Location of TOS Warp Core Equivalent?

[Maurice]

(The TMP vertical intermix shaft used the same illusion, right down to putting little people in scaled-down uniforms at the back of the set.)

Just to be clear, the vertical shaft section features no forced perspective other than a painting on the floor of the set. The forced perspective is applied to the horizontal shaft and the rear 20' of the room containing it (enhanced further by a painted extension to the room).

 

[Timo]

If the "warp core" and main engineering in the Constitution class heavy cruiser are in the secondary hull, where are they in the destroyer, scout, and transport/tug, all of which lack a secondary hull?

From the canon point of view, this is a non-issue. After all, the movies that introduced these FJ vessels to the onscreen reality of Star Trek also made it look as if the warp power source of a cruiser is mainly in the neck of that vessel - and all the FJ vessels have necks!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

Okay, here's a tricky one for those (myself included) who give some merit to the Star Fleet Technical Manual: If the "warp core" and main engineering in the Constitution class heavy cruiser are in the secondary hull, where are they in the destroyer, scout, and transport/tug, all of which lack a secondary hull?

This also raises further questions about the cruising speeds and available power for these vessels. For example, all of these vessels have a maximum safe cruising speed of warp factor six, despite having varying numbers of warp nacelles. However, this might be a function of both the number of warp nacelles and the tonnage of the vessels -- the heavy cruiser and transport/tug are heavier and have two nacelles while the destroyer and scout are roughly half the weight of the others but have only once nacelle.

Again, those who consider the Star Fleet Technical Manual to have no value will simply dismiss all this foolishness...

And this is where the concept of having the A/AM reactors in the nacelles comes in handy... You still have ample room for engineering in a saucer if the main engines are actually contained in the nacelles.

If you took the insane amount of time to go through the thread I linked (and you would be nuts to do so ), I, and others, provided more TOS evidence that substantiates the nacelles containing the power sources. Many quotes from the show- not just one- plus the earlier concepts calling them power pods- plus later references to them M/AM reactors being in there, are cited and sourced.

Everyone who thinks otherwise is saying that the M/AM reactor is in the main hull based on the fact that is where they are in TNG and Star Trek Enterprise primarily. That's not evidence.

Let's take another example. I can show you 2 cars from the 1910's and two cars from the 1990's. The 1910 cars are very identical, as are the 1990's. Based on the fact that most cars have internal combustion engines, most people would assume that they are both powered so. Yet there were vehicles powered by batteries and driven by electric motors in both the 1910's and 1990's. But if you didn't know that the one car was electric, you would just assume that it was gas, simply because it looked like every other internal combustion car out there- and you would be wrong.

That's why saying "this was done now, and done in the past, so it therefore must also be done in another time period" just doesn't make any sense when there is some evidence to the contrary.

So why make that assumption with TOS Enterprise when we actually have evidence in TOS? We have no evidence in TOS or outside of TOS to suggest the M/AM reactors are in the main hull of a Constitution Class Starship, and some to suggest that it is in the nacelles. In some versus none, some wins.

 

[Christopher]

(The TMP vertical intermix shaft used the same illusion, right down to putting little people in scaled-down uniforms at the back of the set.)

Just to be clear, the vertical shaft section features no forced perspective other than a painting on the floor of the set. The forced perspective is applied to the horizontal shaft and the rear 20' of the room containing it (enhanced further by a painted extension to the room).

D'oh! Of course, that's what I meant to say. (I still get right and left confused sometimes too...)

So why make that assumption with TOS Enterprise when we actually have evidence in TOS? We have no evidence in TOS or outside of TOS to suggest the M/AM reactors are in the main hull of a Constitution Class Starship, and some to suggest that it is in the nacelles. In some versus none, some wins.

First off, it's silly to talk in terms of "winning." There's no "right" answer here. This is just a bunch of entertaining fibs a bunch of people made up. Any discussion of it should be just about having collegial fun exploring the possibilities together, and it's all just a matter of opinion and taste in any case.

Second, I disagree that there's no evidence in TOS to suggest the reactor is in the main hull. As I already said, we've seen that the dilithium crystals are actually accessible from the main engine room. Given our current understanding of the role of dilithium in a warp reaction, it therefore follows that the warp engine is directly under that unit containing the crystals. Again, if you're going to divorce a discussion of TOS from a discussion of all other Trek canon, then there's no point pretending the existence of an underlying reality at all and it's all just a bunch of random drawings and set designs.

We also saw scenes in engineering where the use of flickering lights in the "cathedral" during moments of engine distress, or the way Scotty looked at them when talking about his engines, suggested that they were key warp drive components.

So there is conflicting evidence in TOS, which should be self-evident, given that they were making the engine technology up as they went just like they did everything else. The evidence within TOS itself does not paint a consistent picture. We didn't begin getting a consistent model of how warp drive works until Sternbach & Okuda worked out their version for TNG. So any interpretation of how warp drive worked in the Constitution class requires picking and choosing among inconsistent bits of evidence.

 

[BK613]

I always find these threads interesting to read. Just as in reality though, sometimes I think one needs to separate the physics from the engineering.

In this case, there is a Trek physics problem that needs to be solved: Bending, warping, subspace bubble, whatever it is that moves the ship forward.

Then there is the engineering to solve that problem.

Now, reality suggests that any given problem has multiple solutions, even multiple optimum solutions, so I see no reason for that not to be the case. Just because coils are required for one solution doesn't mean they are required for every solution.

Reality also suggests that engineering solutions are tailored for their implementation. While two designs share certain general physics similarities (steam turbines for example), one cannot always infer what is true in one is true in another (turbine connected to prop shaft vs turbine connected to generator that powers azipods.) Just because the dilithium crystals are integrated in one design does not follow that a second design integrates them as well. You don't necessarily divorce TOS from the Trekverse, but you can divorce the Connie from the Galaxy. (Variations occur even within ship classes so you could even divorce Defiant from Enterprise LOL. (A Flight IIA Connie?))

Reality also suggests that engineering systems are rarely static. They tend to be in a cycle of use, upgrade and replace. So maybe there wasn't a M/AM reactor in the hull at first but an upgrade puts one there later.
Point of all this is that it is okay for the Connies to not have a warp core, not have coils, etc. It doesn't break continuity and, since such variation mirrors reality, it actually adds a dimension of realism to the mix.

 

[Patrickivan]

I still maintain that that visual evidence is far outweighed by the dialogue and literature. That said, I completely agree with the reasoning behind your assertion. In the sense that based on what TNG said, that the dilithium crystals in engineering were most likely used as part of the M/AMR... And I'm still not 100% going to rule out that there was a M/AMR of some sort in the main hull that worked in concert with the ones in the nacelles.

You can also be certain that I am quite content with this remaining a civilized discussion. That doesn't mean there can't be a little heated discussion... If all our opinions fit perfectly, I don't know why we would be here.

 

[Patrickivan]

I always find these threads interesting to read. Just as in reality though, sometimes I think one needs to separate the physics from the engineering.

In this case, there is a Trek physics problem that needs to be solved: Bending, warping, subspace bubble, whatever it is that moves the ship forward.

Then there is the engineering to solve that problem.

Now, reality suggests that any given problem has multiple solutions, even multiple optimum solutions, so I see no reason for that not to be the case. Just because coils are required for one solution doesn't mean they are required for every solution.

Reality also suggests that engineering solutions are tailored for their implementation. While two designs share certain general physics similarities (steam turbines for example), one cannot always infer what is true in one is true in another (turbine connected to prop shaft vs turbine connected to generator that powers azipods.) Just because the dilithium crystals are integrated in one design does not follow that a second design integrates them as well. You don't necessarily divorce TOS from the Trekverse, but you can divorce the Connie from the Galaxy. (Variations occur even within ship classes so you could even divorce Defiant from Enterprise LOL. (A Flight IIA Connie?))

Reality also suggests that engineering systems are rarely static. They tend to be in a cycle of use, upgrade and replace. So maybe there wasn't a M/AM reactor in the hull at first but an upgrade puts one there later.
Point of all this is that it is okay for the Connies to not have a warp core, not have coils, etc. It doesn't break continuity and, since such variation mirrors reality, it actually adds a dimension of realism to the mix.

Pfh- you can take your realism and stuff it in your intermix chamber!

 

[BK613]

Pfh- you can take your realism and stuff it in your intermix chamber!

Which intermix chamber, the one in the hull or one of the ones in the nacelles?

 

[Albertese]

As probably indicated in one of the afore-linked threads, I hold to a three reactor set-up where there is a reactor in each nacelle which powers just that engine and another reactor in the engineering hull which powers the ship proper and must be working to allow the other two to work correctly. This fits every line of dialogue in TOS that refers to the engines or power generation in any way thoughout the whole of TOS. I have checked exhaustively.

Also this doesn't break the extended canon of the other shows. Assume NX-01 had one central reactor to power two nacelles but the power generator technology didn't progress as quickly as the warping ability of the nacelles. Suppose that by the time the Connie is being designed, the warp coils (or whatever) require way more power than one reactor could practically generate, so a multi-reactor set-up is preferable. By the time of the refit, warp drive tech has grown more efficient and reactor output has gotten better and the central single reactor set up again becomes standard.

Makes sense to me.

--Alex

 

[blssdwlf]

I think this is also the best fit theory for TOS as well.

As probably indicated in one of the afore-linked threads, I hold to a three reactor set-up where there is a reactor in each nacelle which powers just that engine and another reactor in the engineering hull which powers the ship proper and must be working to allow the other two to work correctly. This fits every line of dialogue in TOS that refers to the engines or power generation in any way thoughout the whole of TOS. I have checked exhaustively.

Also this doesn't break the extended canon of the other shows. Assume NX-01 had one central reactor to power two nacelles but the power generator technology didn't progress as quickly as the warping ability of the nacelles. Suppose that by the time the Connie is being designed, the warp coils (or whatever) require way more power than one reactor could practically generate, so a multi-reactor set-up is preferable. By the time of the refit, warp drive tech has grown more efficient and reactor output has gotten better and the central single reactor set up again becomes standard.

Makes sense to me.

--Alex

 

[Timo]

...All we need is fine-tuning on where the reactors are, how big they might be, and so forth. A miniature version of the crossed-tubes thing of TMP and TNG located under the floor of a room placed at the stems of the nacelles is fundamentally unsatisfactory in that we want

a) a system capable of moving a mighty starship
b) comprising a maze of facilities where fugitives can hide indefinitely
c) in a hull supposedly dedicated to engineering, either entirely or then at least to a significant degree
d) this heavy machinery area thus being so infrequently attended by personnel that it's a triviality to reach the stern shuttlebay unobserved and steal a shuttle, and perhaps also to sneak out of an ion pod fired from that area.

Fortunately, even Drexler's drawing features extensive structures in that hull that look quite unlike "regular decks" or "cabins". At the resolution of "In a Mirror, Darkly", we can place the machinery pretty much as we please, including deciding that the positioning of key engineering control systems in TMP at the stem of the connecting neck was already a TOS feature.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I think this is also the best fit theory for TOS as well.

As probably indicated in one of the afore-linked threads, I hold to a three reactor set-up where there is a reactor in each nacelle which powers just that engine and another reactor in the engineering hull which powers the ship proper and must be working to allow the other two to work correctly. This fits every line of dialogue in TOS that refers to the engines or power generation in any way thoughout the whole of TOS. I have checked exhaustively.

Also this doesn't break the extended canon of the other shows. Assume NX-01 had one central reactor to power two nacelles but the power generator technology didn't progress as quickly as the warping ability of the nacelles. Suppose that by the time the Connie is being designed, the warp coils (or whatever) require way more power than one reactor could practically generate, so a multi-reactor set-up is preferable. By the time of the refit, warp drive tech has grown more efficient and reactor output has gotten better and the central single reactor set up again becomes standard.

Makes sense to me.

--Alex

I like this theory too, even better than what I suggested last year in the above-mentioned thread on TOS Nacelles (although they are not completely dissimilar):

Now, if you want an in-universe explanation for why ENT and TNG engine rooms seem so much alike whereas TOS is an oddball, maybe it's something like the following.

Maybe the limits of the NX-01 design were reached. In order to go to warp 6 and beyond new techniques were tried. Then, with the Enterprise refit, a new breakthrough solved the problems with the NX-01 engines that prevented it from going to warp 6+, that allowed warp 7+, then Starfleet adopted a new-improved version of the NX-01 drive that was refined for the next century from TMP to TNG.

If one takes this tack, then TOS engineering can be a straight oddball of the pattern; it doesn't need to mesh precisely in the lineage of the other designs, because it isn't in that lineage. It's an offshoot; a dead-end that operated unreliably in the range above warp 6.

As to what the limitation was in the NX-01 design, I don't know: the oscillation overthruster kept getting out of sync with the flux capacitor until they could design a proper interoscillator. Or something. And they didn't figure out how to do that until the 1701 refit. Until they had that ironed out, the engines just had to grow in inelegant ways.

The virtue of Albertese's proposal is in explaining the difference in a simple and straightforward manner.

I will say that my idea has as its virtue an indication that something requiring Spock-level tweaking needed to be done to get the TMP refit engines to work.

 

[Timo]

We may also speculate that Archer's Main Engineering looks like an exposed coal boiler while Scotty's looks like the remote control center for a hidden boiler because there was evolution in ergonomics, automation, and perhaps also the medical understanding of the risks of exposed reactors. Or then just increased funds for implementing the better ergonomics and automation.

The TMP exposure of glowing tube things would not be out of line here, because for the first time we see protective suits being worn. Quite possibly, an ergonomic and automated control facility existed elsewhere, explaining why we mostly saw Scotty going around in shirtsleeves when there wasn't a test run or a cadet cruise going on.

That the glowy bits and armored chambers are exposed again in TNG could stand testimony to improved forcefield protection... Without ever invoking the idea of the warp drives of the various eras being different, either in operating principle or even in practical execution. Not that I'd oppose such differences as such; I just feel that simplicity of continuity is the Star Trek way to go, and the alternate approaches to warp propulsion might be outsourced to various aliens.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

If dialog means anything, in "Day of the Dove" we are told there are at least "three" reactors on Enterprise. I have taken that to mean at least one in each nacelle - per the series bible - and one in hull. (Whether there were more reactors in hull is a matter for speculation. It would make sense that at least one in-hull reactor would power the impulse drive.) Redundancy was something Matt Jefferies appeared to be striving for - huge secondary hull, multiple nacelles, multiple impulse engines, etc. - so multiple reactors make some sense. How these reactors might interrelate is another question worth pondering. And whether the TMP layout retains multiple reactors, or moves to a single reactor layout, is also open to speculation. Someone - possibly Shane Johnson, possibly Andrew Probert - identified hatches near the impulse drive as covering fusion reactors. Even if that were accepted as the "real" layout, it could be argued that in the intermix layout of the TMP ship, such reactors would only be used when the saucer section is detached.

However, it is obvious from viewing TOS that there is a slow movement from depicting power as coming from some ambiguous location -- presumably "up there" in the nacelles -- to the more dramatic device of having this dangerous "thing" first under the floor (later TOS), then above the floor (TAS) and finally at the intersection of all the action and plumbing (TMP). In attempting to rationalize, we can say that as reactors became more powerful and dependable, fewer were needed and what was needed could become more accessible. And that if the thing is going to threaten to blow up every so often, it helps to have it right there on the set, flashing brightly and dangerously (instead of far away, out of sight in the nacelles - where they could be detached - as Jefferies preferred). To Okuda/Sternbach's credit, they did replace detachable nacelles with an ejectable core.

 

[Timo]

On the subject of multi-reactor dialogue, "Day of the Dove" has this:

Spock: "Alien detected in the engineering section, near reactor number three."

"Catspaw" in turn has this:

DeSalle: "Keep it up, Mr Chekov. Channel the entire output of reactors one, two, and three into the relay stations."

I would argue that the first reference suggests multiple reactors in the engineering hull, as Spock specifies a reactor number even after narrowing things down to "engineering section". However, it's quite possible that only R3 resides in that section, of course, and Spock spells out the number merely for the sake of completeness, and not in order to provide information.

I would further argue that the second reference suggests more than three reactors, or else DeSalle would simply specify "all reactors".

I would even dare interpret "Catspaw" as indicating that reactors 1, 2 and 3 are more or less equal in terms of output and other technological details, or at most that "1,2,3" is the order of decreasing output. That is, DeSalle would mention the reactors in order of relevance, and if that order deviated from the numbering order, we would be hearing something like "reactors 1, 7 and 4" instead.

In the end, then, I'd be the happiest with a "multi-boiler" vessel, one with a large number of identical reactors that will be brought to play in varying numbers, depending on the situation. Now, whether these "boilers" relate to the warp drive is a different issue altogether, as neither "Day of the Dove" nor "Catspaw" draw any connection between the reactors and the warp drive...

Indeed, when a matter-antimatter reactor is specifically mentioned as being necessary for warp drive in "Elaan of Troyius", it is in singular! This sounds suspiciously like the TMP and TNG arrangements where a single m/am reactor existed in parallel with multiple fusion ones, and the latter were only useful for secondary or auxiliary tasks.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Patrickivan]

I just went over the script, and it's a little ambiquous, letting the interpretation of more then one reactor still stand.

SCOTT [OC]: Captain, the matter-antimatter
KIRK: Belay that order. What is it, Scotty?

[Engineering] SCOTT: The anti-matter pods are rigged to blow up the moment we go into warp drive.

And then later


SCOTT: Our shields will hold for a few passes, but without the matter-antimatter reactor, we've no chance. Captain, can you not call Starfleet on this emergency?
[Bridge] KIRK: And let the Klingons know they succeeded in wiping out our warp engines?
SPOCK: Help could not arrive before the Enterprise would be destroyed.

It can be interpreted that one reactor is for the shielding- and that because all the anti-matter pods are rigged, that included preventing them from using any reactor- but they are specifically referencing one reactor in the one line because that is the one that powers shielding. Or primarily anyway- and since all the pods are rigged, no other power other then batteries are left to help out.

It's a stretch- though it can also be attributed to just saying what needs to be said at the moment.

I know I've done it before, but it would be nice to have some key words to search for. Last time I went through all the scripts, I used matter, antimatter, engines, batteries, warp... There may be some other terms I am overlooking, but it would be fun to go through them all again. Instead of one at a time, I'd paste them all to one word document and go through them in one single go. I'm married. I have the time.

 

[blssdwlf]

I know I've done it before, but it would be nice to have some key words to search for. Last time I went through all the scripts, I used matter, antimatter, engines, batteries, warp... There may be some other terms I am overlooking, but it would be fun to go through them all again. Instead of one at a time, I'd paste them all to one word document and go through them in one single go. I'm married. I have the time.

I did something like that

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=5325166&postcount=496

@Timo - there is also "By Any Other Name" where Spock states:

SPOCK: There is one other possibility, Mister Scott. The final decision, of course, must be the captain's, but I believe we must have it ready for him. The Enterprise is propelled by matter-anti-matter reactors. The barrier we must traverse is negative energy.
...
SCOTT: I have opened the control valves to the matter-antimatter nacelles.
​

In "That Which Survives" and "The Changeling", we're shown that a single M/AM reactor or component affects the amount of antimatter being used by the other M/AM reactors that are part of the nacelles which appear to be referred to as M/AM engines/pods ("That Which Survives", "Elaan of Troyius"). In my view, the single M/AM reactor serves as both a speed regulator and also a source for "regenerating" power by interacting with the dilithium crystals to create more antimatter fuel.

It could be argued in the other Trek incarnations that the warp nacelles/engines are able to use just the "warp plasma" from the warp core while in TOS the nacelles had M/AM reactors in their specifically for propulsion purposes.

All, IMHO

 

[aridas sofia]

^ That's more or less my view as well. At least three reactors involved in the function of the warp drive- at least one "in hull" and at least one in each nacelle. The Constitution class ships assigned to five year deep space missions apparently were refit to carry out those missions. The nacelles were definitely refit or swapped out. Such an "anomolous" configuration might have been part of that engine upgrade. An in hull reactor might serve to take strain off the nacelles. It might be needed to initiate warp, with the nacelles providing the muscle to increase the warp.

Whatever the reason, the repeated references to matter-antimatter nacelles (not plasma nacelles) mean that matter AND antimatter are in the nacelles. And that makes no sense unless unless

a) the nacelles store matter and antimatter, which is piped down into the secondary hull where the people are located to undergo conversion to a usable power source, whereupon that power source is piped back up to the nacelles, which also happen to create the warp, or

b) the above is true, but the arrangement is repeated not only in each nacelle but in the secondary hull, with M/AM stores and a reactor or reactors there as well, serving at different stages an integral or supplemental role.

In such an arrangement not only do Bussard collectors collect matter in the nacelles; the deflectors might collect it in the secondary hull. And in each location-nacelles and secondary hull-matter is somehow converted to antimatter via an efficient process.

A triply redundant arrangement which seems to have the one flaw of requiring the in-hull reactor to get going.

 

[Patrickivan]

^
Right. And that makes having smaller ships still be practical by having the engines in the nacelles, and not needing the bulk for longer mission ships. The secondary hull was primarily for the flight deck, storage, and that big heavy deflector... All the stuff not needed on the smaller ships.

Your suggestion that the in hull third reactor was a bumping up one, made me think that maybe aside from using it to top up the batteries, and use for main hull power, it was like a starter engine for the nacelle reactors. It was a lot smaller because of the technology of the time, making it perfect for the small tasks, but not practical for powering a stable warp field, or maintaining lengthy phaser use.

This makes it more believable in that sense. Because if it were as big as the nacelles, it would make the ship to unbelievably powerful. This gives it a realism that is needed.

I think that works well. It's a starter motor. heh.

 

[BK613]

^
Right. And that makes having smaller ships still be practical by having the engines in the nacelles, and not needing the bulk for longer mission ships. The secondary hull was primarily for the flight deck, storage, and that big heavy deflector... All the stuff not needed on the smaller ships.

Your suggestion that the in hull third reactor was a bumping up one, made me think that maybe aside from using it to top up the batteries, and use for main hull power, it was like a starter engine for the nacelle reactors. It was a lot smaller because of the technology of the time, making it perfect for the small tasks, but not practical for powering a stable warp field, or maintaining lengthy phaser use.

This makes it more believable in that sense. Because if it were as big as the nacelles, it would make the ship to unbelievably powerful. This gives it a realism that is needed.

I think that works well. It's a starter motor. heh.

Well, even a steam turbine system (boiler, turbine, etc) requires operational power from the electrical generators for pumps, controllers and instruments. There are some differences but the general model of one power system providing power for another system is similar. And Navy ships often use shore power to provide that power to light off the onboard systems. So there is another example for you.
I had a similar take on impulse here (impulse power providing operational power to the impulse engines)
-----
I thought you had consigned realism to high-energy annihilation, though...