once your shields are down, you're pretty-much fucked'.

Which, as we've seen, takes absolutely no time at all once the shields are down. And since your magic-not-ever-even-existing-in-Trek armor would presumably be all over the hulls of the ship, wouldn't it STILL be on the nacelles as well? The only difference might be a couple of internal decks, would would consist of atmosphere , and fleshies...

Go outside. I want you to visually look at the moon, and find the lunar lander. Now shoot it, weapon of your choice. And keep in mind that you have about two milliseconds to pull it off. 'Cause that's what you're talking about, even ignoring the speeds that Trek ships move out.

The whole idea that 'bury the bridge/warp-core/Shatner's toupee in the hull' is ludicrous on its face, and not borne out by anything that has ever appeared in Trek.

 

I'm not talking about how fast the ship is going, but if it's moving around targeting a specific area on a ship will be more difficult period. Placing the warp cores inside nacelles make them a target, more of one than if it was buried inside a ship. I still stand by the fact that a weapon would take more time to bore through a ship than it would to bore through a nacelle. Tactically it's safer. And I believe it was the TNG tech manual that said that the Galaxy class ships have 10 CM of protective armor, albeit not the ablative hull armor on the Defiant. It's not ludicrous to protect the warp core behind shields, a few CM of armor, and layers and layers of hull. It would simply take longer to get at it especially if the target point is moving around on you. Yes the basic mantra of star trek is if your shields are down you're going to get bloody, but if you have a good tactition, you can sustain repeated attacks, like Voyager in Year of Hell, or like the Galaxy class ship when they retook Chin'Toka and the orbital defence platforms ripped HUGE sections of ventral saucer and secondary hull off, and they both survived.

And i don't see why you have to be insulting in a debate, it makes it foolish and immature. How old are you anyway (serious question)?

 

We reach.

Well, I think we could go either way with the reactors in the nacelles. However, I think it's safe to say that there may be a small one in each nacelle, and a V12 style assembly of similar small reactors in the engineering hull.

Arboretum.

 

I'm making fun of you because your arguments are laughable on their face, and you're not realizing why.

Think about it, they would armor the 'warp core' if it's in the secondary hull, but NOT if its in the nacelle? Tactically, wouldn't you want something so blatantly a target to NOT be in the middle of where all your crew is?

"Our job is to protect the warp core. Ensigns, everyone join hands and form a circle!"

And your layers and layers of hull are non-existent , and worthless against weapons that do a bagillion points of damage each hit. How much did 7 decks of hull do to stop that torpedo in ST:VI? Sod all! How much did the thickness of the secondary hull do to stop Khan? Nothing. How much did the Lantree's hull do to stop it from being one-shot killed? Nada.

The nacelle would be an easier target visually when it's so distant from the attacker (never mind it's going FTL to begin with) that it would be impossible to see with the naked eye? Or that your angle of difference in manual targeting would be something like 0.00000000001 degrees correction?

And, at the end of the day, no matter WHERE you stick your 'warp core' that's where your enemy ship is going to be locked-on to as it's the one thing your FTL sensors are going to be most likely to pick up.

As far as bringing up my age, fuck off, man. I've been doing this stuff since before Data was anything more than Questor revisited.

 

Wow, you're kind of an asshole. I might be younger than you but judging you're personality i'm definately more mature than you.

If I had to guess, you're life has been pretty much dating optional, because with you're personality, only a dead person could handle that.

I stand by my argument period. And as far as I'm concerned you and your british slang can drop dead, I'm not talking to someone who can't have a debate without resorting to childish insults.

 

And as far as the thickness of the secondary hull and Kahn goes, the warp core ran through the neck, one of the thinnest areas of the ship.

"The nacelle would be an easier target visually when it's so distant from the attacker (never mind it's going FTL to begin with) that it would be impossible to see with the naked eye?" On this sentence, you might want to revisit grammar school.

And you're .0000001 degree difference depends on the distance to the target. If you're far away it makes a huge difference, if you're close up it makes a relatively small difference. I was just saying that if a ship is moving, a targeted area is difficult to keep up with unless you're matching the evasive manuvers. Just like if a car is moving and a cop is shooting at it, it's more difficult to land a shot.

I just don't see the sense in putting a warp core or two in each nacelle when they are such obvious targets. Especially when they are jam packed with bussard collectors, warp coils, warp control rooms, off axis field controllers, and various other components as well. It's better to have it inside the ship in my opinion.

But, instead of having one massive core it would be cool to have multiple cores. I think that's a good idea..

 

You were crying over being called 'boy' in a Foghorn-Leghorn bit, and, while being upset at how you're insulted, are calling me an asshole virgin British child? You only got that first part right.

I mocked you, in so much that I did, because you came in here to 'win' this discussion based on nothing more than your own fanboi interpretation of the TNG technical manual, and swang your ePenis around a bit when anyone had a disagreement with your assessment. You wanted to claim a level of 'Treknical authority' here, in a very definitive sense...

And, when confronted that your arguments either made no sense (they would armor the secondary hull, but not the nacelle) or simply didn't match what we know of and seen from Trek (armor will STOP attacks from enemy vessels), you took a huge share of personal offense.

I'm going to tell you something, compared to several people on this group, I'm a young'un, and I've been doing this stuff since the 1980s. I deal with guys who worked on the actual shows and movies, and have every right to take me on their knee and tell me of Treknology on how it was 'back then', when the Enterprise ran on hamster-power and the hull was carved from the finest mesopotaniac stone.

And, like I said, there's people who beat me to the punch on this material, as fans, by more than a decade. When they tell me I've screwed something, they're probably right, and I gotta rethink what I'm doing and why.

But when someone's told you you screwed something up, you threw a little hissy and claimed I don't get laid. In fact, I'm going to have sex with my wife tonight just to piss you off (angry sex is the best). In the meantime, maybe you should rethink your approach on things, copiche?

 

I'm sorry for "flaming" but I don't like being talked down to, everyone on this site deserves respect, and he showed a complete lack of even basic respect. That should be moderated too.