The Wrongs of Starship Design (TOS Version)

[Captain Robert April]

More or less.

For a scout ship, I don't think a more traditional nacelle arrangement would be out of line (the size of the saucer section, or equivalent, is another matter), but something of a more military nature, definitely look to the Defiant.

 

[Praetor]

Well don't forget about Data's scout ship from Insurrection too:



But point taken. I'll make some doodles and get back to ya.

 

[Santaman]

Design wrongs? Lets see some personal thoughts..

Do not aim impulse engines at important things like warp nacelles, if I want the ship to go to full impulse then I mean ALSO the nacelles, I do not like to see them float around after being blasted from their pylons.

Do not put greebles on the hull even less so if they have no function.

Do not backlight a deflector dish, ever gave it a thought how pointless and stupid is it to shine a blue light onto the backside of the damn deflector dish?

My 0.2 Euro cents so far.

 

[Timo]

Well, blue glow is generally associated with subspace fields, or at least the generation point thereof. And a navigational deflector would need subspace fields if it hopes to get the space debris before the debris gets the warp-speeding ship...

As for impulse glow, I wonder if that ain't subspace glow as well, despite being red (or white, as on the Prometheus, or blue, as on the Enterprise-C). Perhaps there's no directional exhaust associated with impulse engine operations, just some sort of general farting that leaves a traceable trail but doesn't act like a rocket flame in other respects. I mean, the glowing impulse engine bits are awfully seldom located so that they could plausibly provide rocket thrust - they are off the thrust axis, or tilted whichever way, or obscured from behind, just as you say. That's more a rule than an exception...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Santaman]

True, I assume that impulse engines are sublight coils driven by a big fusion reactor but like a warpdrive they are probably still rather dangerous and they have a huge amount of power I still wouldn't aim them at anything and certainly not at a very important part of my FTL drive.

As for the deflector, subspace thingy glow, accepted, but shining it onto the backside of the dish, nope, that I still see as something rather daft looking.

 

[USS Jack Riley]

Perhaps there's no directional exhaust associated with impulse engine operations, just some sort of general farting that leaves a traceable trail but doesn't act like a rocket flame in other respects. I mean, the glowing impulse engine bits are awfully seldom located so that they could plausibly provide rocket thrust - they are off the thrust axis, or tilted whichever way, or obscured from behind, just as you say. That's more a rule than an exception...

Timo Saloniemi

Timo - I have thought this for a while and think that there is some on screen evidence (albeit minimal) to suggest that the impulse exhausts have nothing to do with propulsion.

In ST VI, Uhura mentions that the Klingon BoP has "got to have a tailpipe." On a car, the tailpipe doesn't provide any acceleration and so little force on the car itself as to be minimal. Same thing with the impulse drive. The exhausts are akin to a car's tailpipe while some other Treknology controls the actual acceleration.

Just my $0.02.

 

[B.J.]

Not saying you're wrong of course, but I could very easily imagine that "tailpipe" is also used as slang for a rocket nozzle.

 

[Praetor]

Perhaps there's no directional exhaust associated with impulse engine operations, just some sort of general farting that leaves a traceable trail but doesn't act like a rocket flame in other respects. I mean, the glowing impulse engine bits are awfully seldom located so that they could plausibly provide rocket thrust - they are off the thrust axis, or tilted whichever way, or obscured from behind, just as you say. That's more a rule than an exception...

Timo Saloniemi

Timo - I have thought this for a while and think that there is some on screen evidence (albeit minimal) to suggest that the impulse exhausts have nothing to do with propulsion.

In ST VI, Uhura mentions that the Klingon BoP has "got to have a tailpipe." On a car, the tailpipe doesn't provide any acceleration and so little force on the car itself as to be minimal. Same thing with the impulse drive. The exhausts are akin to a car's tailpipe while some other Treknology controls the actual acceleration.

Just my $0.02.

I've never thought of that line that way. I always just assumed she was using a slightly inaccurate comparison, but that actually helps both the line and the impulse engine argument. In short, works for me.

 

[kent]

In TOS, the biggest fault was the Constitution class' neck. It was so thin that GOD forbid the shields went down because you could fire a torpedo or two and it would sever it. What is that? It should've been thicker. And in TMP, the pencil thin neck housed the warp core! It should've been as thick as the torpedo launcher housing so it wasn't such an obvious target.

Other than that, most TOS ships are fine. And contrary to popular belief the nacelles don't generate any power of their own really, they simply generate the subspace fields via warp plasma interacting with the materials of the warp coils. And you can have more than two nacelles, the ship would just normally use only two at a time because it's difficult to balance a symmetrical warp field with more than two nacelles. One nacelle is ridiculous though because you need the nacelles to interact to create a symmetrical field.

 

[kent]

Perhaps there's no directional exhaust associated with impulse engine operations, just some sort of general farting that leaves a traceable trail but doesn't act like a rocket flame in other respects. I mean, the glowing impulse engine bits are awfully seldom located so that they could plausibly provide rocket thrust - they are off the thrust axis, or tilted whichever way, or obscured from behind, just as you say. That's more a rule than an exception...

Timo Saloniemi

Timo - I have thought this for a while and think that there is some on screen evidence (albeit minimal) to suggest that the impulse exhausts have nothing to do with propulsion.

In ST VI, Uhura mentions that the Klingon BoP has "got to have a tailpipe." On a car, the tailpipe doesn't provide any acceleration and so little force on the car itself as to be minimal. Same thing with the impulse drive. The exhausts are akin to a car's tailpipe while some other Treknology controls the actual acceleration.

Just my $0.02.

I've never thought of that line that way. I always just assumed she was using a slightly inaccurate comparison, but that actually helps both the line and the impulse engine argument. In short, works for me.

Actually the impulse engines do emit exhaust via a laser initiated fusion reaction. The exhaust is basically low grade plasma. There wouldn't be any need for putting vents that can angle the output up or down if there wasn't any exhaust. And the exhaust is what principally drives the ship at sublight speeds. It's essentially an advanced rocket engine.

I don't know why the original enterprise's impulse engines didn't glow. Probably budget. In the remastered TOS series they do when active, like the warp engines. However, to stop the argument before it starts that the impulse engines shouldn't always be going because there is no resistence in space to slow a ship down(for the most part.), the reason why on modern ships the nacelles and impulse exhausts always glow is because they are both used for power generation for the ship. So not only are they a means of movement, they are also the powerplants of the ship. Perhaps this is why TMP/TOS ships weren't half as fast or powerful as modern ships, because they'd turn their engines off and used stored power so they wouldn't burnout.

 

[FalTorPan]

And contrary to popular belief

about how fictitious technobabble works,

the

said fictitious technobabble actually works like this.

Just having fun.

 

[Praetor]

Now now, be nice. I was quoted and didn't even say anything.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I'm just glad to see the notion of the nacelles generating power is starting to fall by the wayside. Even back in the 70's that idea bugged me.

 

[Praetor]

*sigh*

But a plane's engines...

Oh, nevermind.

 

[Vance]

I'm just glad to see the notion of the nacelles generating power is starting to fall by the wayside. Even back in the 70's that idea bugged me.

Why? Exactly? What about a warp nacelle generating power 'bugs' you? I honestly completely fail to see the logic in that as a 'design wrong'.

 

[SoM]

Actually, the bridge dome is exposed on the Defiant, just not as obviously as other ships. Still, as I said before, when you're talking about yields that are three orders of magnitude more powerful than what destroyed Hiroshima, it doesn't really MATTER where the bridge is.

Yes it does. You're assuming that you ALWAYS shoot-to-destroy. If you're aiming for a specific system or area - and how often do we hear "target their engines", or "target their weapons"? - then you're going to turn the yield down or use a smaller gun.

If you can take out the bridge and the chief line officers, or the nacelles, then your need to destroy the ship lessens considerably.

 

[Vance]

If you can take out the bridge and the chief line officers, or the nacelles, then your need to destroy the ship lessens considerably.

Because, frankly, those TNGisms are rediculous. Remember, you're shooting at things which are as far away from the shooter (at the least) as Earth's moon is from us right now. "Target their Bridge", which is an area of a large room, from a distance where light itself takes a second or two to get there, is just absurd.

And by your own logic, destroying the ship is EASIER than hitting the 'bridge officers' or 'nacelles', since you have to fine-tune the weapons (see above) to such a degree that you're actively putting your crew in harms' way.

And NO amount of 'hull plating' is going to stop phaser weapons with hundreds of times more kick than an atomic bomb... sorry.

 

[Captain Robert April]

This is probably the sort of thing that prompted Ray Bradbury to decline an offer to write for TOS.

 

[Albertese]

... - and how often do we hear "target their engines", or "target their weapons"? - then you're going to turn the yield down or use a smaller gun....

Actually, I've been thinking about this lately and I can't recall them ever saying that in TOS at all. Sure, this sort of thing WAS said numerously in TNG+ but when in TOS? Can you cite an example?

 

[Vance]

... - and how often do we hear "target their engines", or "target their weapons"? - then you're going to turn the yield down or use a smaller gun....

Actually, I've been thinking about this lately and I can't recall them ever saying that in TOS at all. Sure, this sort of thing WAS said numerously in TNG+ but when in TOS? Can you cite an example?

First time I remember it being said was in TFSF, and that was a fairly unique case where a cloaked ship WAS going out of its way to disable the Grissom, and doing so at nearly point-blank range. (And, of course, utterly failed to do so, blowing it up accidentally in the process.)

Of course, we know full well that Khan did it too, again, under somewhat unusual circumstances since he wanted a surprise attack and deliberately wound the Enterprise so that Kirk would suffer.

But I can't think of a time in TOS at all where you see that. (Largely because TOS writers were war veterans and the absurdity of 'target their bridge!' wouldn't even enter their minds. It's not how ships did battle, and these guys knew it first hand!)