RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,227
Posts: 5,438,184
Members: 24,957
Currently online: 579
Newest member: zanejc

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 August 13 2009, 09:02 PM   #46
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
That scene in Abrams' misbegotten movie was clearly written by hacks who haven't got even half a clue as to how these ships are supposed to work...
They seemed to have a very specific idea about how those ships worked since they made a conscious decision to use more than one reactor core. I mean, anyone who knows anything about Treknology would generally assume only a single device as a warp core; a modular design implies something a bit different is going on.
That's not the impression I got.

I got the impression that they looked at the layout of the brewery, and thought "what parts of the brewery could we CGI-eject?"

So we see a series of beer vats flying upwards.
Except they also went and CGId the engine room from which those cores were ejected in the first place, complete with a cieling and a row of ejection panels, and even screwed around with the design of those barrels to make them "glowy" ala TNG warp core.

So SOMEBODY in this process obviously knows what a warp core is (and need I remind you that Orci and Kruzman are both long time Trek fans?) and made the decision to eject, not one, but several reactor vessels. If it had been as thoughtless as all that we would have seen a big glowy shaft drop out of the bottom of the engineering hull exactly like in Voyager and Insurrection.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2009, 01:31 AM   #47
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: 1701 warp core?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
They seemed to have a very specific idea about how those ships worked since they made a conscious decision to use more than one reactor core. I mean, anyone who knows anything about Treknology would generally assume only a single device as a warp core; a modular design implies something a bit different is going on.
That's not the impression I got.

I got the impression that they looked at the layout of the brewery, and thought "what parts of the brewery could we CGI-eject?"

So we see a series of beer vats flying upwards.
Except they also went and CGId the engine room from which those cores were ejected in the first place, complete with a cieling and a row of ejection panels, and even screwed around with the design of those barrels to make them "glowy" ala TNG warp core.

So SOMEBODY in this process obviously knows what a warp core is (and need I remind you that Orci and Kruzman are both long time Trek fans?) and made the decision to eject, not one, but several reactor vessels. If it had been as thoughtless as all that we would have seen a big glowy shaft drop out of the bottom of the engineering hull exactly like in Voyager and Insurrection.
I think you're missing my point.

You're assuming, apparently, that someone sat down and "designed" the engine room, with everything being well-thought-out.

I'm assuming that they chose a brewery, did a quick walk-through, took some snapshots, and sat down around a conference table where they said "and then we can eject these doohickies by CGI!"

That then got passed to someone at the FX house, who proceeded to try, to the best of his/her ability, to make some form of logical sense out of that, and gave us the only shot in the flick that looked even partially "trekkian" in that area.

And it was mere seconds of film time, barely noticeable on-screen... all we really see is "things shoot up" and then "things shoot out" and then "things explode." If you have a home copy and freeze-frame through the scene, you may pick out more, but really... there's not all that much to look at, is there?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2009, 02:52 AM   #48
MaxPower
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

Where is the 1701 warp core? Does it even have a centralized warp core? I've seen some cutaway's of the Constitution class that makes it look like it's behind the impulse engines, is that true? I need a little help here on this one
It has five warp cores silly did you not see the movie.

I personally have always thought that the TOS Enterprise has the central core like in the movies. A few engine room posters I have seen placed in the saucer near the impulse engines in per 1980 fan posters. The "Day of the Dove" if I remember right had the crew in the engine room in the secondary hull was one of the only ideas that was where the engine room was. Years ago I saw a stage photo or behind the scenes photo of the engine room with ceiling that was shaped more like a rounded edge going down it hinted it could be more behind the impulse engines in that photo. Key word hinted.

It was not untill science of Star Trek came out was warp core even thought out.
MaxPower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 14 2009, 06:21 PM   #49
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
I think you're missing my point.

You're assuming, apparently, that someone sat down and "designed" the engine room, with everything being well-thought-out.
Not at all. I'm just saying its apparent that SOME amount of thought must have gone into it, or else they would have simply duplicated special effects from the past 10 trek movies and 40 seasons of TV shows. They did something relatively original, and I severely doubt they went through the effort to create a CGI version of an entire brewery just to jettison some "doohickies" from it.

If you have a home copy and freeze-frame through the scene
Which I do, and I have examined that scene at great length over the past few months. It's a CGI interior, not a photographic one, and nothing they ejected resembles anything in the physical sets or anything you'd expect to see in a brewery (well, unless you're at a Heinkenen plant and they're brewing a batch using enriched plutonium...)
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23 2009, 10:50 PM   #50
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: 1701 warp core?

Remember in 'Galileo Seven' Kirk calling for full power on reactors two, four, and six? Maybe to increase power to the sensors? I alway took that to mean that the E had at least six antimatter reactors.
And after FJ blueprints just assumed they were in the nacelles.
Elvira is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2009, 01:22 PM   #51
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

In "Catspaw", there's a similar scene calling for the use of reactors 1 through 3. The wording also rather suggests that there must be more reactors than just these three.

Whether these are antimatter reactors, or perhaps fusion, fission or other such auxiliary reactors, is not clear from either context.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2009, 08:02 PM   #52
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 warp core?

"The Doomsday Machine" makes it pretty clear that the impulse engines use fusion reactors, so there's that.

Also, while we've got references to "antimatter pods", and "warp engines", as far as anitmatter reactors go, we only have references in the singular. Thus, multiple reactors on board, but only one is matter/antimatter.

So, the way I see the power setup, we have fusion reactors supplying energy for most ship functions, and one matter/antimatter reactor, later known as a "warp core", providing power to the ship's higher energy intensive functions, like powering the warp engines (which are in the nacelles; in fact, they're the whole purpose for the nacelles, to house the warp drive machinery away from the main hull).
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2009, 10:52 PM   #53
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: 1701 warp core?

That sounds reasonable.
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2009, 05:30 AM   #54
Elvira
Vice Admiral
 
Elvira's Avatar
 
Location: t'girl
Re: 1701 warp core?

Still favor multiples, if you have just a single reactor/warp core and it gets knocked out some how, why the entire ship would be helpless. What kind of moron would design a ship like that? Oh wait, yeah.
__________________
.
no mere mortal can resist the evil of the thriller
Elvira is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2009, 08:47 AM   #55
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 warp core?

One, you have multiple fusion reactors to act as a backup.

Two, the antimatter reactor is deep within the secondary hull, with safety systems out the wazoo, and an engineering crew on hand to keep things running smoothly, and thus very well protected.

Now, if you want to make your ship easy to disable and/or destroy, go ahead and put the reactors up in the nacelles, and see what happens the next time you come across a Klingon ship with a wiseass gunner who wants to prove how good a shot he is (and before anyone brings up ST III, I'd like to remind folks that the problem there was that Kruge ordered the knucklehead to "target the engines" to disable the Grissom and instead, he had his "lucky shot" and hit something else, thus destroying the ship).
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2009, 07:14 PM   #56
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: 1701 warp core?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Still favor multiples, if you have just a single reactor/warp core and it gets knocked out some how, why the entire ship would be helpless. What kind of moron would design a ship like that? Oh wait, yeah.
Well, let's consider a modern-day example... a nuclear power plant.

We refer to this as a single facility. And on rare occasions, such facilities consist of only a single reactor. But more often, there are multiple reactors which make up the facility. And those reactors making up the facility may not be located very close together... what makes them a "facility" isn't proximity, it's the fact that they're all centrally controlled and coordinated.

All we know for certain is that in some circumstances, during TOS, we get a clear reference to a "facility."

That is in no way evidence that there is only a single "reactor" at any one location in the ship... just that there is a single "reactor system" (meaning common "organizational structure").

The "row of tubes" in Engineering could be a string of m/am reactors. Or there could be a single big reactor under the floor. Or there could be rows and rows of reactor chambers in the nacelles (as TAS showed us, and as I treat things).

There is ZERO HARD EVIDENCE EITHER WAY. After all, the ship was never actually built...

For me, I go back to MJ's intent... the "aerospace model." CRA and others support the "automobile model" where the nacelles are the tires, and the "engine" is elsewhere in the vehicle.

But... in that automotive model... you talk about "the engine." Think about the engine in your car, however... it doesn't have just one cylinder, does it? It has four (if it's a little puttering golfcart of a car!) or six, or eight, or (if you have a high-end sports car) maybe twelve.

Yet with all those "reaction chambers" (and that's a very appropriate term, by the way) in that engine, we still call it a single engine, don't we?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
One, you have multiple fusion reactors to act as a backup.
Except that the whole point of m/am as a power source is that it produced a lot more energy per gram of reaction mass than fusion possibly can.
Two, the antimatter reactor is deep within the secondary hull, with safety systems out the wazoo, and an engineering crew on hand to keep things running smoothly, and thus very well protected.
Which is why we want our nuclear reactor power plants in the middle of New York City or Los Angeles, right? They've got "safety systems out the wazoo, massive engineering crews, and are very well protected, after all.

Think that's a good idea? No? Why not?
Now, if you want to make your ship easy to disable and/or destroy, go ahead and put the reactors up in the nacelles, and see what happens the next time you come across a Klingon ship with a wiseass gunner who wants to prove how good a shot he is (and before anyone brings up ST III, I'd like to remind folks that the problem there was that Kruge ordered the knucklehead to "target the engines" to disable the Grissom and instead, he had his "lucky shot" and hit something else, thus destroying the ship).
If you have shields and deflectors... how is having them in the nacelles making them any more vulnerable than having them in the main hull?

Further, if you DON'T have shields and deflectors, how is having them in the main hull making them any more secure and protected than having them in the nacelles?

Do you think that the shielding on the nacelles is, for some reason, less robust than that over the rest of the ship?

Do you think that an unshielded secondary hull is going to provide any more impediment to a full-power weapons system than an unshielded nacelle? I think that the term "hot knife through butter" is probably appropriate...
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2009, 10:04 AM   #57
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: 1701 warp core?

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post

Do you think that an unshielded secondary hull is going to provide any more impediment to a full-power weapons system than an unshielded nacelle? I think that the term "hot knife through butter" is probably appropriate...
A fine example of that is in STII, when it's pretty much uncontested that the M/AM reactor is in the secondary hull. Here, the Reliant's cutting beam brought down engineering with very little effort. Granted, they knew where to shoot but ship's weapons have at times been described as powerfull enough to level a planet, so I would have thought that nowhere in the ship would be especially safe from them.
"Shields up Captain! Captain why aren't you raising the shields? I just need to press this one button! Capt- BOOM! Oh, never mind..."
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2009, 08:16 PM   #58
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
One, you have multiple fusion reactors to act as a backup.

Two, the antimatter reactor is deep within the secondary hull, with safety systems out the wazoo, and an engineering crew on hand to keep things running smoothly, and thus very well protected.

Now, if you want to make your ship easy to disable and/or destroy, go ahead and put the reactors up in the nacelles, and see what happens the next time you come across a Klingon ship with a wiseass gunner who wants to prove how good a shot he is...
As I have often commented at times like this: if you ever find yourself in the presence of a hostile weapon system accurate enough to target individual components of your ship, even through deflector shields and evasive action, it doesn't matter where you put the warp core.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2009, 09:40 PM   #59
Ronald Held
Rear Admiral
 
Location: On the USS Sovereign
Re: 1701 warp core?

That is true!
Ronald Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2009, 12:45 AM   #60
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: 1701 warp core?

But why make it easier for them to blow you up? At least keeping the breakable stuff inside instead of waaaaaaaay out on a couple of popsicle sticks shows you're making an effort.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
1701, constitution, core, technobabble, warp, 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 07:00 PM.

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