It depends on what you're using. The model and exterior set are a little different. We could also throw in some TAS shuttle designs, though, if it makes you feel better.
Single-Nacelle Ships
- Thread starter Herkimer Jitty
- Start date
It depends on what you're using. The model and exterior set are a little different. We could also throw in some TAS shuttle designs, though, if it makes you feel better.
No reason that they couldn't. The ship doesn't leave 'real' space, after all.. so if they go warp speed through a hydrogen cloud (a really BAD idea, when you think about it), they could 'scoop' the hydrogen that hits the subspace bubble.
I actually wonder what happens to matter that does enter a subspace field, though. Does the warping correct the relativity as the matter passes through, or are you getting little mini-nukes going off all the time due to the rapid relative deceleration from effective multi-C to sublight?
Well, for me it's not a problem. I always make sure the navigational deflector array is doing its job before I jump to warp. It sort of shovels any rocks, dust, and hydrogen, even smaller particles, off to the side of the road ahead of me.
For me, the GR anti-FJ rules went out the airlock as soon as I heard them. I do think that single-nacelle warships are a stupid idea, though. If you are going in harm's way, whether combat or long-term exploration, you want at least 2 engines for redundancy. A science ship doing research inside national boundaries, able to call for rescue or asistance from an escort or patrol, OTOH, could save money and resources by using only one engine.
A Class I ship should have 2+ engines, although in the case of 3 or 4 engine ships, I would probably rotate which 2 are online, rather than run all of them at once most of the time. A Class II spaceship, though, can have the dinky, weak engines/reactors of the Grissom, AND just one engine.
A Class I ship should have 2+ engines, although in the case of 3 or 4 engine ships, I would probably rotate which 2 are online, rather than run all of them at once most of the time. A Class II spaceship, though, can have the dinky, weak engines/reactors of the Grissom, AND just one engine.
Yep. Jefferies approached the Enterprise's design from an aviation standpoint, so the nacelles were thought by him of as being more like the nacelles on an aircraft, rather than being somewhat seperated from the ship's powerplant, like propellers on a seagoing ship.
A fighter plane is not a starship. For one thing, a fighter plane is, hopefully, not out there by its lonesome and is being supported by a formation of other fighter planes, all of which are supported by either a base or carrier somewhere nearby.
That's overthinking things a tad. The design and presumed location of Engineering in the secondary hull indicate that that the power generating apparatus was inside the hull, not out in the nacelles.
Yes, I know we've built single-engine craft in the past for combat. But does that mean we should? I don't think so.
Hold on now...
the two-nacelles for redundancy/safety argument.
Does that really work? Are they really like aircraft engines, you can fly on one if the other is out?
Aren't two warp nacelles designed to work in tandem?
If one is down, the other isn't really a spare or back-up, is it? I always thought the whole warp field thing works between the two working together, not just either/or.
I think ENT or some other later eps may have shown one-of-two warp nacelles down and still using warp speed. Is that right?
Warp mechanics. Who can figure it?
the two-nacelles for redundancy/safety argument.
Does that really work? Are they really like aircraft engines, you can fly on one if the other is out?
Aren't two warp nacelles designed to work in tandem?
If one is down, the other isn't really a spare or back-up, is it? I always thought the whole warp field thing works between the two working together, not just either/or.
I think ENT or some other later eps may have shown one-of-two warp nacelles down and still using warp speed. Is that right?
Warp mechanics. Who can figure it?
There's no reasonfor them to only work with both up unless you invoke the anti-FJ rules. In reality, modern ships have multiple engines, and often run with some of them shut down to save fuel and reduce maintenance, only bringing up the extra engine or engines when making high-speed runs.
Yes, that's true about ship engines of today.
But there is a difference between engines and screws (propulsive elements) on a ship.
You can have one or many engines providing power.
But that power is directed to one or more screws/propellers.
There's a difference.
Now having a ship run on one screw or three screws, that's something else.
Guess it's how you consider the nacelles.
Power generating elements, balanced propulsive elements,
or some combination.
But there is a difference between engines and screws (propulsive elements) on a ship.
You can have one or many engines providing power.
But that power is directed to one or more screws/propellers.
There's a difference.
Now having a ship run on one screw or three screws, that's something else.
Guess it's how you consider the nacelles.
Power generating elements, balanced propulsive elements,
or some combination.
Yep. In the alternate timeline in "Twilight" the NX-01 had a warp nacelle knocked out, and could still go to warp, but at less than half of her previous top speed.
Some podded engine designs blur the distinction nowadays. Trek nacelles might not be clear-cut issues, either. Although I'm personally more comfortable thinking of them as pure propellers.
In some ways, two is no more combat-redundant than one. If one engine out of a pair gets damaged, it's likely to take out the other as well - unless the two are spatially separated, in which case the aircraft will become a beast to handle when one far-flung engine is lost and the other starts twisting the aircraft sideways.
Some modern jets try to prevent simultaneous loss of two engines by building armored walls between them, but that's not always particularly successful (free-flying turbine blades are good at armor piercing) and carries a weight penalty.
Technologies are emerging that allow the flight computer to bring a damaged aircraft under control even if it has lost an engine, a couple of stabilizers and half a wing (and possibly the pilot as well). But damage to such technologies then becomes an issue. It may still be worthwhile to build "cheap" aircraft with single engines and low standards of equip since they are going to be lost anyway - which brings us to the other supertrend, the use of uncrewed aircraft.
Timo Saloniemi
Modern ships can easily trail one or two screws, so again, I don't see an issue. Personally, I see TOS nacelles as reactor and engine combined, and TMP+ nacelles as engines, with the reactor inside the hull. In either case, I see no reason to consider the LOS rule - I figure some reasonable symmetry suffices, but you can fudge this as needed to make the sory work - such as the Tritium, with an isosceles triangle arrangement still not balancing out, because the computers and engines are not sophisticated enough, while the Fed DN does work. Or perhaps only works in alternating pairs.
Apparently, even a "standard" pair of nacelles can be used to create various very different shapes of warp field: some will accommodate the stepped primary/secondary hull structure, others will accommodate a saucer only, and the orientation of the nacelles can vary along with their placement. I guess Starfleet engineers spend some time coming up with a warp field shape, and sometimes they fumble it, because it's not an exact science (that is, it's computationally too challenging to provide an analytical solution, or even a reliable numerical one, just like with weather forecasting). Hence we get small corrective measures such as the repositioning of Ambassador or Sovereign nacelles between episodes or movies.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo Saloniemi
That's my Dad in the cockpit. He regularly flew 500 mile strike missions (one way) in one of those things from Ie Shima to Japan, over open ocean, occasionally with only one wingman. Often, the return trip was alone, with some kind of damage or other. A mission to the Korean peninsula would be 8 hours from takeoff to touchdown. The engine died of gunshot wounds on the way home once, and he spent 8 days in a 1-man liferaft.
Interesting aside: A friend at work served on the USS Prble (DD467) in the 1980s. One of Preble's two screws was dead for a very large chunk of his tour before they had a chance to get it fixed. They spent quite a lot of time running under extreme opposite rudder.
The point remains, your dad's fighter wasn't an autonomous unit operating on its own, it depended on support from the base.
Think of it as the difference between a X-Wing and a Star Destroyer.
Similar threads
