RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,603
Posts: 5,404,729
Members: 24,871
Currently online: 520
Newest member: Engelbert

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Gold Key Archives Vol. 2 Comic
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Cumberbatch In War Of Roses Miniseries
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

Trek 3 Filming Location Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Oct 1

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27


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 August 9 2009, 06:46 PM   #31
Brent
Admiral
 
Brent's Avatar
 
Location: TARDIS
Send a message via ICQ to Brent Send a message via AIM to Brent Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Brent
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Maybe it helps it land or something since the ship can land
__________________
"Would you mind not standing on my chest? My hat's on fire." - The Doctor

My Let's Play Series of STO - http://www.youtube.com/user/JustGaming4Us
Brent is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 06:54 PM   #32
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
 
Location: The Astral Light Realms
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Brent wrote: View Post
Maybe it helps it land or something since the ship can land
In which case why not just keep them up the whole time they're in space? they've only landed what, a couple of times?
All Seeing Eye is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 08:13 PM   #33
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Indeed. Even in tight spots that might require a quick warp getaway, Janeway keeps the nacelles down at impulse. Which sort of suggests that nacelles down is the ideal way to rapidly launch to warp.

Which in turn would support the theory that it's not the position that's important, it's the movement. Perhaps you get better acceleration when you flap the nacelles than when you keep them up all the time.

Sometimes it's claimed that this would be the first or perhaps only class of Starfleet starship that can land. However, this was never suggested let alone confirmed on screen. All we saw was that no other starship landed and survived to tell about it. It is theoretically possible that landing is difficult to do and only done by Intrepid class or similar vessels, and that some unique technological solutions are required, among these the oddly swinging nacelles. But as said, this doesn't explain the nacelle movement while in empty space...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 10:10 PM   #34
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
Indeed. Even in tight spots that might require a quick warp getaway, Janeway keeps the nacelles down at impulse. Which sort of suggests that nacelles down is the ideal way to rapidly launch to warp.

Which in turn would support the theory that it's not the position that's important, it's the movement. Perhaps you get better acceleration when you flap the nacelles than when you keep them up all the time.

Sometimes it's claimed that this would be the first or perhaps only class of Starfleet starship that can land. However, this was never suggested let alone confirmed on screen. All we saw was that no other starship landed and survived to tell about it. It is theoretically possible that landing is difficult to do and only done by Intrepid class or similar vessels, and that some unique technological solutions are required, among these the oddly swinging nacelles. But as said, this doesn't explain the nacelle movement while in empty space...

Timo Saloniemi
I dunno... the Defiant looked pretty well-suited to landing... even had some details that looks sorta like "landing pads" in a couple of spots.

But yeah, no other ship was shown landing... and the "landing mode" for the Voyager was... well... pretty ludicrous when you really looked at it, I think. The original design of the Voyager (with the underslung "runabout-ish" pylons and nacelles) was far more practical as a landable craft.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old August 9 2009, 10:20 PM   #35
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: Voyager Nacelles

The Klingons had landable ships with the BOP design, so I'd like to think perhaps there are more capital ships with that capacity than we've seen. Naturally the transporter is a big convenience.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead is offline  
Old August 10 2009, 08:04 AM   #36
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Treknology as such should allow for effortless planetary landing of any starship. Their sublight engines obviously create thrust in excess of one gee; their structures can absorb this stress easily. The ships don't sag under their own weight, then, and should be able to hover over a planetary surface, or land on it in any arbitrary orientation (say, balancing on the tip of a nacelle), without the crew or the cargo being inconvenienced since they enjoy artificial gravity anyway.

Perhaps the limiting factor is atmospheric maneuvering, which posed problems for Voyager in certain situations, too. Impulse engines might work poorly within atmospheres, as suggested by DS9 "The Siege" where diving into the atmosphere supposedly negates the advantage of the impulse-capable interceptors over Kira's sub-impulse raider. Or perhaps the operation of a starship within an atmosphere causes too much havoc in the form of sonic booms, gentler but still massive displacement of air or whatnot. Say, perhaps some system aboard the ship (impulse engines?) creates forces outside the ship that are not harmful in the vacuum of space, but tend to cause major and disturbing air movement when the ship is dipped in an atmosphere.

It's difficult to see a connection between Voyager's atmospheric difficulties and her flapping nacelles, though. But I think it should raise a few eyebrows that the only two largish starship types seen to be capable of landing, Intrepid and Klingon BoP, both have strange, moving wings...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline  
Old August 12 2009, 12:33 AM   #37
Verteron
Rear Admiral
 
Verteron's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Timo, I love your 'squeeze' theory. I'm just imagining a warp bubble forming and beginning to increase in flux as the nacelles charge... and then being squeezed by the rising nacelles, perhaps spreading it further forwards and backwards from the hull, with a smaller 'subspace gradient' than could otherwise be produced by a standard nacelle system, thus 'cushioning' the effects of the warp transition on normal space, sidestepping the issue of damage we saw in TNG.

TNG never explained what the damage actually was, it may well have been something to do with creating a subspace field or transitioning to warp rather than actually sustaining warp once engaged, after all, the 'D' coasted through the subspace anomaly just fine with an active subspace field to sustain warp (they were, after all, still at FTL) but just apparently not creating a propulsive effect, and did no further damage until they had to 're-engage' the engines.
Verteron is offline  
Old January 13 2014, 09:59 AM   #38
Pippin209
Ensign
 
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Hey guys ive loved reading your views on this subject. so much i had to join to comment with you all.

So im not exactly very knowledgeable on many trek teck aspects however i would say you are all mainly correct.
The nacelles will move to help create a more streamlined slip space bubble as well as use compression field theory to lower energy requirements allowing the 9.75 warp factor. could bewhy the Promethious has 4 nacelles as well as to allow each parts individual warp capability.
However i would say they it wont have anything to do with in atmosphere as they only use the thrusters in high output mode for thrust. (every time they go in atmosphere they have to configure the thrusters)
Pippin209 is offline  
Old January 15 2014, 03:51 AM   #39
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Voyager Nacelles

5 year old thread. Most of the original commentators are no longer around.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline  
Old January 15 2014, 05:31 AM   #40
Undead
Continuity Spackle
 
Undead's Avatar
 
Location: Unicron (The mockingjay soars)
Send a message via ICQ to Undead
Re: Voyager Nacelles

Agreed. Normally I'm pretty lenient on the occasional necro'ed thread, since it doesn't happen too often and it's normally by a new poster. Pippin209, no harm done and welcome to the board. But for future reference, please check the dates on older threads; it's better to start a new one than bump one this old. Thanks.

Given the age, I'm just going to clang this one and put it back to rest.
__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Undead 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 12:40 PM.

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