Constitution class Engineering

[Mytran]

the engines are positioned away from the hull for a reason

But the fact remains that they are not! That is, they are positioned right next to the hull, through major engineering effort where long and vulnerable-looking pylons are utilized to make sure the nacelles almost touch the main hull.

I get what you're saying, but they're out there for a reason; by admission of the very guy that designed it, Matt Jefferies. He put them out there because the energy they radiated is dangerous... or something.

I think his idea was to give the impression of big, dangerous engines - hence the long pylons. However. in placing them vertically away from the secondary hull they ended up even closer to the saucer, allegedly the more populated area of the ship! If the Warp Pods were really that dangerous, the starship designers would have had to position the pylons horizontally, much like an aeroplane's wings. Since they didn't we can assume that while they are potentially dangerous, the risk is not that great to require them a great distance away from the body of the vessel.
However, the visual impression of "big scary engines" remains, thanks solely to the length of the pylons.

 

[Timo]

I get what you're saying, but they're out there for a reason; by admission of the very guy that designed it, Matt Jefferies. He put them out there because the energy they radiated is dangerous... or something.

In that case, we should be thankful he doesn't exist in the actual Trek universe! Incompetent engineers cost lives. Or at least make professional starship crews radiation-mutate into airheaded go-go girls and risk-taking swashbucklers and whatnot.

people did have those suits for a reason. Obviously or they wouldn't have had them in the first place.

In ST2, the people in the coveralls were cadets and trainees. Having them don coveralls might be no different from having them to clean floors with toothbrushes rather than those futuro-mops we saw in the birthday gift scene.

Also, both ST:TMP and ST2 describe events where the characters would have a rare excuse of venturing into engineering areas that usually would be off limits: first test flight turned into a vital mission, and hands-on training. Routine ops might be drastically different, perhaps never seeing personnel enter the room where those blue conduits so ominously glow. With the outer doors to the "shaft room" closed, the system could be considered quite benign.

Just as there was a plexiglass shield in the Transporter room. They were trying to convey the idea of "fantastic" - dangerous energies.

Or then they just needed a splatter guard. They really did, in the first appearance of that shield...

I get your argument, though. They should have been more consistent.

I'm joking about this matter mainly because I feel relieved they weren't more consistent than that. We can easily ignore the ideas about a starship designed to be a deathtrap now. The nacelle placement is an excellent example of this: if the engines really radiate dangerously, then what we see is a half-measure at protection, but an incredibly complicated and extensive half-measure! It's better to interpret it as just about anything else than an attempt at protection...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Wingsley]

We saw to be forgetting that, in "The Savage Curtain", Kirk gives Scott the following order:

Scotty, inform Starfleet Command. Disengage nacelles, Jettison if possible. Mister Spock, assist them. Advise and analyse. Scotty? Scotty?

Kirk ordered this in reaction to Scott's report that matter-antimatter containment was deteriorating. So apparently, the ship was threatened by matter-antimatter fusion within her nacelles. If that's where the reaction takes place, disengaging them would be a logical precaution to safeguard the ship.

 

[Timo]

It should be noted that "disengage" here appears to mean "shut down", "turn off", "disconnect without jettisoning", while "jettison" is the separate next step and may not even be possible in all circumstances.

It indeed makes little sense that "jettisoning" the nacelles would be of help here if the overheating antimatter is in the engineering hull and releases power for use in the nacelles. But if we want to assume the system is identical in ENT, TOS and TNG in its working principles, the dialogue here can easily be interpreted to match that, too. How would a crew today deal with a runaway nuclear reactor? First stop it from turning the turbines. Then, since the engineer has already said that driving it down is flat out impossible, try and ditch the thing somehow (even though this would be a major achievement and unlikely to be a realistic option). So "jettison" doesn't refer to the nacelles, but to the actual thing under discussion, the redlining antimatter!

If the power is coming from the nacelles, then disengaging them from the parts of the ship that receive power is also sensible. But supposedly this was the very thing that Scotty was unable to do: shutting down or isolating the "overheating" element of the system.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ronald Held]

This is speculation but to make a Warp 5 engine the TNG design was used(maybe as a brute force method)?. Perhaps to achieve warp 7 to 9 that design could not be scaled up, and the TOS design was used? No idea if that changed in the TOS movies.

 

[Shark]

I get what you're saying, but they're out there for a reason; by admission of the very guy that designed it, Matt Jefferies. He put them out there because the energy they radiated is dangerous... or something.

In that case, we should be thankful he doesn't exist in the actual Trek universe! Incompetent engineers cost lives.

Okay, whatever dude.

 

[JES]

I get what you're saying, but they're out there for a reason; by admission of the very guy that designed it, Matt Jefferies. He put them out there because the energy they radiated is dangerous... or something.

In that case, we should be thankful he doesn't exist in the actual Trek universe! Incompetent engineers cost lives.

This in my opinion applies especially for the designers for the Star Wars sets, and their walkways with their dangerous lack of safety rails!
Play Star Wars Jedi Outcast or Academy, and you'll be cursing the stage designers responsible for certain stages as idiots.

 

[Mytran]

It should be noted that "disengage" here appears to mean "shut down", "turn off", "disconnect without jettisoning", while "jettison" is the separate next step and may not even be possible in all circumstances.

It indeed makes little sense that "jettisoning" the nacelles would be of help here if the overheating antimatter is in the engineering hull and releases power for use in the nacelles. But if we want to assume the system is identical in ENT, TOS and TNG in its working principles, the dialogue here can easily be interpreted to match that, too. How would a crew today deal with a runaway nuclear reactor? First stop it from turning the turbines. Then, since the engineer has already said that driving it down is flat out impossible, try and ditch the thing somehow (even though this would be a major achievement and unlikely to be a realistic option). So "jettison" doesn't refer to the nacelles, but to the actual thing under discussion, the redlining antimatter!

It's somewhat noteworthy that even at the tail end of Season Three the aviation model was still holding strong in TOS - and it should be pretty obvious that I don't mind having ENT and TOS having a different engineering setup to TMP and TNG, even if that wasn't the original creative intent of ENT's writers.

If we are going to assume an identical model though (even though that rarely happens over a 200 year period) then your interpretation is a good one - although I can't help thinking that your interpretation of the dialogue requires Kirk to change the subject mid-sentence with no context to support it. This could get confusing, fast!

However, you bring up an interesting point - in a TNG style engineering setup, why DON'T they ever talk about ejecting the antimatter pods? If the reactor is overloading, surely the quickest and safest solution is to cut off the fuel supply? They way they talk about ejecting the warp core though, it's as if ALL the dangerous stuff was contained within that pulsating neon tube and the bottled up antimatter beneath their feet is just there for ballast. Am I missing something?

 

[Albertese]

I would argue that the technology did evolve. The ENT warp 5 engine could be powered from a central rector but the development of the propulsion equipment outpaced the development of reactors. By the 2240's when the Constitution-class was being put together, the engines were too powerful to be run while sharing a single reactor between them. So each nacelle has it's own dedicated reactor. By the 2270's the reactor technology caught up to the engines technology and the big engines could once more be powered by a single central reactor.

No biggie.

--Alex

 

[Timo]

it should be pretty obvious that I don't mind having ENT and TOS having a different engineering setup to TMP and TNG, even if that wasn't the original creative intent of ENT's writers.

That's one way to go, although I would have much preferred for ENT to explicitly be its own thing - so we could have ENT tech gradually evolve to TOS tech which would then evolve to the TNG version.

Oh, well. At least ENT engineering is visually quite distinct, so we could argue a Cochrane warp drive always needs the same basic blocks (m/am reactor, dilithium regulators, plasma conduits, warp coils), but the way these are put together varies wildly, including variation in the size and number of individual items.

although I can't help thinking that your interpretation of the dialogue requires Kirk to change the subject mid-sentence with no context to support it. This could get confusing, fast!

Well, I see the disengaging of the nacelles being just a step in the "dealing with redlining antimatter" procedure (i.e. the subject), even if a sidestep. Then it's back to business: "...And if everything else fails, you can try and jettison the damn stuff - and yes, Scotty, I know it won't work, but I have to say it anyway."

in a TNG style engineering setup, why DON'T they ever talk about ejecting the antimatter pods?

They sort of preempt that in "Contagion": antimatter pods can't fail and won't contribute to disasters, as automation will handle everything anyway. But the antimatter already inside the core isn't covered by that particular insurance, and is enough to blow up the entire ship. Handling the core is a much more intricate business, as this piece of machinery isn't dedicated to containing antimatter, but to doing work with it. There are too many valves and leadthroughs and loops and things that are designed to release rather than contain antimatter...

Cutting the fuel flow might not be particularly relevant in most scenarios: there's a runaway reaction (rather than a buildup or an instant explosion) in "Hollow Pursuits" only, and the solution is discussed and dismissed. That is, fuel injection jamming is the very problem, and the very first thing they tackle, and they can't fix that, so we're to accept that even the valves further upstream cannot be operated.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mytran]

I would argue that the technology did evolve. The ENT warp 5 engine could be powered from a central rector but the development of the propulsion equipment outpaced the development of reactors. By the 2240's when the Constitution-class was being put together, the engines were too powerful to be run while sharing a single reactor between them. So each nacelle has it's own dedicated reactor. By the 2270's the reactor technology caught up to the engines technology and the big engines could once more be powered by a single central reactor.
No biggie.

I think the biggest indicator that the technology didn't substantially change until the TMP "single reactor" breakthrough is the Wap Nacelles themselves - from The Phoenix through the ships seen in TAS, nacelles are round tubes (more or less). This would indicate a similar function; the matter/antimatter is mixed in the nacelles and the resultant energy delivered directly to the warp coils (or equivalent). Thus there is no need for potentially leaky plasma conduits snaking all through the ship, even if the tech existed to build such things (which I doubt). Obviously the tech inside would improve and evolve over time, but the general function is unchanged. If the NX-01 nacelles contained only the warp coils (like the E-D) and then the TOS-E nacelles were each equipped with a whopping M/AM reactor, I would expect the nacelle to change shape or design considerably.

After all, look at the TMP Enterprise: bereft of any reactors in the nacelles, the shape changes drastically. The similarity with the Klingon design is probably no coincidence; they may always have used a central reactor system+conduits. It's just that the Klingons gave less consideration to the engineering staff's safety and radiation exposure (explaining the long forward boom onto which the officers' section is mounted).

After the TMP design change, the tubular nacelles are not seen again, and indeed most follow the TMP-E nacelle profile of flattened shapes with blue light-up grills - clearly the optimal design when dealing with a "central reactor" setup.

in a TNG style engineering setup, why DON'T they ever talk about ejecting the antimatter pods?

They sort of pre-empt that in "Contagion": antimatter pods can't fail and won't contribute to disasters, as automation will handle everything anyway. But the antimatter already inside the core isn't covered by that particular insurance, and is enough to blow up the entire ship.

Ah, thanks. I must admit, I haven't studied the TNG tech in as greater detail as TOS tech :-D
It does make me wonder though how a warp core can "cool down" then, as we saw in VOY. Either the antimatter is unbridled and lethal inside the tube, or it isn't. And if there IS a quantity of anti-deuterium there, can't they just flood the chamber with deuterium and pump the resultant mush down the plasma conduits? Yes I know, exceptional circumstances and all that...

 

[T'Girl]

This in my opinion applies especially for the designers for the Star Wars sets, and their walkways with their dangerous lack of safety rails!

As opposed the Star Trek TOS turbo-lifts, apparently if you don't hold on to the safety handle, the lift won't move.

Safety first.

 

[Timo]

After all, look at the TMP Enterprise: bereft of any reactors in the nacelles, the shape changes drastically.

Hmm. Why would the TMP design lack reactors in the nacelles? If anything, the bow shapes of those pieces of machinery are so much more complex that the odds of there being "something" in there should actually increase! And there is no dialogue on the setup that could be construed to support one model over another.

The ship of the newest movies also offers interesting detail. In the first movie, we see that multiple cylindrar things are ejected when "eject the core" is commanded; in the second one, we see a single spherical dilithium focus. The concept of a "reactor" might really be a significantly distributed one... And conversely, more than just the "reactor" could be integrated into the cores of TNG.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[uniderth]

As opposed the Star Trek TOS turbo-lifts, apparently if you don't hold on to the safety handle, the lift won't move.

Safety first.

I thought they turned the handles like they were a speed control.

 

[Albertese]

The handles were turned to activate the lift, you didn't have to hold them for the duration of the trip.


--Alex

 

[blssdwlf]

How would a crew today deal with a runaway nuclear reactor? First stop it from turning the turbines.

Unlike a nuclear reactor, a matter-antimatter reactor crew would just cut the antimatter fuel. If you cut the "turbines" where would all that energy go? If you look at "That Which Survives", a run away matter-antimatter reactor that can't have it's fuel cut has to put all that energy into something that can use it.

If the power is coming from the nacelles, then disengaging them from the parts of the ship that receive power is also sensible. But supposedly this was the very thing that Scotty was unable to do: shutting down or isolating the "overheating" element of the system.

It is unlikely that it is a runaway reaction because the ship was suffering from a near complete power failure and on battery power. If she were creating power unchecked they would have plenty of power to use. It sounded alot more like the power failure was causing the matter and antimatter stores to get uncomfortably close to each other. If the majority of the fuel containing them were in the nacelles it would make sense to disengage them and possibly jettisoning them, IMHO.

 

[Timo]

Unlike a nuclear reactor, a matter-antimatter reactor crew would just cut the antimatter fuel. If you cut the "turbines" where would all that energy go? If you look at "That Which Survives", a run away matter-antimatter reactor that can't have it's fuel cut has to put all that energy into something that can use it.

I doubt we can narrow it down to that. Scotty uses terms like "completely useless" to describe his efforts, one of which is to deal with the "engines are running wild" issue. It's not as if he must keep the "engines" going in order to vent the output of the jammed-open powerplant, it's that he can't stop the engines!

It is unlikely that it is a runaway reaction because the ship was suffering from a near complete power failure and on battery power.

This would almost certainly follow from overproduction of power: the conversion process would fail to cope with the excessive output and cause the "near complete power failure". That's how powerplants today behave: there's no way to turn a China Syndrome -level meltdown into more electricity for New York City.

If the majority of the fuel containing them were in the nacelles it would make sense to disengage them and possibly jettisoning them, IMHO.

What would be this difference between "disengage" and "jettison", then? Why would the latter be difficult to achieve but not the former?

Importantly, Scotty never says he can't disengage the nacelles. Yet him supposedly doing this as ordered has no effect on the ticking clock of deteriorating shielding that will culminate in an explosion. Why was disengaging necessary or desirable?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Unlike a nuclear reactor, a matter-antimatter reactor crew would just cut the antimatter fuel. If you cut the "turbines" where would all that energy go? If you look at "That Which Survives", a run away matter-antimatter reactor that can't have it's fuel cut has to put all that energy into something that can use it.

I doubt we can narrow it down to that. Scotty uses terms like "completely useless" to describe his efforts, one of which is to deal with the "engines are running wild" issue. It's not as if he must keep the "engines" going in order to vent the output of the jammed-open powerplant, it's that he can't stop the engines!

Actually we can narrow it down like that. The ship is flying along at Warp 8.x and increased on it's own to Warp 8.8.

RAHDA: Mister Spock, speed is increased to warp eight point eight.
SCOTT: Bridge to Engineering.
SCOTT [OC]: Scotty here. I see it.

​

Speed increased because the ship started producing more power than being requested. So they try to request less power to decrease speed.

SCOTT: It's a power surge. I'm working on it. Reduce speed until I locate the trouble.

SPOCK: Very well. Reduce speed to warp seven.
RAHDA: Aye, sir. Warp seven. Mister Spock, our speed has increased to warp eight point nine and still climbing.
SPOCK: Bridge to Engineering. Negative effect on power reduction. Speed is still increasing.

​

They then discover that the bypass valve to send antimatter away from the integrator is broken. Basically they can't cut the antimatter fuel.

SCOTT: Aye, Mister Spock, and I found out why. The emergency bypass control of the matter-antimatter integrator is fused.

​

Which arrives at the "completely useless" part where Scotty's emergency shutdown doesn't work. Not only that, they are going explode from an overload. Imagine if they couldn't shunt all that extra power into the warp engines and how much quicker the ship would have blown up...

SCOTT [OC]: It's completely useless. The engines are running wild. There's no way to get at them. We should reach maximum overload in about fifteen minutes.
​

It is unlikely that it is a runaway reaction because the ship was suffering from a near complete power failure and on battery power.

This would almost certainly follow from overproduction of power: the conversion process would fail to cope with the excessive output and cause the "near complete power failure". That's how powerplants today behave: there's no way to turn a China Syndrome -level meltdown into more electricity for New York City.

They are not comparable. A nuclear reactor suffering from a overproduction of power would just scram the control rods in and kill the reaction.

In "The Savage Curtain" we hear that the warp engines "lost all power" and there was "no indication of engine damage" and "no damage report". There was no overproduction of power.

If the majority of the fuel containing them were in the nacelles it would make sense to disengage them and possibly jettisoning them, IMHO.

What would be this difference between "disengage" and "jettison", then? Why would the latter be difficult to achieve but not the former?

Hypothetically, "disengage" as in release fuel connections and/or physical connections to the nacelles. "Jettison" to forcefully move the nacelles away from the ship. In the context of the episode, "jettison" would be far more difficult with the ship operating on emergency battery power and her disabled status.

Importantly, Scotty never says he can't disengage the nacelles. Yet him supposedly doing this as ordered has no effect on the ticking clock of deteriorating shielding that will culminate in an explosion. Why was disengaging necessary or desirable?

Scotty never mentions if the "disengage" action was successful. We can assume that the nacelles still attached to the ship meant that he couldn't "jettison" the nacelles

 

[Timo]

Imagine if they couldn't shunt all that extra power into the warp engines and how much quicker the ship would have blown up...

What support is there for the idea that shunting the power into the warp engines reduces the overload? Keeping the steam flowing into the turbines certainly wouldn't stop a fission core from melting - indeed, taking the turbines off the loop (that is, stopping them from resisting the reactor) and dedicating all the flow to pure cooling might be a fairly good idea.

As far as we know, warp coils don't suck energy off the core as fast as it is being provided, and preferably faster still: they get energy forced into them, with all sorts of losses involved. Disengage the coils and the power can be vented without all that resistance!

Except Scotty "can't get to the engines", so they can't be disengaged. So they have to deal both with an overload and a ship they can't stop, although apparently the overload will get them before the excess warp speed tears them apart.

They are not comparable. A nuclear reactor suffering from a overproduction of power would just scram the control rods in and kill the reaction.

Huh? What sort of an argument is that? Obviously all sorts of reactors would have such safeties in place - and here we are explicitly dealing with situations where safeties fail.

If a nuclear reactor could not be shut down, then the turbines would certainly shut down thanks to their own safeties and cease to produce power, as they would be structurally incapable of producing power out of excessively hot steam. The same might go for warp engines, except both "That Which Survives" and "Hollow Pursuits" show that the safeties involved aren't idiotproof or more exactly evilgeniusproof.

In the context of the episode, "jettison" would be far more difficult with the ship operating on emergency battery power and her disabled status.

Exploding bolts. Breaking the ship to pieces should generally be the low-power, least-effort approach to plot problems.

Obviously, explosive jettison would be a really poor idea if disengaging failed, what with the antimatter or warp plasma leaks. But perhaps Kirk is actually saying "Disengage, and if disengaging is possible, then jettison"? That would jibe with both the dialogue and the events where Scotty supposedly obliges but achieves nothing. That is, he does as told and finds out that disengaging is not possible, so there's no jettison, either.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[blssdwlf]

Imagine if they couldn't shunt all that extra power into the warp engines and how much quicker the ship would have blown up...

What support is there for the idea that shunting the power into the warp engines reduces the overload? Keeping the steam flowing into the turbines certainly wouldn't stop a fission core from melting - indeed, taking the turbines off the loop (that is, stopping them from resisting the reactor) and dedicating all the flow to pure cooling might be a fairly good idea.

Using your nuclear reactor example, a BWR reactor carries steam away from it to turbines which powers an electrical generator and also takes the steam to a condensor to cool it to water to then pump back into the reactor. If you cut the turbine and outgoing steam you'll make the reactor have a much harder time to cool itself down, assuming you can't scram it or bypass to the safety valves to send the steam to a suppression chamber/heat exchanger to cool the water back into the reactor. This suspiciously sounds like the situation in "That Which Survives" except the warp engines can take it.

The main differences, IMHO, in the engineering setup and a nuclear fission setup is that the unlike nuclear, the fuel isn't in the core and the reaction isn't controlled by rods. In the TOS setup, the fuel is sent to reactor and combined to get the energy and they couldn't cut the fuel flow. So the energy being built up would have overloaded the reactor rather than the fuel melting out of the core.

As far as we know, warp coils don't suck energy off the core as fast as it is being provided, and preferably faster still: they get energy forced into them, with all sorts of losses involved. Disengage the coils and the power can be vented without all that resistance!

They would still need to have something carry that energy away. I suppose they could've also tried firing all their phasers and powering their shields to full power.

They are not comparable. A nuclear reactor suffering from a overproduction of power would just scram the control rods in and kill the reaction.

Huh? What sort of an argument is that? Obviously all sorts of reactors would have such safeties in place - and here we are explicitly dealing with situations where safeties fail.

Yes, but you are equating the same solutions for both a nuclear and m/am reactor when they obviously would have different fixes and emergency situations because of where and the type of fuel they use.

If a nuclear reactor could not be shut down, then the turbines would certainly shut down thanks to their own safeties and cease to produce power, as they would be structurally incapable of producing power out of excessively hot steam. The same might go for warp engines, except both "That Which Survives" and "Hollow Pursuits" show that the safeties involved aren't idiotproof or more exactly evilgeniusproof.

Your two references also show that the warp engines don't shutdown due to excessive energy applied which is why the comparison to a nuclear emergency doesn't apply.

In the context of the episode, "jettison" would be far more difficult with the ship operating on emergency battery power and her disabled status.

Exploding bolts. Breaking the ship to pieces should generally be the low-power, least-effort approach to plot problems.

I suspect if the exploding bolts could push the nacelles away at a good enough clip it would be enough to severely damage or destroy the ship as well, IMHO.

Obviously, explosive jettison would be a really poor idea if disengaging failed, what with the antimatter or warp plasma leaks. But perhaps Kirk is actually saying "Disengage, and if disengaging is possible, then jettison"? That would jibe with both the dialogue and the events where Scotty supposedly obliges but achieves nothing. That is, he does as told and finds out that disengaging is not possible, so there's no jettison, either.

Agreed.