RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,667
Posts: 5,429,335
Members: 24,818
Currently online: 419
Newest member: Thomas Eugene


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 30 2009, 08:29 AM   #1
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
 
Location: The Astral Light Realms
Voyager Nacelles

Can someone shed any light then on why Voyagers nacelles needed to be motorised?
I understand the concept of when they are up they create a stronger more efficient warp field but that begs the question of why not just have the damn nacelles in the upright position permanently??
What difference did the nacelles being in the down position actually make to sub light speeds?
Even when the position of the nacelles were moved the distance between the down and up positions was minuscule.

Any worthy explanations out there?
All Seeing Eye is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 08:34 AM   #2
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Voyager Nacelles

The producers wanted the ship to have moving parts.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 08:39 AM   #3
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
 
Location: The Astral Light Realms
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Yes but what is the in universe explanation for not having them permanently fixed in the upwards position.
All Seeing Eye is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 08:47 AM   #4
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Center of mass, maybe?

Other than that, none, as far as I can tell.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1965-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 11:57 AM   #5
The Badger
Fleet Captain
 
The Badger's Avatar
 
Location: Im in ur Tardis, violating ur canon.
Re: Voyager Nacelles

This is weird, Tachyon Shield has made a point I agree with!

When Voyager was first starting, a friend of mine tried to explain it as being like a swing wing on modern fighter aircraft. That explanation doesn't make much sense though. Modern swing wing fighters move there wings because at different speeds they need different aerodynamic properties (wide wing=lots of lift at low speeds, great for take off and landing. Narrow wing=minimum drag, ideal for high speed).

Now Voyager's warp nacelles are permanently up at warp, whether it's warp 1 or 9.99. So it can't be that.

My personal speculation is that having a lower centre of mass coupled with a wider profile could actually increase manoeuvrability at impulse speeds.
The Badger is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 01:02 PM   #6
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Tachyon Shield wrote: View Post
Can someone shed any light then on why Voyagers nacelles needed to be motorised?
I understand the concept of when they are up they create a stronger more efficient warp field but that begs the question of why not just have the damn nacelles in the upright position permanently??
What difference did the nacelles being in the down position actually make to sub light speeds?
Even when the position of the nacelles were moved the distance between the down and up positions was minuscule.

Any worthy explanations out there?
According to some things I've read about field mechanics is that two fields that move against each other will generate energy. Bring the nacelles briefly toward each other may be part of the reason why Intrepid is considered smart and effiecient. It may not need as much power to jump to warp in the first place as say the Galaxy or Excelsior Classes. That may also be why Intrepid has the smallest engines to hull size ratio than any other ship.

Speculation of course.
Saquist is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 01:14 PM   #7
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
 
Location: The Astral Light Realms
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Saquist wrote: View Post
According to some things I've read about field mechanics is that two fields that move against each other will generate energy. Bring the nacelles briefly toward each other may be part of the reason why Intrepid is considered smart and effiecient. It may not need as much power to jump to warp in the first place as say the Galaxy or Excelsior Classes. That may also be why Intrepid has the smallest engines to hull size ratio than any other ship.

Speculation of course.

But the nacelles don't power up until they are actually in the full up position. The warp charging does not occur during the motorisation period.
All Seeing Eye is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 01:15 PM   #8
DiSiLLUSiON
Commodore
 
DiSiLLUSiON's Avatar
 
Location: The Netherlands
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Because they look better in the down position then they do in the up position. Starfleet has an image to protect, after all; starship aesthetics are a part of it.
DiSiLLUSiON is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 03:08 PM   #9
03myersd
Ensign
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

I just always assumed it was something to do with those geometry things (can't remember the correct name right now) which allow the ship to travel at warp without damaging subspace?
03myersd is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 03:44 PM   #10
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
 
Location: The Astral Light Realms
Re: Voyager Nacelles

03myersd wrote: View Post
I just always assumed it was something to do with those geometry things (can't remember the correct name right now) which allow the ship to travel at warp without damaging subspace?
The question I asked still remains.......... why not keep the nacelles in the upwards position permanently?
All Seeing Eye is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 04:22 PM   #11
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Voyager Nacelles

03myersd wrote: View Post
I just always assumed it was something to do with those geometry things (can't remember the correct name right now) which allow the ship to travel at warp without damaging subspace?
That was one idea the was flitted about. Added to that was that the folding nacelles also steamlined the ship's warp envelope to allow for higher sustainable velocities, IIRC.

I wonder if that feature might now be considered obsolete these days and that newer Intrepid-class ships no longer have that variable-geometry ability?
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 04:45 PM   #12
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Hey Tachyon, You'll love this. I asked that exact question of Rick Sternbach on this board some time back. Essentially the answer was that the producers wanted something on the ship to move. See the thread here:
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=86150

That was one idea the was flitted about. Added to that was that the folding nacelles also steamlined the ship's warp envelope to allow for higher sustainable velocities, IIRC.
Yea, Like Tachyon said, "Why not just leave them up then?". This theory would work better if in the show we had seen Voyager using different angles at different speeds.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline  
Old July 30 2009, 04:57 PM   #13
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Tachyon Shield wrote: View Post
Saquist wrote: View Post
According to some things I've read about field mechanics is that two fields that move against each other will generate energy. Bring the nacelles briefly toward each other may be part of the reason why Intrepid is considered smart and effiecient. It may not need as much power to jump to warp in the first place as say the Galaxy or Excelsior Classes. That may also be why Intrepid has the smallest engines to hull size ratio than any other ship.

Speculation of course.

But the nacelles don't power up until they are actually in the full up position. The warp charging does not occur during the motorisation period.
Well warp nacelles are already active before warp at a low threshold. The conflicting fields could increase the current of the incoming energy. Voyager did seem to have less charge time than the Galaxy and it doesn't seem to be as powerful of a charge from the photons given off.
Saquist is offline  
Old July 31 2009, 08:21 PM   #14
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Voyager Nacelles

It was a stupid idea based on a stupid premise.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now  
Old July 31 2009, 08:37 PM   #15
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Actually, we might just as well decide that it was a stupid idea in-universe as well. Starfleet tried to achieve something with it, but failed, and was then stuck with a design that could only make use of two of the originally intended great many positions - fully up or fully down.

That is, originally the ship was supposed to have nacelles flat at warp 1, halfway up at warp 7, and fully up at warp 9.7 or whatnot. The impulse engine designers were told this would be the case, so they decided to put the impulse engines in a location that would get hot warp plasma in the easiest possible way - in the warp engine pylons. Alas, that meant the impulse engines could only be used with the nacelles flat - and this meant problems when all warp flight was later confined to the full-up position.

Personally, I prefer the explanation already suggested by Saquist, that the squeezing action itself is the important thing, not the initial or eventual position. Never mind that the engines don't glow blue-hot during the squeeze: we can argue that they are at least starting to glow during the squeezing action.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 AM.

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