RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,799
Posts: 5,325,818
Members: 24,548
Currently online: 478
Newest member: wrestlefreak36

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


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?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 3 2011, 08:56 PM   #106
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
But "warp drive [antimatter] pods" could be located anywhere...
Granted there's a little wiggle room there, but not much. References to "warp drive nacelles" and "warp drive pods" as well as "anti-matter nacelles" and "anti-matter pods" yet still other references to "matter/anti-matter nacelles" and "matter/anti-matter pods" pretty much show that the terms "nacelle" and "pod" refer to the same thing and are interchangeable.

In "The Apple" Scotty refers to the antimatter pods being inert and in reply to this, Kirk tells him to jettison the nacelles if possible; so at the very least, the pods are in the nacelles, but more likely they are the nacelles.

Also, the fact that the pods are called warp drive pods in “The Doomsday Machine” and then “Metamorphosis” indicates that that the Pods (on the shuttlecraft) are related to maneuvering, strongly implies that they are synonymous with the nacelles/propulsion units.

Perhaps... close to the (photon torpedo launcher?) antimatter tanks on Deck 11 in "Errand of Mercy"?
What dialogue establishes antimatter tanks on Deck 11?
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2011, 09:17 PM   #107
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
At least in TNG-and-later times, they'd come up with the idea of ejecting the warp core (something Voyager did waaaaay too often!) to deal with this. But they never mentioned anything of that sort in TOS. All they ever mentioned was the line repeated a few times here, about "escaping in the main section" (paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact words used).

For those who want the main matter/antimatter reactor, or the fusion reactors (which we KNOW were there, by DDM) to be deep within the hull... how do you deal with the idea of a problem of that nature?
Good point! Here's the most relevant dialogue from "The Savage Curtain"...

SCOTT: I can't explain it, sir, but the matter and antimatter are in red zone proximity.

KIRK: What caused that?

SCOTT: There's no knowing and there's no stopping it either. The shielding is breaking down. I estimate four hours before it goes completely. Four hours before the ship blows up.

KIRK: Scotty, inform Starfleet Command. Disengage nacelles, Jettison if possible. Mister Spock, assist them. Advise and analyze. Scotty? Scotty?


This pretty much cinches that M/A-M fuel is in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no point in disengaging/jettisoning the nacelles [specifically!] to prevent the destruction of the ship?

If the TOS 'E' had a setup like TNG then Kirk should have said something like "disengage reactor, jettison warp core if possible"?
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2011, 09:37 PM   #108
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: TOS Nacelles

In answer to the question of "What were the writers thinking when they wrote the word 'pod'?" I submit this late design/pre-model building drawing by the late great Walter Matthew Jefferies, which clearly indicates that the nacelles are labeled as "power pods (2)".




This demonstrates pretty conclusively that at least behind the scenes, the powers that were were using the words "pod" and "nacelle" pretty much interchangeably.

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2011, 10:19 PM   #109
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

Well, when actually asked about the location of Engineering, either by Doug Drexler or Mike Okuda, I forget which, Matt Jefferies gave the questioner a weird look and responded "In the Engineering Hull."

Besides, those are preproduction sketches. Lotsa things changed at this stage.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2011, 10:34 PM   #110
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Well, when actually asked about the location of Engineering, either by Doug Drexler or Mike Okuda, I forget which, Matt Jefferies gave the questioner a weird look and responded "In the Engineering Hull."
Irrelevant, no one's disputing that.

Besides, those are preproduction sketches. Lotsa things changed at this stage.
But in this case nothing changed, pods meant nacelles throughout the series, it's just that the term "nacelle" was also used on occasion to mean the same thing.

P.S. Notice Jefferies sketch says "power pods", if we compare this with the screen used "power nacelles" then we have one more example of identical word usage prefixed to both "pods" and "nacelles".

Last edited by TIN_MAN; October 3 2011 at 10:49 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 01:55 AM   #111
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: TOS Nacelles

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Well, when actually asked about the location of Engineering, either by Doug Drexler or Mike Okuda, I forget which, Matt Jefferies gave the questioner a weird look and responded "In the Engineering Hull."
Irrelevant, no one's disputing that.

Besides, those are preproduction sketches. Lotsa things changed at this stage.
But in this case nothing changed, pods meant nacelles throughout the series, it's just that the term "nacelle" was also used on occasion to mean the same thing.

P.S. Notice Jefferies sketch says "power pods", if we compare this with the screen used "power nacelles" then we have one more example of identical word usage prefixed to both "pods" and "nacelles".
And it should be noted that some of MJ's Phase II drawings continued to use the "power pod" nomenclature for the nacelles.

I do wonder sometimes though whether any of the reactors-in-hull references would have made it on screen if GR had been around to do rewrites for Season 3.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 06:22 AM   #112
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
SCOTT: I can't explain it, sir, but the matter and antimatter are in red zone proximity.
...

If the TOS 'E' had a setup like TNG then Kirk should have said something like "disengage reactor, jettison warp core if possible"?
FWIW, in my 3D version I'm reconciling this dialogue as the M/AM fuel in the nacelles are the only tanks that can hit "red zone proximity" which allows Kirk to understand what is in danger. The M/AM fuel in the engineering hull probably cannot perhaps due to location or some other factor
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 07:17 AM   #113
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Well, when actually asked about the location of Engineering, either by Doug Drexler or Mike Okuda, I forget which, Matt Jefferies gave the questioner a weird look and responded "In the Engineering Hull."
I'm trying to figure out what your point is. Do you think that someone... ANYONE... is claiming that the only engineering facility on the ship is in the saucer? The only person who ever claimed that was Gene Roddenberry. FJ didn't even entirely follow Roddenberry's dictate, though he did have to conform to what Roddenberry had set forth when he did his blueprints.

Maybe a better question to ask of you would be "do you think that there is only one room on the ship which is 'engineering'?"
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 08:33 AM   #114
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

In "The Apple" Scotty refers to the antimatter pods being inert and in reply to this, Kirk tells him to jettison the nacelles if possible; so at the very least, the pods are in the nacelles, but more likely they are the nacelles.
Umm, why jettison inert antimatter pods?

Also, the fact that the pods are called warp drive pods in “The Doomsday Machine” and then “Metamorphosis” indicates that that the Pods (on the shuttlecraft) are related to maneuvering, strongly implies that they are synonymous with the nacelles/propulsion units.
Not really. A warship today might have turbine fuel tanks and diesel fuel tanks, as she resembles a starship in possessing two sets of engines. This in no way suggests that the turbine fuel tanks would actually be located at or even anywhere near the turbines, though. They are just functionally associated.

The starship indeed is full of "pods". But this very fact might prove that the pods are unrelated to each other unless otherwise proven - that a "pod" is an ubiquitous machinery element in a starship and is found in dozens of applications, including warp drive, antimatter storage and ion storm measurements.

What dialogue establishes antimatter tanks on Deck 11?
" We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light."
This describes the damage from the "Errand of Mercy" torpedo attack where all the hits were on the saucer underside where Decks 10 and 11 indeed most likely are to be found. Makes sense if torpedoes are antimatter weapons: they'd need a source of antimatter at that very location, then - and the Klingons would do wisely in targeting that spot!

Maybe a better question to ask of you would be "do you think that there is only one room on the ship which is 'engineering'?"
That'd defeat both the value of the term "Main" Engineering, and the descriptions of Engineering as a maze where fugitives can easily elude and ambush our heroes...

On a warship of today, "engineering" is everywhere. On a starship clearly sectioned into four parts, though, it might indeed be possible that "engineering" is limited to one or three sections, and one section remains free of the paraphernalia.

Timo Saloniemi
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2] [/SIZE][/FONT]
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 01:54 PM   #115
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
In "The Apple" Scotty refers to the antimatter pods being inert and in reply to this, Kirk tells him to jettison the nacelles if possible; so at the very least, the pods are in the nacelles, but more likely they are the nacelles.
Umm, why jettison inert antimatter pods?
From "The Apple":
KIRK: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!
I think in that context, Kirk saw that the ship needed to escape and they were short on power to do it. If they discarded the nacelles which contained the inert antimatter pods, then that would lighten the ship.


From "Errand of Mercy":
KIRK: All hands, maintain general alert. Hold battle stations. Damage report, Mister Spock.

SPOCK: Minor, Captain. We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light.
Or Spock could be just listing separate items since he doesn't directly connect them by saying: "Blast damage in decks ten and eleven resulting in minor buckling in the antimatter pods and light casualties."
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 02:17 PM   #116
Patrickivan
Fleet Captain
 
Patrickivan's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: TOS Nacelles

TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
But "warp drive [antimatter] pods" could be located anywhere...
Granted there's a little wiggle room there, but not much. References to "warp drive nacelles" and "warp drive pods" as well as "anti-matter nacelles" and "anti-matter pods" yet still other references to "matter/anti-matter nacelles" and "matter/anti-matter pods" pretty much show that the terms "nacelle" and "pod" refer to the same thing and are interchangeable.

In "The Apple" Scotty refers to the antimatter pods being inert and in reply to this, Kirk tells him to jettison the nacelles if possible; so at the very least, the pods are in the nacelles, but more likely they are the nacelles.

Also, the fact that the pods are called warp drive pods in “The Doomsday Machine” and then “Metamorphosis” indicates that that the Pods (on the shuttlecraft) are related to maneuvering, strongly implies that they are synonymous with the nacelles/propulsion units.

Perhaps... close to the (photon torpedo launcher?) antimatter tanks on Deck 11 in "Errand of Mercy"?
What dialogue establishes antimatter tanks on Deck 11?
TIN_MAN wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
At least in TNG-and-later times, they'd come up with the idea of ejecting the warp core (something Voyager did waaaaay too often!) to deal with this. But they never mentioned anything of that sort in TOS. All they ever mentioned was the line repeated a few times here, about "escaping in the main section" (paraphrasing, I can't recall the exact words used).

For those who want the main matter/antimatter reactor, or the fusion reactors (which we KNOW were there, by DDM) to be deep within the hull... how do you deal with the idea of a problem of that nature?
Good point! Here's the most relevant dialogue from "The Savage Curtain"...

SCOTT: I can't explain it, sir, but the matter and antimatter are in red zone proximity.

KIRK: What caused that?

SCOTT: There's no knowing and there's no stopping it either. The shielding is breaking down. I estimate four hours before it goes completely. Four hours before the ship blows up.

KIRK: Scotty, inform Starfleet Command. Disengage nacelles, Jettison if possible. Mister Spock, assist them. Advise and analyze. Scotty? Scotty?

This pretty much cinches that M/A-M fuel is in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no point in disengaging/jettisoning the nacelles [specifically!] to prevent the destruction of the ship?

If the TOS 'E' had a setup like TNG then Kirk should have said something like "disengage reactor, jettison warp core if possible"?
Albertese wrote: View Post
In answer to the question of "What were the writers thinking when they wrote the word 'pod'?" I submit this late design/pre-model building drawing by the late great Walter Matthew Jefferies, which clearly indicates that the nacelles are labeled as "power pods (2)".




This demonstrates pretty conclusively that at least behind the scenes, the powers that were were using the words "pod" and "nacelle" pretty much interchangeably.

--Alex
blssdwlf wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
In "The Apple" Scotty refers to the antimatter pods being inert and in reply to this, Kirk tells him to jettison the nacelles if possible; so at the very least, the pods are in the nacelles, but more likely they are the nacelles.
Umm, why jettison inert antimatter pods?
From "The Apple":
KIRK: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!
I think in that context, Kirk saw that the ship needed to escape and they were short on power to do it. If they discarded the nacelles which contained the inert antimatter pods, then that would lighten the ship.


From "Errand of Mercy":
KIRK: All hands, maintain general alert. Hold battle stations. Damage report, Mister Spock.

SPOCK: Minor, Captain. We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light.
Or Spock could be just listing separate items since he doesn't directly connect them by saying: "Blast damage in decks ten and eleven resulting in minor buckling in the antimatter pods and light casualties."
So far all pretty decent examples of the nacelles more then likely then not, to containing the m/am reactors. And there is more then enough on screen evidence to support other sources of supplementry and backup power.

And this is what I was hoping to see- more on screen quotes and evidence to assist this.

I will point out that cannon does not exclude off screen evidence like the Jefferies drawing above. Cannon by definition includes all material created by authorities on a subject. In this case, the people commissioned by paramount who owns the rights, gives us additional material to work with. And disregard

I've been looking for an online site that contains the scripts for TOS so i can search through all 79 episodes with key words... Anyone have any links to one?
__________________
http://patrickivan.wordpress.com/page/2/

40 Years and ticking. Damn, that's too old fashioned.
40 years and still processing!
Patrickivan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 02:45 PM   #117
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Or Spock could be just listing separate items since he doesn't directly connect them by saying: "Blast damage in decks ten and eleven resulting in minor buckling in the antimatter pods and light casualties."
True enough. But the general gist of the litany is that damage was minor, not extensive. We saw hits slamming to the immediate vicinity of the torpedo launcher; if there were further hits (into the warp nacelles, say), the "light casualties" thing would be a bit less likely.

The evidence can be used in many ways, but one way is to tie together "antimatter pods on Deck 11", antimatter-warhead torpedoes, and the idea that not all antimatter pods (decidedly plural!) aboard the ship need be located in the same place - and certainly not limited to the two pod-like things dangling at the ends of the external pylons!

TOS dialogue seems to verify that main power and the flow of antimatter fuel is dependent on key instrumentation in the engineering hull, but there is also evidence that the warp engine nacelles may contain antimatter either at times, or then all the time. What would the antimatter be doing up there if not annihilating and generating power?

It's possible that the TOS ship features an "afterburner" of sorts - that annihilation happens in the "That Which Survives" location, but that one gets extra oomph by channeling some antimatter directly into the warp coil system. There seems to be a distinct lack of situations where the warp nacelles would threaten to explode and would have to be jettisoned for that reason; this rather speaks against the continuous presence of antimatter in the nacelles.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 03:33 PM   #118
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo,

Yeah, the idea that there's only one room on the ship which is "engineering" is silly, which was pretty much my point.
_________________

Re: the line which is being used to put antimatter storage on deck 11: "We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light."

I see three, likely independent, bit fo damage listed here.

1) Blast damage on decks 10 & 11
2) Minor buckling of the antimatter pods
3) Light casualties.

There is no indication in that line that the casualties took place on decks 10 and 11 (though SOME may have, not all need have)

And there is no indication in that line that the antimatter pods are on decks 10 and 11.

Now, don't get me wrong. I actually do have a small "buffer storage" facility for antimatter in my own "deck 10" facility. Deck 10, and the saucer's "deck 11" (which is really a crawlspace-like service area, not a full deck) make up the main weapons systems for the ship, as well as the lower sensor package. So, phasers are down here, along with a bank of phaser capacitors. The torpedo launcher subsystem is here, along with the torpedo magazine and, yes, a small hydrogen and antihydrogen storage facility (just enough to charge maybe four torpedoes under normal circumstances... though if he ship goes to an alert status, the amount stored here would be increased, using some form of "safe antimatter plumbing" line to transfer minute quantities back and forth from the main systems)

So, it just so happens that I have antimatter storage on deck 10. But only a MINUTE amount. But I have no problem with the line of dialog meaning that... or with the line of dialog merely being a list of three unrelated bits of information about damage (which I strongly suspect was the intention). In no case does this mean anything beyond what little is actually said, does it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 07:05 PM   #119
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
It's possible that the TOS ship features an "afterburner" of sorts - that annihilation happens in the "That Which Survives" location, but that one gets extra oomph by channeling some antimatter directly into the warp coil system. There seems to be a distinct lack of situations where the warp nacelles would threaten to explode and would have to be jettisoned for that reason; this rather speaks against the continuous presence of antimatter in the nacelles.
Now, that idea, I like.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2011, 10:16 PM   #120
TIN_MAN
Fleet Captain
 
TIN_MAN's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Nacelles

Timo wrote: View Post
Umm, why jettison inert antimatter pods?
Why indeed? As others have pointed out, the idea was to lighten the ship, so your reply actually demonstrates why the term "pod" should be understood as synonymous with "nacelle", because it would be illogical to jettison inert pods if they are only small tanks in the nacelles, since they wouldn't sufficiently lighten the ship.

A warship today might have turbine fuel tanks and diesel fuel tanks, as she resembles a starship in possessing two sets of engines. This in no way suggests that the turbine fuel tanks would actually be located at or even anywhere near the turbines, though. They are just functionally associated.
Not sure what you’re getting at there, but my point was that in "Metamorphosis" they were trying to break away from the Companion by various maneuvers, but the "pods" were "not responding", which makes no sense if the pods are merely fuel tanks, but makes complete sense if they are the propulsion units/nacelles.

The starship indeed is full of "pods". But this very fact might prove that the pods are unrelated to each other unless otherwise proven - that a "pod" is an ubiquitous machinery element in a starship and is found in dozens of applications, including warp drive, antimatter storage and ion storm measurements.
That "The starship indeed is full of "pods". But this very fact..." isn't a fact; it's an assumption on your part. The only other usage of "pod" in TOS, related to the ship, besides those synonymous with nacelle, is -as you mentioned- the ion pod. But we don't even know where that was or how big it was, for all we know it could have been a ginormous nacelle-like thing picked up (or attached) at a nearby starbase before the ship headed into the nearest ion storm to take readings?

" We were most fortunate. Blast damage in decks ten and eleven, minor buckling in the antimatter pods, casualties very light."

This describes the damage from the "Errand of Mercy" torpedo attack where all the hits were on the saucer underside where Decks 10 and 11 indeed most likely are to be found. Makes sense if torpedoes are antimatter weapons: they'd need a source of antimatter at that very location, then - and the Klingons would do wisely in targeting that spot!
Here again your assuming. I never considered these as connected references, just a general, all encompassing damage report list. Keep in mind that we don't know if decks 10 and 11 are "most likely are to be found" near the area where the photon torpedoes are emitted/launched from.

Last edited by TIN_MAN; October 4 2011 at 10:43 PM.
TIN_MAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:21 AM.

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