Nacelles

[kv1at3485]

Yeah, I know that but, it's science fiction after all, sooner or later someone that's a fan of trek is bound to ask, "How's that work?"
In Trek what is warp field theory? Looked at Memory Alpha but no luck!

James

Not surprising that there's not much on MA because it was probably never discussed in detail on the show. (How does it work? Who knows!)

I could lean over and grab the TNG:TM and make a synopsis of the relevant sections, but I can't be bothered. One babble explanation is as good as any other.

 

[Deks]

But how important is the actual number of nacelles?
I don't really think they have anything to do with the speed at which the ship can travel ... more to the point, helping in creation of a stable warp field around a large ship for example that has both a saucer and a secondary hull.

You also have to consider the design implementation.
The Constellation class appeared on-screen and is therefore canon ... on the other hand, why have 4 nacelles exactly?

Perhaps they were used in order to create a much more stable/powerful subspace field around the vessel, making it easier to withstand higher warp velocities without falling apart?

Of course most designs on-screen show that 2 nacelles are more than enough and that the real issue in sustaining higher warp velocities is the structural integrity field among other things.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's possible that Constellation was designed as a conventional competitor of the Excelsior class. Starfleet demanded a fast ship and Transwarp drive was supposed to deliver, but someone else in Frisco thought they could get the same results with a brute force approach. Arguably, Excelsior's transwarp experiment succeeded and resulted in the 24th century style warp drive we know today; Constellation may have been stuck with the conventional "TWOK" style warp drive, which would explain the "warp streaks" effect in "The Battle."

 

[Albertese]

I guess I'm having trouble picturing what you mean by "pentamaran style". It would seem to imply five of something (penta-) yet you describe four nacelles. One directly in line with the other? Why wouldn't you just have one really long one? Or do you mean have a really long gap between them, like having one at the extremity of each corner like the wheels of a car? In that case, it might make it possible to have a stable warp field generated around a longer vehicle while utilizing much more low powered engines than usual. This would only seem to be worth it if the overall power consumption of the four engines would be able to generate an equal or better warp geometry for less power than the conventional two nacelle arrangement, while still accounting for the greater material cost in constructing additional structural elements required for extra nacelles. there's also the fact that more stuff on the ship equals more potential for breakdown. Can the ship fly with only two or three nacelles in operation? I've had several cars break down on me and not a one of them has ever seen combat. Stuff just breaks down and if this is a cargo carrier or some such, then I expect mechanical issues would be more likely to cause problems than being shot at.

Or do I not see what your saying at all...?

--Alex

 

[Praetor]

It's possible that Constellation was designed as a conventional competitor of the Excelsior class. Starfleet demanded a fast ship and Transwarp drive was supposed to deliver, but someone else in Frisco thought they could get the same results with a brute force approach. Arguably, Excelsior's transwarp experiment succeeded and resulted in the 24th century style warp drive we know today; Constellation may have been stuck with the conventional "TWOK" style warp drive, which would explain the "warp streaks" effect in "The Battle."

That's along the lines of how I've seen the Constellation/Excelsior relationship and the whole transwarp pseudo-failure.

Presumably all those Mirandas in the Dominion War were very sluggish at FTL speeds...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Every time I see a Miranda in the Dominion war I mentally substitute it for a Constellation.

 

[Praetor]

That sounds painful.

 

[JB2005]

^In one of the novels they offered the suggestion that the Constellation was able to overcome the limitation of having to slow down after so long at warp (ie 4 nacelles propell the ship to warp 9, then two shut off, when the two that are going overheat they shut off and the other two take over, and so on)

Not canon, but a good theory I thought.

 

[Vanyel]

Roddenberry said something to the effect of:
1: Always in Pairs (even number of them)
2: At least 50% visibility of each other across the hull
3: Always unobstructed view forward

His 4th rule had nothing to do with Warp Drive, but just ST ships in general:
4: The bridge is always at the middle of the top of the primary hull.

I don't see why a 4 nacelle ship in a pentamaran style would violate any of the rules set down by Roddenberry.

A central, blended hull (Like the Intrepid or Sovereign Class), with the pylons for the nacelles sweeping back. Each pylon would have two nacelles on it. The nacelles would be in pairs, have at least 50% visibility of each other and and unobstructed forward view. If I could draw, I'd show how I think it would look.

Now that that's out of the way, the ship would probably look awful.

 

[Albertese]

huh. Now that I've bothered to look up "pentamaran" on a Google Image search, I see ships with two sets of pylons sticking into the water. While I can see the logic of the design for ocean going vessels, I'm not sure I see the point or advantage of mounting warp nacelles that way.

--Alex

 

[Tom Riley]

I understand your viewpoint, but there's a big difference between understanding or distilling the logic behind design and adhering to a silly memo that a dead guy wrote to help Paramount against copyright claims. The first, I dig. The second, not so much.

Besides, there isn't an in-universe reason for the rules on that list to actually apply; It has not been said Bussard collectors only get matter from the front. It has not been said uneven-nacelled ships don't work. Etc. In fact, the bridge thing has been disproven by, for example, the Defiant. The line-of-sight thing has been disproven by, for example, the Prometheus.

Don't forget, the "In Pairs/even number" was disproven by the AGT Enterprise-D...

And to the OP, I tried looking up what you meant, and even looking at pictures of ships like that, I wasn't 100% sure what you meant... do you mean, like, 2 nacelles on each side of the ship, arranged so one is directly in front of the other? I don't see why they couldn't do that...

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Don't forget, the "In Pairs/even number" was disproven by the AGT Enterprise-D...

Indeed.

 

[B.J.]

What would happen to a starship with four nacelles, two on each side, if the nacelles were mounted pentamaran style?

I don't see why a 4 nacelle ship in a pentamaran style would violate any of the rules set down by Roddenberry.

A central, blended hull (Like the Intrepid or Sovereign Class), with the pylons for the nacelles sweeping back. Each pylon would have two nacelles on it. The nacelles would be in pairs, have at least 50% visibility of each other and and unobstructed forward view. If I could draw, I'd show how I think it would look.

Now that that's out of the way, the ship would probably look awful.

Actually, I think it would look a lot like the Earth Cruiser from Star Control.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Freaking LOVE that game. Always have, always will. I wish to hell they made a Star Trek game that nice.

 

[Myasishchev]

While there is a certain logic to the rules on an engineering level, Starfleet has broken them enough times with their ship designs that we can assume that they're not to be strictly adhered to. Rather, they're traits that enhance efficiency, (but aren't necessary for function) but can be thrown out the window if your ship's design objectives require it. That's the way I see the rules in-universe.

The wide variety of starship designs also strongly suggests there's no "ideal" form in the first place, just configurations of parts ideal for the spaceframe as designed. I mean, look at a Galor and a Galaxy. If form mattered, they'd look at least as alike as a Los Angeles and Delta, or an F-15 and a Flanker. It makes more sense that form doesn't matter, and we'd have a lot less visual variety in the show.

 

[Vance]

The rules were never stated onscreen. Thus, despite Word of God, they are fanon.

They may not have been stated on screen, but the Model and Art Design people took them as Gospel, so they built all the Federation Ships to match those rules. Not every little thing must be stated on screen for it to be the case. It was clearly the intent of the makers of the various series and movies (at least until the JJ reboot) to follow those rules.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the 'Model and Art Design people' NEVER paid much attention to them.

The SS Aurora violated many of the rules.
The USS Saladin and Hermes showed up on technical readouts.
The USS Grissom blocked the nacelles with the saucer.
The USS Excelsior occluded the nacelles from the front.
The USS Freedom had one nacelle.
The USS Enterprise AGT had three nacelles.
Another TNG (forgot which one) had threee nacelles.
The USS Defiant blocks the nacelles from one another.
The USS Sydney blocks the nacelles from one another.
Several DS9 bashes violate most of these rules.

In fact, I can't think of any period at all where these 'rules' were enforced. Even as early as TNG season one, the Oberth/Grissom was used heavily, as was the Excelsior... so...

 

[Plecostomus]

at all[/I] where these 'rules' were enforced. Even as early as TNG season one, the Oberth/Grissom was used heavily, as was the Excelsior... so...

...TAKE THAT CANON! *shakes fist*

 

[CTM]

The rules were never stated onscreen. Thus, despite Word of God, they are fanon.

They may not have been stated on screen, but the Model and Art Design people took them as Gospel, so they built all the Federation Ships to match those rules. Not every little thing must be stated on screen for it to be the case. It was clearly the intent of the makers of the various series and movies (at least until the JJ reboot) to follow those rules.

Actually, as far as I can tell, the 'Model and Art Design people' NEVER paid much attention to them.

The SS Aurora violated many of the rules.
The USS Saladin and Hermes showed up on technical readouts.
The USS Grissom blocked the nacelles with the saucer.
The USS Excelsior occluded the nacelles from the front.
The USS Freedom had one nacelle.
The USS Enterprise AGT had three nacelles.
Another TNG (forgot which one) had threee nacelles.
The USS Defiant blocks the nacelles from one another.
The USS Sydney blocks the nacelles from one another.
Several DS9 bashes violate most of these rules.

In fact, I can't think of any period at all where these 'rules' were enforced. Even as early as TNG season one, the Oberth/Grissom was used heavily, as was the Excelsior... so...

BZZZT. Take another look at Grissom. ( http://www.engsoc.org/~pat/log/20070914.jpg )The nacelles have full view forward.
Saladin was a Franz Joseph design, and is at best semi-canon (you have to look closely on the background viewers in the early movies).
Not familiar with either the Aurora or the Freedom; though Sternbach had some excuse for a galaxy-class era one having only one nacelle (may be the USS Freedom you are referring to). DS9 bashes are simply beyond the pale, and you can gain no design insight from them. Regardless they were built well after Roddenberry's passing, and DS9 was always treated as the bastard step-child of Star Trek (i.e. normal rules do not apply).

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with these designs, but in the earlier years, when Roddenberry was still at the helm, they clearly stuck to these design principles. It's all science-fantasy anyway, so make it run on gumdrops and rainbows for all I care.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

BZZZT. Take another look at Grissom. ( http://www.engsoc.org/~pat/log/20070914.jpg )The nacelles have full view forward.

He was referring to the the line of sight between nacelles rule.

 

[CTM]

BZZZT. Take another look at Grissom. ( http://www.engsoc.org/~pat/log/20070914.jpg )The nacelles have full view forward.

He was referring to the the line of sight between nacelles rule.

Same image, they have more than 50% visibility across the hull.