Single-Nacelle Ships
- Thread starter Herkimer Jitty
- Start date
And a destroyer would either be part of a task-force or operating on a patrol with a central star base. What you're trying to argue here is that a single-nacelled destroyer would have difficulty performing tasks that it wasn't designed to perform in the first place. It's a pretty weak argument.
The way Franz Joseph put together those single-nacellers of his, with cruiser-sized saucers, one is tempted to think these vessels would be capable of much more than their "designed/designated mission". There's excess space there for a ship that's only going to fire her torps and phasers and do nothing else...
Perhaps not too much excess space, since we don't know exactly what's required for those fighting tasks. But the saucer of the NCC-1701 was full of all sorts of labs that the destroyer could thus probably carry, too. The giant saucer of the Freedom class from "BoBW" would have even more space for optional extras.
Perhaps Starfleet likes to build its destroyers like the USN built the Spruance class, with lots of excess space for accommodating hardware that hasn't even been dreamed of yet when the destroyer is first launched. Until the tri-isophasic phaser-boosting frammistat is invented, though, the excess space might just as well be used for housing exploration gear.
Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps not too much excess space, since we don't know exactly what's required for those fighting tasks. But the saucer of the NCC-1701 was full of all sorts of labs that the destroyer could thus probably carry, too. The giant saucer of the Freedom class from "BoBW" would have even more space for optional extras.
Perhaps Starfleet likes to build its destroyers like the USN built the Spruance class, with lots of excess space for accommodating hardware that hasn't even been dreamed of yet when the destroyer is first launched. Until the tri-isophasic phaser-boosting frammistat is invented, though, the excess space might just as well be used for housing exploration gear.
Timo Saloniemi
Or bowling alleys.
You would have to have the deflector control, intermix system, primary engineering, stores, etc. all within the saucer. This is fine, really, assuming that the saucer has a lot less living area (for a lot less crew). We've done the numbers and math on this stuff before, and the Saladin/Hermes are quite comfortable.
We had a LOT of work on the B-52 and it had EIGHT engines, with firewalls in between the 2 podded engines in each nacelle.. this was not done to increase redundancy but simply to get enough power to get the job done...
which is the real reason for dual engines in combat aircraft..
redundancy sounds ok, but usually if you shelled out one engine, the other engine would fail as well due to debris going through the firewall between them.
Example, in the mid-80s, we had an A-10 throw the primary fan through the front of the engine..some of the blades entered the other engine as well causing that engine to "Shell Out" causing a total loss of the aircraft...
F-4s and F-15s often have had a similar experience with engine outs...
Warp mechanics are simply a plot device ...something to make the very act of a FTL spacecraft sound plausable, but is often bent around artifical rules depending upon the whim of the writers of our favorite TV shows... nothing more..
Back in 1975, I bought the first edition of FJ's Tech Manual, which I still have, dog-eared though it is. I also bought the L. Allan Everhart's fanon-produced Hermes/Saladin bluerprints around 1982. I was quite impressed with them, and I wished, at that time, that newer versions of TREK (be it movies, novels, or spin-off TV shows) would come out that would feature this vessel. In 1984 I got my answer, indirectly, in the appearance of the Grissom. While its size, configuration and apparent mission are not precisely the same as the Saladin/Hermes, and certain aspects of its design seem illogical to this day, I can't help but wonder if this "baby Connie" shape was Paramount's way of showing us what Hollywood would want a destroyer/scout to look like aesthetically/artistically.
It has a primary and a secondary hull, and of course the engines are paired. This design logic, no matter what any of us may think of it, is effective in portraying the Grissom and her ilk as "the Enterprise's little kid sister" (or cousin).
The problem I have with BOTH designs is a fundamental issue with ship size and the number of decks that each design would be able to house. Both ships are portrayed as full-fledged Federation starships-of-the-line. Both designs would have to have a primary hull, warp drive (and thus, presumably a warp engine room), impulse drive (possibly additional impulse engine facilities) crew quarters, bridge, shuttlecraft hangar of some sort, etc. This issue has its roots in sizing and deck-arrangement questions about the Enterprise itself. Some sources say that the Connie's saucer can only house eight decks, others say 11. That's quite a difference.
FJ's Saladin/Hermes had a crew of roughly 200 if memory serves. It was never made clear to me what Grissom/Oberth's crew capacity or other capabilities would be.
Grissom's odd design makes me want to pull a "Spock's Brain" and revise it somewhat so it would make a little more sense.
Having said all that, if I had to choose a destroyer/scout design, with some artistic license, I would probably choose the Grissom over the Saladin/Hermes. Both designs have their aesthetic stumbling blocks that make them difficult to imagine as a "hero ship". The work the Starship Ajax is doing right now reveals the challenge that fan film crew has ahead of them. A test video of Ajax in a TOS-style planetary orbit shot underscores this.
Setting that choice aside, and accepting the notion of a single-nacelle starship concept for what it is, how does one explain away to need for all those facilities to be crammed into the saucer and still have room for a crew of roughly 200? Is there an assumption made about the size and number of decks in doing so?
It has a primary and a secondary hull, and of course the engines are paired. This design logic, no matter what any of us may think of it, is effective in portraying the Grissom and her ilk as "the Enterprise's little kid sister" (or cousin).
The problem I have with BOTH designs is a fundamental issue with ship size and the number of decks that each design would be able to house. Both ships are portrayed as full-fledged Federation starships-of-the-line. Both designs would have to have a primary hull, warp drive (and thus, presumably a warp engine room), impulse drive (possibly additional impulse engine facilities) crew quarters, bridge, shuttlecraft hangar of some sort, etc. This issue has its roots in sizing and deck-arrangement questions about the Enterprise itself. Some sources say that the Connie's saucer can only house eight decks, others say 11. That's quite a difference.
FJ's Saladin/Hermes had a crew of roughly 200 if memory serves. It was never made clear to me what Grissom/Oberth's crew capacity or other capabilities would be.
Grissom's odd design makes me want to pull a "Spock's Brain" and revise it somewhat so it would make a little more sense.
Having said all that, if I had to choose a destroyer/scout design, with some artistic license, I would probably choose the Grissom over the Saladin/Hermes. Both designs have their aesthetic stumbling blocks that make them difficult to imagine as a "hero ship". The work the Starship Ajax is doing right now reveals the challenge that fan film crew has ahead of them. A test video of Ajax in a TOS-style planetary orbit shot underscores this.
Setting that choice aside, and accepting the notion of a single-nacelle starship concept for what it is, how does one explain away to need for all those facilities to be crammed into the saucer and still have room for a crew of roughly 200? Is there an assumption made about the size and number of decks in doing so?
There are several things that you're forgetting. The Saladin wouldn't need nearly as many stores per person as the Constitution, has dramatically less crew, would not need nearly as many (if any) science labs and diplomatic systems, no shuttle-craft hangar, etc.
Again, it's actually pretty EASY to get that space down for the Saladin. One thing you just have to do is NOT assume that it's just 'half a Connie'. It isn't, it's a dedicated destroyer with a set mission and performance profile. It is not a multi-purpose ship.
Again, it's actually pretty EASY to get that space down for the Saladin. One thing you just have to do is NOT assume that it's just 'half a Connie'. It isn't, it's a dedicated destroyer with a set mission and performance profile. It is not a multi-purpose ship.
Well, I didn't say that I regarded the Saladin as "half a Connie".
As far as the ship's purpose issue goes, that would depend on how far one extends that sea-naval analogy to Federation starships. When a starship of any type is sent into space on a mission, it does have to provide a certain degree of self-sufficiency in order to operate "out there".
As far as the ship's purpose issue goes, that would depend on how far one extends that sea-naval analogy to Federation starships. When a starship of any type is sent into space on a mission, it does have to provide a certain degree of self-sufficiency in order to operate "out there".
Yes, but not for years at a time. A six-month supply would suffice for a ship of this type. Again, the DDs aren't meant for deep space exploration. The SC, on the other hand, may indeed be for that, but it seems like the Hermes class is primarily used as a 'second ship' to explore areas that the heavier capital ships have already cleared safe.
Yes, since you want a fore/aft asymmetry of the warp field.
This is eminently logical and very convincing - two engines are better than one when you're galavanting around the galaxy with nary a starbase in sight. There may well be significant advantages to operating warp drives in pairs but this needn't mean that a ship couldn't operate with only one.
I have no problem with accepting a single-nacelle ship even though I realize they violate Rodenberry's Rules. I may be biased, however, since I practically memorized Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual when it first came out. In any case, there are enough ships that are considered canon that violate one or more of Rodenberry's Rules to make those Rules expedient.
Maybe I'll kitbash something with, like eight nacelles in a cluster, just to be snotty.
Haven't you already done that before?
Maybe I'll kitbash something with, like eight nacelles in a cluster, just to be snotty.
Make sure it has two engineering hulls and two saucers.
...and two hardboiled eggs.
Maybe I'll kitbash something with, like eight nacelles in a cluster, just to be snotty.
Haven't you already done that before?
Nah. Haven't done more than four yet.
Nah. Haven't done more than four yet.
Kirov first, no octet nacelle starships!
*cracks whip*
Similar threads
