Inner Turbolift doors?
- Thread starter MarsWeeps
- Start date
- Status
That is a nice idea. Since your show is beyond TOS, adding a feature developed for the spin-off (TAS) seems like a logical move.
Tng had single nacelle starships? Wow, my memory is fuzzy, I don't remember that at all.
No, but it did have a three nacelled starship (the future 1701-D in 'All Good Things'). The third nacelle naturally not being a part of a "pair".
No, but it did have a three nacelled starship (the future 1701-D in 'All Good Things'). The third nacelle naturally not being a part of a "pair".
The middle nacelle could have been a hot spare that kicks in instantly if one of the other two fails. Thus a ship can have three nacelles while still obeying the rule that pairs are required.
^ I am agreeable to that explanation, but however we might try and justify it, it still flies in the face of Roddenberry's starship-designs-must-only-have-nacelles-in-pairs 'rule'. It's about the look of the ship. It doesn't matter what purpose the third nacelle actually serves, the bottom line is that it breaks the design convention. The idea that the things can only be in pairs is patently false.
^ I am agreeable to that explanation, but however we might try and justify it, it still flies in the face of Roddenberry's starship-designs-must-only-have-nacelles-in-pairs 'rule'. It's about the look of the ship. It doesn't matter what purpose the third nacelle actually serves, the bottom line is that it breaks the design convention. The idea that the things can only be in pairs is patently false.
I think the Enterprise-D was actually destroyed/crashed in Generations before it ever made it to the fake future cooked up by Q where it exhibited three nacelles.
This may not be the best example of whether ships really can have odd-numbered nacelles.
No, but it did have a three nacelled starship (the future 1701-D in 'All Good Things'). The third nacelle naturally not being a part of a "pair".
This single-nacelle ship (USS Firebrand) is seen on-screen in "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II". Canon.
And a 3-nacelled Niagra Class also at Wolf 359.
And, of course, Star Trek from the get-go has featured warp-capable vessels that have no nacelles at all. So there really isn't much support for any specific number of nacelles between zero and infinite in terms of "warp theory".
That so many Starfleet starships have two nacelles may be telling something about the technological specifics of Starfleet's own nacelle-based technology. Or then not - it may simply be that the more, the merrier, but Starfleet can only afford two nacelles per ship. Or that the fewer, the better, but deep space vessels carry a spare just in case.
Personally, I prefer to think of nacelles as propellers. They transform the ship's power output into motive power, and just as with propellers, a lot of power sometimes is best pumped out by using a lot of propellers. Yet a single one will do - but that doesn't allow for "differential thrust maneuvering", i.e. using propellers to do the job of rudders.
Older and more established species have moved beyond propellers and are using the equivalent of pump-jets (propellers/nacelles hidden from sight), MHD water-movers (no propellers at all / no warp coils?) and even more exotic devices. Or then they still have paddle wheels (large, inefficient propeller-predecessors in side cowlings / Cardassian style warp wings) or the like.
Timo Saloniemi
That so many Starfleet starships have two nacelles may be telling something about the technological specifics of Starfleet's own nacelle-based technology. Or then not - it may simply be that the more, the merrier, but Starfleet can only afford two nacelles per ship. Or that the fewer, the better, but deep space vessels carry a spare just in case.
Personally, I prefer to think of nacelles as propellers. They transform the ship's power output into motive power, and just as with propellers, a lot of power sometimes is best pumped out by using a lot of propellers. Yet a single one will do - but that doesn't allow for "differential thrust maneuvering", i.e. using propellers to do the job of rudders.
Older and more established species have moved beyond propellers and are using the equivalent of pump-jets (propellers/nacelles hidden from sight), MHD water-movers (no propellers at all / no warp coils?) and even more exotic devices. Or then they still have paddle wheels (large, inefficient propeller-predecessors in side cowlings / Cardassian style warp wings) or the like.
Timo Saloniemi
Zero is an even number, though. So, mathematically, a zero-nacelled ship satisfies the rule of all warp nacelles being paired. Another way of looking at it is that a zero-nacelled ship can't exhibit an unpaired nacelle.
Similar thinking. I've always looked at them as being like the engines on the wings of a commercial aircraft (which was probably Matt Jeffries intention).
Is there a scientific reason why planes tend to have nacelles in pairs? Is it something to do with the areodynamics? An equilibrium?
Similar thinking. I've always looked at them as being like the engines on the wings of a commercial aircraft (which was probably Matt Jeffries intention).
Is there a scientific reason why planes tend to have nacelles in pairs? Is it something to do with the areodynamics? An equilibrium?
I am no engineer, but I can imagine that having an uneven number of engines per wing would result in a different amount of airflow over one wing than the other, and that would lead to some, shall we say, stability issues.
Real-world, many fighter planes have only one engine.
Both the McDonald-Douglass DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 had three engines.
"An odd number of engines" is different from "asymmetric placement of engines". The latter is done fairly seldom: some WWII Nazi observation planes had the engine to one side and the cockpit to the other so that the latter could be all glass and have excellent vision, and of course Burt Rutan did many such things just because. But that's horizontal asymmetry only. Vertical asymmetry is quite common, there being no pressing need to put the prop on the actual "thrust line" or a line that goes through the center of gravity and matches the direction of travel. "Atop" and "below" are valid placements for a propeller in Earth's gravity field.
But one could also argue that single-propeller aircraft are "asymmetric" in that the engine rotates in a specific direction and thus creates torque that needs to be countered by the shape of the aircraft. For example the giant-engined Republic Thunderbolt fighter had asymmetric wings to compensate for the torque. Twin-props suffer less from this, for various reasons, but usually not because one engine would rotate clockwise and the other one widdershins - building mirrored engines would be much too complicated and expensive.
Trek engines, even when paired, are certainly asymmetric vertically, being nowhere near the thrust line implied by the shape of the ship. This goes for both warp nacelles and impulse engine glowing bits. And in zero gee, this ought to matter, if these engines were anything like rockets, i.e. Newtonian pushers. So clearly they are not, and it probably follows that a warp nacelle can be stashed just about anywhere (although usually still aligned along the direction of travel).
Timo Saloniemi
But one could also argue that single-propeller aircraft are "asymmetric" in that the engine rotates in a specific direction and thus creates torque that needs to be countered by the shape of the aircraft. For example the giant-engined Republic Thunderbolt fighter had asymmetric wings to compensate for the torque. Twin-props suffer less from this, for various reasons, but usually not because one engine would rotate clockwise and the other one widdershins - building mirrored engines would be much too complicated and expensive.
Trek engines, even when paired, are certainly asymmetric vertically, being nowhere near the thrust line implied by the shape of the ship. This goes for both warp nacelles and impulse engine glowing bits. And in zero gee, this ought to matter, if these engines were anything like rockets, i.e. Newtonian pushers. So clearly they are not, and it probably follows that a warp nacelle can be stashed just about anywhere (although usually still aligned along the direction of travel).
Timo Saloniemi
...Not sure what this has to do with turbolift doors, and whether there would exist a treknological need to place a single door in the centerline (the rotated bridge argument). But propellers and nacelles are probably meant to be analogous in the minds of the audience. Or jet engine nacelles and warp nacelles, as that would be the visual cue more familiar to the 1960s audience and beyond.
If the artists creating the Trek ships assume the audience is well versed (visually) in modern aircraft, they may also do things relating to today's aerodynamic reality, or at least the more common visual repercussions thereof. Two widely spaced warp engines would give "maneuverability", say, and engines tucked close in might be "stealthy" or suggestive of "high speed" but poor maneuverability.
I still prefer the seagoing version, where one propeller is typical of cheap attrition warships while two is the most common and three to four almost automatically denotes high output power...
Timo Saloniemi
If the artists creating the Trek ships assume the audience is well versed (visually) in modern aircraft, they may also do things relating to today's aerodynamic reality, or at least the more common visual repercussions thereof. Two widely spaced warp engines would give "maneuverability", say, and engines tucked close in might be "stealthy" or suggestive of "high speed" but poor maneuverability.
I still prefer the seagoing version, where one propeller is typical of cheap attrition warships while two is the most common and three to four almost automatically denotes high output power...
Timo Saloniemi
- Status
Similar threads
