RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,914
Posts: 5,388,336
Members: 24,718
Currently online: 558
Newest member: Tribblemaker

TrekToday headlines

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

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16


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 February 7 2009, 11:59 PM   #76
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Vanyel wrote: View Post
Most likely, there is no real reason why there couldn't be a warp core in each nacelle. However, I would think that a warp core in each nacelle would give the ship two (or more, depending on the ship's number of nacelles) ship destroying bombs that are very exposed. On a few occasions (Voyager's Equinox comes to mind) a good hit to the nacelle can cause the loss of drive plasma. If a warp engine is there, such a hit could cause a breech with no time to even think of ejecting the core.
As I mentioned earlier, what's true of a nacelle reactor is equally true of a warp core. If the bad guys know what to shoot for anyway--and more importantly, if your shields are down--then it doesn't really matter where your warp core is because the bad guys are going to hit it anyway (as they did in Yesterday's Enterprise and Generations, and the constant "They're targeting our warp core!" exclamations throughout Enterprise).

The thing is, if the reactor core is in the nacelle, then there's only as much antimatter IN the core as is needed for the reaction at any given time. If something goes wrong, all you have to do is cut off the fuel supply and the reactor does (like navy pilots having to quickly kill an engine that catches fire; if they don't kill it fast enough, the engine could explode, or the fire will get to the fuel tank and the whole plane goes up). If all else fails, you could simply jetison the nacelle or design a ship whose nacelles will pop off automatically if something goes wrong with their cores.

Vanyel wrote: View Post
And, if the core in each nacelle is not powerful enough or doesn't have the antimatter storage in it to destroy the ship, what ever antimatter is there, could cause severe damage, perhaps even irreparable damage.
This, if you think about it, is much less of a problem for a nacelle than it is for a reactor core in the middle of your hull. If the nacelle blows, it's not so close to all the primary systems that the ship won't survive.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 12:40 AM   #77
Vanyel
The Imperious Leader
 
Vanyel's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
As I mentioned earlier, what's true of a nacelle reactor is equally true of a warp core. If the bad guys know what to shoot for anyway--and more importantly, if your shields are down--then it doesn't really matter where your warp core is because the bad guys are going to hit it anyway (as they did in Yesterday's Enterprise and Generations, and the constant "They're targeting our warp core!" exclamations throughout Enterprise).
True enough. However, the ships hull and a few decks do seem to offer a bit more protection. As shown on screen, most attacks that are directed at he engines of a starship, Federation or other, usually result in the ship losing war power. Only after a bit more pounding does it go Boom!

[quote=newtype_alpha;2587379]The thing is, if the reactor core is in the nacelle, then there's only as much antimatter IN the core as is needed for the reaction at any given time. If something goes wrong, all you have to do is cut off the fuel supply and the reactor does (like navy pilots having to quickly kill an engine that catches fire; if they don't kill it fast enough, the engine could explode, or the fire will get to the fuel tank and the whole plane goes up). If all else fails, you could simply jetison the nacelle or design a ship whose nacelles will pop off automatically if something goes wrong with their cores.[quote]

A warp core breech in progress, meaning the containment fields are falling, gives you time to jettison the core or cut the fuel supply. If the nacelle is hit hard enough to cause drive plasma to escape would, I think, not allow enough time to cut off the fuel supply or jettison the nacelle far enough away to keep it from damaging the ship.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
This, if you think about it, is much less of a problem for a nacelle than it is for a reactor core in the middle of your hull. If the nacelle blows, it's not so close to all the primary systems that the ship won't survive.
The warp core is ejectable. Granted the Galaxy class ejection system never seemed to work, but the whole core is blown out of the ship by blowing off the lower deck plated beneath the core and the warp core get blown out too.

If the nacelle warp core blows the ship will be ejecting antimatter into space as well as dueterium. Another explosion. On that could follow the fuel down into ther ship.

kent wrote: View Post
And on a side note, i LOOOOOOOVE that addams family values reference. that was and is one of my favorite lines from a movie EVER. LMAO.
One of my favorite movies too, and very quatable.
__________________
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  
Old February 8 2009, 02:40 AM   #78
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Yeah, the secondary hull is a much better tactical location, because a few meters of atmosphere will stop that 10MT explosion dead in its tracks! "Good thing the disruptor hit the arboretum first! Those trees saved the warp core!"
Vance is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 02:46 AM   #79
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

no matter where the warp core is, if it explodes, you die. period.

BUT

If it's embedded inside meters and meters inside a hull, rather than in an exposed nacelle, it's a little more difficult to target. For example, an enemy ship targets the warp core...if it's in the nacelles, then no matter which way you turn, dorsal, ventral, starboard, port, shimmy shimmy coa-coa puff, they nacelles are always out there and targetable. But if the only place you target the warp core is the ventral fill and ejection hatches, a ship can manuver in such a way that the target will be much more difficult to maintain. They do say they're targeting the warp core muchly, however we never know what the actual ease of accomplishing such a feat is. My guess is it's harder than it looks.

I just don't see the reason for putting warp cores inside nacelles when they are already jam-packed with stuff and their obvious targets. However, I do like the idea of a ship being powered by numerous smaller warp cores, that makes a TON of sense, and is a very good idea. Or at least have a couple spares like the Intrepid class has. And I SERIOUSLY doubt that a warp core explosion is only ten megatons. A teaspoon of each exploding would destroy an entire city and is pretty equivilant to 30 or so external fuel tanks of current day space shuttles exploding at one time. A single photon torpedo at full payload would decimate a planet and blow the atmosphere off, so a whole warp core would probabaly be sufficient enough to blow a chunk off a planet. Or at least obliterate the moon.

And as far as the core exploding in the nacelle being less of a problem, i think it would be a bigger problem, because now are you not only out of a warp core, but you're out of a nacelle too. And the warp core power is also connected to the EPS grid, so any explosion would travel through the grid and do serious damage. And as stated above, that type of explosion would likely obliterate the ship no matter where it is.
kent is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 03:00 AM   #80
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

And, as I said before, there's an inherent absurdity that when you're targeting something that is thousands of kilometers away, that a difference of a few dozen meters in your targeting is realistically possible, visually, for ships moving faster than light. If anything, enemy ships are already targeting your warp core, since that's more than likely what their FTL sensors are picking up.

And, as I said, a few meters of deck isn't going to do much to stop a disruptor once those shields are down.
Vance is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 03:21 AM   #81
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Actually it would take a while to get to the internal space where a warp core would be. First, you'd have to penetrate the hull...okay, easy enough. But most ships are equipped with 10 centimeters of hull armor to deflect fire. Then, you have to get into the ship, past multiple walls, rooms with stuff in them, internal shields, etc etc. it's like boring a hole to reach oil, it takes longer, especially if the ship is moving. Unlike being a blatant target in the nacelles, going through meters of hull as the ship is moving is more daunting, and gives the ship enough time to react or at least get the shields back up. I don't know where the whole distance thing is, that wasn't a part of my argument. The only way that would factor in is if a phaser beam is fired from 10 miles away versus 100 miles away, the beam loses intesity as it travels via dissapation.

Would it create damage? Yes.
Would it probably takes weeks in space dock to repair? Yes.
But unlike being in the nacelles, being in the secondary hull offers what such a huge target IE nacelles don't offer: Time to react.

As for the Enterprise-D being destroyed so quickly? That's sad. It shouldn't have been so easy and the writers flubbed that one. Although, the ship did score pretty devistating hits...one to the secondary hull on deck 33 or 34 where the dueterium tankage would be, or close, one to the port nacelle, one to the main impulse engine, and several others. I'd say considering the hits to the main propulsion systems (impulse, near the dueterium tank, port nacelle) combined are probably what did the trick. They should've ejected the core though, they'd save the whole ship. I guess they just wanted some new fangled ship, which in my opinion is pretty redundant considering Starfleet already has ships to fill every role (Galaxy class, Intrepid class, Defiant class, Prometheus class, Akira class, Steamrunner class, Nova class, etc etc, all of which are pretty modern.)
kent is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 03:25 AM   #82
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

kent wrote: View Post
Actually it would take a while to get to the internal space where a warp core would be. First, you'd have to penetrate the hull...okay, easy enough. But most ships are equipped with 10 centimeters of hull armor to deflect fire.


Yeah, 'cause we've seen how well hull armor works in Star Trek. And, heck, in the unusual case where the intermix chamber was deliberately hit by Kahn, who deliberately set up a situation where he could cripple the ship, it took a grand total of one hit to cut through the 'ship's armor' and nail it, didn't it?

These ain't ironclads, boy. And when you're talking about weapons that can destroy continents, 10cm of triple-fold titanium alloy is about as useful as your average sheet of European toilet paper.
Vance is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 03:29 AM   #83
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

I'm all up for debate but don't call me boy. I've grown up thank you, that's a little insulting.

Granted these weapons are extremely powerful, but the technologies and metals that can defend against these types of weapons are also equally as powerful, it's all about balance.

And i maintain that it's more difficult to slice through layers and layers of ship to target ONE location as the ship is moving. It would have to sit perfectly still while the beam cut its way to the heart of the secondary hull. Contrary, there is virtually nothing that would stand between a weapon and penetrating the nacelle providing direct access to the core. It's also a massive piece of equipment, easily targetable from any angle. It's more difficult to, like i said, target a specific point through layers and layers of hull as the ship itself is moving. It offers time to react versus time to die.
kent is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 03:48 AM   #84
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

kent wrote: View Post
I'm all up for debate but don't call me boy. I've grown up thank you, that's a little insulting.
Very well, it was meant to be, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

Granted these weapons are extremely powerful, but the technologies and metals that can defend against these types of weapons are also equally as powerful, it's all about balance.
There is not one example, anywhere in Trek, aside from the batmobile, where the 'armor' is so powerful that it will do jack/shit to stop even mild attacks from other ships. Indeed, the basic truism of Trek is that 'once your shields are down, you're pretty-much fucked'.

It would have to sit perfectly still while the beam cut its way to the heart of the secondary hull.
Which, as we've seen, takes absolutely no time at all once the shields are down. And since your magic-not-ever-even-existing-in-Trek armor would presumably be all over the hulls of the ship, wouldn't it STILL be on the nacelles as well? The only difference might be a couple of internal decks, would would consist of atmosphere , and fleshies...

It's more difficult to, like i said, target a specific point through layers and layers of hull as the ship itself is moving. It offers time to react versus time to die.
Go outside. I want you to visually look at the moon, and find the lunar lander. Now shoot it, weapon of your choice. And keep in mind that you have about two milliseconds to pull it off. 'Cause that's what you're talking about, even ignoring the speeds that Trek ships move out.

The whole idea that 'bury the bridge/warp-core/Shatner's toupee in the hull' is ludicrous on its face, and not borne out by anything that has ever appeared in Trek.
Vance is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 04:00 AM   #85
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Vance wrote: View Post
kent wrote: View Post
I'm all up for debate but don't call me boy. I've grown up thank you, that's a little insulting.
Very well, it was meant to be, albeit in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

Granted these weapons are extremely powerful, but the technologies and metals that can defend against these types of weapons are also equally as powerful, it's all about balance.
There is not one example, anywhere in Trek, aside from the batmobile, where the 'armor' is so powerful that it will do jack/shit to stop even mild attacks from other ships. Indeed, the basic truism of Trek is that 'once your shields are down, you're pretty-much fucked'.

It would have to sit perfectly still while the beam cut its way to the heart of the secondary hull.
Which, as we've seen, takes absolutely no time at all once the shields are down. And since your magic-not-ever-even-existing-in-Trek armor would presumably be all over the hulls of the ship, wouldn't it STILL be on the nacelles as well? The only difference might be a couple of internal decks, would would consist of atmosphere , and fleshies...

It's more difficult to, like i said, target a specific point through layers and layers of hull as the ship itself is moving. It offers time to react versus time to die.
Go outside. I want you to visually look at the moon, and find the lunar lander. Now shoot it, weapon of your choice. And keep in mind that you have about two milliseconds to pull it off. 'Cause that's what you're talking about, even ignoring the speeds that Trek ships move out.

The whole idea that 'bury the bridge/warp-core/Shatner's toupee in the hull' is ludicrous on its face, and not borne out by anything that has ever appeared in Trek.




I'm not talking about how fast the ship is going, but if it's moving around targeting a specific area on a ship will be more difficult period. Placing the warp cores inside nacelles make them a target, more of one than if it was buried inside a ship. I still stand by the fact that a weapon would take more time to bore through a ship than it would to bore through a nacelle. Tactically it's safer. And I believe it was the TNG tech manual that said that the Galaxy class ships have 10 CM of protective armor, albeit not the ablative hull armor on the Defiant. It's not ludicrous to protect the warp core behind shields, a few CM of armor, and layers and layers of hull. It would simply take longer to get at it especially if the target point is moving around on you. Yes the basic mantra of star trek is if your shields are down you're going to get bloody, but if you have a good tactition, you can sustain repeated attacks, like Voyager in Year of Hell, or like the Galaxy class ship when they retook Chin'Toka and the orbital defence platforms ripped HUGE sections of ventral saucer and secondary hull off, and they both survived.

And i don't see why you have to be insulting in a debate, it makes it foolish and immature. How old are you anyway (serious question)?
kent is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 04:13 AM   #86
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Plecostomus wrote: View Post
So.

We have a V-Block arrangement behind the grill, we'll say a big-ass V-12 engine. 12 small matter-antimatter reaction assemblies each with a crystal in it. They generate the plasma and that is pumped out to the nacelles.

Later, another reaction assembly is added in the engine-room as a prototype. This is needed because changing technology (shield upgrades, new weapons, bigger computers) require more power.

Also, we have crude one-shot matter-antimatter reactors up in the nacelles as a "return home" mode if the main reactors are fubar'd.


I could see the Connie as being patchwork like this twords the end of the Five-Year Mission, as operational requirements change new and different modules are added, the engineers add and subtract equipment as field conditions warrant and as things get refined/invented out in the field.

When the ship got home, it was reset to a "zero configuration" through a massive overhaul.

..and the process repeated itself out in the field again even as a "training ship." When she came home for the last time in TSFS, the cost of resetting the design again in addition to the repairs needed outweigh any possible value, so the ship was slated to be replaced with a totally new build.
We reach.

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Well they obviously did upgrade it a little since the engine room now has that dilithium crystal pedestal thing that later killed Spock. I presume that's just an upgraded version of the dilithium chamber thing in the TOS Enterprise.

Actually, I would tend to think the TOS ship DID have its main reactors in the warp nacelles; the stuff behind the grillework is for power conversion. The extra reaction chamber was probably added as an APU to boost ship's power if the warp engines were strained from propulsive purposes or if the deflectors needed more power; to a point, I would even go so far as to theorize that those modifications may have been made specifically in preparation for the theft of the cloaking device in Enterprise Incident, since in that episode we see Enterprise escaping from the Romulans at Warp 9.

TMP might have switched to a centralized power distribution system--the intermix chamber--with an APU at the bottom of the shaft providing power to the impulse engines and whatever else was needed.

The Excelsior probably was the first ship to use a "warp core" power plant, judging by the design of its nacelles IMO. I'd bet the actual warp reactor was housed in that bulge thing at the base of the nacelle pylons with a power distribution system (some kind of intermix chamber) elsewhere in the engineering hull. As for why they switched to a central power plant, no one can be totally sure, except that perhaps the machinery for transwarp drive (what eventually become the conventional warp drive of the Ambassador and Galaxy class ships) was too bulky and required the entire length of the nacelle in order to function properly.
Well, I think we could go either way with the reactors in the nacelles. However, I think it's safe to say that there may be a small one in each nacelle, and a V12 style assembly of similar small reactors in the engineering hull.

Vance wrote: View Post
Yeah, the secondary hull is a much better tactical location, because a few meters of atmosphere will stop that 10MT explosion dead in its tracks! "Good thing the disruptor hit the arboretum first! Those trees saved the warp core!"
Arboretum.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 04:14 AM   #87
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

I'm making fun of you because your arguments are laughable on their face, and you're not realizing why.

Think about it, they would armor the 'warp core' if it's in the secondary hull, but NOT if its in the nacelle? Tactically, wouldn't you want something so blatantly a target to NOT be in the middle of where all your crew is?

"Our job is to protect the warp core. Ensigns, everyone join hands and form a circle!"

And your layers and layers of hull are non-existent , and worthless against weapons that do a bagillion points of damage each hit. How much did 7 decks of hull do to stop that torpedo in ST:VI? Sod all! How much did the thickness of the secondary hull do to stop Khan? Nothing. How much did the Lantree's hull do to stop it from being one-shot killed? Nada.

The nacelle would be an easier target visually when it's so distant from the attacker (never mind it's going FTL to begin with) that it would be impossible to see with the naked eye? Or that your angle of difference in manual targeting would be something like 0.00000000001 degrees correction?

And, at the end of the day, no matter WHERE you stick your 'warp core' that's where your enemy ship is going to be locked-on to as it's the one thing your FTL sensors are going to be most likely to pick up.

As far as bringing up my age, fuck off, man. I've been doing this stuff since before Data was anything more than Questor revisited.
Vance is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 04:18 AM   #88
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Wow, you're kind of an asshole. I might be younger than you but judging you're personality i'm definately more mature than you.

If I had to guess, you're life has been pretty much dating optional, because with you're personality, only a dead person could handle that.

I stand by my argument period. And as far as I'm concerned you and your british slang can drop dead, I'm not talking to someone who can't have a debate without resorting to childish insults.
kent is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 04:19 AM   #89
kent
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

And as far as the thickness of the secondary hull and Kahn goes, the warp core ran through the neck, one of the thinnest areas of the ship.

"The nacelle would be an easier target visually when it's so distant from the attacker (never mind it's going FTL to begin with) that it would be impossible to see with the naked eye?" On this sentence, you might want to revisit grammar school.

And you're .0000001 degree difference depends on the distance to the target. If you're far away it makes a huge difference, if you're close up it makes a relatively small difference. I was just saying that if a ship is moving, a targeted area is difficult to keep up with unless you're matching the evasive manuvers. Just like if a car is moving and a cop is shooting at it, it's more difficult to land a shot.

I just don't see the sense in putting a warp core or two in each nacelle when they are such obvious targets. Especially when they are jam packed with bussard collectors, warp coils, warp control rooms, off axis field controllers, and various other components as well. It's better to have it inside the ship in my opinion.

But, instead of having one massive core it would be cool to have multiple cores. I think that's a good idea..
kent is offline  
Old February 8 2009, 04:26 AM   #90
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: With the Dead Poets
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Why place warp cores away from nacelles?

Next time I see personal crap, I'm closing this. kent, I generally am slow to warn, but in this case I think it's warranted. Vance is not always as diplomatic as he should be, but don't make it personal. Just walk away for a bit. You have an infraction for flaming.
__________________

"My dream is to eat candy and poop emeralds. I'm halfway successful."


Catbert, Evil Director of Human Resources
Unicron is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
technobabble, warp drive

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 07:50 AM.

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