Nacelle support strut shape (spoilers)

[gastrof]

We now know something of what Kirk's Enterprise will look like in this alternate universe.

Question-
The nacelle struts. CURVED? Wouldn't this lead to structural weakness, or might this actually be an improvement on the original design(s)?

PS
I'm in agreement with a certain designer that if nothing else, the struts on JJ's Ent. are too low, leaving the lower part of the nacelles behind the saucer, where they don't belong. Those babies should be up above the saucer line and visible like two big red eyes for everyone to see. (Come to think of it, are they even gonna BE red?)

 

[SalvorHardin]

PS
I'm in agreement with a certain designer that if nothing else, the struts on JJ's Ent. are too low, leaving the lower part of the nacelles behind the saucer, where they don't belong. Those babies should be up above the saucer line and visible like to big red eyes for everyone to see.

Ryan Church:

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

Rick Sternbach :

"I went back and checked the Bussard clearance, and yeah, it works. I’ve seen a port side ortho[graphic] elevation, and I don’t have a problem with the mechanics of it, it’s the proportions and flows of the basic parts that look odd to me. Granted, no ship ever looks perfect in every ortho view, nor in every perspective view. We who have done this stuff in our sleep know that most vehicle and prop designs have their “best” faces. I’m not going to bore people with excerpts from my classical art and architecture books, though I will probably thumb through them here just to see if I can glean anything relevant. Like I said, I’ll wait to see how the film looks as a whole effort."

 

[JoeZhang]

There is a face-on and a rear-view of the Enterprise in the trailer, the Nacelles stick over the top in the familiar manner.

 

[ancient]

I think they lowered the pylon connect point so that the warp core and power lines would flow under the deck that the hangar is on. In the old design, the size of the hangar was always constricted because the pylons were right there. They fixed the problem in TMP by moving the pylons forward and up. Here they've moved them down instead, which accomplishes the same thing - lets them make the hangar as deep as they want - but keeps the ship looking more like TOS.

Unfortunately, by putting them there the pylons need to be steeper angled and curved in order to be physically logical and keep the nacelles in place. How good this will actually look I'm not sure.

 

[gastrof]

I double checked and it IS safe to post this-



http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlineox2.jpg


This is what I saw in the trailer, and it sure looks like the nacelles don't entirely clear the edge of the saucer.

 

[shapeshifter]

I don't know if curved or not is stronger or not.

Anyone with an engineering background want to help us out with this one?

 

[Qonos]

I double checked and it IS safe to post this-



http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlineox2.jpg


This is what I saw in the trailer, and it sure looks like the nacelles don't entirely clear the edge of the saucer.

Of course if you use a horizon line of the shot it's not exactly a heas on shot either...

 

[gastrof]

I double checked and it IS safe to post this-



http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlineox2.jpg


This is what I saw in the trailer, and it sure looks like the nacelles don't entirely clear the edge of the saucer.

Of course if you use a horizon line of the shot it's not exactly a heas on shot either...

Are you sure?

Take a look at my avatar. It's one of the frames. Looks head on to me.

 

[JoeZhang]

But if you look at the rear shot earlier in the trailer, they seem to clear it - there is a very close but blurred shot if you freeze the footage.

 

[trekkerguy]

So they clear it by 98%... whats the problem here?

 

[Arlo]

For those who question the structural integrity of a curved support, please look at the nearest Medieval cathedral. Or arched bridge.

Besides the fact that this really only applies in gravity (the curve doesn't matter for jack in zero-g), the design also give the visual effect of a deflected load-bearing element.

Looking at the screen grabs and various fan-made speculations, I think its not an accident that the nacelle struts are curved about the same as the sides of a lancet Gothic arch.

 

[Garak]

I double checked and it IS safe to post this-



http://img528.imageshack.us/my.php?image=outlineox2.jpg


This is what I saw in the trailer, and it sure looks like the nacelles don't entirely clear the edge of the saucer.

I bet it could still make the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.

 

[T'Aerwynd]

Isn't the arch the strongest structure known to us? I don't know where I heard that or where to find anything to substantiate it. I'm soooo tired right now. Perhaps tomorrow.

 

[judexavier]

For those who question the structural integrity of a curved support, please look at the nearest Medieval cathedral. Or arched bridge.

Besides the fact that this really only applies in gravity (the curve doesn't matter for jack in zero-g), the design also give the visual effect of a deflected load-bearing element.

Looking at the screen grabs and various fan-made speculations, I think its not an accident that the nacelle struts are curved about the same as the sides of a lancet Gothic arch.

My first thought was an upside down St Louis Gateway Arch....

 

[Captain Pike]

Aesthetically, the nacelle strutts are the only bit of the new ship I'm not entirely sold on. I know, it hints at a common design heritage flowing through from this Enterprise to Excelsior/Ent-B to the Ent-C to Picard's Ent-D, but there's something not quite right about it..

 

[RoJoHen]

Isn't the arch the strongest structure known to us? I don't know where I heard that or where to find anything to substantiate it. I'm soooo tired right now. Perhaps tomorrow.

Something to do with Romans, I think.

They built arches all over the damn place.

 

[Arlo]

Isn't the arch the strongest structure known to us? I don't know where I heard that or where to find anything to substantiate it. I'm soooo tired right now. Perhaps tomorrow.

Something to do with Romans, I think.

They built arches all over the damn place.

...and by extension barrel vaults.

The medieval innovation of the gothic arch was that it directed loads down and out, which allowed them to build taller and with less material (of course they often went too far with it, thus the flying buttresses to compensate).

Again, none of this matters physics-wise with the XI-E, except in the notion of the visual allusion that I posited.

 

[scotthm]

Besides the fact that this really only applies in gravity (the curve doesn't matter for jack in zero-g)

The Enterprise is often not in a 'zero-g' environment, and it has considerable mass.

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

 

[M'Sharak]

Besides the fact that this really only applies in gravity (the curve doesn't matter for jack in zero-g)

The Enterprise is often not in a 'zero-g' environment, and it has considerable mass.

But since the shape of the arch works by gravity-induced (or buttress-aided) compression inward, that doesn't matter here. Torsional stresses are a whole different issue. See here.


As an aside, I have to ask:

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

what is this thing for, besides cluttering up a quote with nonessential characters?

 

[scotthm]

The Enterprise is often not in a 'zero-g' environment, and it has considerable mass.

But since the shape of the arch works by gravity-induced (or buttress-aided) compression inward, that doesn't matter here.

I agree. The fact that the direction of acceleration is not static makes the value of arched pylons dubious.

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