Single-Nacelle Ships

[Vance]

But the three-nacelled Galaxy class had the hardware of two nacelles in each nacelle housing (three pairs, if you like).

It's still a single nacelle, no matter how many coils or magi-thingies you put into it. And since the housing was identical to the original two nacelles... I think this was just a weak-ass attempt at a retcon for those people who think Gene wasn't being a petty little prat about the popularity of the Technical Manual.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Or it has the regular hardware in the two normal housings, and double coils in the top nacelle.

There is precedence for mismatched hardware as long as its in even pairs (the Melbourne/Proto-Nebula).

 

[Vance]

It's still ONE NACELLE. Explain it away if you want, but the 'rule' doesn't say "single nacelle unless you bullshit it" it says "pairs only". Coils are not nacelles... If I have one box, I don't get to say it's REALLY two boxes because I put two things into it!

Jitty, the point is that we never actually see the technical details that Okuda belched up one day when responding to some usenet posts. The response everyone cites was a 'behind the scenes' answer to the criticism about odd-number nacelles. It wasn't designed that way, it was just "uh... uh.. crap.. well.. uh.. they're really doubled-up.. really.. so it doesn't violated that rule thingie you quoted. Yeah, that's it. Stupid Trekkies. Look at the shiny!"

That was actually Okuda's job, when you think about it.

 

[Bill Morris]

I guess the rules have to go. I mentioned some violators upthread. Add the Klingon Negh'var and Cardassian Galor but also the class-8 probe that carried K'Ehleyr in TNG: The Emissary as a perhaps interesting example.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Let's just say that by the (alternate) time of the three-nacelled E-D, they'd solved the problems of having a third nacelle and move on to the next crisis, 'kay?

 

[Vance]

I guess the rules have to go. I mentioned some violators upthread. Add the Klingon Negh'var and Cardassian Galor but also the class-8 probe that carried K'Ehleyr in TNG: The Emissary as a perhaps interesting example.

Some other violators...
TOS Shuttlecraft
ST:IV-VI Shuttlecraft
SS Aurora
Huron Type
USS Excelsior (Lakota Type)
USS Grissom
USS Freedom
USS Sydney
USS Galaxy-X
USS Defiant
USS Soyuz

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Wait, which rule did the Excelsior violate? The nacelle caps are visible from up front (despite it not really having caps...) and the nacelles have line of sight.

Not that I actually care for Roddenberry's Rules, mind you.

 

[Vance]

Wait, which rule did the Excelsior violate? The nacelle caps are visible from up front (despite it not really having caps...) and the nacelles have line of sight.

Sorry, scragged the Excelsior with the Enterprise-B. The latter has that huge-ass impulse assembly which does obfuscate the nacelles.

 

[Aahz]

Also, in ST3:TSFS, as the Enterprise glides into position at the docking pier adjacent to Excelsior, there is a large, single-nacelle ship at the left of the screen on the other side of the Enterprise's pier:
http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/tsfshd/tsfshd0161.jpg
(NOTE: This is at TrekCore, which doesn't like linking to their pics, so you'll have to copy/paste this into your browser)

It is never stated what this is, and it doesn't look like anything I've ever seen anywhere else in Trek (unless it showed up sometime in DS9 or VOY, since I haven't seen all of those episodes). It certainly never appeared anywhere PRIOR to TSFS.

... unless it is perhaps a captured TOS Romulan variant -- it does sorta look like that...

 

[Colonel Midnight]

^ Wasn't that one of the possible new Enterprise "studio" models, i.e. the delta-winged version for "Planet of the Titans"?

(In which case it would have two nacelles, the port side is just not visible.)

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Lookss like the Planet of the Titans Enterprise concept model.

Edit: D'oh, ninja'd!

 

[Aahz]

I had thought of that at first, but also thought that the second nacelle should be visible at that angle. Besides, I didn't think the McQuarrie concept had ever been built.

However, after seeing your posts, doing a bit of research on the Internet, and magnifying the screencap (a lot), I think it is the McQuarrie concept. The port nacelle is only faintly visible, and in fact looks as though it is texturing on the docking pier (which is what I thought it was).

Ex Astris Scientia says this is McQuarrie concept prototype 2, and TSFS is the only time it appears on screen (thus far discovered, anyway), whereas McQuarrie concept prototype 1 appears in TNG "Best of Both Worlds" and "Unification".

It's amazing the things you can learn from TrekBBS

 

[Aahz]

Some other violators...
TOS Shuttlecraft
ST:IV-VI Shuttlecraft
SS Aurora
Huron Type
USS Excelsior (Lakota Type)
USS Grissom
USS Freedom
USS Sydney
USS Galaxy-X
USS Defiant
USS Soyuz

Has anyone mentioned Voyager?

Looks like the nacelles are completely obscured from each other by their pylons and the secondary hull.

Dunno about the Grissom -- the nacelles are visible from the front, and only partially (less than 50%) obscured from each other.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Voyager's nacelles gain line of sight for warp (ironically, the saucer blocks the particle scoops in the warp configuration).

 

[Dukhat]

It's still ONE NACELLE. Explain it away if you want, but the 'rule' doesn't say "single nacelle unless you bullshit it" it says "pairs only". Coils are not nacelles... If I have one box, I don't get to say it's REALLY two boxes because I put two things into it!

Jitty, the point is that we never actually see the technical details that Okuda belched up one day when responding to some usenet posts. The response everyone cites was a 'behind the scenes' answer to the criticism about odd-number nacelles. It wasn't designed that way, it was just "uh... uh.. crap.. well.. uh.. they're really doubled-up.. really.. so it doesn't violated that rule thingie you quoted. Yeah, that's it. Stupid Trekkies. Look at the shiny!"

That was actually Okuda's job, when you think about it.

Absolutely correct. I think Mike is a great guy, but he's really just toting GR's party line when it comes to GCS nacelles having two pairs of coils to justify the Freedom, Niagara, future Ent-D, etc. (Whether he's fully aware of the GR/FJ falling out, I have no idea).

There's a DS9 Frankenstein kitbash with three Excelsior nacelles (although it's debatable whether it was ever filmed). Does this ship have "paired coils" as well? Or how about the one-Connie-nacelled FASA Lotus Flower class ship seen on a display in TNG? Or the Saladin seen in TWOK? Or the Hermes scouts and Federation dreadnought mentioned in TMP? Does that mean Connie nacelles have "paired coils" too? So if every nacelle type has paired coils, then logically any ship can have odd-numbered nacelles and it's just fine.

 

[Aahz]

Voyager's nacelles gain line of sight for warp (ironically, the saucer blocks the particle scoops in the warp configuration).

True that, but they only angle up about 45 degrees. Voyager's dorsal slope will still obscure much of the line-of-sight.

And you are very correct about the primary hull blocking the forward view when they are up.

 

[T'Girl]

The TOS era shuttlercraft did have line of sight between nacelles across the underbelly of the fuselage.

 

[Bill Morris]

In the case of articulating nacelles, I don't think "visible from the front" matters when at warp. How can you take in hydrogen when the ship is wrapped in a warp bubble?

 

[Captain Robert April]

^ Bingo. The Bussards are for sublight only.

And to give the benefit of the doubt to the designers, those were supposed to be shuttlebays on the E-B (and are identified as such on the big schematic on the bridge), not impulse engines. Some dunderhead at ILM decided to add a reddish glow and make 'em impulse engines.

 

[Timo]

Then again, we never learn that impulse engines would need a line-of-sight, either.

That is, they are likened to "tailpipes", once in actual dialogue, even: they belch out something that may or may not leave a trail. But they are not described as shooting out a jet against the direction of motion, and would in fact send most ships spinning if this happened because the engines aren't on the thrust line (this is particularly true of all the single-nacelled ships). A tailpipe might point up as well as aft, and indeed many Eaves-designed impulse engines do... The E-B red things might also send their emissions in directions that don't inconvenience the warp drive.

Timo Saloniemi