Do the number of nacelles make any difference in ship speed?

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by The Rock, Nov 21, 2020.

  1. Go-Captain

    Go-Captain Captain Captain

    Joined:
    May 23, 2015
    It's too bad there isn't anything solid on this topic but then it wouldn’t be much of a topic if we had the info.

    I think the most obvious answer is likely correct, more engines means more power and more speed.

    There would be one major advantage to having more than one nacelle, the work per engine can be spread out, implying a four nacelle design can maintain a higher speed with less wear per engine offering longer top warp duration or higher top speed, or a mix of both.

    The reason we mostly see two nacelle designs is probably just as simple, diminishing returns at top warp speed offers little advantage to more than two warp engines unless a mission specifically requires it. We don’t see one engine designs because that’s a little too vulnerable and slow. As engineering improves the peak power of one engine would improve, but at the same time manufacturing would improve and make having more engines cost less to implement.

    That fits with how the Prometheus probably would have been a rapid response Borg interceptor, needing every last bit of speed, where as the Defiant is more a strategically defensive platform since it is slow, but I suppose that’s speculation.
     
  2. at Quark's

    at Quark's Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    If the discussion is getting this technical, perhaps it's a good idea to cite the exact source quote from Caretaker:

    So it doesn't talk about 'top cruise velocity' but rather 'sustainable cruise velocity'. Whether that term is still supposed to mean 'top cruise velocity', I don't know.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2020
  3. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Even that one seems to be a transcript/dialogue error - to my best understanding, Stadi actually says "stable cruise velocity".

    The other reference, from "Relativity", has Janeway expressing warp 9.975 as her new ship's "top cruising speed". So neither of these actually reinforces the "cruise" concept with a mention of "sustainability".

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  4. at Quark's

    at Quark's Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    I do think she really says 'sustainable' (see this clip)
     
    David cgc likes this.
  5. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Thanks for the clip:

    Stadi states: "Standard Warp Cruise Velocity of Warp Factor 9.975"
     
  6. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    6 nacelles, the saucer had 2 as well. Only 4 of them were used when it wasn't seperated.
     
  7. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    I heard "sustainable" in the clip.
     
  8. John Clark

    John Clark Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    There
    For what it's worth, I hear Sustainable too.

    Just dug out my copy of the novel and can confirm that's what they use too.
     
  9. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Thanks - on this one, it definitely sounds like "sstainable", with the slightest bit of blurring at the start. And I can understand why this would also sound a bit like "standard". It's like those ambiguous digits in registries: "Is it 6 or 8?". Not solvable on VHS or even DVD, but enter Blu-Ray and you're done. And here I'm a convert to "sustainable" now.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
  10. Deks

    Deks Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Actually she said: 'Sustainable/stable cruise velocity of warp Factor 9.975'.

    It seems like she rushed through the first word which would could either mean 'sustainable' or 'stable'... but it definitely sounded 'sustainable' to me.
     
  11. KamenRiderBlade

    KamenRiderBlade Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    I DLed the clip and listened to it on repeat.

    She definitely rushed/slured those words. It's closer to 'Sustainable' than 'Stable'.
     
  12. Imaus

    Imaus Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2020
    I really doubt any starship will continue a journey with one or two dead nacelles. At best, one or two knocked out of three or four means they can limp back home for repairs than to wait for a tug. But it's not like they'll continue on going with the dead weight.

    I always thought of them as being there to 'share the load', four nacelles means each nacelle has a longer lifespan than just burning through normal coils. So to speed, no, though maybe four nacelles could maintain a emergency or top speed for longer? Burn out two, switch to two others, repeat?

    It's also not a far stretch to say that Warp nacelles are also h-e-a-v-y, probably the heaviest, massive things besides the tankage, antimatter core, impulse engines and reactors, and computer core. Strapping one or two more on means your ship becomes sluggish at impulse or even in warp, strains structural integrity (and normal material integrity).
     
  13. Bry_Sinclair

    Bry_Sinclair Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    I'd hope that any warp velocity was stable, or else it'd be very unpleasant for the ship and crew.
     
    dupersuper likes this.
  14. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Well, when I'm kitbashing, my head canon supersedes anything else :).
    During TOS, nacelles were power generators, so the more nacelles, the more power.
    TMP onward, you might need four LN-64 nacelles for a bigger ship (My USS Coeur de Lion, and 3-nacelle dreadnoughts Dominion and Kirov), or four nacelles might buy you more speed for an emergency dash (my TNG era Grand Alliance) (kitbashes can be seen in the link in my sig). Far more important, IMHO, to make a cool-looking (but believable) ship.
     
    Albertese and Go-Captain like this.
  15. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    A type 13 planet in it's final stage
    If it did, Harry Mudd's ship from Short Treks would be the fastest ship in the galaxy.
     
  16. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    The ideal getaway vehicle, yeah.

    Although I enjoy talking about screws, that is, of the nacelles as being such for a ship, they could also be likened to the tires of a road vehicle. Perhaps Mudd's are so badly balanced that he needs to keep adding new ones to the other side to keep the ship flying straight and not rattling herself to pieces?

    Timo Saloniemi
     
    publiusr likes this.
  17. Albertese

    Albertese Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I don't have CBS All Acess... could someone post a picture of Mudd's ship in question?

    --Alex
     
  18. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
  19. Leathco

    Leathco Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    I always get crapped on for saying this, although I always preface it by saying this is my headcanon. Love when someone says that my headcanon is wrong.

    In Voyager they used the term "Faster than light, no left or right." I always figured that this rule applies to a single nacelle, it makes the warp field bubble and shoots the ship in a straight line. However, with two nacelles, each nacelle is generating a section of the bubble, and one side can be larger or smaller than the other, allowing for a turn. Now, if there is a third nacelle, you have more control, allowing the ship to angle up or down as well. A fourth nacelle allows even more control of the warp bubble, but with each nacelle the ship would me more complicated to navigate. Now I'm just waiting for someone to tell me my head canon is wrong, lol.
     
    Forbin and NCC-73515 like this.
  20. David cgc

    David cgc Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    Florida
    Actually, I can’t remember who wrote it (probably Sternbach or Okuda), but one of the Ships of the Line calendars had a tech breakdown of the Ring Ship Enterprise, and explained that human ships ultimately stuck with pairs of nacelles rather than one big ring like Vulcan ships because multiple nacelles made it easier to turn at warp and alter your heading to investigate interesting things you came across in transit, while the more regimented Vulcans had no problem staying at warp, fixed in the same direction, until they got where they had already planned on going.
     
    publiusr likes this.