Has anyone ever mentioned why there have been starships with four nacelles, in the Trek universe I mean?
There don't seem to be any advantages. One might think that they would be more powerful perhaps, but on-screen evidence rather suggests the contrary.
The Constellation class ships were known to be "underpowered", at least that's what Picard said about the Stargazer. And the Cheyenne class is also not known for being a very powerful ship - or for being a very feasible design in the first place, for that matter.
Any ideas?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The first Four-Nacelled ship to be designed was the Constellation Class, right? Or was there a four-nacelled study version of the Excelsior made for Trek 3?
Anyway...at the time the first four-naceller was built, I doubt anyone had really worked out the physics of it. They probably just did it because it looked cool (arguably).
The Prommie has four (or six actually) because it seperates into warp capable sections.
You could argue that the Constellation has four due to a different kind of engine design.
I suppose it's also possible that four nacelles generates a more efficient warp field. May not make the ship more powerful (in fact it may even draw extra power for the other two sets of coils) but may give it an advantage on speed or engine efficiency.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well you see the curved space-phase inhibitors work better because of the duocchrane distortions created by the sublinear plasma flux compositors you can provide by having the multi-subspace inverters facing the multistate mass compositors.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
There has to be some advantage the design gives, otherwise why use it? Since it doesn't seem to provide any notable speed advantage, I think it may be one of two possibilities:
1) Redundancy: For ships on long-term missions, it gives the ship back-up capacity in case of engine failure. (Not that good a reason, in my opinion)
2) Maneuverability: The extra warp coils may allow the ship to accelerate faster. They also may be able to distort the warp field more precisely, thus giving the vessel better turning ability than twin-nacelle designs.
As for Picard's line about the Stargazer being underpowered, remember, he took command of her when the ship was nearly 50 years old (assuming that the Constellation class dates from the early 2280s). I think it's safe to assume she would be underpowered when compared to the Ambassadors and other current designs.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I liked the idea of the redundancy of the other two nacelles.
Anyway - we do see all four nacelles light up on the Hathaway. Maybe splitting the plasma four ways - reduces the 'load' on the nacelles - leading to a reduced burn out - as per "The Chase" and all the "warping" that Picard said the E-D had been doing over those last few days.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Exactly - endurance. Sternbach has said that using alternating pairs of nacelles can really help, with his quad-nacelled Nova/Pathfinder idea as mentioned in the DS9TM. For the Constellation, I'm guessing that this could be true (plus the redundancy) for the time it was created, as it was supposed to be a deep-space explorer according to most fan speculation. Later advances in nacelle design (Excelsior and later) could have eliminated the need for this redundancy and been more efficient at higher-speed endurance. This leaves the more recent designs (Cheyenne, Prometheus) to come back to the endurance/speed idea. The Prommie was supposed to be the fastest ship in the fleet, after all.
Mark
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I've got the reason for "underpowered" --
In order to generate a warp field, a ship channels plasma through nacelles which contain fancy-metal warp coils.
Most starships contain only two nacelles, but the Constellation-class has four.
Now, wouldn't it follow that a ship requires a certain amount of plasma to channel through the warp coils to generate the warp field? If plasma is required on a per-nacelle basis, then a four-nacelle design would automatically require twice as much plasma (translation: power) from the warp core as normal two-nacelle ships.
Now, there's probably a trade-off. Four nacelles may be able to generate a stronger (translation: faster) warp field than just two nacelles, resulting in a net increase in speed. However, that requires an overall net power LOSS. (I think.)
So the ship can get greater burst speeds thanks to its four nacelles, but it requires more power from the warp core to generate that speed.
The alternative, running only two nacelles at a time, also helps reduce wear-n-tear on the nacelles for long-term cruising.
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Well that or have an advance warp core that can handle running 4 or more nacelles at a time. I guess you could alternate between two sets of nacelles but that would require dropping out of warp to do it.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
By the way, how many warp cores does the Prommie have? Three?
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
When it splits, yes, three. When it hooks up, the Alpha section's probably powers down, and the Beta and Gamma sections' join together.
At least that's what I've heard. The MSD supports this pretty much.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
I think you're right. I have to dig up the MSD though to have a look at it again.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I remember Rick Sternbach saying that the prommie's saucer section didn't have a warp core as such, in that it had a 'warp sustaining generator' or something along those lines... So I doubt the saucer section can jump to warp itself...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
He said it had a "pancake" core. The impression I got is that it was fully functional, but of a radically different design than traditional warp cores. (Or, perhaps, said core is a scaled up version of that used on warp-capable shuttlecraft and runabouts, which would hardly seem to have room for lengthy intermix tubes.)
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Ok, how many decks are on the saucer section of the Promethes versus the deck count of a Defiant Class.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
That's like comparing apples and oranges.. when you have no idea how many decks are in the apple and the producers of the orange keep changing the number of decks in the orange
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yes, I guess I had heard that the nacelles in the saucer section were "sustainers" too. Probably designed to allow the Alpha section to keep up with the rest of the ship in M.V.A.M.
Another little note (that I like to bring up every now and again) with the three section split is that if the Beta section is destroyed or damaged in the fight, the ship has no way to reconnect even two of its sections. So, you'd have a Beta Section that's broken, an Alpha section that can't jump to warp, and a Gamma section that's haning out in the middle of nowhere wetting itself.
Just a thought.
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
For the love of god.
WHERE IS THE SIXTH NACELLE ON THE PROMIE?!
Four of the obvious ones The one Sustainer near the bridge...
wha?
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
On the bottom of the primary hull; it's only visible when separated. It mirrors the bridge engine. Have you ever tried looking at the countless reference pictures? Much more effective that way.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
I thought the assumption was that there was a sixth nacelle on the lower saucer to complement the upper saucer nacelle (as these things need to be in pairs).. but i didnt see it with my own eyes so i dont know
[But Ryan has and posted the same time as me]
[ January 25, 2002, 07:41: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
Posted by NightWing (Member # 4) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaptainMike: I thought the assumption was that there was a sixth nacelle on the lower saucer to complement the upper saucer nacelle (as these things need to be in pairs)...but i didnt see it with my own eyes so i dont know...
It isn't an assumption. It's part of the cgi model (see link in post above) and it was visible in the episode.
-MMoM Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I'm thinking that the saucer and the bottom of the engineering section can SOMEHOW combine in a desparate situation.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Not likely. There's absolutely no common points where the two sections can join. The primary hull has that large undercut for the secondary hull, and the tertiary hull is just a long, flat top.
The only place to connect would be in the forward saucer section, but there's absolutely no hull features there to make it possible.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Maybe a "pancake core" is like the Danube-class deisgn, where it's all fired horizontally. I never thought that warpcores HAD to be vertical, especially in ships like the Freedom-class.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
BUT! How do we know that the latches that are for the bottom and middle section - can't attach... SOMEHOW to the top section - for emergency purposes. There'd have to be SOME plan - if we can go 'hey what if the middle section is blown up' someone at Starfleet R&D would.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Yes...but would the people at Paramount....?
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
Pancake warp core my foot... oh sorry about that. I'd like to think that the upper saucer section would have a warp core similar to the Defiant Class, which is why I asked how many decks are in that section of the Prometheus and the deck count of the Defiant.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
No, I'm gonna go with Shik on this one. It looks like a normal core but aligned horizontally. At least according to the MSD anyway.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)