Four warp engines: Why?
- Thread starter SteveG
- Start date
I had to Google it, as I had never seen it before. But I'll take the Constellation-class ship any day.
I've always imagined that Starships with more than 2 nacelles had them for one of two reasons:
1) Redundancy. If you're a frontier vessel, or out of effective support range if you have catastrophic engine problems, having backups makes sense, from the "oh my God, can I get my people back home?" standpoint.
2) An analogy that I've always liked is that of subwoofers in a home theater environment. One is good and is the minimum required. Two smoothes out the response in the room. Four smoothes it out even more, and allows higher output. Imagining that warp fields involve some sorts of frequency emissions that can be effectively tuned by having multiple nacelles, the subwoofer analogy is a good one in my mind.
YMMV.
A thought that occurs to me just from a quick read of this thread is the idea of using less warp coils per nacelle. The four nacelles achieve the same warp effect, but present a smaller profile target in combat.
So, basically, you can use the smaller nacelles of something like the Reliant or Oberth, but get the distance from a Constitution.
That is my thoughts with no basis of research whatsoever. YMMV
Unfortunately, all nacelles of a certain design (say, those of the Constitution, Constellation, Miranda/Reliant and Sydney) tend to be the same size, as they are just reuses of the same kit piece or mold... They are also placed at more or less the same distance from each other. So four will actually double the silhouette over two.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
Going along with the increase in silhouette, that also adds to a tactical problem in battle, I can see the extra two nacelles getting in the way a little.
Why? The Constellation silhouette shouldn't be any worse than that of a Constitution-class. If the warp nacelles work in an alternating fashion, then the Constellation should be able to hang in a firefight longer than most of its contemporaries.
One idea I came across was that the Constellation class has built in redundancy for deep space exploration. Say, if two of the nacelles failed, for example.
I agree on the functionality, I was referring to the obstruction.
I'd have to say that the functionality of an extra pair of nacelles for deep space exploration makes the most sense.
The Constellation class isn't the only class to use the quad nacelle configuration. In canon alone, we also have the Cheyenne class, which I fancy as a descendant of the Constellation class.
There is also battleships such as the Ares class (Starfleet Battles) and fanon designs: the America and Olympus class, not to mention my Fuego class, which I based directly on the Ares class, and yes, there is also the Yamato class, and there are many more non-canon four-nacelle classes.
The Prometheus class doesn't really count in this case, considering that the two pairs were made for multi-vectored tactics.
But maybe the reason for these four nacelles is for redundancy mostly, but maybe having four nacelles also means faster warp factor acceleration.
Being able to limp home even if one or two nacelles are knocked out, or even destroyed, could explain why most battleships have four nacelles.
For all we know, the much smaller explorers are made partially to test new components as part of Starfleet's effort to constantly make the quad nacelle configuration more efficient. If these smaller ships are able to make it home under harsher conditions than the standard two nacelle explorers, then that is a bonus!
The Constellation class isn't the only class to use the quad nacelle configuration. In canon alone, we also have the Cheyenne class, which I fancy as a descendant of the Constellation class.
There is also battleships such as the Ares class (Starfleet Battles) and fanon designs: the America and Olympus class, not to mention my Fuego class, which I based directly on the Ares class, and yes, there is also the Yamato class, and there are many more non-canon four-nacelle classes.
The Prometheus class doesn't really count in this case, considering that the two pairs were made for multi-vectored tactics.
But maybe the reason for these four nacelles is for redundancy mostly, but maybe having four nacelles also means faster warp factor acceleration.
Being able to limp home even if one or two nacelles are knocked out, or even destroyed, could explain why most battleships have four nacelles.
For all we know, the much smaller explorers are made partially to test new components as part of Starfleet's effort to constantly make the quad nacelle configuration more efficient. If these smaller ships are able to make it home under harsher conditions than the standard two nacelle explorers, then that is a bonus!
Unfortunately, all nacelles of a certain design (say, those of the Constitution, Constellation, Miranda/Reliant and Sydney) tend to be the same size, as they are just reuses of the same kit piece or mold... They are also placed at more or less the same distance from each other. So four will actually double the silhouette over two.
Timo Saloniemi
I think the front view profile might be a little smaller, due to the lack of a full engineering section. There are different ways a silhouette can be presented, especially in space combat.
But, its hard to find a good silhouette comparison of the ships.
Rotating the respective MicroMachines models of the ships in your hands (while making the appropriate whooshing sounds) reveals that the Constellation is basically an oblong box, presenting much the same silhouette at various angles - whereas the Constitution at some angles benefits from having a narrow bottom.
In traditional three-view comparison, the surface areas of the ships are pretty much the same in each orthogonal direction. However, the Constitution is longer in side profile, which may affect targeting somewhat. But whether it makes targeting easier or harder than against the shorter, broader side of the Constellation... Hard to tell.
Timo Saloniemi
In traditional three-view comparison, the surface areas of the ships are pretty much the same in each orthogonal direction. However, the Constitution is longer in side profile, which may affect targeting somewhat. But whether it makes targeting easier or harder than against the shorter, broader side of the Constellation... Hard to tell.
Timo Saloniemi
Every once in a while I think this thead's title is "Warp Four Engines: Why?" Would I think would be an interesting topic, if we had something to base it on. I mean there were the old Warp Two freighters and the like, and then a just to Warp Five engines. Why not a Warp Four engine?
Or why not a fusion/impulse power FLT drive that make make it up to Warp Four?
Things like that.
Or why not a fusion/impulse power FLT drive that make make it up to Warp Four?
Things like that.
...The funny thing is that the Warp Five Engine came first, and the Warp Two Freighters later, in in-universe terms. Sort of.
That is, freighters being limited to warp two was a concept introduced in "Friday's Child", which takes place a century after "Broken Bow" that introduced the warp five engine (while also mentioning the warp two freighters). So we're prompted to ask: what gives? Why no progress in freighter propulsion during this century, when military vessels improve their performance from warp five (-plus) top speed to warp ten-plus top speed, and apparently also from warp three'ish cruise to warp six'ish cruise?
Timo Saloniemi
That is, freighters being limited to warp two was a concept introduced in "Friday's Child", which takes place a century after "Broken Bow" that introduced the warp five engine (while also mentioning the warp two freighters). So we're prompted to ask: what gives? Why no progress in freighter propulsion during this century, when military vessels improve their performance from warp five (-plus) top speed to warp ten-plus top speed, and apparently also from warp three'ish cruise to warp six'ish cruise?
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps we should be also asking the question of why we have to travel at subsonic speeds, while the military gets supersonic bombers. Then again, they don't have supersonic transports (unless these are above top secret).
Obviously, this is how things are going to remain, until we have a new jet fuel that can replace the petroleum based source. It bothers me that there hasn't been any other aircraft like the Concorde, and that this is the 21st Century, when even faster travel was expected, but there just doesn't seem to be anything happening to address this.
Hopefully, the oil companies' energy monopolies won't slow down this process.
So maybe it is a case of using less anti-matter, which Starfleet is given a higher priority for, or higher warp vessels are harder to maintain, or higher warp transports just weren't in demand at the time, so your cargo and passengers were forced to dawdle along at warp two, at least until technology made it cheaper and easier to travel faster.
I suppose that the warp two freighters were also just merely the among the cheapest of their type, and that we did not see the real fancy civilian cargo ships.
I imagine that passenger were forced to travel slower when it was found out that high warp damaged the fabric of space (though warp five wouldn't be considered a bad cruising speed).
Seagoing freight today is transported at significantly lower speeds than those used by combat vessels, too. It's not just an issue of fuel prices, but also of there being little or no demand for speedier delivery. If something really is in a hurry, it can be flown to the target. And this creates, or at least indicates, a sharp divide between goods types that travel fast and goods types that travel slowly. It's not a matter of dollars-per-pound, even: strawberries and tomatoes don't necessarily compete with lumber in that respect. It's a weird mixture of sometimes unexpected factors.
Perhaps this is true of Trek as well? Nothing travels faster than warp two freighters - except for subspace messages, and the things worth sending over at really high speed all consist of pure information. No type of bulk needs to move faster than warp two.
One would imagine passengers would on occasion want to move in a hurry, though. That is, once ticket prices dropped enough; prior to that, the length of the journey wouldn't matter, because the passenger would already have spent decades saving up for the trip, and would never make another. The prices dropping might be dependent on new warp technologies emerging, and when those technologies did emerge (after TOS, apparently), they also opened up the market for the likes of Kasidy Yates who makes rounds with her tramp that last for mere days yet may cover half a dozen star systems.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps this is true of Trek as well? Nothing travels faster than warp two freighters - except for subspace messages, and the things worth sending over at really high speed all consist of pure information. No type of bulk needs to move faster than warp two.
One would imagine passengers would on occasion want to move in a hurry, though. That is, once ticket prices dropped enough; prior to that, the length of the journey wouldn't matter, because the passenger would already have spent decades saving up for the trip, and would never make another. The prices dropping might be dependent on new warp technologies emerging, and when those technologies did emerge (after TOS, apparently), they also opened up the market for the likes of Kasidy Yates who makes rounds with her tramp that last for mere days yet may cover half a dozen star systems.
Timo Saloniemi
Eh, not really, container ships like Emma Maersk have a cruising speed of more than 25 knots which is a full 10 knots faster than the cruising speed of a top of the line frigate so while a frigate can go 30 knots its only for a little while because they're run out of fuel soon, a race across the ocean will easily be won by the freigther, which is a little 3 meters shy of being 400 meters long...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Mærsk
Maersk had also a class of extremely fast container ships, cruising speed of 29 knots and a top speed of more than 36 knots which is well out of reach of any current frigate in service, the ships were sadly never used because of their maniacal fuel consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mærsk_Boston
So called banana boats also have a cruising speed of around 20 knots to get their goods in time here so we all have a pristine banana for lunch whenever we want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Mærsk
Maersk had also a class of extremely fast container ships, cruising speed of 29 knots and a top speed of more than 36 knots which is well out of reach of any current frigate in service, the ships were sadly never used because of their maniacal fuel consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Mærsk_Boston
So called banana boats also have a cruising speed of around 20 knots to get their goods in time here so we all have a pristine banana for lunch whenever we want.
You can't compare such a large oceangoing container ship to a frigate - the size alone (and the waterline length) warrants comparison with aircraft carriers or the biggest of fuel and ammunition ships, which are rated for either sustained or semi-sustained 30'ish knots. Smaller freighters don't outdo frigates, for obvious reasons.
Then there's the current trend of running various freighters a couple of knots below their designed most efficient speed because of the changing definition of "economical" - whereas warships are being built for ever-faster operations, at the expense of endurance, because deployment speed and, increasingly, escape speed matters.
And why aren't there fission-powered transports? The technology is more reliable than large diesels and quite useful for around-the-globe tankers, container ships, car transports and other vessels with high at-sea percentages... Hauling of fruit might have been an application, too, for the sustained speed. But things like that are market-driven, while fighting generally is not. (Okay, it's probably even more market-driven than trade, but when the hardware is designed and acquired, those arguments are ignored.)
Timo Saloniemi
Then there's the current trend of running various freighters a couple of knots below their designed most efficient speed because of the changing definition of "economical" - whereas warships are being built for ever-faster operations, at the expense of endurance, because deployment speed and, increasingly, escape speed matters.
And why aren't there fission-powered transports? The technology is more reliable than large diesels and quite useful for around-the-globe tankers, container ships, car transports and other vessels with high at-sea percentages... Hauling of fruit might have been an application, too, for the sustained speed. But things like that are market-driven, while fighting generally is not. (Okay, it's probably even more market-driven than trade, but when the hardware is designed and acquired, those arguments are ignored.)
Timo Saloniemi
Now I seem to remember in FASA, the Galaxy class nacelles were actually thought of as two nacelles side by side.
In Stargazer, perhaps the top two nacelles actually function as one. If one is damaged, you can compensate.
Now before we dismiss this as just fanon--I do seem to remember D'Deridex mentioned first by FASA, then by Data, so maybe that FASA TNG manual deserves a bit more authority.
In Stargazer, perhaps the top two nacelles actually function as one. If one is damaged, you can compensate.
Now before we dismiss this as just fanon--I do seem to remember D'Deridex mentioned first by FASA, then by Data, so maybe that FASA TNG manual deserves a bit more authority.
I think that the reason that nuclear powered civilian vessels aren't in use is because we just can't accept the risk of a containment leak, lethally injuring the crew and passengers (if any), not to mention the effect radioactive contaminants would have on the environment.
The U.S. Air Force fathomed the possibility of nuclear-powered bombers, but dropped the idea, presumably due to similar concerns.
Besides, shipping via water is always going to be slower, but cheaper, and cargo never complains when cooped up for days, let alone weeks.
The point is that we do have the technology to create supersonic transports that could travel at least as fast as the current typical airliner, but as long as the increasingly expensive jet fuel currently in use remains, this won't happen.
Maybe passenger liners either do travel at warp 5-7, and I'd assume that there would be a market for that, in order to visit relatives living on another Federation worlds on holidays or other occasions, or their accommodations are a lot like those on luxury/pleasure cruises, so passengers don't care when they reach their destination.
It makes sense that unimportant freight would travel at lower speeds.
Similar threads
