Warp Nacelle Size

[zephramc]

I was looking through Ian Keldon's kitbash thread in the Fan Art section (his work is very good BTW, if you haven't seen it) and began wondering what differentiates larger warp nacelles (say those found on a Constitution class starship) from smaller ones (those found on Ian Keldon's Chippewa class scout).

Does a larger nacelle mean a greater velocity, greater acceleration, longer sustained durations at warp speeds... what?

Thanks for any and all replies.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Not really, IMO. It's all about what works best for the individual design and what it's meant to do. Some designs only need one nacelle.

 

[zephramc]

Okay, fair enough. But I'm assuming the size of the nacelle is indicative of the number or size of the warp coils it contains. Does the number (or size) of coils mean higher (or lower) warp factors, higher (or lower) acceleration, better efficiency... I don't know.

Maybe the coils would be comparable to a transmission on an car? A 4-speed will get you there, but more gears (like the Lexus 8-speed) gives you the ability to fine tune the power distribution.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I'm sure I read somewhere ages ago that two nacelles gave greater stability to the warp field, which was why it was the most common design. Ships are designed with one and would probably function just as their dual-nacelle counterparts, though may be a tad slower or have a shorter range at higher warp speeds.

By the 24th century when warp 10 is close to impossible, designers wouldn't be looking to go faster but futher. It's all about endurance. What would be better: (a) a ship can get to warp 9.999998 for thirty minutes, or (b) a ship can get to warp 9.7 but maintain it for thirty hours?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Okay, fair enough. But I'm assuming the size of the nacelle is indicative of the number or size of the warp coils it contains. Does the number (or size) of coils mean higher (or lower) warp factors, higher (or lower) acceleration, better efficiency... I don't know.

Maybe the coils would be comparable to a transmission on an car? A 4-speed will get you there, but more gears (like the Lexus 8-speed) gives you the ability to fine tune the power distribution.

There's no official answer to that because nacelle length and size is really more of a "what looks good" kind of thing for a particular design in real-life. Onscreen, there's nothing about whether having more (or less) warp coils means anything.

The number of warp coils--as well as the size of the warp coils--could vary from design to design.

There's been an idea floating around here and there that ships with three or four nacelles "trade off" between one another to allow a ship to sustain high warp for extended periods without burning them all out. But with "high warp" or "maximum warp" varying from design to design, it could be just something to keep some designs on par with others. On the other hand, the four-nacelled Prometheus-class was said to be the fastest ship in the fleet in 2374. By now (2389), that distinction could belong to a new design with only two (or no) nacelles, who knows?

 

[Unicron]

I sometimes wonder the same thing, as you look at older sources like FASA (which frequently relied on kitbashing and frankensteining components, and often didn't do the best job) and wonder about scale, but there's nothing to say that a nacelle of the same type as that used on the movie Enterprise or the Reliant necessarily has to have the same dimensions as a specific component from those ships. It could be just as easily a component that's been scaled up or down as needed, and still looks the same on the outside even though it has a modified internal structure.

 

[zephramc]

I'm sure I read somewhere ages ago that two nacelles gave greater stability to the warp field, which was why it was the most common design. Ships are designed with one and would probably function just as their dual-nacelle counterparts, though may be a tad slower or have a shorter range at higher warp speeds.

By the 24th century when warp 10 is close to impossible, designers wouldn't be looking to go faster but futher. It's all about endurance. What would be better: (a) a ship can get to warp 9.999998 for thirty minutes, or (b) a ship can get to warp 9.7 but maintain it for thirty hours?

I guess it would depend upon the missions the ship is expected to perform. If the mission is to intercept raiders, Orion pirates, Romulans or whatever, the 30 minutes @ warp 9.999998 might be better than sustained "speeds" @ warp 9.7.

There's no official answer to that because nacelle length and size is really more of a "what looks good" kind of thing for a particular design in real-life. Onscreen, there's nothing about whether having more (or less) warp coils means anything.

Yeah, that's kind of what I figured.

The number of warp coils--as well as the size of the warp coils--could vary from design to design.

There's been an idea floating around here and there that ships with three or four nacelles "trade off" between one another to allow a ship to sustain high warp for extended periods without burning them all out. But with "high warp" or "maximum warp" varying from design to design, it could be just something to keep some designs on par with others. On the other hand, the four-nacelled Prometheus-class was said to be the fastest ship in the fleet in 2374. By now (2389), that distinction could belong to a new design with only two (or no) nacelles, who knows?

I wonder if warp coils have a usage limit and once they hit that limit, does it simply result in degraded performance or is the ship dead in it's tracks and calling out for a tow?

 

[Albertese]

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is the ship's mass. Bigger ships would logically mean bigger engines.

Also of interest is how far away from the hull they are.

--Alex

 

[zephramc]

One factor I haven't seen mentioned is the ship's mass. Bigger ships would logically mean bigger engines.

Also of interest is how far away from the hull they are.

--Alex

Good questions. I believe the refitted Enterprise (no bloody A, B, C, D, etc...) would have had more mass than Reliant, yet both had the same nacelles, though the coil configuration could have been completely different. And the Galaxy class has significantly more mass than the Sovereign (according to this and this; obviously non-canon), yet the Galaxy class' nacelles are dwarfed by the Sovereigns.

According to the same links, the Sov has a higher cruising speed as well as maximum speed than the Galaxy, though whether that's because of larger nacelles, a more powerful M/AM reactor, or a little of both is still a guess.

With all her mass, the Galaxy class may have been the gutless wonder of Starfleet. She'll eventually reach maximum warp, it'll just take a while to get there.

 

[ngc7293]

Look at the Intrepid. It is supposed to be the fastest ship in the fleet (later to be out classed by the Prometheus). Both ships have much smaller nacelles than Sovereign or Galaxy. By this alone you can see that the Nacelles have nothing to do with speed.

It has been suggested that the nacelles provide "grunt" or pulling power as it were. The Constellation class having four nacelles wasn't faster but it could do more with those extra nacelles.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The number of warp coils--as well as the size of the warp coils--could vary from design to design.

There's been an idea floating around here and there that ships with three or four nacelles "trade off" between one another to allow a ship to sustain high warp for extended periods without burning them all out. But with "high warp" or "maximum warp" varying from design to design, it could be just something to keep some designs on par with others. On the other hand, the four-nacelled Prometheus-class was said to be the fastest ship in the fleet in 2374. By now (2389), that distinction could belong to a new design with only two (or no) nacelles, who knows?

I wonder if warp coils have a usage limit and once they hit that limit, does it simply result in degraded performance or is the ship dead in it's tracks and calling out for a tow?

I could see something like that happening to small, privately-owned civilian vessels, but larger Starfleet ships presumably have engineering personnel to monitor the status of their warp coils as well as materials to maintain their condition at optimal levels.

In a worst-case scenario when repairs to the nacelles are impossible (for whatever reason), the captain may then declare his or her vessel dead in space and issue a distress signal. If the ship is either within or in very close proximity to hostile territory, an abandon ship order may be given (a self-destruct order is also an option to prevent the ship from falling into enemy hands if the odds of that are high).

 

[Timo]

Personally, I like to think of the nacelles and their warp coils as a fairly direct analogy to the propellers of a waterborne vessel. They don't provide any power, they just convert it into motion - and if more power is to be channeled, then one can choose more propellers, bigger propellers, or faster propellers. Just as with nautical technology, each of those choices comes with a penalty, and is only optimal for a certain application range (say, only certain speeds, or certain loads, or certain mission lengths before the parts wear down).

Two is the lowest possible number for differential control of motion (although in three dimensions, it should be three - but perhaps these "props" can also provide differential in "torque"?). A four-propeller beast is rare nowadays, thanks to improvements in building individual props. A single-propeller vessel is rare as well in military use, because redundancy is often worth the extra price of the second prop. The very same reasons might drive Starfleet design: the Constellation has more power than the Constitution refit, but does not yet enjoy the sort of advanced nacelles that could work in combinations of just two, and the Saladin sacrifices the second "prop" because Starfleet can then afford more of these fighting vessels to be used as cannon fodder against Klingons. And the Intrepid may well have "high speed propellers" that are great for sprinting but give abysmal mileage and require frequent cool-down and maintenance, thus being no faster in "per year" terms than competing designs even if they are superior in "per hour" terms.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Search4]

And of course there is the Jellyfish, which seems to use a different (spinning) mechanism to be "our fastest ship" when launched. And it leaves a smoke trail behind for some reason!

 

[F. King Daniel]

That wasn't a smoke trail, it was an afterimage - like when you wave a powerful flashlight around in a dark room. At least, that was my impression.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I was blinded by too many camera flares to notice

 

[MacLeod]

Smaller ships might require fewer warp coils in order to generate a Warp filed that encompases the entire ship. True Warp fields can be manipulated somewhat, but perhaps there is a maximum limit to the size of the filed that can be created. So enough warp coils are put in place to allow some redundancy, it's just on large ships they require more warp coils hence the nacelles have to be longer in order to hold them.