A USS Kelvin Complaint Nobody's Made Yet...

[Timo]

Of course, the rule isn't part of the Star Trek universe. It's only part of the production history of Star Trek. And that's ancient history, really, long since rightly forgotten.

The whole idea that only certain limited ways of achieving warp would be acceptable is ridiculous to begin with, when we consider all those alien vessels that don't have any engine nacelles at all, or identifiable engines of any sort, or perhaps not even a hull. Warp is easy in the Trek universe once you get the hang of it, and anything goes after that.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Major Chord]

I was always under the impression that a ship needed to have an even number of warp coils, not nacelles. If there are two in each Galaxy Class nacelle, than the 3-nacelled variant still follows this 'precedent'. If the Kelvin's nacelle also had two coils, than having only one nacelle wouldn't be a problem either. And, as pointed out earlier, we have seen ships operate on just one nacelle, though inefficiently. If the ship was designed from the get-go to operate with only one nacelle (i.e., built with only one), it would probably perform much better than a two nacelled ship forced to operate on only one engine.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

There.. are...TWO nacelles!

 

[SalvorHardin]

The point is that Trek has messed with the 2 nacelle design in the past several times.
It doesn't surprise me that they would do it again.

The Rule has never been "only 2 nacelles." The rule has always been "only an even number of nacelles." Therefore, the Prometheus class, Constellation class, and any other class with four nacelles are acceptable.

As I said in my first post, the tri-nacelled Enterprise D from AGT is from an alternate timeline that likely won't happen and is best left ignored.

And as I have demonstrated before in this thread, there have been ships with one nacelle onscreen, despite the fact that you choose to ignore them.

As for the tri-nacelled Enterprise, it may be from an alternate timeline and may happen or not but that's not the point.
The point is that it was shown that it is possible for a ship to exist and work with 3 nacelles too.
So if someone wanted they could build one in any timeline.The laws of physics and Trek do not forbid it.

 

[The Wormhole]

I was always under the impression that a ship needed to have an even number of warp coils, not nacelles. If there are two in each Galaxy Class nacelle, than the 3-nacelled variant still follows this 'precedent'. If the Kelvin's nacelle also had two coils, than having only one nacelle wouldn't be a problem either. And, as pointed out earlier, we have seen ships operate on just one nacelle, though inefficiently. If the ship was designed from the get-go to operate with only one nacelle (i.e., built with only one), it would probably perform much better than a two nacelled ship forced to operate on only one engine.

The whole thing about even number of warp coils was only a hasty, after the fact rationalization to explain the Enterprise in AGT and is best left ignored.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Why yes, ofcourse. How silly of us.

Any fact and argument that does not support your opinion is best left ignored.

 

[The Wormhole]

Why yes, ofcourse. How silly of us.

Any fact and argument that does not support your opinion is best left ignored.

Well, when you put it that way, don't I sound like an arrogant little bastard?

Any such opinion is also best left ignored

(I was being sarcastic with that last sentence, in case you couldn't tell. Sarcasm doesn't always translate well on-line).

 

[SalvorHardin]

The little smilie helped to indicate the sarcasm.

It was funny too, I'll give you that

 

[Dale]

In Enterprise, the Vulcan ships generated a warp field utilizing a single "circular" nacelle. No telling how many warp coils were contained therein.

(Yes, that's the Christmas ornament...)


And what about this Rick Sternbach design of an Enterprise predating the 1701? Though never "flown" on-screen, it was canonized when a painting of it appeared on the rec deck in TMP.

 

[Takeru]

Roddenberry himself said that the canon consists of the live action shows and films, which means everything he made up behind the scenes is pretty much meaningless and that includes his even numbered nacelles rule, right?

 

[Kemaiku]

^Yup, and I believe he also only created those "rules" to spite someone else in the production staff of TOS over a personal dispute.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Franz Joseph's one-nacelled ships have appeared on-screen...

http://www.trekplace.com/article09.html

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm

... and are therefore canon.

SonicRanger is right.

Franz Joseph's designs for the one-nacelled Saladin Class appeared on the bridge moniters in TWoK and TSFS.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Saladin_class

...so one-nacelled ships -- although unusual -- are definitely canon.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This is in blatant defiance of Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design, which says warp nacelles have to be in even numbers.

Maybe GR can take them to court. Sam?

 

[scotthm]

I'm more irritated about all the TMP and later design features being put on a ship that supposed to be from before Kirk was born.

I have to agree. I was kind of hoping it would have an iron hull and steam power.

As for the "Roddenberry Rule", I'm having trouble remembering what episode I heard that mentioned in. Can anyone refresh my memory?

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm more irritated about all the TMP and later design features being put on a ship that supposed to be from before Kirk was born.

I have to agree. I was kind of hoping it would have an iron hull and steam power.

As for the "Roddenberry Rule", I'm having trouble remembering what episode I heard that mentioned in. Can anyone refresh my memory?

---------------

True, it is non-canon.

 

[Franklin]

Being a navy man, Roddenberry was probably just applying their jet-age preference for planes with two engines (redunancy, in case a plane lost an engine). But even the navy did not follow that preference religiously.

Seriously, does it matter that much?

 

[The Wormhole]

In Enterprise, the Vulcan ships generated a warp field utilizing a single "circular" nacelle. No telling how many warp coils were contained therein.

(Yes, that's the Christmas ornament...)


And what about this Rick Sternbach design of an Enterprise predating the 1701? Though never "flown" on-screen, it was canonized when a painting of it appeared on the rec deck in TMP.

In the case of the Vulcan ring-ships, I was under the impression that the ring houses multiple nacelles. When they were first seen on Enterprise, Trip makes the comment that he'd love to get a look at "those nacelles." Note the plural use. And he does say "nacelles," not "warp coils."

 

[Tyberius]

In Enterprise, the Vulcan ships generated a warp field utilizing a single "circular" nacelle. No telling how many warp coils were contained therein.

(Yes, that's the Christmas ornament...)


And what about this Rick Sternbach design of an Enterprise predating the 1701? Though never "flown" on-screen, it was canonized when a painting of it appeared on the rec deck in TMP.

In the case of the Vulcan ring-ships, I was under the impression that the ring houses multiple nacelles. When they were first seen on Enterprise, Trip makes the comment that he'd love to get a look at "those nacelles." Note the plural use. And he does say "nacelles," not "warp coils."

Well, then Tripp spoke wrong. A nacelle is a separate housing from the main fuselage. Though maybe the ring counts as one and either the center strut or the rear outer hull counts as the other?

 

[Dukhat]

The ship only has one warp nacelle. This is in blatant defiance of Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design, which says warp nacelles have to be in even numbers. A rule which has been followed faithfully with the exception of the redesigned Enterprise D in AGT, but that can be written off as an alternate future that never happens. So what gives with the Kelvin and its odd-numbered nacelle?

Your opinion, of course, is your own, but I find it highly amusing that you slavishly conform to Roddenberry's "starship design rules" when in fact the only reason he came up with them was because he was acting like a childish jerk.

After the original Star Trek, Franz Joseph was contracted by Roddenberry to create the Starfleet Technical Manual, and was endorsed by Paramount. So at the time, Gene was totally fine with whatever FJ designed. It was only later, after a personal dispute, that Gene started acting like an ass and went around disavowing FJ's work. If FJ's designs all had four nacelles instead of one or three, Gene would have stated that you can't have ships with four nacelles. That's why he came up with the "starship design rules", not because he really gave two shits about how ships should be designed, but because he had personal issues with FJ himself. And because most people don't know the whole story and think that Gene Roddenberry is some sort of demigod, that's why these stupid (and completely unnecessary) design rules exist.

Like it or not, accept it or not, odd-numbered nacelled ships exist in the Star Trek universe, and are canon. The AGT Enterprise, the Freedom-class Firebrand, the Niagara-class Princeton, the Hermes/Saladin-class destroyer, the Federation-class dreadnought, the three-nacelled DS9 Excelsior kitbash, and the U.S.S. Kelvin are all canon/official and have been seen either as models or diagrams somewhere in ST's various incarnations.

 

[M'Sharak]

Being a navy man, Roddenberry was probably just applying their jet-age preference for planes with two engines (redunancy, in case a plane lost an engine). But even the navy did not follow that preference religiously.

Seriously, does it matter that much?

Naah, not really.

Even the thread title makes an erroneous assertion, as the question of the single nacelle was raised only a few posts into the first thread started here about the Kelvin image as soon as its appearance on the EW cover was known.

(As far as that goes, Gene was Army Air Corps, not Navy. )

But we're just having fun with it, mostly.






Aren't we?