RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,932
Posts: 5,389,926
Members: 24,722
Currently online: 434
Newest member: Leaveitalone

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 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?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 19 2012, 04:57 PM   #16
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Indeed, I think the only time we saw a ship flying "above" a planet (but not within its atmosphere) would have been in ST3, when the ship commandeered by Kirk approached the cloaked Klingons above the Genesis planet. Funnily enough, this would have been the one time the heroes should have been concerned about the possibility and consequences of firing a warp core into the planet!

TOS in general preferred shots where the ship presented one flank to the planet, and TNG did likewise, although some shots involved funny angles. DS9 and especially ENT added more shot types, but they tended to favor ones where the ship was below and the planet above when they wanted to drive home the fact that "space has no up or down".

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 05:01 PM   #17
Santaman
Rear Admiral
 
Santaman's Avatar
 
Location: A little while in the past.
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Hmm, if the core explodes I'd like the engineering hull to be between it and the saucer section which holds most of the crew, maybe thats why its ejected downwards, would be a shitty moment it if pops up and explodes while its between the nacelles and saucer...
__________________
"Sword is personal, brings slicing to a man, you getta that personal feedback, nuclear weapons?.. Meh, goes off big bang and you don't get any feeling.."
Santaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 07:41 PM   #18
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Not as bad as if the ship's orientation suddenly shifts immediately after the core's fired and it impacts the saucer. :P
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 07:50 PM   #19
KamenRiderBlade
Lieutenant Commander
 
KamenRiderBlade's Avatar
 
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

DonIago wrote: View Post
Not as bad as if the ship's orientation suddenly shifts immediately after the core's fired and it impacts the saucer. :P
That wouldn't matter since gravity flows in the direction of the gravity plates and even without direct power, gravity plates in ST will run for quite a few hours on there own.
KamenRiderBlade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 10:18 PM   #20
Darkwing
Commodore
 
Location: This dry land thing is too wierd!
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Well, Timo, that's the sort of sloppy thinking that messes it up. Writers for ENT didn't think about it. Back in the 70's, we were all certain the reactors were in the nacelles, and it seemed clear the TMP linear intermix chamber was a radical departure, moving the reactors from 1 small one in each nacelle to one big one inside the hull. If anyone has the TMP novel, I think there was even some mention in there about it being one of the changes. So when TNG developed the idea further, and then dubbed them warp core, that made sense. But when ENT reused the term, I seriously doubt they deliberately intended to say "you just never knew it was in use all the time". Most likely, they just assumed it was ok, just as the scriptwriters for POTC didn't think about when "ok" was invented. Movies no longer hire a research company to check theirscripts for facts and anachronisms, just to ensure they don't use real names or copyrighted fictional ones.
__________________
If you don’t drink the kool-aid, you’re a baaad person - Rev Jim Jones
Almond kool-aid, anyone? Or do you prefer pudding?- Darkwing
Darkwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 10:29 PM   #21
Vanyel
The Imperious Leader
 
Vanyel's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

KamenRiderBlade wrote: View Post
DonIago wrote: View Post
Not as bad as if the ship's orientation suddenly shifts immediately after the core's fired and it impacts the saucer. :P
That wouldn't matter since gravity flows in the direction of the gravity plates and even without direct power, gravity plates in ST will run for quite a few hours on there own.
But the ships gravity doesn't extend beyond the hull. If the core were being ejected and the ship started, for whatever reason, tumbling nacelles over saucer wouldn't the saucer be in danger of being hit?

One of the reasons I asked about a horizontal core would be that the hatch would basically be a slide that directs the core down (from the POV of the ship) and away. Old technology could be used to help speed the core on its way, a spring. Or the just nearly as old directed explosives.
__________________
Imogene, get serious! Who do you think you're talking to?! I've known you for 27 years, and all I can say is, if God was giving out sexually transmitted diseases to people as a punishment for sinning, then you would be at the free clinic all the time! And so would the rest of us!
--Julia Sugarbaker
Vanyel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 10:43 PM   #22
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

You're thinking more like the launch system on the F-22 Raptor where it ejects the missile (in this case, horizontal core) downwards?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19 2012, 11:01 PM   #23
Vanyel
The Imperious Leader
 
Vanyel's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Down at an angle and away. For arguments sake only, the hatch would open at a 45 degree angle from the plane of the ship, then eject it at that angle.
__________________
Imogene, get serious! Who do you think you're talking to?! I've known you for 27 years, and all I can say is, if God was giving out sexually transmitted diseases to people as a punishment for sinning, then you would be at the free clinic all the time! And so would the rest of us!
--Julia Sugarbaker
Vanyel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 12:23 AM   #24
SchwEnt
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

I'd like to think that a vertical warp core is not a static component and a ship must be designed around it.

Many Star Fleet ships are primary hull saucers and separate nacelles, but not necessarily similar. I don't think the internal warp engine components must be identical from class to class.

The location of the reactor, the intermix shaft, the dilithium chamber, all that... I'd think it could be varied in accordance with each ship design. Just because a Constitution class featured a vertical intermix chamber, a Reliant-type probably would not, nor would a Grissom-type or a FJ Saladin or Hermes.

And then ENT showed a horizontal arrangement, so there you go. Other layouts of internal warp engine components should be possible with every class of ship.
SchwEnt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 02:26 AM   #25
brian577
Captain
 
brian577's Avatar
 
Location: United States of Equestria
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

SchwEnt wrote: View Post
I'd like to think that a vertical warp core is not a static component and a ship must be designed around it.

Many Star Fleet ships are primary hull saucers and separate nacelles, but not necessarily similar. I don't think the internal warp engine components must be identical from class to class.

The location of the reactor, the intermix shaft, the dilithium chamber, all that... I'd think it could be varied in accordance with each ship design. Just because a Constitution class featured a vertical intermix chamber, a Reliant-type probably would not, nor would a Grissom-type or a FJ Saladin or Hermes.
Except it did
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File...ngineering.jpg
brian577 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 04:01 AM   #26
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Although the Reliant had a similar intermix shaft it wasn't anywhere as long as the one on the Enterprise. The technology was the same, but it's a different size and probably configuration to run it out to the warp engines on the Reliant, IMO.
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 05:20 AM   #27
Jimi_James
Lieutenant Commander
 
Jimi_James's Avatar
 
Location: Gettin' Lucky in Kentucky
View Jimi_James's Twitter Profile
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Vanyel wrote: View Post
Who does it seem that all the Starfleet ships we've seen, with the exception of the 1701 in TWoK, have vertical Warp Cores? On the Enterprise D it seemed to take up 2 decks, but specs, as I recall, showed it at 4 decks high. That's some 40 - 50 feet if you assume those decks it transverses have Jefferies tubes.
The warp core on the Galaxy Class is much larger than just four decks. Even the Intrepid and Sovereign class ships, both of which we have seen ejecting their cores, have warp cores that span more than four decks. The Galaxy class Warp Core spans at least 12 decks, and this doesn't even include the antimatter storage pods and the Deuterium storage tank.

The Intrepid class warp core looks to be about eight decks tall, while the Sovereign class core is roughly fourteen decks tall. Comparably, the Defiant class warp core is only three decks tall.

These figures were obtained, by looking at various MSD's of each ship class and simply counting the decks.

You can check out this guys blog: http://lcarsgfx.wordpress.com/
He has some great highly detailed MSD's for those that are interested. You can also find a few on Doug Drexler's blog.
__________________
“I was here,” says Man. “Prove it,” says the Universe.” Method of Life, a post apocalyptic sci-fi ebook available on Amazon.

My YouTube Gaming Channel
Jimi_James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 07:45 AM   #28
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

Yeah, for budget reasons which wouldn't on a practical level seem to make sense, most of the warp core is apparently not readily visible/accessible from Main Engineering.

The TMP set made a lot more sense to me in that regard, with Engineering stations accessing the intermix chamber on every level...or at least more than two levels.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20 2012, 09:41 AM   #29
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

...Although we never learned exactly what could be accessed there. Would there have been moving parts, or would the platforms merely have allowed repairmen to slap patches over possible punctures?

If seems that the "nodes" of these tube things have at least one "functional" capacity, that of shuttering the flow and allowing a firewall to slide down to cut the tube. (Perhaps the shutters are then opened again and the flow burns its way through the seemingly orifice-less firewall?)

From what we see, it's clear that the tube thing can make turns, including relatively tight ones (we see three 90-degree angles); it being "vertical" or "horizontal" may be a gross oversimplification, really. Perhaps on Kirk's ship, it becomes more like diagonal within the neck, and does a loop around the dilithium chamber for greater effect, whereas on Khan's, it really looks like a spaghetti monster?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 21 2012, 06:30 PM   #30
jayrath
Fleet Captain
 
Location: West Hollywood, Calif., USA
Re: Vertical Warp Core?

If we're ready for filming explanations, having it vertical allows us to see the whole thing. Kind of. Yes, it runs all the way up to the attic, but characters can move all around it, behind it, etc. Otherwise you need a matte or, as in both TOS and TMP, a forced-perspective set that can only be filmed from certain angles.
jayrath 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 09:13 AM.

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