Never on screen, so listen to your heart.
Spoilers The Ships of Lower Decks
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Never on screen, so listen to your heart.
Like all rules it can be broken. Especially the made up ones.
Then my heart says every "Pair of Warp Fields in 3D space" must overlap at some point like a Venn Diagram.
The source doesn't matter.
Just don't place crap in the way of the Warp Fields since that would disrupt the Synchronized Nature of intersected Warp Fields Lobes.
I'm just interested if they look good or not. Joseph's Dreadnought is pretty cool, the Galaxy-X not so much.
Some of the rules I always thought were dumb like:
https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm
Rule #1 = Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs.
I think Warp Field Lobes must overlap each other in 3D Space, since the Warp Fields emit out like a funky shaped Bubble, they'll usually overlap like a Venn Diagram at some point and interact with each to form a more stable Warp Field due to the Synchronized Nature of the intersected Warp Field Lobes.
Rule #2 = Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull.
I think the Warp Field Grilles or Emission points for the individual Warp Field Lobes need to have at least 50% line of sight to gain the stability from intersecting Warp Field Lobes.
Rule #3 = Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front.
I think only the Bussard Collectors need to be fully visible to have clear access to the outside matter for the Bussard Collectors to operate effectively. There's no rule that the Bussard Collector needs to be attached to the Warp Nacelles.
Rule #4 = "Placing the Bridge on Top" of the Saucer section.
Oh boy, we've had huge threads on this rule, but I think it's fundamentally stupid.
None of those are "rules", they are things people made up over the years.
IC
Now, there's nothing wrong with choosing to follow them in your private universe, just that they aren't anything that ever showed up in the shows/movies.
Outside of Rule #4, most of rules 1-3 have been followed more often than not, with certain exceptions to each rule in regards to on screen canon.
Because it is.
Well, rule 4 too, for Starfleet capital ships, apart from a few exceptions such as the Shenzou.
But yes, I don’t think they were ever quoted on screen.
By the way, each Galaxy-class ship’s nacelle contain two coils and two Bussard collectors (three in Picard’s dream in the new show!), so they come already paired. Basically, the D has four warp nacelle units in two cases, the dreadnought six in three.
It has been for some time. There’s the Galaxy-X, the Hutzel and several others. Most of the Nebula’s nacelle “line of sight” was obscured by the secondary hull.
I think most, if not all, of Roddenberry’s so-called “rules of starship design” are bullshit and very safe to ignore.
Last edited:
According to some, whatever the creator says behind the scenes overrides on-screen canon.
Some... Not all. 
According to some, whatever the creator says behind the scenes overrides on-screen canon.
Actually, canon is whatever the person currently in charge says it is. And that person is not Gene Roddenberry.
I think the third nacelle on the Galaxy X (or whatever you want to call it) is in line of sight with the other two nacelles. It just forms a bit of a triangle.
That was the apocryphal explanation, yes. It applied to the Galaxy-X, Freedom and Niagara. The Hutzel used 3 older Excelsior-style nacelles where that may have been a problem, but could also simply be explained away through the appropriate amounts of 24th century technological magic. Some experimental design, or some-such.
Last edited:
As far as you can prove...
*puts on tin foil hat*
That was indeed the theory, at least from what I read. I think it was Ex Scienta Astris at one point in time.
Similar threads
