Why angled nacelle struts on the Enterprise refit?

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by JonnyQuest037, Dec 1, 2018.

  1. JonnyQuest037

    JonnyQuest037 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Location:
    Parsippany, New Jersey, USA
    I came across this YouTube video yesterday with what I thought was a plausible theory about why the nacelle struts on the Enterprise refit were shifted to an angle. What do you folks think?



    If you haven't checked out EC Henry's Trek videos on his YouTube channel before, I highly recommend them. He's got a lot of interesting things to say and he's changed my mind on a few things.
     
    StarCruiser and Galileo7 like this.
  2. STEPhon IT

    STEPhon IT Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Location:
    Sunny California
    I think Henry's video was on point, it's a Robert Wise convention of presenting scope. I still believe the Starship Class U.S.S. Enterprise could've been used and have the cinematic treatment like that model but Wise wanted this Constitution Class model to have more lights and loads of excess to it.
     
    Galileo7 likes this.
  3. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    EC Henry's main point about the shuttlebay not extending past the struts on the TOS Enterprise isn't correct if we examine the original FX. And if we look at the base of the struts in the TMP Enterprise we see that there isn't alot of super thick internal bracing reaching into the hull via the engine room scene. I think the reason the strut was moved forward has less to do with structural strength blocking the size of the shuttle and cargo bay and more to do with the new warp drive design. All IMHO :)

    @KamenRiderBlade has asked a similar question this morning which got me thinking about it enough to comment on your (@JonnyQuest037) thread :)

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Galileo7 and STEPhon IT like this.
  4. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    In-universe, we could argue that the ship stayed more or less the same, but the engines changed radically. That is, the nacelles did. Perhaps it's absolutely vital to pump the plasma in at mid-nacelle in the new design, just as it was necessary to enter it at the front in the older one? That alone would require the pylons to be canted, so that the plasma conduit (which we indeed see canted in the Main Engineering set, forced perspective considerations notwithstanding) could do its thing as shown above.

    OTOH, we could also say the other part of the engine, that is, the powerplant, underwent the change. Much like coal-burning battleships of WWI had lots of internal space liberated by the adoption of oil boilers, the powerplant of NCC-1701 might have been compacted a lot in the modernization. And the extra space would best be placed aft of the reactor, what with access to the secondary hull being from the rear; whatever was put into that space, shuttles or cargo or extra crew cabins or a bowling alley module, it might be inserted through the stern.

    Timo Saloniemi
     
    blssdwlf likes this.
  5. Arpy

    Arpy Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    This is one of those things I don’t like to look at too closely, as, if you managed to sneak in even a modest bomb on your shuttle, the moment you land, you’re in a position to either blow off the nacelles or the blow up the warpcore itself.

    The ship is just too small. Especially for the size of the crew, sans holodecks.

    Plus, we all know why the Refit’s pylons are angled — because they’re kewwwwwwwwl :vulcan::vulcan:
     
    XCV330 likes this.
  6. Mytran

    Mytran Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Location:
    North Wales
    I've followed EC Henry's channel for a while; this is a very well presented video

    I would add that there's additional pylon structural support on the refit, visible at the base of the pylons. This may offset the need for the pylons to intrude into the hull so much (which we certainly don't see on the interior of the Engine Room set!)
     
    JonnyQuest037 likes this.
  7. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Problem I have with this analysis is that the Enterprise crew really don't seem to use the shuttles all that often, and it doesn't make sense (to me) that so much of the secondary hull would be devoted to shuttle maintenance, storage and flight operations.

    The diagram of the Enterprise next to the TOS bridge turbo-lift depicts the shuttle deck as not extending forward of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point.

    The cutaway graph in The Making of Star Trek also shows the shuttle deck not extending forward of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. BK613

    BK613 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Location:
    BK613
    Nice video. Thanks for making me aware of EC Henry's stuff. And @blssdwlf nice to see your stuff again...
     
    JonnyQuest037 and blssdwlf like this.
  9. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Perhaps more the lower and less the upper.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    I don't follow. Wouldn't that same problem exist for the TMP Enterprise since the flight deck and elevator layout is even larger?

    Actually the diagram next to the TOS bridge turbolift isn't that clear. Not only that, have you compared the diagram to the actual ship? From examination it's apparent that the diagram is stylized since the engineering hull is enlarged and the nacelles and strut placement are different. Also, what is it actually trying to represent? Can we even say the length and size of the flight deck/shuttle bay is even accurate given the diagram appears to be not in correct proportion to the actual ship?

    [​IMG]

    The thing with referencing a designer's illustration is that unfortunately it's not always reflected in the physical construction of the model or set. The actual flight deck as filmed and shown in the TV series is longer than what was drawn by Jefferies and ends up under the pylons.

    So, going back to my comment about EC Henry's video - if you take in account the original FX the flight deck goes under the struts and therefor it isn't a structural reason to move to angled struts on the TMP Enterprise. But that's for the original FX version of TOS.

    I do acknowledge that the TNG-universe version of the TOS Enterprise uses the short flight deck and EC Henry's thinking would be applicable for that version. :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2018
  11. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    One of the things that is clear is the hanger deck as being entirely aft of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point.
    But again Jefferies' the image does have the hanger deck as being entirely aft of the warp engines nacelle's attachment point. Which does line up with the bridge image.

    And we are talking about Matt Jefferies here, and not some guy with a video.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  12. Tenacity

    Tenacity Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Okay, the "refit" wasn't a normal starship, it was a technological demonstrator, packed full of new equipment, ideas and concepts.

    The expanded fight deck, big dual elevators and the large storage area were to facilitate this.They were atypical.

    Why were they loading all of those storage containers, right before a emergency launch? It wasn't cargo, they were spare parts in case the new stuff didn't work under real world conditions.

    These large areas would be absent from a working starship of the same general design. The flight deck in Star Trek The Final Frontier did seem considerably smaller than the one seen in The Motion Picture. This would be a indication that after the test phase was over as much as half of the fight deck was essentially "filled in," and the large elevators removed, rendering the flight deck more a practical size.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Galileo7 likes this.
  13. XCV330

    XCV330 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2017
    Location:
    L5
    they look angled because they wanted a 'faster' look for them. It was the late 70's. These are the equivalent to a 70's Porsche 911's whale-tail.

    I could make a video stating "The swept back struts allowed chryo-frumustramulators to synchronize the crystal bariolithium grammeters into a more stable modial warp core.. " actually let me allow a starfleet engineer involved in the project explain..

     
    blssdwlf likes this.
  14. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    A type 13 planet in its final stage
    Haven't you guys watched Discovery? The nacelle stuts were always angled.:p
    [​IMG]
     
    saddestmoon, XCV330 and ATimson like this.
  15. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    That same bridge diagram also has the bottom of the saucer section completely missing. What we know is that the filmed original FX has a flight deck that is long enough to go under the nacelle attachment points and that should be the deciding factor. Just like there is also a substantial bottom to the saucer that is visible on the filming model.

    What we are left with is that the bridge diagram represents parts of the ship but in a way that is not physically accurate to it since we know what the outside and the flight deck looks like.

    Which MJ did both the graphic and designed the filming miniature. I'm going with the filming miniature :)

    When was it said the ship was a technological demonstrator?

    If you look at the flight deck in TFF you'll see two large doors right where the two large elevators would be suggesting that the elevators are still there only with additional doors and a turbolift in between them. You can even see one of the doors in your own screenshot:
    [​IMG]

    I'd argue that the flight deck stayed roughly the same length between the original FX TOS, TMP and TFF Enterprises.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2018
  16. blssdwlf

    blssdwlf Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    But how large is the flight deck? :p
     
  17. Timo

    Timo Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    ...TMP large, of course, as the folks of the day have faith in atmosphere-containing forcefields.

    The ultraconservative Kirk will be the guy later insisting on installing the physical bulkheads.

    Timo Saloniemi