RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,591
Posts: 5,515,543
Members: 25,159
Currently online: 663
Newest member: Horizons96

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


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 31 2009, 09:20 PM   #16
Deks
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

We do have on-screen example in the early seasons of Voyager being at Warp 2 with it's nacelles down.
Granted, it might be explained as an VFX error of course ... but it also fits into the theory that the ship can achieve low warp velocities without raising it's nacelles.

If SF was ordering it's ships to avoid tear of subspace by limiting themselves to Warp 5 ... it's entirely possible that the Intrepid class was actually meant as a prototype class that SF would learn from in order for their ships to be able to sustain high warp velocities without doing damage to subspace (which hopefully was settled by the time of post TNG).

I would imagine there wouldn't be that many Intrepid class ships in service as a result ... then again, there might be and they would still retain the folding nacelles option as it also might have allowed SF to upgrade the maximum warp velocity of the Intrepid.

We know that the Prometheus ended up being the fastest in the fleet, but by the time it rolled out, I would have imagined SF upgraded the velocity of their Intrepids even further.
Older ships would likely still be limited to a specific range, so it's possible the folding aspect gives the Intrepid the advantage of pushing it's engines even further.
__________________
We are who we choose to be but also have predefined aspects of our personalities we are born with, and make art that defines us.
Deks is offline  
Old July 31 2009, 11:52 PM   #17
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Saquist wrote: View Post
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.
Nah, I just assume that means that the Voyager was neutered...
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old August 1 2009, 12:30 AM   #18
john titor
Captain
 
Location: the universe
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Voyager was a new cheap shitty star fleet vehicle. To save costs they had the moving nacelles thing, as in the powered position only then could they reach warp, as a result of poor engineering and cheapness.
john titor is offline  
Old August 7 2009, 04:23 AM   #19
MaxPower
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

I can remember the early pre-view drawings of Voyager in TV Guide before the show came out with the warp nacelles fixed in a down position. I truly wanted to see the nacelles move according to the different speed of the ship.
MaxPower is offline  
Old August 7 2009, 02:07 PM   #20
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Voyager Nacelles

MaxPower wrote: View Post
I can remember the early pre-view drawings of Voyager in TV Guide before the show came out with the warp nacelles fixed in a down position. I truly wanted to see the nacelles move according to the different speed of the ship.
But... why?

That's really the point. We know why it was really done... for the same reason that so many other nonsensical design decisions have been made through the years... "Becuz it'll be kewl!" But is there any plausible technical reason for doing so?

I can think of quite a few technical reasons for NOT doing so... not the least of which are the decreased mechanical strength of the nacelle attachment points and the increased complexity of the hardware required to go through hinged joints.

But is there any plausible reason for moving the nacelles, other than because Jeri T wanted it that way?
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old August 7 2009, 11:31 PM   #21
Tigger
Fleet Captain
 
Tigger's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Voyager Nacelles

As I recall, the "Writer's Technical Manual" that Rick and Mike wrote for the writers on Voyager also notes that the nacelle movement also helps protect subspace from the deleterious effects of warp travel.

Myself, I just went with the idea that it was part of a variable-geometry warp bubble designed to optimize the bubble to the warp factor based on one of the concepts at the end of the TNG Tech Manual noted Star Fleet was considering such a thing (the concept vessel with the nacelles that traveled back and forth across a set of "wings").
__________________
Chris "Tigger" Wallace
Tigger is offline  
Old August 8 2009, 06:23 AM   #22
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
MaxPower wrote: View Post
I can remember the early pre-view drawings of Voyager in TV Guide before the show came out with the warp nacelles fixed in a down position. I truly wanted to see the nacelles move according to the different speed of the ship.
But... why?

That's really the point. We know why it was really done... for the same reason that so many other nonsensical design decisions have been made through the years... "Becuz it'll be kewl!" But is there any plausible technical reason for doing so?

I can think of quite a few technical reasons for NOT doing so... not the least of which are the decreased mechanical strength of the nacelle attachment points and the increased complexity of the hardware required to go through hinged joints.

But is there any plausible reason for moving the nacelles, other than because Jeri T wanted it that way?
To change the geometry of the warpfield as the ship attains higher warp speed. Much like an F-14 or F-111 changes the angle of the wings to aid in supersonic flight. At least it would have been better than the useless "up = on, down = off" which had no plausible reason for occurring. "so the warp engines would not be in the way of the impulse engines" is about as close as anyone can get. If your weakening the structural integrity of the ship just to get something out of the way of the impulse engines maybe you should consider a better location for them in the first place.

Apologies to Rick, but it's not your fault that the exec's made you add that detail "because it looked teh kewl"

You would think that with all the technobabble that was spewed in 7 years of Voyager they could have said at least one line commenting on a fairly obvious part of the ship or at least worked it into a story considering how unique it was in design.

I would have loved an episode with a mechanical failure preventing the nacelles from rising to warp position.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline  
Old August 8 2009, 06:06 PM   #23
MaxPower
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

That's really the point. We know why it was really done... for the same reason that so many other nonsensical design decisions have been made through the years... "Becuz it'll be kewl!" But is there any plausible technical reason for doing so?
There is no reason for the nacelles to move. It seems to slow the ship to get the engines up to the proper place. Also when you have moving parts things will break that is just a fact.

If you were doing it because it was cool then make it as cool as you can. I would love to see the nacelles in the down position for low speeds and have them move up for faster speeds. You could throw in some BS about warp bubbles, saving sub space or something so there is a weak reason. I personally have never liked how Voyager looked with the engines in the up position. I would of love to see the ship with the engines in a permanent down position so it looks different then all of the other hero (expect Defiant) ships in Star Trek.
MaxPower is offline  
Old August 8 2009, 10:47 PM   #24
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Voyager Nacelles

sojourner wrote: View Post
I would have loved an episode with a mechanical failure preventing the nacelles from rising to warp position.
Oh, that would've been great...

JANEWAY: "Mr. Paris, prepare to pursue hostile vessel. Harry, open hailing frequencies, set to 'PREACH MODE'."

(Simulteneously)
KIM/PARIS: "AYE, AYE, CAPTAIN!"

(Exterior shot - U.S.S. Voyager)

"_ C L U N K _"

"whine-whine-whine-whine... "

JANEWAY: "Damn, I thought that was embarassing with the Excelsior!"
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old August 8 2009, 10:49 PM   #25
JB2005
Commodore
 
JB2005's Avatar
 
Location: England, UK
Re: Voyager Nacelles

^ Cut to B'Elanna in Engineering desperately turning a wheel, trying to manual move the nacelles...
__________________
Click here to see my failed attempt to write a children's story!
JB2005 is offline  
Old August 8 2009, 11:49 PM   #26
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

^Needs more technobabble.

"Captain, I'm attempting to manipulate the pylon rotation axial control wheel to the best of my abilities, however there's a build-up of iron oxide preventing me from applying rotational mechanical pressure!"

"Re-modulate the deflector!"
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 12:33 AM   #27
MaxPower
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

And then the Delta Flyer is used to pull the nacelles into postion, but only get stuck coming out of the too narrow shuttle bay.
MaxPower is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 12:35 AM   #28
JB2005
Commodore
 
JB2005's Avatar
 
Location: England, UK
Re: Voyager Nacelles

^Don't worry the Equinox Crew, Borg Baby and Lt Baxter will take care of it
__________________
Click here to see my failed attempt to write a children's story!
JB2005 is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 12:38 AM   #29
MaxPower
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Don't worry the Equinox Crew, Borg Baby and Lt Baxter will take care of it
MaxPower is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 01:56 AM   #30
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
^Needs more technobabble.

"Captain, I'm attempting to manipulate the pylon rotation axial control wheel to the best of my abilities, however there's a build-up of iron oxide preventing me from applying rotational mechanical pressure!"

"Re-modulate the deflector!"
I've been rewtaching Voyager lately; I totally heard those lines in my head in their voices.
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai 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 05:54 PM.

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