Do the number of nacelles make any difference in ship speed?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Four nacelles ships might need them for compensating weaker warp cores to reach high speeds even but suffer in maneuvering capability.
Or vice versa.
Later designs had them for Multivector stack modes and stuff.
Or vice versa.
Later designs had them for Multivector stack modes and stuff.
The USS Prometheus was the only ship which was apparently designed and able to withstand Warp 9.9 as a cruising speed (apart from this vessel, no other SF ship was able to reach/sustain these speeds reliably) and it had 5 nacelles.
Even USS Voyager was only able to top out at 9.75 (not 9.975) for maybe 12 hours (which was mentioned a few times in the dialogue).
Since the nacelles are the ones generating the warp field needed to initiate warp... I would surmise that having more of them can contribute to reaching and sustaining higher Warp speeds because they may be able to generate a more stable/stronger Warp field.
When the NX-01 Enterprise nacelle was damaged in conflict with the Xindi, the ship's top sustainable speed dropped from Warp 4.5 to Warp 1.5 I think - so yes, with just 1 functioning nacelle, the Warp speed did drop.
Though as it was noted, the USS Prometheus had 5 nacelles because the ship was able to split into 3 parts (due to multi-vector assault mode).
Even USS Voyager was only able to top out at 9.75 (not 9.975) for maybe 12 hours (which was mentioned a few times in the dialogue).
Since the nacelles are the ones generating the warp field needed to initiate warp... I would surmise that having more of them can contribute to reaching and sustaining higher Warp speeds because they may be able to generate a more stable/stronger Warp field.
When the NX-01 Enterprise nacelle was damaged in conflict with the Xindi, the ship's top sustainable speed dropped from Warp 4.5 to Warp 1.5 I think - so yes, with just 1 functioning nacelle, the Warp speed did drop.
Though as it was noted, the USS Prometheus had 5 nacelles because the ship was able to split into 3 parts (due to multi-vector assault mode).
Last edited:
I seem to recall Jackill suggesting that the Constellation and its fast cruiser variant, the Cheetah, could induce small powerful bursts of speed due to having a quad nacelle arrangement. Which would seem to argue with Picard's comments that the Stargazer was a slow and underpowered ship. 
It seems to me the biggest advantage of the extra nacelles would be stronger power generation, so for example a three nacelled vessel might have a max speed equal to a heavy cruiser but would potentially have better power output and maneuverability relative to two nacelles. Just one possibility. 
It seems to me the biggest advantage of the extra nacelles would be stronger power generation, so for example a three nacelled vessel might have a max speed equal to a heavy cruiser but would potentially have better power output and maneuverability relative to two nacelles. Just one possibility. 
Six. The saucer had a second nacelle in the area the middle section fit into, below the one behind the bridge. I'd expect neither of those was used when the ship was joined together, though, since they were both kept retracted.
I seem to recall Jackill suggesting that the Constellation and its fast cruiser variant, the Cheetah, could induce small powerful bursts of speed due to having a quad nacelle arrangement. Which would seem to argue with Picard's comments that the Stargazer was a slow and underpowered ship.
'Slow and underpowered' from Picard's TNG point of view. He was a captain of a Galaxy class when he said that.... so its possible he was comparing that to the Galaxy class or most modern ships (technology would advance extremely fast/exponentially for just 1 spacefaring civilization... nevermind over 150 of them which share resources, technology and science freely with each other - progress with Trek writers never really illustrated that well).
The nacelles have little to do with generating more power (which is done by the warp core)... but rather they generate a warp field... a quad nacelle configuration could allow a ship to create a much stronger/stable warp field allowing for greater speeds and better efficiency relative to other ships of that era.
Plus, the Constellation fits in the late 23rd century when you factor in the premise that its nacelles are the same as ones used by the Constitution refit.
It was probably upgraded progressively over time, but it still didn't get latest LCars interface or other upgrades when Picard was in command (probably because LCARS didn't exist back then, or the ship never got around to it).
That's the point I was going to make. Apparently, four Enterprise refit nacelles don't work was well as two Galaxy nacelles.
If nacelles are propellers and warp cores are boilers and turbines, then more nacelles would generally be helpful in translating more of the raw power to motion: three or four screws would generally be found only on the biggest capital ships and the fastest torpedo boats.
Generally, then, a ship that needs three or more of the things is designed wrong, and has to compensate for the shortcomings with more of the as such unwanted screws/nacelles (they are an expense, an inefficiency and an eyesore). But yeah, if you can't build two props or nacelles to channel your power, you might go faster by applying three or four. Or, if need be, six.
As for the Constellation, she was never quite derided for being slow. "Underpowered" and "overworked" were the terms of endearment Picard used. What use would Picard have made of additional power? Stronger guns? Stronger shields? Stronger sensors? Running more of said simultaneously? Possibly the ship could have gone faster with more power - after all, Kirk's old ride could do wonders with her existing engines as soon as a villain sat on the safety valve, or bolted his own futuro-outboard to the existing warp coils.
Timo Saloniemi
Generally, then, a ship that needs three or more of the things is designed wrong, and has to compensate for the shortcomings with more of the as such unwanted screws/nacelles (they are an expense, an inefficiency and an eyesore). But yeah, if you can't build two props or nacelles to channel your power, you might go faster by applying three or four. Or, if need be, six.
As for the Constellation, she was never quite derided for being slow. "Underpowered" and "overworked" were the terms of endearment Picard used. What use would Picard have made of additional power? Stronger guns? Stronger shields? Stronger sensors? Running more of said simultaneously? Possibly the ship could have gone faster with more power - after all, Kirk's old ride could do wonders with her existing engines as soon as a villain sat on the safety valve, or bolted his own futuro-outboard to the existing warp coils.
Timo Saloniemi
No reason why they should.
As technology advances, you are able to do more with less... plus the Galaxy class has huge nacelles (and warp coils).
If the Constellation received a refit with updated late 24th century technology (where the warp nacelles innards were revamped with up to date Warp coils and all other technology like in other TNG era designed ships) same as the USS Lakota, then I could see it technically be as fast or slightly faster than a Galaxy class.
When the Lakota received its refit it was able to rival the Defiant (which was one of the most powerful ships of that time in the Federation) tactically having an ablative hull armor.
When one of the Defiant crew mentioned the possibility of a retreat, O'brien mentioned that given the extensiveness of the upgrades to the Lakota's weapons, there was no telling what they did to her engines (suggesting the Lakota was much faster than the Defiant with the upgrades).
The Defiants' weakness was in its relatively poor structural integrity field which didn't allow it to go faster than Warp 9 I think without compromising it (because it was stated in the dialogue that this is what happens when the Defiant goes above Warp 9).
Power needed to be rerouted from weapons to the SIF systems in order to increase the speed to Warp 9.5
Its safe to assume that with a bigger design, the refit USS Lakota had more balanced systems (as opposed cramped together) along with more powerful SIF systems and Warp engines (compared to the Defiant) which may have allowed it to rival the Galaxy class in speed as well.
Last edited:
I don't think the number of nacelles past 2, affected Top Speed, but probably affected FTL manueverability, endurance at Max Speeds, or acceleration to Max Warp Factor, but those factors aren't usually the most important compared to the extra maintenance and mass of the 2x more Nacelles along with the power consumption.
In Caretaker Stadi says Voyager has a sustainable cruise velocity of warp nine point nine seven five. In Relativity Janeway says, "top cruising speed warp nine point nine seven five." In Barge of the Dead, Neelix says "Top cruising speed, warp nine point nine seven five."
And yet, on actual screen, Warp 9.975 was never achieved.
In Threshold, Voyager's hull started falling apart by reaching Warp 9.9.
In episode 'The Swarm', this was the dialogue:
JANEWAY: All right, let's get through this as fast as we can. Mister Paris, what's your recommendation?
PARIS: I'll try holding warp nine point seven five for as long as I can.
CHAKOTAY: If we can sustain that for twelve hours we'll be nearly a third of the way through.
The 9.975 was a writer fiasco that was never realized. If Voyager was able to reach and maintain that speed as a cruising velocity, it would be back in Federation space in less than 7 days (because Warp speed increases exponentially past Warp 9.9).
Tom Paris also mentioned that Warp 9.9 = 4 billion miles per second (aka, 21 4730 times speed of light).
Most TNG era ships couldn't even approach Warp 9.9 (except in one or two occasions where an external force affected the ship/engines)... the Enterprise-D was the only ship at the time capable of sustaining Warp 9.6 for an appreciable length of time... and Voyager only launched 7 years after Ent-D debuted originally.
Furthermore, The USS Prometheus (introduced in 4th season of Voyager) was mentioned by its very own EMH that it was traveling towards Romulan space at Warp 9.9 and that it was designed to be the fastest ship in the fleet.
Given available canonical data, Warp 9.975 was an error... and it was probably meant to say 9.75 (which seems like a more reasonable suggestion over what was seen previously in TNG and DS9) because Trek writers were never good at portraying exponential developments and returns on the show... because if they have, then Voyager would be ale to achieve and maintain Warp 9.975 indefinitely, and it would have required to flung the ship about 257,6 MILLION lightyears away from the Federation to require 75 years to get back at that speed (which would have been an improvement if you ask me, but alas...).
Maybe they were only able to sustain 9.975 for minutes on end and not hrs initially during testing.
But after the Caretaker flung them halfway across the galaxy, some critical part was damaged that they couldn't easily fix that prevented them from reaching the upper Top Speed that was listed on the Brochure.
You're the one who keeps on stating that all of the species who contributes to the UFP / StarFleet would exponentially increase technological development. 7 years and Warp 9.9 out of a smaller and newer StarShip isn't strange at this point, especially given how fast the USS Prometheus can go.
But when it states the the USS Prometheus can sustain Warp 9.9, that's probably measured using sustainable cruise velocity vs absolute Top Speed. What's more important in a StarShip marathon is your sustainable top cruise speed vs absolute top speed that you can only sustain for a bit.
I highly doubt 9.975 would be indefinite, maybe 10-20 minutes sustained at best.
I already suggested that Voy systems were badly damaged when it was flung by the Caretaker the first time around which could have impeded the ship's ability to reach 9.975 for any appreciable amount of time... and this tracks for a bit (because Voyager had to ration its replicator reserves which were a drain on ship's power - and engine efficiency dropped in the second episode of season 1 - the one with the quantum singularity and Torres becoming chief engineer) but not for a terribly long amount of time.
I am, and yes, I still maintain it should have been doable for the Federation to jump so high on the Warp scale in just 7 years when you factor in exponential advancements and the fact the Federation was comprised of over 150 alien species by that time... however, internal canon dialogue doesn't support that... and shows majority of Starfleet ships travelling (during TNG/DS9 and even VOY era) at well below Warp 9.6 most of the time... therefore... if we want to reconcile why it would take Voyager 75 years to get back at 'maximum warp' (and that Warp 9.9 = 4 billion times LS per Tom Paris statement)... we need to posit that the 9.975 was wrong, and that Voy could only sustain 9.7 reliably for very long periods (possibly indefinitely - aka as long as they have the fuel to hold it ... but 9.75 was only sustainable for 12 hours).
That is if you want to reconcile what we saw with Tom Paris statement that Warp 9.9 = 4 billion miles per second.
Plus, during TNG (in Season 1), Ent D was flung into Andromeda galaxy accidentally by the Traveller, and Data mentioned that it would take just over 300 years to get back at maximum Warp at the time... suggesting a speed of 9000 times speed of light (which would have to be lower than Warp 9.9).
'Top cruising speed' (which was thrown about by VOY characters) means you can keep the engine at that velocity for as long as you have the resources (aka fuel) to hold it.... meaning the ship would be DESIGNED to fly at those speeds in a sustainable capacity.
But alas, VOY writers apparently never stuck with this premise.
Instead, Warp 9.9 was detrimental to Voy structural integrity (which the computer warned would happen in 45 seconds if they maintained that speed).
Also, Why would USS Prometheus be able to sustain Warp 9.9 but Voyager's computer gave a warning that a structural collapse was imminent upon nearing 9.9?
I'd reason that most ships don't go at Warp 9.6 because of energy consumption reasons, if they can travel at a slower but more fuel efficient speed to get the job done in the expected amount of time alloted, so be it. StarFleet doesn't need everything done ASAP. They have time to perform many missions, so burning Anti-Deuterium needlessly is a unnecessary strain on the Total Anti-Deuterium supply.
I have no qualms with Tom Paris statement of Warp 9.9 = 4 billion miles per second, that's how I calculated Warp 9.9 in my own Warp Factor 3.0 scale which is just a uncapped TNG era Warp Factor formula with no hand drawn curve to infinity past Warp 9 to Warp 10.
On my scale, 9000c ~= 15.x which should be somewhere in the middle of Warp 9 and Warp 9.9.
Actually "Top Cruise Speeds" AKA "Max Speeds" are known as the Fastest speeds a vessel can travel for a period of time potentially with some conditions relating to sustaining said "Top Speeds", but not necessarilly what they can sustain indefinitely as long as they have fuel.
There are actual rated "Cruise Speeds" that are optimized for range and sustainable flight with a theoretical infinite amount fo fuel, which are usually lower than the "Top Cruise Speeds".
Voyager has also been beaten to hell and back with who knows what kind of repair jobs done to it's hull / SIF areas.
Structural Integrity does play a key role in sustaining the vessel in flight and you don't want to exceed what structural integrity allows or else badness/doom will happen.
Voyager is beaten to hell and patched back up with whatever they got. USS Prometheus is brand new out of the factory/dry dock. Narely a scratch on her paint job and with the Prometheus' Hull in brand new shape.
Because they are different ships. The Defiant, for example, has no trouble achieving high speed but she struggles to maintain structural integrity when traveling above warp 9.5
If that was the case then Voyager should've had 4-6 nacelles.
I always saw the larger number of nacelles as more of a redundancy, especially for deep space ships that wouldn't have easy access to repair facilities, the ship being perfectly capable of running on any two so the others could be shut down for maintenance or reduce strain on the warp coils.
I always saw the larger number of nacelles as more of a redundancy, especially for deep space ships that wouldn't have easy access to repair facilities, the ship being perfectly capable of running on any two so the others could be shut down for maintenance or reduce strain on the warp coils.
