What would happen to a starship with four nacelles, two on each side, if the nacelles were mounted pentamaran style?
James
James
Nacelles
- Thread starter James Wright
- Start date
It would loose its ambition in high school and spend the rest of its life wasting away in meaningless sales jobs.
Ha, Ha!
Seriously, would a Pentamaran design work witihin the rules established for nacelles?
James
Seriously, would a Pentamaran design work witihin the rules established for nacelles?
James
Seeing how there are no rules established for nacelles... why not?
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.
Anymore.
But for that matter, if you are going to throw out all his rules because Roddenberry's dead, then go ahead and bury Star Trek with him - because whatever you come up with by disregarding the "Rules of Star Trek" will no longer be "Star Trek", but rather some odd mash-up of stuff. If you want Star Trek, then you must stick to what it was created to be. If you throw out the rules, then nothing really matters anyway, because for every arbitrary rule you come up with I can arbitrarily one-up it. In the context of his question, within the Star Trek Universe as created by Gene Roddenberry, then my answer is correct. Reality has no bearing on this context, nor does any random answer you may or may not come up with.
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.
Take a rule out of the Starfleet guidebook; if it looks like Star Trek and tastes like Star Trek; it's Star Trek. Even though it's replicated fecal matter.
Star Trek is a lot of things; a silly list of rules on starship design it's not. If you think it is, you've missed the whole point. It's about people in space, remember? Wagon train to the stars ring any bell? Try to focus on that a little bit; perhaps you'll enjoy it better.
Reference my Profile (and the fact that this is the Trek Tech Forum) I'm an Engineer. The Logic of Design is one of the facets that I enjoy most. If you don't have rules to guide or constrain a design, you get clumped fecal matter. If you want to disregard all technical rules and such, fine. Don't argue about it in the Trek Tech Forum. You want to understand the logic behind the ship design we've seen on screen, and ask a question in the Trek Tech Forum, then expect an overly-pedantic highly detailed, one-foot in-universe, one-foot in-producer's-intent explanation. Don't come into the Trek Tech Forum, ask a specific question as was asked in the first post, and then expect the answer to be "there are no rules." There are ALWAYS rules that define the designs we see in all aspects of life (we may not understand them). If you ask a question of those who have spent time analyzing this specific question, then expect this sort of answer. You are welcome to ignore it. Heck, you are welcome to ignore me until the heat death of the universe if you don't like my answer.
Discussing this sort of minutia is why we are in this forum. At the end of the day we are all essentially arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I gave an answer based on the intents of those who wrote the rules for production (the best we have to go on here).
You want to discuss the Characters, the People on the wagon-train, then go to the General Trek Forum, or the appropriate series Forum. You want to discuss the why of Starship design, you've come to the right place, but seem to be taking the wrong angle on both it, and me.
I will not continue to hijack this thread, and will let my points on this particular matter end here. You want to discuss the points I actually raised in my first post in this thread, feel free.
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.
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.
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.
Loud whistle! Hey guys chill out, all I wanted to know is, is it possible to design a Pentamaran nacelled starship? Didn't mean for my inquiry to start a fight, wish I could post a picture so that you'd know what I'm talking about.
James
James
This is ST. You can make your ship however you want. Ten nacelles, ten thousand nacelles. It doesn't matter.
Ten nacelles are to many for a single ship, the ship I'm seeing take shape could be used to carry cargo, scientists, or even fighters.
I'd like to know if there could be problems with having a nacelle directly aft of another nacelle, how would this affect the warp field?
James
I'd like to know if there could be problems with having a nacelle directly aft of another nacelle, how would this affect the warp field?
James
The point is that you can justify anything. If there is a problem "in the show" you can make something up saying it is no longer a problem. If it isn't a problem in the show, you can got the other way and make something up saying that it is.
No it isn't. Twenty million are too many.
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
In Trek what is warp field theory? Looked at Memory Alpha but no luck!
James
