Location of TOS Warp Core Equivalent?

[Crazy Eddie]

^
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.

Maybe not a starter motor so much as an APU. A small matter-antimatter reactor may not be enough for propulsion, but on a ship that's too small to have a really enormous fusion reactor pyle (unlike the huge engines on the Galaxy class) it might be necessary to power the ship's primary systems like shields, deflectors, weapons and transporters. They can probably transfer some power from the warp drives to critical systems like deflectors if need be, although they probably lack the ability to transfer ALOT of power until the intermix setup from TMP was introduced.

I don't think it would work as a starter motor except insofar as it would be needed to generate a new supply of antimatter for the nacelle reactors after the original pods were sabotaged in Elaan of Troyus. If you think of the first problem as a temporary setback, then the second one ("the entire dilithium converter assembly is fused!") becomes the bad news that the problem is actually more permanent than it normally would be. In which case, we can now feel free to put that in-hull reactor in the saucer section, close to the impulse engines.

If you think about it, the setup from TMP might actually work better if only the reactors in the nacelles were preserved and the intermix chamber is primarily just a transfer conduit from the nacelles to the rest of the ship. The deflection crystal on the impulse deck would replace the original engine room complex, tapping power from that transfer conduit for use by the primary systems and leaving everything else more or less the same.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If you think about it, the setup from TMP might actually work better if only the reactors in the nacelles were preserved and the intermix chamber is primarily just a transfer conduit from the nacelles to the rest of the ship.

When I first saw TMP, this is what I thought was going on. Only when I got the cutaway poster did I realize what the intent was. Going just by what's in the film, IMO there really aren't any dialog lines or clues that directly settle the issue one way or another, and it's so radically different from what was established in TOS/TAS. Here's the only relevant dialog I know of [http://www.chakoteya.net/movies/movie1.html]:

SCOTT: Intermix set. Bridge, impulse power at your discretion.

(See note at end.) Now from this first line, you might surmise that the glowing tube thing is the matter/antimatter reactor, since intermix is being set while the warp drive and therefore supposedly the nacelles are not in use, however....

DECKER: Sir, the Enterprise redesign increases phaser power by channelling it through the main engines. When they went into anti-matter imbalance, the phasers were automatically cut off.

.... however in this second line it is made clear, or at least suggested, that the engines (plural, i.e. supposedly the nacelles; emphasis mine) take part in the matter/antimatter reaction in some hand-wavy way. Taken together then, these lines don't contradict the idea that for the first line, it might be meant that reactors in the warp engines (nacelles) were feeding power to the impulse drive. Said another way, my point is that the second line does not read as follows:

DECKER: Sir, the Enterprise redesign increases phaser power by channelling it through the main engines [sic]. When the reactor went into anti-matter imbalance, the phasers were automatically cut off.

(Note: Why the impulse drive needs the matter/antimatter reactor in the first place in order to operate is something that isn't completely clear to me at all.)

 

[aridas sofia]

^That's a good catch. Maybe there are reactors in those linear nacelles after all.

Maybe the arrangement shifts in emphasis in this new layout? Much more centralized, with the warp drive not dependent upon the central reactor to start and the nacelle reactors to increase warp. Instead the nacelle reactors now start the warp and the central reactor keeps it going/ increases it?

As for the impulse drive, the big question would be does a starship need to be underway at impulse in order to go to warp? The idea of something like that makes no sense to me, but it seems to match the portrayal of ships going to warp in Trek. Particularly TMP, with the process called out-- "warp point seven... point eight... point nine... warp one!" Perhaps this is the nacelles building power, but the implication is otherwise.

If the impulse drive "gets the ship going" to some "critical momentum" that is used in some way to initiate the warp, then perhaps the central reactor is busy doing this impulse-focused task until warp one, whereupon the nacelle reactors take over and initiate the warp. Then the big central TMP reactor/linear intermix chamber, freed from feeding the impulse, can start doing the work of building the warp factors.

In this kind of arrangement, the nacelle reactors are like the gunpowder in the flash pan of a flintlock. Once the main reactor takes over, the nacelle reactors might still play a role, albeit a supporting one.

The arrangement has some similarities to TOS, but definitely shifts the emphasis from what is going on in the nacelles to what is going on in the ship. Which makes some sense, because the new nacelles appear less massive and thus to be doing more with less.

 

[Mytran]

The past few threads demonstrate some really good thinkin' - who says you can't generate new ideas from re-wording an old thread? This stuff is TOS-Tech gold!

 

[FalTorPan]

This topic used to fascinate me. I'm kind of sad that it no longer does.

 

[Donovan Loucks]

The past few threads demonstrate some really good thinkin' - who says you can't generate new ideas from re-wording an old thread? This stuff is TOS-Tech gold!

Agreed! I appreciate all the responses and have far more to digest than I had expected. Thanks, everyone!

 

[Donovan Loucks]

By the way, I was at a sci-fi/fantasy/horror bookstore today and was looking through some of the non-canon ship blueprints. One that caught my eye was a chart showing four different nacelle designs, including the two used by the TOS Enterprise (the ones with the grilles at the rear and spikes at the front, and the ones with the bubble at the rear). I made a note of the author's information, assuming I could find it online when I got home, but I can't find any mention of it. Here's what I recorded:

Originally generated as part of the 'Starship Design' July 2264 technical network file
Article File: 'Star Fleet Enginery 2189-2264', E. Gita Karlutsas
Authentication: Federation Historical Archives, Memory Terra, 2264/2290

There wasn't much useful information on the chart, which just spelled out the technobabble differences between the four nacelle types, two of which (the first and last) were entirely non-canonical. Little was said about the source of energy for the nacelles, but I felt there was some implication that the matter/anti-matter reactors were integrated into the nacelles. Unfortunately, I can't now explain why I thought that because I only recorded the information above since I thought I could easily find an online reference to this chart...

EDIT: Here we go. I've found it referred to as "Star Fleet Enginery: Circumferential PB Warp Engine Series".

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^That's a good catch. Maybe there are reactors in those linear nacelles after all.

Maybe the arrangement shifts in emphasis in this new layout? Much more centralized, with the warp drive not dependent upon the central reactor to start and the nacelle reactors to increase warp. Instead the nacelle reactors now start the warp and the central reactor keeps it going/ increases it?

Actually I think it's more or less the same setup as the TOS reactors. As far as I can tell, the only obvious difference is that the three reactors now share a common power bus (the intermix chamber) instead of being largely independent. This means that the in-hull reactor no longer has single responsibility for weapons/shields/impulse engines etc, you can just as easily draw that power from the nacelles to the rest of the ship, or from the auxiliary generators to the nacelles, or from the central reactor to the nacelles, etc etc.

As for the impulse drive, the big question would be does a starship need to be underway at impulse in order to go to warp?

There are many reasons to believe it does not. In "The Ultimate Computer" we hear that the Lexington takes a phaser hit to its impulse engines, but is "still maneuverable at warp drive." Since all of the ships in the engagement are zipping around at warp speed anyway, this suggests that Lexington has lost some of its close-range maneuverability but can still zip around at FTL velocities, maneuvering evasively. Such a vessel can probably bounce around at warp speed like an Umgah Drone, but at any speed below light would suddenly handle like a narcoleptic yak.

The idea of something like that makes no sense to me, but it seems to match the portrayal of ships going to warp in Trek. Particularly TMP, with the process called out-- "warp point seven... point eight... point nine... warp one!" Perhaps this is the nacelles building power, but the implication is otherwise.

Here's the thing: since TNG codified it we're been running on the assumption that impulse engines are basically fusion rockets with some insanely high specific impulse (brought to you by the letter "S" for "subspace driver coils").

But TOS and TMP impulse engines clearly don't work that way, or at least, not EXACTLY the same way. In the background material for TMP it's implied impulse engines use some kind of "unified field drive" thingie, a reference to the cosmological "theory of everything" that continues to elude physicists but is supposed to have been solved by the 23rd century. For all intents and purposes, though, it's basically a reactionless drive; it doesn't warp space so it can't produce FTL velocities, but it does allow for inertia-free travel between two points in space.

Don't even try to reconcile this with TNG, though.

The arrangement has some similarities to TOS, but definitely shifts the emphasis from what is going on in the nacelles to what is going on in the ship. Which makes some sense, because the new nacelles appear less massive and thus to be doing more with less.

I don't think that has anything to do with reactor size, though, just a better internal arrangement overall.

Another thing to consider is that the central in-hull reactor is probably responsible for regenerating fresh supplies of antimatter ("Elaan of Troyus" again). The TOS design probably has the antimatter converter located somewhere in the hull with the new antimatter transferred up to storage pods in the nacelles. The TMP design is probably so efficient that it omits the nacelle pods altogether and allows the warp engines to run DIRECTLY on interstellar gas pulled into the ramscoops. That would nicely explain the "antimatter imbalance" problem from TMP: the conversion system has to keep up with the demands of the engines in REAL TIME and doesn't have a the pods to act as buffers if the mixture ratio should suddenly change.

Thing is, in the TOS setup those reactors would spin down to "idle" when the ship wasn't at warp, but couldn't be shut down and then quickly restarted again (e.g. "Naked Time"). This causes them to constantly burn a small amount of antimatter, which is sort of wasteful and wears out the reactors and accordingly limits the engine's service life to no more than five years. With the power sharing setup of the intermix chamber, you could turn the nacelles COMPLETELY off and restart them in an instant. That brings back the "starter motor" thing where the in-hull reactor is needed to get the ship up to a speed where it can draw in enough matter to run the nacelle reactors and reach higher speeds.

 

[publiusr]

I like that.

 

[Timo]

I'm still a bit worried because there aren't any explicit references to "reactors" in the nacelles, while there are explicit references to "reactors" in the secondary hull and these can in theory accommodate all the generic "reactor" references as well. All this talk about nacelle reactors still seems to hinge on the verified presence of antimatter in the nacelles, rather than on tangible arguments of the nacelles being the source of power.

There are many reasons to believe it does not. In "The Ultimate Computer" we hear that the Lexington takes a phaser hit to its impulse engines, but is "still maneuverable at warp drive."

And in "Obsession", repairs are underway on the impulse drive, yet Kirk can still give chase at warp. And, despite being alert and deeply concerned with avoiding hesitation, and supposedly somewhat experienced in what the enemy can do against starships, Kirk fails to dodge the incoming opponent in the several seconds available to him during a subsequent sublight engagement, perhaps suggesting an inability to maneuver at impulse.

We might consider that there have only ever been two occasions in Trek where going to warp involves a long sublight acceleration: ST:TMP and ST:FC. Both involved a careful, even timid application of an experimental technology for the very first time. Yet in virtually every instance of going to warp, we witness the ships starting to move from a standstill and visibly accelerating to warp speed - without any evidence that they would "skip" any of the speeds between.

There isn't necessarily anything qualitatively different there from the TMP and FC cases, then, merely quantitatively so. A standard warp acceleration, performed solely with warp engines, takes a split second between zero and c (which is only natural, considering it takes only a few seconds for the much bigger jump from c to, say, warp seven); an experimental warp acceleration can stretch to half a minute, though.

We thus have every excuse to consider warp and impulse completely separate technologies, even if both are based on the same subspace physics concepts. Sublight maneuvering might never involve the warp engines, and warp maneuvering might never involve the impulse engines, even though there's nothing to preclude both systems from being simultaneously applied. Indeed, when systems are discussed, the dialogue typically emphasizes separation: say, when Kirk wants to apply impulse in addition to warp in "Corbomite", it is because this will make a difference and possibly take the enemy by surprise.

I don't want to claim the systems need to be completely separate, though. Since subspace fields are said to reduce mass, they would be an excellent way to facilitate sublight movement - and warp engines would be an excellent resource for creating subspace fields. Much of the doubletalk about impulse coils and differences between the impulse drives of the various eras in the Tech Manuals could be read as saying that some ships have separate impulse coils for subspace fields, while others lack them and thus probably rely on warp engines on "impulse mode" for the task. We could even argue that in the latter case, one needs that blue glowing dome (the "impulse deflection crystal") to manipulate the warp field (a role explicitly assigned to the dome in ENT backstage talk). Ships with dedicated coils would lack the dome, an idea consistent with the assigning of the dedicated coil innovation to the Ambassador class which indeed omits the dome so prominent in the preceding Excelsiors and whatnot. But I digress, as always.

I continue to worry about the fact that "power from nacelles" still is a secondary idea derived without direct dialogue references to such a thing taking place. "Antimatter in nacelles" and "nacelles can explode" are verified things for TOS, and aren't really contradicted for TMP or TNG, either. But "power from" or "reactors in" nacelles is still a perpetuation of a backstage idea that never really manifested on screen. It's an innovative idea in many ways, and it's a plausible one, but it still stands apart from the ideas verified in dialogue.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

Has there ever been dialog in any Star Trek series explicitly stating there is no reactor in the nacelle? The practice of using the absence of said dialog from TOS (despite the explicit statement verifying the presence of the reactants in the nacelle) can just as easily be inverted to disprove the absence of reactors from all the other series' nacelles. After all, if the reactants are in the TOS nacelles, it is a bit foolish to send those reactants down to an in-hull reactor just to have the power generated be piped back up to the nacelle. If that can be taken as some evidence of some reactors presence in the nacelles, and the absence of contradictory dialog from other series can be seen as being supportive of the established canon, then it seems likely that the intention in fact is that there are supporting reactors in all nacelles.

 

[Timo]

Only if we assume antimatter is a "reactant". Might be antimatter needs to be pumped into the warp coils in order to have the ship go to warp, after having been "energized" (or perhaps created?) in the reactor. After all, we have never been given onscreen insight into just what is flowing inside those plasma conduits that feed the nacelles... Might be antimatter plasma for all we know.

I just find it difficult to believe in any sort of "intention" one way or another on this issue. TOS technology was overthought already as is (and never mind all the thinking that went into TMP, with nothing much to show for it!); adding ideas about the presence or absence of power sources in the nacelles would seem like way too much unpaid overwork for the people involved.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CorporalCaptain]

A perfectly useful definition of the word engine is:

A device to convert energy into useful mechanical motion, especially heat energy

In TOS, the nacelles were called the "engines". The simplest interpretation is that there were reactors in the engines. QED.

 

[Timo]

Simple never works well in showbiz. And "engine" is too old a word to have an unambiguous meaning any more, let alone in the 23rd century; trying to force it into a mold like the above is just futile.

Moreover, nobody ever specifically called the nacelles "engines" on screen. At the very best, they were a component of the engines, or the engine, or whatever. For all we know, the actual "engine" part was located in the pylons, and ships with longer pylons went faster, explaining the need for these seemingly insane points of structural weakness...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Has there ever been dialog in any Star Trek series explicitly stating there is no reactor in the nacelle? The practice of using the absence of said dialog from TOS (despite the explicit statement verifying the presence of the reactants in the nacelle) can just as easily be inverted to disprove the absence of reactors from all the other series' nacelles. After all, if the reactants are in the TOS nacelles, it is a bit foolish to send those reactants down to an in-hull reactor just to have the power generated be piped back up to the nacelle.

Hell, it's foolish enough to put the ramscoops in the nacelles just to pump that matter all the way back down to the engineering section. If the nacelles contain antimatter too, then that combined with the radiation hazard from the reactors would make it almost absurd NOT to have the reactors out there.

Besides, we've already been through dialog that implies that some power generation occurs in the actual nacelles. If not "reactors" explicitly then the engines themselves react matter and antimatter as part of their normal functioning.

 

[blssdwlf]

I'm still a bit worried because there aren't any explicit references to "reactors" in the nacelles, while there are explicit references to "reactors" in the secondary hull and these can in theory accommodate all the generic "reactor" references as well. All this talk about nacelle reactors still seems to hinge on the verified presence of antimatter in the nacelles, rather than on tangible arguments of the nacelles being the source of power.

Hmm. There is "By Any Other Name" where the dialogue explicitly says M/AM reactors propel the Enterprise. That would strongly suggest that some of the reactors act as "engines":

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-antimatter reactors. The barrier we must traverse is negative energy.
SCOTT: I see what you're getting at. I can't say I like it.
SPOCK: Nor I. But it must be made available to the captain.

​

The placement of some these M/AM reactors that propel the Enterprise appears to be in the nacelles as Mr. Scott connects "propelled by M/AM reactors" with detonating the nacelles.

KIRK: Well?
SPOCK: Impossible, Captain. The power source is protected by a material we cannot breach even with our phasers. Mister Scott and I have prepared the means for the only logical alternative available to us.
KIRK: What alternative?
SPOCK: The barrier we must penetrate is composed of negative energy.
SCOTT: I have opened the control valves to the matter-antimatter nacelles. On your signal, I will flood them with positive energy.
​

I continue to worry about the fact that "power from nacelles" still is a secondary idea derived without direct dialogue references to such a thing taking place. "Antimatter in nacelles" and "nacelles can explode" are verified things for TOS, and aren't really contradicted for TMP or TNG, either. But "power from" or "reactors in" nacelles is still a perpetuation of a backstage idea that never really manifested on screen. It's an innovative idea in many ways, and it's a plausible one, but it still stands apart from the ideas verified in dialogue.

And also from "The Doomsday Machine" where Spock clearly states the nacelles generate power:

SPOCK: I would say none, Captain. The energy generated by our power nacelles seems to attracts it.
​

Doesn't seem like a backstage idea, IMHO.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Good catch. But I could only add that I don't think we should interpret the nacelles as containing reactors so much as BEING reactors in and of themselves; the space warp mechanism consumes matter and antimatter in its basic operation the way a diesel engine consumes fuel and oxygen. If it produces any power for the ship at all, it's probably a trickle at best.

In which case, the in-hull reactor is a powerplant primarily, responsible for generating antimatter for the warp drive and useable power for the rest of the ship. And I just realized this finally explains the situation in "Mudd's Women", where the ship can still travel interstellar distances even with its "lithium circuits" burned out and no power for the ship. By the time the ship is reduced to "auxiliary impulse units" it's already in orbit around Rigel, where their fuel is "barely sufficient."

 

[Timo]

the dialogue explicitly says M/AM reactors propel the Enterprise. That would strongly suggest that some of the reactors act as "engines"

Why? Nuclear reactors propel that other Enterprise, too, and that doesn't mean the propellers of that vessel are reactors. Or, when the chief engineer attempts to stop the Russkies from sailing the hijacked ship to Soviet waters by arranging for the transmission to suddenly go to reverse at the territorial limit and shred the gearboxes and turbines to useless shrapnel, this does not establish the turbines or the transmissions as reactors.

The TNG style "nacelles as 'propellers' that are made to 'turn' by power from m/am reactors, via unspecified machinery in between" idea works with the dialogue just fine.

The energy generated by our power nacelles seems to attract it.

Now this might indeed serve as proof for nacelle reactors. As long as it's the sole phrase referring to such, though, it's just as simple to say that the gamma radiation energy created by the m/am reactors or the heat energy put out by the coffee maker doesn't attract the beast, but that the subspace energy emanating from the warp coils does. After all, the beast isn't just attracted to energy - it's attracted specifically to energy from the nacelles.

That'd go with newtype's above comment on the nacelles being machines that consume antimatter and turn it into delicious subspace energies, without actually being the ultimate source of power aboard the ship. They just turn that power into propulsive form.

Doesn't seem like a backstage idea, IMHO.

That's my point, though. I don't believe there ever was any backstage idea on the issue. It was all up front, done without any actual thought put into it. When they needed reactors, they had reactors - usually where our heroes could do "reactory" things with them. They never needed reactors in the nacelles, so they didn't put any in them - but they did put antimatter in there, in dialogue and ultimately in animation as well.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

the dialogue explicitly says M/AM reactors propel the Enterprise. That would strongly suggest that some of the reactors act as "engines"

Why? Nuclear reactors propel that other Enterprise, too, and that doesn't mean the propellers of that vessel are reactors.

On the same thinking, a gasoline-powered engine is not the transmission or wheels of my car. However, in the context of Spock's dialogue, it sounds like the M/AM reactors propel the Enterprise much like a car engine would and still must be connected to some kind of drive train or propulsion system. The nacelle reactors thus convert M/AM into some energy or motive force (like an engine) usable by the space warp drive, IMO.

The TNG style "nacelles as 'propellers' that are made to 'turn' by power from m/am reactors, via unspecified machinery in between" idea works with the dialogue just fine.

Or in TOS-thinking, they put the m/am reactors aka engines closer to the "propellers" by slotting them in the nacelles

The energy generated by our power nacelles seems to attract it.

Now this might indeed serve as proof for nacelle reactors. As long as it's the sole phrase referring to such, though, it's just as simple to say that the gamma radiation energy created by the m/am reactors or the heat energy put out by the coffee maker doesn't attract the beast, but that the subspace energy emanating from the warp coils does. After all, the beast isn't just attracted to energy - it's attracted specifically to energy from the nacelles.

It was merely to address your comment of "rather than on tangible arguments of the nacelles being the source of power". This is tangible evidence that the nacelles are also referred to as a source of power.

That'd go with newtype's above comment on the nacelles being machines that consume antimatter and turn it into delicious subspace energies, without actually being the ultimate source of power aboard the ship. They just turn that power into propulsive form.

Sure. I'm not saying the nacelles are the "ultimate source of power". I still lean back to the crystals as the "ultimate source of power" The m/am engines in the nacelles most likely are just for space warp generation and can have some of their energy used by the ship and the secondary hull reactor is for primary power and m/am regeneration in conjunction with the crystals. All IMHO.

Doesn't seem like a backstage idea, IMHO.

That's my point, though. I don't believe there ever was any backstage idea on the issue. It was all up front, done without any actual thought put into it. When they needed reactors, they had reactors - usually where our heroes could do "reactory" things with them. They never needed reactors in the nacelles, so they didn't put any in them - but they did put antimatter in there, in dialogue and ultimately in animation as well.

I differ in that they had m/am reactors as engines in the nacelles and we do have dialogue of that. At the end of the day, its got less to do with a backstage idea than what is presented as the final aired episode...

 

[Timo]

This is tangible evidence that the nacelles are also referred to as a source of power.

Yes, sorry about not acknowledging that more explicitly. I was wrong about this and stand corrected.

Timo Saloniemi