RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,745
Posts: 5,215,891
Members: 24,215
Currently online: 807
Newest member: rpoe0728

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 September 3 2009, 09:06 AM   #76
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: 1701 warp core?

Timo wrote: View Post
Aircraft tend to have all sorts of underwing pods, of which only the possible underwing engines are traditionally referred to as nacelles. There's no semantic rule about it, though: a radar pod or a fuel tank could just as well be considered a nacelle...
Thanks for clearing that up
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
...since you really don't want completely eliminate your ship's warp capability over a wonky storage pod, it makes a bit more sense to not put the entire works in the nacelles...Besides, suppose you have a problem with your reactor. Do you really want it taking out your fuel supply if it goes wonky?
The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to separate these volatile components as much as possible. Keeping matter tanks in the nacelles is not dangerous – hydrogen requires oxygen to burn in and alone could not engage the M/AM reactors (in fact it would probably choke them). So with the reactors in the nacelles, I know I’d feel better with the reactive element (the antimatter) stored far far away from them!
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2009, 11:00 AM   #77
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

The problem is that the antimatter is reactive with all things, not just with the other fuel component. In order to keep the antimatter from doing harm, one mustn't only separate it from the matter fuel - one must also separate it from all other parts of the ship as carefully as possible.

In practice, this might be better done with short fuel lines than with long ones. (An alternative would be long but safely external fuel lines - a possible rationale for the long and spindly engine struts... Good for safety in normal operations, but bad for safety in combat or under other external threats.)

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 3 2009, 09:07 PM   #78
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Timo wrote: View Post
The problem is that the antimatter is reactive with all things, not just with the other fuel component. In order to keep the antimatter from doing harm, one mustn't only separate it from the matter fuel - one must also separate it from all other parts of the ship as carefully as possible.

In practice, this might be better done with short fuel lines than with long ones. (An alternative would be long but safely external fuel lines - a possible rationale for the long and spindly engine struts... Good for safety in normal operations, but bad for safety in combat or under other external threats.)

Timo Saloniemi
It's worth pointing out that the one thing we've never seen in combat was a direct hit to a nacelle pylon. Hits to nacelles, yes, but never the pylons.

Besides, the TMP designs have that blue stripe along the pylons and the outline of the intemrix chamber; I've always assumed these were plates of unusually thick armor to keep lucky Klingon gunners at bay.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2009, 09:20 AM   #79
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: 1701 warp core?

Timo wrote: View Post
The problem is that the antimatter is reactive with all things, not just with the other fuel component. In order to keep the antimatter from doing harm, one mustn't only separate it from the matter fuel - one must also separate it from all other parts of the ship as carefully as possible...
That's true of course. But assuming that the transfer conduits are pretty much failsafe (it's only ever the antimatter PODS that threaten to lose containment, I think), then situating them away from the nacelles is still a favourable choice; if you should need to eject the pods, you don't want them taking out the nacelles at the same time!

In a slight aside, what (obvious) ejectable panels do the nacelles have? As far as I know, each only has a single one (outlined in red) on the bottom, near the pylon. Not the direction I'd want to shoot malfunctioning antimatter pods in!
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2009, 04:43 AM   #80
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 bottom of the secondary hull, however...
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2009, 12:47 PM   #81
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: 1701 warp core?

Exactly my point. We don't know for sure a lot of the designers' intentions, but the number of hatch-like devices along the keel indicate that there was a lot of something going on down there. It's certainly the most obvious location.
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2009, 01:57 PM   #82
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: 1701 warp core?

Are the markings necessarily hatches? They might simply be markings.
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2009, 05:56 PM   #83
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 Starfleet pennants and registry numbers are just markings, and even they serve a purpose. The markings along the bottom of the secondary hull don't seem to serve any kind of identification purpose, plus they look more technical than anything else, so the most logical interpretation is that they're access hatches of some sort.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2009, 06:17 AM   #84
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: 1701 warp core?

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
The Starfleet pennants and registry numbers are just markings, and even they serve a purpose. The markings along the bottom of the secondary hull don't seem to serve any kind of identification purpose, plus they look more technical than anything else, so the most logical interpretation is that they're access hatches of some sort.
Agreed.

I tend to think that there's a "color coding" scheme for the various hatches. When you see a white hatch with a red outline around it, or a white hatch with a grey outline, you have a pretty clear idea of what's behind it.

For example... there is a pale grey "T" shape on the underside of the secondary hull, outlined by dark grey. There are also two pale grey "L" shapes on the aft top of the primary hull, also outlined by dark grey. I assume that both of those are access hatchs for fusion reactor assemblies. It makes sense - you'd want to be able to pull a reactor at a base and replace it easily, so you'd want it close to the hull surface. You'd want them to be near engineering facilities (and there's only one engineering facility in the p-hull, near the impulse engines, of course). And you'd want consistency in terms of physical appearance just for its own sake... it makes things easier (especially when dealing with different ships with different overall configurations).

We see something similar in the TMP-era ships, but it's not the same. In those ships, we see medium-engineering-green panels over the "power conduit" runs, both for the impulse shaft risiing from main engineering to the impulse engines (along the sides of the dorsal) and along the inside surfaces of the warp nacelle pylons. Those don't HAVE to look the same... but especially if there are going to be dozens (if not hundreds) of ship designs potentially being serviced at any given time at any given facility, some commonality in terms of major-feature-identification would certainly be helpful.

Sure, they'd need to learn the difference between whatever they call the "TOS-era" style and the "TMP-era" styles... but that's only two sets of marking styles they'd need to learn, not (potentially) hundreds, if ship designs don't have to conform to any sort of standard.

For me... a "white with red outline" hatch on a TOS ship represents "cargo airlock." White with grey outline represents "auxiliary deployable hardware" (ie, it's a bay which can be outfitted with special-purpose hardware at a base). Light grey with dark grey outline represents "power system access." Yellow with red outline represents "deployable sensor systems." And so on...

That's how I interpret it.

As for why "all along the underside of the secondary hull?" Well, that's a low-load-bearing area (and thus well-suited for having hatches, which will be less strong than contiguous hull will be), and it's in a location which is minimally useful for other purposes (otherwise, the ship really should just have a flat bottom down there). It makes sense, at least it does to me.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2009, 07:47 AM   #85
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?

Here's how I see it...



Need to update that one under the fantail to read "Work Bee Hangar"...
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2009, 07:49 AM   #86
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: 1701 warp core?

Timo wrote: View Post
The problem is that the antimatter is reactive with all things, not just with the other fuel component. In order to keep the antimatter from doing harm, one mustn't only separate it from the matter fuel - one must also separate it from all other parts of the ship as carefully as possible.

In practice, this might be better done with short fuel lines than with long ones. (An alternative would be long but safely external fuel lines - a possible rationale for the long and spindly engine struts... Good for safety in normal operations, but bad for safety in combat or under other external threats.)

Timo Saloniemi
You know, it also just occurred to me that antimatter doesn't actually EXPLODE when it contacts normal matter, but releases high energy gamma rays and other particles. Preventing an explosion would be as simple as surrounding the antimatter with a material that will absorb those gamma rays without explosively deflagrating.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 6 2009, 07:58 AM   #87
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: 1701 warp core?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
You know, it also just occurred to me that antimatter doesn't actually EXPLODE when it contacts normal matter, but releases high energy gamma rays and other particles. Preventing an explosion would be as simple as surrounding the antimatter with a material that will absorb those gamma rays without explosively deflagrating.
Well, it's worth remembering what an "explosion" actually is... in term of the actual mechanics.

An explosion is a sudden increase in pressure. That's literally all it is. What can cause that increase in pressure can be spontaneous generation of gaseous mass, or a sudden increase in temperature in an already-existing gaseous mass, or a combination of the above.

So, for instance, if a matter/antimatter reaction produces energy which then results in heating matter, resulting in it being transformed into liquid, then gas, then plasma... and if that happens suddenly... you've got an explosion. It's not the matter and antimatter which "explode," it's the stuff that they impart their energy to which explodes.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2009, 09:12 AM   #88
Mytran
Fleet Captain
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: 1701 warp core?

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
You know, it also just occurred to me that antimatter doesn't actually EXPLODE when it contacts normal matter, but releases high energy gamma rays and other particles. ...
I may have missed the point here (not being a physicist) but isn't a great deal of energy also released when matter and antimatter collide?
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2009, 10:23 AM   #89
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

Energy has to be released in some form. In this case, the form we observe is radiation (mostly hard gamma) and kinetic energy (of those exotic particles that are created out of the radiation energies within the first eyeblink). Both of those would probably rupture pipes and hulls if they in turn released their energy into a medium traveling in the pipes or residing in the hulls. Or even if they merely impacted the walls of an otherwise empty pipe.

Here's how I see it...
I'd like to throw TOS-R in the mix, and go along with Cary's color coding scheme. That is, the big yellow roundel at the bottom of the secondary hull would probably be functionally similar to the small yellow rectangle at the bottom of the primary hull. An access door from inside to outside, rather than from outside to a piece of equipment, would be preferable, then (since I agree the small rectangle is an airlock door). And we do see the big yellow round thing open up and release a load of satellites in TOS-R "Operation: Annihilate!".

There are so many other hatches at the bottom of the secondary hull that all the power system components that need ejecting can get ejecting. Perhaps the distinct white hatches are ejection ports, while the more subdued red-outlined ones are mundane access hatches that don't suddenly explode on your face, and the dark grey ones may swivel or extend but usually don't?

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2009, 09:59 PM   #90
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: 1701 warp core?

Anyone want to take a stab at the hatch behind the bridge, a rectangle, I believe it's yellow with a red outline.

FJ's blueprints put a telescope there.
T'Girl 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 11:14 AM.

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