Location of TOS Warp Core Equivalent?

[Donovan Loucks]

In TNG (and possibly as early as ST:TMP) the warp core provided the energy necessary to create the warp fields generated by the warp nacelles. However, the warp core was not actually located within the warp nacelles themselves. instead, the warp core stretched from the secondary hull through the dorsal neck and into the primary hull, but provided power to the outboard warp nacelles.

Where was the equivalent of the warp core in the TOS Enterprise? Was it contained within the warp nacelles themselves? And, if so, would a starship with one (or three or more) warp nacelles be able to produce less (or more) power for use in other systems such as shields or phasers?

 

[Timo]

Since there was no direct statement of this in TOS, we can speculate almost completely freely.

Dilithium in TOS and in ST2 disappeared into the floor of one of the Engineering rooms, while dilithium in TNG (and presumably ENT) went into the focus of the matter-antimatter reaction in a small armored chamber. We could thus decide that the TOS and ST2 ships had their own armored reaction chamber somewhere underfloor, and the primitive technology of the day necessitated feeding the dilithium via a heavily shielded "dumbwaiter" system, rather than via a simple tray as in TNG.

Since both TOS and ST2 featured the "place dilithium in floor fixture and wait" arrangement, we could just as well claim that the entire warp power arrangement in the two incarnations of Star Trek was identical. It's just that in the movies, Scotty had reasons to go "below decks" in a protective suit, while in TOS, he always stayed in the "shirtsleeves" control rooms, and only glimpsed at the TMP-style network of plasma conduits and whatnot through the grilles on the control room back walls.

Yet whenever the warp power system in TOS hiccuped, Scotty was shown crawling into some central node or other, supposedly within the secondary hull. Whatever repairable bits there were to the warp power system, they seemed to be at a single location - a nacelle-based power system would have meant two, also requiring the coordinated efforts of two engineers...

That's what we get from looking at the sets. The dialogue in turn is split more or less evenly between references to a central power arrangement and references to the key role of the nacelles in propulsion and in antimatter processes. The latter references might mean that there was antimatter-based power generation taking place in the nacelles (or, sometimes, "pods"), which would be a different system from the one described in TNG - or perhaps that antimatter was handled (or even created) in a central system and then fed to the nacelles for achieving warp, which would mean that nacelles were consumers of power, but the system would still be different from TNG.

We have seen several starships deprived of the use of one nacelle - NX-01 in ENT, the Reliant in ST2, the Odyssey in DS9, to mention a few. This typically limited propulsion options, but was never explicitly said to limit the power available to other applications. It would be difficult to argue that nacelles produce appreciable amounts of power, then, unless we argue that they are only capable of producing power directly for the warp drive and incapable of routing any of it to weapons, shields or the like. Unless the TOS nacelles were different (because we didn't face a "one nacelle down" situation in that show).

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

While I'm convinced that there are some power transfer, storage, and generation in the main hull, I'm completely convinced from both dialogue and early concept references that that nacelles contained m/arcs or the TOS equivilant of m/am reaction for the warp system, as well as for general power. There's an earlier thread on the topic.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=148112

 

[F. King Daniel]

That thing behind the mesh in the engine room.

 

[Christopher]

Here's Doug Drexler's cutaway, a version of which appeared onscreen in ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II," so it's as close to canonical as we're likely to get:

http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/1701-cutaway/

It puts the warp core directly under the main engine room. This means that the big boxy unit that provided dilithium crystal access as seen in "Elaan of Troyius" and the like was basically the tip of the iceberg, as the cutaway shows. The "pipe cathedral" behind the rear grille thus becomes the lower portion of the power transfer conduits extending through the pylons out to the nacelles.

 

[Timo]

...Of course, we have to remember that the canonical version of this diagram was unlabeled. But it's quite a delight to see how closely Doug Drexler's art reproduces the look of key engineering detail from TOS and TAS - and then extends it to things unseen. The warp core here looks quite convincing, down to and including the ejection hatch detail. It's just that it's a tad on the small side for what I'd imagine should propel this proud ship, especially when compared with what we saw in TMP.

(OTOH, the aft phasers are clearly incorrectly placed with respect to what we saw in the episode that featured this graphic. )

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

Canon is anything seen or said on screen, in a book, or anything authorized by Paramount pretty much. (Or whoever owns Star Trek). It’s also anything composed by an authority on a subject. The problem with Star Trek is the lack of early consistency (recent- present- future), followed by present interpretation resulting in stuff like Drex’s image. While cool, it doesn’t fit with was said in TOS. But what can you do really? Just pick what you like most and set up camp until you like something else.

 

[Patrickivan]

...Of course, we have to remember that the canonical version of this diagram was unlabeled. But it's quite a delight to see how closely Doug Drexler's art reproduces the look of key engineering detail from TOS and TAS - and then extends it to things unseen. The warp core here looks quite convincing, down to and including the ejection hatch detail. It's just that it's a tad on the small side for what I'd imagine should propel this proud ship, especially when compared with what we saw in TMP.

(OTOH, the aft phasers are clearly incorrectly placed with respect to what we saw in the episode that featured this graphic. )

Timo Saloniemi

Good point about the phasers... Also- did you see that the numbers on the shuttle are 1701?

 

[F. King Daniel]

...Of course, we have to remember that the canonical version of this diagram was unlabeled. But it's quite a delight to see how closely Doug Drexler's art reproduces the look of key engineering detail from TOS and TAS - and then extends it to things unseen. The warp core here looks quite convincing, down to and including the ejection hatch detail. It's just that it's a tad on the small side for what I'd imagine should propel this proud ship, especially when compared with what we saw in TMP.

(OTOH, the aft phasers are clearly incorrectly placed with respect to what we saw in the episode that featured this graphic. )

Timo Saloniemi

It's also worth noting that Doug scaled up the Enterprise by half in order to comfortably fit everything inside. Here's a little something I made earlier, comparing a 6' Spock with a 947' Enterprise (the ship's size according to The Making of Star Trek and everything since), on Doug's cutaway:

 

[Christopher]

In the context of 45 years of Trek, Drexler's version makes sense to me. I think it also makes sense in the context of TOS by itself, where engineering was defined as "the lower levels" as early as episode 5. Given that we saw the dilithium crystals being accessed from the engine room in at least two episodes, it's logical that it's the warp engine room, and it's logical that the triangle of pipes are PTCs going up into the nacelles. Frankly, Franz Joseph's decision to put the engine room at the back of the saucer was kind of bizarre. I like Drexler's version, I think it's both logical and cool, and it was used onscreen. So I'm sold. I used it as the basis for my description of the Enterprise engineering section layout in my upcoming Trek novel Forgotten History.

 

[YARN]

In TNG (and possibly as early as ST:TMP) the warp core provided the energy necessary to create the warp fields generated by the warp nacelles. However, the warp core was not actually located within the warp nacelles themselves. instead, the warp core stretched from the secondary hull through the dorsal neck and into the primary hull, but provided power to the outboard warp nacelles.

Where was the equivalent of the warp core in the TOS Enterprise? Was it contained within the warp nacelles themselves? And, if so, would a starship with one (or three or more) warp nacelles be able to produce less (or more) power for use in other systems such as shields or phasers?

I am not sure the words "warp core" or anything close to it were ever uttered in TOS.

 

[Timo]

it's logical that the triangle of pipes are PTCs going up into the nacelles

...It's too bad the angles aren't a perfect match.

Another possibility is that what we see is three longitudal reactors or chambers or whatever, essentially structures similar to the one we see in ENT, cross-connected by those threefold pipes. That'd give the assembly some much-needed gravitas - and a triplicate system would also nicely accommodate three or six "end terminal" rooms, explaining the differing incarnations of the Engineering set.

If one filled the centerline of the engineering hull with such an assembly, right where Drexler leaves suitable space, one could then gut this old-fashioned and bulky machinery in the TMP refit and, lacking a better use for it, would convert it to an excessively sized cargo hold.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

In TNG (and possibly as early as ST:TMP) the warp core provided the energy necessary to create the warp fields generated by the warp nacelles. However, the warp core was not actually located within the warp nacelles themselves. instead, the warp core stretched from the secondary hull through the dorsal neck and into the primary hull, but provided power to the outboard warp nacelles.

Where was the equivalent of the warp core in the TOS Enterprise? Was it contained within the warp nacelles themselves? And, if so, would a starship with one (or three or more) warp nacelles be able to produce less (or more) power for use in other systems such as shields or phasers?

I am not sure the words "warp core" or anything close to it were ever uttered in TOS.

It wasn't. But the term warp core has been used to describe a matter antimatter reaction chamber of sorts. At least as far as Memory Alpha says.

 

[Patrickivan]

In the context of 45 years of Trek, Drexler's version makes sense to me. I think it also makes sense in the context of TOS by itself, where engineering was defined as "the lower levels" as early as episode 5. Given that we saw the dilithium crystals being accessed from the engine room in at least two episodes, it's logical that it's the warp engine room, and it's logical that the triangle of pipes are PTCs going up into the nacelles. Frankly, Franz Joseph's decision to put the engine room at the back of the saucer was kind of bizarre. I like Drexler's version, I think it's both logical and cool, and it was used onscreen. So I'm sold. I used it as the basis for my description of the Enterprise engineering section layout in my upcoming Trek novel Forgotten History.

In context? So we ignore the possibility of techological evolution? For example ships have gone from to steam, to diesel, gas, desel electric (steam again), photovoltaic, with propulsive modes from sail, to screws, inboard, outboard, azipod, internal screw (jet)... Single v hull, twin, triple, hydroplanes...

My point is, that we have concrete examples for TOS where they specifically mention that the nacelles generate power (eg "matter/antimatter nacelles"), so to ignore stuff like that is to take out the context and insert present (TMP-TNG tech). Something that was phyically and visually quite different.

As for the Engineering in the secondary hull, no one is arguing against that. That's where it was- and one in the primary hull too. Power has to be manipulated and shunted from somewhere. Even dilithium cyrstals can be there, as seen. The chamber could have involved another stage of power conversion, or relay. Power that came from the nacelles. Or it could have been another seperate power source all togther that works in conjunction with the marcs in the nacelles.

Anyway- I'm just presenting my side. I am not blind to why people would think and want it to be in the secondary hull. I used to think that was where it was up until I took the time to nitpick away at dialogue and information pertaining to TOS.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Frankly, Franz Joseph's decision to put the engine room at the back of the saucer was kind of bizarre.

Likely due to a couple of episodes referring to engineering decks as high as Deck 3 and assuming that main engineering was within the saucer.

 

[Christopher]

I am not sure the words "warp core" or anything close to it were ever uttered in TOS.

TAS: "Beyond the Farthest Star" mentioned the "engineering core," but that's about it. And in Forgotten History I made sure to avoid having any 23rd-century characters use the term "warp core," instead using terms like "warp reactor" and "engine core." (However, "warp core" was used in the 22nd century in ENT, so theoretically it could've been in use in the 23rd as well.)

In context? So we ignore the possibility of techological evolution?

On the contrary. TOS is bracketed in time by ENT and TMP, both of which had internal warp cores. So the conjecture that the Constitution class had the same is a reasonable one. Also, there are only a few years elapsed between TOS and TMP, and the seemingly revolutionary change in technology between the two has always struck me as a bit jarring, so one of the things I like about Drexler's cutaway is that it smooths the transition by having TMP-like elements in the TOS-era ship. I am considering evolution, because a gradual transition between two similar forms is a more plausible evolutionary path than a drastic and wholesale change in a very brief period.

And no, I'm not "ignoring" any possibility. It's good to consider all the possibilities, but ultimately you have to choose one over the others. That doesn't mean you ignored the alternatives, just that they didn't win out in the end.

My point is, that we have concrete examples for TOS where they specifically mention that the nacelles generate power (eg "matter/antimatter nacelles"), so to ignore stuff like that is to take out the context and insert present (TMP-TNG tech). Something that was phyically and visually quite different.

But the context is not just one show, it's the whole 45 years of canon. If we're pretending that there's any cohesive reality to the Trek universe, then it follows that we should consider the whole. If you're talking about TOS as a fundamentally separate creation from everything else, then you're talking about it metatextually as a work of fiction, and in that case there's no point having this discussion because we can just dismiss it as a bunch of sets and drawings.

And yes, there are inconsistencies in the whole. That's a given in any long-running canon, especially one created by so many hands over so much time. But since it's all pretend anyway, that means we can pretend it fits together. That's what the makers of the canonical productions do -- either they ignore past references that conflict with their current interpretation, or they try to reconcile the whole as best they can and disregard the details that don't fit. Anyone who interprets "canon" to mean "truth" is missing the whole point. A canon is a fictional construct, an illusion of reality. The details are always subject to interpretation and change as part of the process of developing the illusion.

So yes, there were some early references to the engines being in the nacelles. Those were decades ago, they were a consequence of the early creators making stuff up as they went, and there are many, many years' worth of subsequent creativity that takes things in a different direction. It's just like the early inconsistency about lithium/dilithium and what purpose it served, whether Spock was a Vulcan or Vulcanian, and things like that. It makes more sense to me to go with the preponderance of evidence and not get hung up on the growing pains.

Anyway, it's all supposed to be entertainment, just a fun creative exercise. Nothing worth arguing over.

 

[Donovan Loucks]

Thanks for the wealth of useful replies! I'll be reading through them and responding soon.

By the way, one of the reasons I asked my original question was due to how I've seen power generation represented in a number of Star Trek boardgames. Now, I don't want to get into a discussion about canon (especially since everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes canon), but let me at least say that I do not consider these boardgames canon. Instead, I was wondering whether these games properly represented how power generation occurred in TOS.


Here are three boardgames and how they represent power generation in TOS-era ships. Note that some of these ships are based on those found in the Star Fleet Technical Manual (Ballantine Books, 1975), which many also do not consider canon. However, whether it's canon or not is irrelevant to the fundamental question of warp nacelle power generation. Also note that I'm ignoring the contribution of the impulse engines to power generation as it's not relevant to the discussion.

• Star Fleet Battle Manual (Gamescience, 1977). Each warp nacelle produces eight points of power. The scout and destroyer (each with only one warp nacelle) produce 8 points of power, the heavy cruiser and transport/tug (each with two warp nacelles) produce 16 points of power, and the dreadnought (with three warp nacelles) produces 24 points of power.
• Star Fleet Battles (Amarillo Design Bureau, 1979). Each warp nacelle produces 15 points of power. The scout and destroyer (each with only one warp nacelle) produce 15 points of power, the heavy cruiser and tug (each with two warp nacelles) produce 30 points of power, and the dreadnought (with three warp nacelles) produces 45 points of power.
• Star Trek: Starship Tactical Combat Simulator (FASA, 1983). The Constitution class heavy cruiser (TOS) generates 20 points of power in each of its two nacelles. The Loknar class frigate generates 13 points of power in each of its two nacelles and the Larson class destroyer generates 20 points of power in its single nacelle. Note that the Enterprise class heavy cruiser (ST:TMP) generates 26 points of power in each of its two nacelles.

This approach -- each nacelle actually generates the power it uses for warp field generation -- is probably correct for TOS, is probably not correct for ST:TMP, and is decidedly not correct for TNG. I'm looking for evidence in TOS that power is generated in each nacelle or is generated at some other centralized location (like the secondary/engineering hull) and sent to the nacelles.

 

[Donovan Loucks]

I am not sure the words "warp core" or anything close to it were ever uttered in TOS.

I never said or meant to imply that it was. That's why I used the phrase "warp core equivalent" in the thread title.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Anyway, it's all supposed to be entertainment, just a fun creative exercise. Nothing worth arguing over.

Trekkie blasphemy!

 

[Donovan Loucks]

There's an earlier thread on the topic.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=148112

I could not figure out why I couldn't manually find this thread and why there were so few threads in each of the forums. As a result of your posting this link, I discovered that the thread lists were filtered to just those from the last month. Thanks for opening up a world of information to me!