Can you transport anti-matter?

[blssdwlf]

As far as I can tell, "impulse" has not been used with "reactor" in TOS so any reference to "reactor" is likely to be a m/am reactor.

My theory is a hybrid one of yours:

A central m-am reactor "3" (in the engineering section) react m-am fuel whose released energies are pumped through a crystal converter assembly that both stores energy and converts some of it back into more m-am fuel.

The m-am fuel is then split between the central m-am fuel pod and the two m-am nacelles. Each m-am nacelle contains a m-am fuel pod that feeds it's own m-am reactor whose function is simply to consumer m-am fuel to warp space.

This arrangement covers the situations as seen in TOS, IMHO. All 3 reactors are collectively the "warp engines" and depending on the situation, problems can involve one or more of the reactors.

For example, in "Elaan of Troyius", the sabotage of the central m-am reactor and it's crystal converter assembly effectively prevents power from being generated from the system (no crystal power, no energy bypass from the m-am reactors).

Or in "That Which Survives", the runaway central m-am reactor is creating too much m-am fuel and energy that it has to go somewhere because they can't dump it. Etc

"Catspaw"

DESALLE: Keep it up, Mister Chekov. Channel the entire output of reactors one, two, and three into the relay stations.
​

"By Any Other Name"

SPOCK: 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-anti-matter nacelles. On your signal, I will flood them with positive energy.
​

"Elaan of Troyius"

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
​

"The Day of The Dove"

SPOCK: Alien detected in the engineering section, near reactor number three.
​

"That Which Survives"

SCOTT: Then you're right, Mister Spock. Watkins must've been murdered. I sent him in to check the matter-antimatter reactor.​

 

[Mytran]

Thanks Blssdwlf, but your infographic really needs to be included with this - there's so much extra detail!
http://www.fightingstarships.info/files/2010/09/s1_cutaway_v002-output.png
Your setup is certainly a compelling one - what I love about TOS is that there are so many different ways to interpret the dialogue

In my "ideal" head canon everything including the reactor would be in each nacelle, which makes everything more tidy and safe, which is the way most writers of TOS assumed it to be.

Wouldn't that be nice!
So, when you said

I see the domes of the TOS E as being complete spherical “pods” with the forward ones for matter storage and the aft ones for antimatter, the latter being stored in a condensed cryogenic state -hence the dark non-glowing appearance.

...is that from your head canon model? I'm a little confused as you also said:

...if the antimatter pods are the semi-spheres at the aft of the nacelles they would/should be independently jettisonable (the main reason for them to be located there), which they apparently are not if we go by the dialog.

...which would suggest (going by TOS dialogue) you DON'T see the white spheres as antimatter storage

FWIW, I don't see the dialogue in Ultimate Computer as requiring that matter tanks be stored in the nacelles. When Spock says

M-5 appears drawing power directly from the warp engines, tapping the matter-antimatter reserves.”

...it's not the matter or antimatter that M5 is after, but the energy of the reaction itself. In a single, central reactor scenario it would simply be a matter of diverting the energy intended for the Warp Engines, which in turn would deplete the fuel reserves (wherever those reserves happen to be)

Verbal references to the "matter-antimatter nacelles" in this and other episodes can be interpreted to mean that they are nacelles which run on the output of a matter-antimatter reaction - fuel tanks storing both up there are not required, then (although I still like the idea of additional antimatter being stored up there)

My own interpretation of the engineering setup in TOS is incomplete right now, as based on this and other recent threads I'm having a bit of a mental re-jig. However, I do wonder if the TOS-E "integrator" is actually a cluster of smaller M/AM reactors (perhaps 4, as per the crystals in Mudd's Women). This way the ship could run off one (assuming the crystal was OK) or more, depending on the needs of the mission, plot & dialogue. It's also different enough from TMP and TNG without being radically different from ENT to create design lineage issues

 

[TIN_MAN]

Well, in my “ideal” starship design, the spheres at the aft end of the nacelles would be antimatter “pods”, and they would be independently jettisonable from the rest of the nacelle. However, I realize that the dialog on the show pretty much proves that the antimatter in the nacelles cannot be jettisoned independently.

So, either the aft nacelle spheres are not antimatter pods after all, or at the very least, can’t be jettisoned independently of the nacelles for some reason. I was just playing my own devil’s advocate here and pointing out a possible objection to my hypothesis, because if I don’t, someone else surely will.

Anywho, it’s not just “The Ultimate Computer” that (perhaps) establishes antimatter in the engines/nacelles, there’s also this from "The Savage Curtain"

"SCOTT: I can't explain it, sir, but the matter and antimatter are in red zone proximity.

KIRK: What caused that?

SCOTT: There's no knowing and there's no stopping it either. The shielding is breaking down. I estimate four hours before it goes completely. Four hours before the ship blows up.

KIRK: Scotty, inform Starfleet Command. Disengage nacelles, Jettison if possible. Mister Spock, assist them. Advise and analyze. Scotty? Scotty?"

It is unclear whether the “matter” referred to here is the other half of the fuel, or just the walls of the tanks containing the antimatter fuel? All we know is that “The shielding is breaking down” and that the M/A-M is dangerously close to contact and an uncontrolled explosion will occur.

But more to the point, this pretty much cinches that antimatter is in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no point in disengaging/jettisoning the nacelles to prevent the destruction of the ship?

This also means that any antimatter tanks/pods in the nacelles cannot be jettisoned independently.

And let’s not forget the multiple references in TAS to antimatter in the nacelles.

Another thing to remember is that, although the term ‘antimatter pods’ can, in a few instances from TOS, be construed as a reference to small TNG-style jettisonable fuel pods; other terms using “pods” are more likely a reference to the nacelles, as in the following from “The Doomsday Machine"…

"WASHBURN: “We made a complete check on structural and control damage, sir. As far as we can tell, something crashed through the deflectors andknocked out the generators. Somehow the antimatter in the warp drive pods has been deactivated."

In actuality, all references to “pods” in the plural from TOS need to be interpreted as synonymous with “nacelles” because the idea of small jettisonable fuel tank in the secondary hull was not even conceived of until ST:TNG tech was developed.

 

[Mytran]

Ah, Savage Curtain - 3rd to last episode ever and the aviation design premise is still going strong!
Or so it seems.
I suppose we could argue that antimatter is stored MAINLY in the nacelles and merely piped down into the central reactor when needed. Disengaging (whatever that is) and jettisoning the nacelles would certainly be an option if the magnetic shielding broke down. It also means that there is at least one way to eject antimatter from the ship in an emergency (even if at the expense of the Warp Drive). The other way is hinted at in That Which Survives, where Scott seems ready to launch himself into space along with the ship's magnetic bottle of antimatter. On the surface this sounds very similar to a TNG ship ejecting one of its own antimatter storage pods, except that we know from TSC that the only way is to eject an entire nacelle. All this is very hard to reconcile with a central reactor design, I may have to revert back to my earlier thought model after all!

Of course, you're absolutely right about the multiple terms used in TOS for the nacelles and associated hardware, which is what makes it such a rich tapestry for discussion. It's also what makes it so hard to pin down a definitive explanation for the engineering layout!

 

[blssdwlf]

Something to keep in mind is that specific danger in "The Savage Curtain" and "That Which Survives" do not overlap.

For example, we could argue that only the matter-antimatter fuel in the nacelles can enter in the "red-zone" but the antimatter pod in the engineering hull cannot in "TSC".

Jettisoning the matter-antimatter fuel pod(s) in the nacelles in "That Which Survives" wouldn't have stopped the runaway engines but ejecting the central antimatter pod would.

But yeah, TOS gives us some neat ways to interpret the engineering puzzle...

 

[Timo]

But more to the point, this pretty much cinches that antimatter is in the nacelles, otherwise there would be no point in disengaging/jettisoning the nacelles to prevent the destruction of the ship?

That depends on how you read the thing, tho, as discussed recently. If you are in a failing jet plane, and ground control tells you to "disengage engines, eject if impossible", you don't try to eject the engines - the professional jargon has already defined a wholly separate meaning for the word "eject".

Here, the point would be that unless the nacelles can be disengaged, eject/jettison (of antimatter, warp core, choose your terminology) is impossible, because there's too much antimatter/warp plasma/whatever in circulation and everything will blow sky-high when the jettison explo-bolts are detonated.

And Scotty duly attempts to disengage the nacelles, but since he fails in that, he cannot jettison the antimatter, either, so that's the end of that. And he doesn't need to report back to Kirk on this because Kirk already indicated he very well knows the chances of disengaging are slim and jettison thus isn't likely to be possible.

This interpretation would make the calamities in "Savage Curtain" and "That Which Survives" consistent with each other...

In actuality, all references to “pods” in the plural from TOS need to be interpreted as synonymous with “nacelles” because the idea of small jettisonable fuel tank in the secondary hull was not even conceived of until ST:TNG tech was developed.

But neither TOS nor TNG exist in the Star Trek universe. So we don't have to worry about "actuality" much. Odds are pretty much zero that the writers themselves would have put any thought into this originally; it's up to us and us only.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

This interpretation would make the calamities in "Savage Curtain" and "That Which Survives" consistent with each other...

Since both those calamities are very different scenarios why try to make them consistent when they inherently are not and require different solutions? The matter-antimatter did not go into the "red zone" in "That Which Survives" with a ship-wide power failure. The bypass valve did not get fused in "The Savage Curtain" with the Enterprise left to accelerate out of control...

 

[Timo]

Just KISS, nothing more: if one ejectable will do, why go for several? It was all about ejection in both scenarios. Or, more exactly, one obvious way to solve the problem of the week was to get rid of the volatile antimatter, and the means for doing so should remain consistent across the series.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TIN_MAN]

That depends on how you read the thing, tho, as discussed recently. If you are in a failing jet plane, and ground control tells you to "disengage engines, eject if impossible", you don't try to eject the engines - the professional jargon has already defined a wholly separate meaning for the word "eject".

I think your stretching things a bit beyond the breaking point Timo. Occam’s razor applies here, “jettison” clearly refers to the nacelles, that’s the way most people would interpret that line from "The Savage Curtain" and I daresay I’m 99.9 percent sure that’s what the writer meant. I certainly do not think they intended for us to use pretzel logic to pretend that a phrase in the English language does not mean what it so clearly does.

But neither TOS nor TNG exist in the Star Trek universe. So we don't have to worry about "actuality" much. Odds are pretty much zero that the writers themselves would have put any thought into this originally; it's up to us and us only.

And you’re mincing my words as well; TOS and TNG, as TV shows, do exist in our “real” universe, which is what I meant in my previous post. So “actuality” still comes into play, and while the writers of TOS may not have given this stuff as much thought as we fans do, they obviously had their own basic notions of how things did and did not work, and used this as the basis of their script writing. And the notion of “antimatter pods” as small jettisonable fuel tanks in the secondary hull, was not one of them.

Having said that, I will concede that “disengage” the nacelles could be interpreted several different ways. Perhaps it simply means the “power couplings” or some such techno-babble, but “jettison” in this context can mean only one thing.

Remember, this isn’t the only time in TOS that jettisoning nacelles has been shown to be an option; and heck, even TNG tech manual allows for such a thing for galaxy class ships, so let’s leave it at that.

And Mytran, not all the ships antimatter is necessarily in the nacelles, going from TOS and TAS dialog, it seems only the reserves are kept up there? The rest of the design is a black box.

 

[Timo]

Occam’s razor applies here, “jettison” clearly refers to the nacelles, that’s the way most people would interpret that line from "The Savage Curtain" and I daresay I’m 99.9 percent sure that’s what the writer meant.

It's just that "the writer meant" doesn't matter much, because other writers would not have shared his conviction. It's all the material put together that counts, and if one or more writers get their intent heard after that, it's a bonus, if that.

I certainly do not think they intended for us to use pretzel logic to pretend that a phrase in the English language does not mean what it so clearly does.

But English is seldom spoken in Star Trek. More often, jargon is. And this is a perfectly appropriate use of familiar aerospace jargon...

they obviously had their own basic notions of how things did and did not work

I very much doubt that. And in any case, different writers wrote different episodes, without cross-consulting. The sources they would have consulted, such as the writers' bible, stay mum or ambiguous about this tech.

Trek technology was and remains a work in progress. There's no such thing as TOS tech, independently of the whole. There's barely Trek tech (as relates to how warp drives are put together) if we combine every hour of Trek ever seen.

Having said that, I will concede that “disengage” the nacelles could be interpreted several different ways. Perhaps it simply means the “power couplings” or some such techno-babble, but “jettison” in this context can mean only one thing.

Obviously "disengage" and "jettison" are two different things, else both wouldn't get mentioned. But why would jettisoning be difficult compared to disengaging? The d word sounds like fine tuning for professionals, the j word like something you can accomplish with an axe.

Remember, this isn’t the only time in TOS that jettisoning nacelles has been shown to be an option

...Only in the sense that this isn't such a time, either. Every instance of "pod" jettison can be interpreted differently, and there are no examples of "nacelle" jettison elsewhere.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Just KISS, nothing more: if one ejectable will do, why go for several? It was all about ejection in both scenarios. Or, more exactly, one obvious way to solve the problem of the week was to get rid of the volatile antimatter, and the means for doing so should remain consistent across the series.

I disagree as not all solutions are the same. In "Hollow Pursuits" the antimatter injectors locked up sending the E-D in an uncontrolled acceleration very much like the Enterprise in "That Which Survives" but ejecting the antimatter was not one of the solutions.

 

[blssdwlf]

Trek technology was and remains a work in progress. There's no such thing as TOS tech, independently of the whole.

Actually there is "TOS tech", but for real-world reasons. There are no more new TOS episodes, no more new TNG episodes, etc so those productions, those universes, are no longer in progress. Their technologies and production people were distinct from each other and their differing products makes them independent of the whole.

When the new CBS series airs or the next reboot movie plays at the theaters the new production people are building on their distinctly different trek universe, very independent of what came before.

 

[Mytran]

...I will concede that “disengage” the nacelles could be interpreted several different ways. Perhaps it simply means the “power couplings” or some such techno-babble, but “jettison” in this context can mean only one thing.

Just for fun, I'll throw another interpretation out there - if the nacelles do generate fresh antimatter, then maybe the process can be reversed and turn the stuff back into nice, safe deuterium again? After all, merely "switching off" the nacelles wouldn't achieve anything - the magnetic shielding is still degrading and when it does the antimatter will violently react with the walls of the chamber. What needs to be done is to somehow "deactivate" the antimatter, much like what happened in Doomsday Machine), a process which better fits Kirk's command to "disengage" the nacelles. Of course, such a procedure is probably time consuming and required a lot of energy to accomplish, so there is only a small chance of it being viable, so ejection of the nacelle is brought up as an alternative.

And Mytran, not all the ships antimatter is necessarily in the nacelles, going from TOS and TAS dialog, it seems only the reserves are kept up there? The rest of the design is a black box.

I'll take your word for it - I've just moved house and am writing this in a room full of boxes, so I'm a little light on Trek research material right now.
Are reserves explicitly mentioned in dialogue though, or is it just implied?

Just KISS, nothing more: if one ejectable will do, why go for several? It was all about ejection in both scenarios. Or, more exactly, one obvious way to solve the problem of the week was to get rid of the volatile antimatter, and the means for doing so should remain consistent across the series.

Actually, ejection of the antimatter was the LAST thing on Scotty's list to fix the problem in TWS - and it was only even feasible because he himself had just personally laid the explosive charges in order to allow the "pod" (which may or may not be an entire nacelle) to be ejected if he inadvertently ruptured the antimatter's magnetic bottle field.

The fact that he had to lay the charges suggests that it was a completely non-standard procedure, hence Kirk's caveat in TSC for Scott to jettison the nacelles "if possible" - i.e. "jettison them if you can even get anywhere near the junction brackets to lay explosives, what with the antimatter shielding breaking down and probably numerous other systems failing up there"

The situation in The Apple was very different - Vaal was simply dragging the ship down and warp drive was offline. No malfunctiing antimatter or other dangerous stuff, those systems are simply "off". Common sense would suggest that to reduce the ships mass and thus increase the effectiveness of the Impulse Engines a standard saucer separation might be the answer, but then we get this snippet of dialogue:

KIRK: Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!
SCOTT: Sir, I'm going to switch over everything but the life-support systems and boost the impulse power, but that's just about as dangerous.

From the sound of things, jettisoning the nacelles (or maybe the entire Engineering Hull) is an incredibly dangerous procedure in TOS, not a routine or even standard emergency procedure! This does make some sort of sense actually, since ships (once built) are not usually designed to come apart again, except perhaps during maintenance yard. The fact that it could happen (by destroying the structural beams at a key place) does not make it a good idea!

 

[TIN_MAN]

It's just that "the writer meant" doesn't matter much, because other writers would not have shared his conviction. It's all the material put together that counts, and if one or more writers get their intent heard after that, it's a bonus, if that.

Well then, in this case, I would say writer intent matters quite a bit because, with but few exceptions “all the material put together”, at least in TOS, indicates other writers evidently did have a shared conviction.
But this is a matter of personal opinion and one we’ll have to agree to disagree on without belaboring the point any further.

But English is seldom spoken in Star Trek. More often, jargon is.

Your being evasive here by over generalizing; in the dialog in question, only the word “nacelle” could conceivably be considered “jargon”, but most trek fans certainly know what is meant by the term. On the other hand, the words “Disengage” and “jettison” are fairly common words that anyone with a basic command of the English language should understand.
And this is all largely beside the point anyway, it’s not just the meaning of the words but how they are used, word order, context, and so forth, that makes any language intelligible to those that use it, to which I was originally referring; and to which you, Timo, are trying to sow confusion, by suggesting that a simple straightforward phrase should mean something other than it obviously does.

And this is a perfectly appropriate use of familiar aerospace jargon...

So which is it, “familiar” or “jargon”, it can’t be both? And are you referring to the TOS dialog, or your own brand of trek hermeneutics? If the latter, then I contend that it is not at all appropriate and amounts to little more than a straw man argument.

… And in any case, different writers wrote different episodes, without cross-consulting. The sources they would have consulted, such as the writers' bible, stay mum or ambiguous about this tech.

Oh come on, you really don’t believe that, or expect anyone else to? The producers and/or staff writers of trek did consult with one another, as a matter of record; and the writer’s bible does give basic technical background information, and for TOS, after the second season, they had “The Making of Star Trek” which was even more specific.

… There's no such thing as TOS tech, independently of the whole. There's barely Trek tech (as relates to how warp drives are put together) if we combine every hour of Trek ever seen.

But you’re not taking Trek tech as a whole, your using a TNG-heavy interpretation of what you think it ought to be, and ignoring that the fictional universe of Trek spans several centuries during which reasonably expected technical progress would more than account for what amounts to minor inconsistencies between the TOS era and TNG.
And if “There's barely Trek tech” Then why are you wasting your time here on the Trek tech forum, why are any of us?

...Only in the sense that this isn't such a time, either.

Again, your obstinate opinion, one we’re not likely to see eye to eye on anytime soon, so let’s agree to disagree and drop it.

… there are no examples of "nacelle" jettison elsewhere.

Yes there are, but if you refuse to see it then there’s no point discussing it any further.

Let’s try to stay open minded toward each others ideas and theories and not get bogged down in trying to win arguments, this thread and forum are much more enjoyable and fruitful when this is done.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I can't personally. And I called several of the moving companies in your area but none of them seemed keen on it. Sorry.

 

[Mytran]

… There's no such thing as TOS tech, independently of the whole. There's barely Trek tech (as relates to how warp drives are put together) if we combine every hour of Trek ever seen.

But you’re not taking Trek tech as a whole, your using a TNG-heavy interpretation of what you think it ought to be, and ignoring that the fictional universe of Trek spans several centuries during which reasonably expected technical progress would more than account for what amounts to minor inconsistencies between the TOS era and TNG.

Not that Timo of all people needs me to speak up for him, but he's only voicing the TNG attitude that ALL Warp technology should follow their model, even going so far as to retcon it into the way the NX-01 worked (but see below!)

While its been a fun mental exercise to try and fit the TNG setup into the the original Enterprise, I think that M/AM in the nacelles is really the route to take that offers the least resistance: We have seen from this thread that the dialogue in TOS naturally falls this way and while it is possible to reinterpret each and every line of TOS-tech to mean something different (i.e. more in line with TNG), the shear quantity of such is something you have to question at some point. After all, TMP demonstrably has a central reactor thingy, so we're only talking about the period prior to that. And there are only three obstacles in that bag;

1. Elaan Of Troyius
2. That Which Survives
3. Star Trek: Enterprise

1. Elann Of Troyius is where Scotty says "without the matter-antimatter reactor we've no chance" but this is after extensive sabotage and damage has been done to the whole system. He's also somehow diffused the "impossible to disarm" bomb that was the climax to Act 4 (which I suspect is what damaged the dilithium crystals beyond repair). Both nacelles are fully functioning at this stage, but without dilithium to convert that raw power into a form usable by the ship's systems they'd have no weapons, and more importantly to inertial dampening systems! The (or a) M/AM reactor is what they need to power those essential systems, but they cannot use it without smearing themselves into stains on the back wall. Yep, I am saying that Scotty simply misused the definitive article

2. That Which Survives is where we get jargon like "eject the pod" which from a TNG perspective would naturally refer to antimatter pods, but in TOS it exclusively means the nacelles. Yep, when Scotty is telling Spock to "eject the pod" he means the nacelle itself - this is certainly a last ditch resort! What I propose here is that Losira only fused the bypass control of one matter-antimatter integrator, specifically the nacelle that Scotty was pacing around and worrying about shortly before Watkins got killed. It seems that one nacelle had already developed a fault of some kind (Scotty says "it feels wrong somehow") either started or exacerbated by a trip through the 1,000 LY transporter beam. Following Losira's sabotage the malfunctioning nacelle is kicking out ever higher warp factors and the other (normally functioning nacelle) is matching its speed because if is doesn't, the ship will be torn apart in several different directions at once due to the imbalance.

3. Star Trek: Enterprise is perhaps the most awkward at first glance, because there's explicitly a M/AM reactor in the middle of the Engine Room. What I propose however is that this reactor doesn't power the warp coils, but the warp control balancing systems themselves (something Kikr's more advanced nacelles were able to do under their own power).
So, there's still a M/AM reactor in each nacelle but this the auxiliary reactor, the starter motor, the regulator etc. Without this one the other two couldn't function, hence it could reasonably be called the "warp core" and it is of singular importance. Also, since tech-talk on Enterprise was kept deliberately low-key, there's nothing really to contradict this proposal

And there you have it - tubular nacelles with built-in reactors running all the way from The Phoenix to the 1701!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TMP has nothing on-screen that says what the glowing vertical and horizontal tubes running through main engineering are. It's only behind-the-scenes stuff and tie-in products such as the cutaway poster(s) that nail it down as being something where the M/AM reaction occurs (intermix chamber).

In fact, there's even dialog in TMP that could be held up to support the ideas that the M/AM reaction actually occurs in the nacelles and that the tubes are just conduits bringing the power down from the engines to distribute to the rest of the ship to power phasers, and possibly deflectors, transporters, etc.

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.

Notice that Decker says that power is channeled through the main engines in the plural and discusses them going into antimatter imbalance, again in the plural. Of course, saying what he said instead of saying something like "the Enterprise redesign increases phaser power by feeding ship's phasers directly from the warp engine reaction" could easily just be an in-universe figure of speech, like a lot of dialog pertaining to their tech, not to have too much made out of it. In light of the intent that the tubes constitute the intermix chamber where the M/AM reaction occurs, that's likely all "main engines" is there, a figure of speech.

 

[Timo]

Well then, in this case, I would say writer intent matters quite a bit because, with but few exceptions “all the material put together”, at least in TOS, indicates other writers evidently did have a shared conviction.
But this is a matter of personal opinion and one we’ll have to agree to disagree on without belaboring the point any further.

That's one way to see it. The other is to point out that in fact the odds of the writers sharing a conviction are pretty minimal. There simply isn't a mechanism through which this could happen - so "sharing" must be based on coincidence more than anything else.

in the dialog in question, only the word “nacelle” could conceivably be considered “jargon”, but most trek fans certainly know what is meant by the term. On the other hand, the words “Disengage” and “jettison” are fairly common words that anyone with a basic command of the English language should understand.

Nope, that's not how jargon works. It takes words both real and invented and then applies them in a specific rather than general fashion; it isn't legit to argue that "jettison" can't be jargon. Otherwise, you couldn't "boot" your computer as basic English (from before "boot" became jargon) wouldn't allow for that without resulting in a sore toe. Yet you still can "boot" things with the sore-toe result, too.

So which is it, “familiar” or “jargon”, it can’t be both?

Of course it can. I'm just pointing out that the jargon use here is analogous to an existing type of jargon use - we don't have to claim it's future jargon.

That doesn't mean there couldn't be future jargon in Trek, some of it now familiar to us thanks to exposure, some still remaining incomprehensible.

The producers and/or staff writers of trek did consult with one another, as a matter of record; and the writer’s bible does give basic technical background information, and for TOS, after the second season, they had “The Making of Star Trek” which was even more specific.

On the issue of "jettison"? Nope.

Also note how much of TOS jargon has to be viewed through the failure to cross-consult: the second pilot has Spock state things like "energy - negative", and then "By Any Other Name" has him say that the barrier is made of "negative energy", a concept the original writer obviously did not intend but now has become the only acceptable interpretation of the original dialogue.

Writers spoke of relevant things such as the nature of the characters. They didn't sweat "jettison".

But you’re not taking Trek tech as a whole, your using a TNG-heavy interpretation of what you think it ought to be, and ignoring that the fictional universe of Trek spans several centuries during which reasonably expected technical progress would more than account for what amounts to minor inconsistencies between the TOS era and TNG.

Yes, that's the stance I'm taking and defending. It's a valid interpretation of the material, and with the addition of ENT to the continuity, the one that IMHO is superior to the otherwise allowable interpretation where TOS is fundamentally different from TNG.

If I didn't take Trek tech as a whole, I could still pretend TOS was a brief interlude into nacelle-packed self-regenerating antimatter. But with the additional evidence (and the ever-accumulating burden of writers who don't understand what their colleagues were and are writing), I'd really need some direct proof that TOS is an exception - something as hefty as a character stating that a change and a reversal actually took place.

Let’s try to stay open minded toward each others ideas and theories and not get bogged down in trying to win arguments

Oh, I have nothing against ideas and theories. I just want to make clear what mine is.

As for arguments, I'm not really having one. You can believe in whatever you want, and I do as well. But in addition to that, I'm building this "model" of mine as a hobby project, and showing how it fits in and explains the evidence is the act through which the building takes place.

Say, I let you have examples of nacelle jettison if you want to. But for me, there are none, because I can to my own satisfaction explain them away, thanks to dialogue ambiguities. You in turn make grand claims about the evidence favoring other things, such as three-reactor setups or nacelle antimatter, again by selectively reading the dialogue in allowable ways. No fault in that, but you should recognize it's the very same thing.

Timo Saloniemi

P.S.

After all, TMP demonstrably has a central reactor thingy

Does it now? Out of all the shows, it has machinery that looks the least like it would hinge on some central element. And the pieces of it that fail are rather indefinite in both dialogue and set placement, while "balance" features big time in malfunctions, possibly suggesting multiple inputs or outputs to be balanced against each other...

 

[TIN_MAN]

While its been a fun mental exercise to try and fit the TNG setup into the the original Enterprise, I think that M/AM in the nacelles is really the route to take that offers the least resistance: We have seen from this thread that the dialogue in TOS naturally falls this way and while it is possible to reinterpret each and every line of TOS-tech to mean something different (i.e. more in line with TNG), the shear quantity of such is something you have to question at some point. After all, TMP demonstrably has a central reactor thingy, so we're only talking about the period prior to that.

Well, TMP also says that this is a new engine design, so take that for what it's worth.

Perhaps I should explain my thinking on all this stuff a little more to avoid confusion.

One suggestion is, per TOS and TAS, that only the reserve antimatter is stored in the nacelles, i.e. the minimum necessary to restart/regenerate the engines. This is consistent with the TNG tech manual that says that "early" starships carried their own antimatter tankage with them, and is not necessarily inconsistent with "Enterprise" which for all we know might have had a similar arrangement. Note that the TNG tech manual does not say where this tankage was located within the ships, or when this design was discontinued.

Also, the TOS Enterprise may well have had TNG-style independently jettisonable "antimatter pods" in the secondary hull (or elsewhere?) which would be the regular working supply for the central antimatter reactor, so again, no contradiction with TNG tech. This would also allow at least some references in TOS to "antimatter pods" and the like, to be interpreted thusly.

On the other hand, the reserve antimatter in the nacelles is not, for some reason, independently jettisonable, and thus in extreme situation like that showcased in "The Savage Curtain" jettisoning of the nacelles may be the only recourse to save the ship and crew, thus we can take the dialog at face value. We could even surmise that incidents like this may well have been why Starfleet chose to abandon the design?

Finally, another suggestion; in TOS and TAS -especially the latter, the antimatter fuel generators are also in the nacelles, so it makes some sense that antimatter would be in the nacelles and this could also be why they are sometimes referred to in TOS as antimatter nacelles or antimatter pods etc. And again, since TNG tech manual allows for the production of at least some antimatter fuel in emergencies, there’s no contradiction here either.

Perhaps, in TOS and TAS, the antimatter generators and the “reserve” are tantamount to the same thing, and represent some kind of complicated integral hardware, this would help explain why the antimatter is not only said to in the nacelles/pods, but why it is not independently jettisonable as we would expect it to be?.

 

[Mytran]

I certainly think there would have to be some ultra important reason why you'd keep antimatter in the nacelles instead of in an adjacent section to the main stores - your idea of the reserve actually being the generators is a good one in that regard!

Perhaps the process of creating antimatter is somewhat dangerous, explaining why it takes place in the nacelle? Otherwise we encounter the same old issue of storing fuel in the nacelle to pump it all the way down into the secondary hull rector to pump the plasma all the way up again.

A big chart of all these different interpretations and how they match up to the onscreen dialogue is definitely in order I think!