I found an interesting passage the other day while doing some research for a friend about warp drive in the TNG Technical Manual. I realize the info is only semi-canon but much of it made it into episodes after it was published. There's a passage in the warp drive section that caught me off guard that gives a date to the active service of ships hinted at in TMP; mainly the Columbia, Revere and Entente:
quote:"In 2269, experimental work with single nacelles and more than two nacelles yielded quick confirmation that two was the optimum number for power generation and vehicle control."
This happens at the conclusion of 1701's mission before refit and as such happens before TMP. So it could mean that the three starships I mentioned above were relatively new designs at that time.
I know this will burst into wild discussion one way then the other, but I thought I'd share the quote anyway. Okuda and Sternbach may have had a reason for choosing a date of 2269 instead of using any other date that they could have gone with.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I remember that passage, and coulnd't reconcile it with the more popular notion that single and triple nacelle designs had been around for longer than that. Personally, I take that quote to mean that studies upon these designs showed that they simply not as adaptable or versatile as the twin configurations.
Mark
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
You pretty much pegged it. Mike glommed onto Gene's covert trashing of FJ and snuck in these little references where he could. However, TMP still included those references to single-nacelled scouts and triple-nacelled dreadnoughts, so he just arbirarily decided Starfleet was experimenting with them roughly around the time the Enterprise was being refitted, which he pegged c.2270, being five years after the start date of Kirk's five-year mission, which he arbitrarily pegged as being exactly three hundred years after the series aired... *sigh*
And no, he didn't worry about the registries being wildly out of whack for the period, as part of Gene's anti-FJ kick saw Mike dismiss the sequential registries model in favor of the Greg Jein/FASA non-sequential (or "self-induced lobotomy," as I call it) registries model that was the current official party line.
God I hate Hollywood politics.
--Jonah
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, I remember that passage. What I've always disliked about that is that someone should've been experimenting with variations on the number of nacelles a long time before 2269. That just doesn't make sense to me.
The choice of 2269 seems to me as nothing more than another explicit attempt to de-canonize the Franz Joseph designs.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Absolutely; just look at the amount of experimentation done modern technologies, especially aircraft; there are scores of experimantal planes with varying numbers and types of engines, differing wing and fuselage shape, etc. I find it highly improbable that more that 200 years after the Phoenix's first flight, no one has thought to see what happens if different numbers of nacelles are used.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It says that, in 2269, they determined that non-dual-nacelled ships were less efficient. It doesn't say that there weren't earlier experiments. Just that those experiments didn't prove anything.
Besides, if they found out that ships with "more than two nacelles" weren't optimum, why did they keep using the Constellation, and why did hey ever build the Cheyenne and Prometheus? Obviously something's missing here.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'd like to agree with you, Tim, except that the article specifically said that "experimental work ... yielded quick confirmation" -- to my mind, that means that it was unconfirmed before. And being unconfirmed means that no one bothered to try it before then.
And it's not just Cheyenne and Prometheus... what about Freedom, Niagara, or the Nebula prototype(s)?
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
It does seem to me that the 4-nacelled vessels are just 2-nacelled vessels that have an extra pair of nacelles when the first pair overheats... which extends the maximum speed a ship can travel for 12 more hours, and if there was a way to calculate it the 12 hour rate would be substaintually faster as the two nacelles could switch back and forth, as one heats up the other could kick while it cooled, eventually the heat would build up to the point that this wouldn't work so the engines would both have to be shutdown, but that's the way it is.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'd like to agree with you, Tim, except that the article specifically said that "experimental work ... yielded quick confirmation" -- to my mind, that means that it was unconfirmed before. And being unconfirmed means that no one bothered to try it before then."
Well, that's one interpretation, but not necessarily the only possible one. Something can be unconfirmed, even though it's been tried. For example, we've tried before to look for life on Mars, but it's still unconfirmed. However, if the current probe up there happens to find a puppy behind one of those rocks it's going to look at, that would be "quick confirmation".
Basically, you can assume it means whatever you like, but there are other assumptions that someone else can make, and you can't prove them wrong.
"And it's not just Cheyenne and Prometheus... what about Freedom, Niagara, or the Nebula prototype(s)?"
Well, I was specifically targetting the fact that four-nacelled ships are generally considered "normal", even if less common than two-nacelled. Some people still look on things like the Freedom and Niagara as oddities.
And I didn't mention the four-nacelled Nebula simply because it didn't occur to me. Honestly, I don't know what to think about it. It is pretty silly-looking, after all.
[ January 19, 2004, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
It can also be unconfirmed due to the technology requirements. For example, it was long believed that forward swept wings had advantages versus aft swept wings, but it wasn't until the development of light, strong composite materials that the concept could be fully tested.
Also, the TM passage does not state that single and multiple nacelle ships are worthless; it simply states that the dual nacelle design is optimal for power generation and vehicle control. There may very well be applications where an odd number of nacelles may be more practical, but these would not normally apply to long-term, day to day operations.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Interesting pros and cons....that's what I like about Flare....there's always plenty of opinions...
Thanks for the discussion. I took a lot from it.
Posted by Joshua Bell (Member # 327) on :
This is obviously just part of the disinformation added to the TNG:TM to confuse Threat forces. The reason we so rarely see 3-nacelle ships is that they're the highly efficient ships used for covert ops. We just want those pesky Romulans who got ahold of the TM to think they're lousy prototypes.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
You forgot the smiley...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
He's right! The Prommie and Sovvie are just an elaborate ruse to cover the development of the Federation's greatest weapon. The Freedom class (not to be confused with the hated French class).
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
ok, now most commmon designs use dual nassals for thier warp bubble, we agree on that. why then did the great edict banning the "non cannon" and FASA designs occur? what was the back ground story with that arguement vs G and F? money? F's book(s)?
and speaking of Star Fleet Battles & the current series of games of late, why aren't some of the FASA (or who ever owns SFB now) considered semi-cannon at least? how did FASA ever get the rights to ST? do they still have them? if so, what are Paramounts thoughts?
lots of Q's, yes, but you'll sound like you would know...or be able to BS really good excuses Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
FASA had the rights to Trek for a few years and I think their liscence ended and was not renewed (for whatever reason) during TNG's second season. Some FASA designs are canon ad they appear onscreen as data searches the computer files during Contagen. The designs shown were of the Orion blockade runner and the "Lotus Flower" Neutronium fuel hauler (their design for the Kobayshi Maru).
Of all the gaming designs, FASA has the best and most plausable ship designs and the best rendered illustrations.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Star Fleet Battles (different from FASA) was never licensed by or associated with Paramount. They held a license to produce materials based on Franz Joseph's work. (To which he, not Paramount, held the copyright.) However, they could never use the name Star Trek or any other elements than those appearing in said FJ works.
However, I believe, SFB ended up becoming the basis basis for the Star Trek: Starfleet Command computer games. Not sure what the deal was there---probably an agreement between the SFB guys and Paramount for the sake of profit by both. But all the FJ elements were removed or redesigned for that incarnation. (Whether this was because his estsate refused permission to use his designs to Paramount or Paramount simply didn't want to use them, I don't know.)
-MMoM Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
FASA has the best and most plausible ships designs? Since when?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Since I saw the Starfleet Battles Gorn ships. Holy fuck, those are awful.
The FASA stuff at least tried to get away from the "sensor and blob plus naceles" formula that haunts most designs.
FASA ships are mainly from the TMP-STVI era whereas the SFB stuff is all TOS (that i've seen anyway).
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
SFB is all TOS beacuse when Paramount and the publishers of SFB finally sorted things out in the early 80s it was agreed that SFB could use anything from TOS and TAS except the name Star Trek and the actual characters. So ships, races, events, etc. are all okay. But not Kirk, Spock, etc.
Anything from TMP onwards is forbidden which is why the SFB universe has taken a very different direction. But some small homages have been paid (some of the heavy cruisers received a refit that moved the torp tubes to the base of the connecting dorsal, even though they're still otherwise TOS designs).
When SFB wa sconverted the the SFC computer game the visual appearance of everything was changed but all the underlying stats are otherwise exactly the same as in the board game. This produces some odd contrasts when you actually stop and think about what a ship is supposed to be.
Frankly, I hate most of the SFB ship designs. The Federation and Klingon stuff is okay, but the other races are fairly horrible.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Star Fleet Battles (different from FASA) was never licensed by or associated with Paramount. They held a license to produce materials based on Franz Joseph's work. (To which he, not Paramount, held the copyright.) However, they could never use the name Star Trek or any other elements than those appearing in said FJ works.
However, I believe, SFB ended up becoming the basis basis for the Star Trek: Starfleet Command computer games. Not sure what the deal was there---probably an agreement between the SFB guys and Paramount for the sake of profit by both. But all the FJ elements were removed or redesigned for that incarnation. (Whether this was because his estsate refused permission to use his designs to Paramount or Paramount simply didn't want to use them, I don't know.)
-MMoM
so SFB is the cause of the rift between G & F? how far off from SFB is the current computer games? gradual from SFC-1 to 3 as it seems...or more drastic (as was the evolution of actvision's mechwarrior 2, microprose's MW3, and the the current MW-4 by microslut)? did FASA's game have any inpact on the computer games? Armada?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont think any FASA stuff even made the videogame scene but their design elements sure seem to crop up now and again. See the TOS era Loknar to get my meaning. Here's a site with many of the FASA designs and some great commentary: http://www.sub-odeon.com/stsstcsmua/ Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: so SFB is the cause of the rift between G & F?
No, not at all. The issues between Paramount and ADB (the writers of SFB) have nothing to do with the issues between GR and FJ. For one thing Paramount and ADB managed to reach an amicable solution...
Hmm, www.trekplace.com seems to be down but they have the best resources on FJ's work and history with GR.
quote:how far off from SFB is the current computer games? gradual from SFC-1 to 3 as it seems...or more drastic (as was the evolution of actvision's mechwarrior 2, microprose's MW3, and the the current MW-4 by microslut)?
I only have SFC 1, and apart from cosmetic differences (i.e. all the ships look totally different) and the lack of the some of the races (Kzinti, Tholians, ISC being the main ones) there's no difference at all. As far as I can tell without owning or even playing them SFC 2 and 3 are indeed more different.
quote:did FASA's game have any inpact on the computer games? Armada?
No.
Posted by Starship Salvage Ops (Member # 1212) on :
quote:...Also, the TM passage does not state that single and multiple nacelle ships are worthless; it simply states that the dual nacelle design is optimal for power generation and vehicle control. There may very well be applications where an odd number of nacelles may be more practical, but these would not normally apply to long-term, day to day operations.
I was hoping someone would mention this. It may be that a three nacelle design requires quite a bit more power generation for a marginal increase in speed or manuverability, but certain situations or mission profiles may require the addition of the third nacelle at the expense of energy.
It is alot like APO telescope apertures. A 1" increase in objective diameter can cost thousands of dollars for a slight performance increase.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Pretty much. The technbabbly explanaions that make the most sense to me run along the lines of:
Warp engine nacelles are typically mounted in pairs, as warp-speed maneuvering is accomplished by producing an asymmetry in the field. This is most easily accomplished when you have more than one set of field coils.
Single-nacelled vessels tend to be Scouts, Destroyers, Clippers, or Escorts. Ships whose missions usually require them to go straight out to an area of space and do most of their work sublight before returning (or travelling to another destination) in another straight line. It is possible to distort the warp field with a single set of coils, but it is much more energy intensive to do so.
Triple-nacelled ships, on the other hand, benefit from both increased maneuverability and a measure of redundancy should one or even two nacellles be damaged or destroyed. Additionally, such vessels tend to be able to power higher-energy shipboard systems than dual-nacelled ships of comparable mass due to the ~33% increase in warp plasma produced by the engine core. These benefits, however, are only of any real practical value in a dedicated large warship. Given that, in the two centuries of the Federation's existence, it has faced only three adversaries powerful and hostile enough to warrant the design and construction of purpose-built triple-nacelled ship classes.
As always, an existing dual-nacelled design can be modified in drydock to another engine nacellle arrangement depending on projected long-term mission needs. This is not as efficient as creating a class whose warp dynamics and power generation systemry was intended from inception to power one or three (or four) nacelles, but it comfortably fills the middle road -- where the mission needs warrant such a vessel, but not to the point of creating an all-new class.
Similarly, ships with odd numbers of nacelles can be refitted into dual-nacelled vessels, but with their own set of difficulties arising from the conversion.
--Jonah
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Good explanation.
I think of it like screws (propellers)on boat. One screw allows forturning in a wide arc (with the help of a rudder). Two screws allows for greater manuverability and a tighter degree of handling. Three is redundant, but you'd be happy to have the extra one if you were far from support or needed to maintain high speeds for a long duration.
The third nacelle may allow for greater duration at high wrp by decreasing the nacelle's workload but would add several thousand tons to te ship and that could lead to less manuverability at sublight (where youd really need to manuver in combat).
The strange thing is, I've thought a lot on this lately as I've just completed a model of a single nacelled scout update for the First Contact class o' new designs: the ship has kind of two nacelles blended into one (two Bussard collectors but one cylindrical body like on a Galaxy's nacelle). I'll post pics tomorrow, I guess.
Point being, by TNG's era, there should be scouts (like the Freedom class) that perform as well as older cruisers (like the Ambassador) but with much less mass and fewer requirments.
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The situation I had been thinking of was the question of stability in aircraft design. You'd want a passenger plane to be inherently stable to give it the tendency to return to straight and level flight after a maneuver.
On the other hand, you design a fighter with an inherent instability. That gives you the maneuverability and quick response for combat, but it comes with the proviso that if you get yourself into a high-g maneuver, you better get that plane back to level flight before you black out. Otherwise, you're in a very expensive lawn dart.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Some FASA designs are canon ad they appear onscreen as data searches the computer files during Contagen.
Don't be silly. They are no more canon than the idea that a parrot is commander in chief of Starfleet.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: They are no more canon than the idea that a parrot is commander in chief of Starfleet.
But that explains so much...
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
What about the three-nacelle Enterprise, seen in ALL GOOD THINGS? while the Warp-14 thing doesn't jive with cannon, it says that the ship was faster then before and the huge mega-phasor cannon also hinted at more power. Perhaps most ships can't produce enough power to make a third nacelle efficient?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Well, it may not be very simple.
Pumping equal amounts of plasma into two nacelles vs three nacelles may produce very different warp field configurations. So depending on what you want to do three nacelles may be better or worse than two nacelles at the same power.
Clearly the evidence says that for general purpose usage two nacelles is best, but for specialised purposes, one, three or four may be better. However, we've never seen five or more (the Prometheus doesn't count as it only uses four out of the six as single ship) so the cons presumably outwiegh the pros at numbers greater than four.
Personally I tend to subscribe to a similar view to that given in ealier posts by several people. Three nacelles gives extra warp-speed manoeuvrability (and possible also ac/deceleration) but makes little difference to top speed.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Some FASA designs are canon ad they appear onscreen as data searches the computer files during Contagen.
Don't be silly. They are no more canon than the idea that a parrot is commander in chief of Starfleet.
Actually, it was the episode Conspiracy. So, if Data was'nt viewing "canon" starships on his computer screens, he was looking at an old obscure spaceship-roleplaying game instead of following Picard's orders? What a slacker, that Data is.
Onscreen means Canon...for better or worse.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Onscreen means Canon...for better or worse.
No, onscreen means "canon except in unreasonable or unexplainable circumstances," Need I mention "Threshold"?
Or would you also like to say that the Enterprise-D was destroyed by the Dominion in "The Jem'Hadar" and also was part of the big fleet at the end of "Call to Arms"? There are so many things you just have to make allowances for. Canon can't be taken by its strict definition -- it's got to be interpreted.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yah, I know, but even if you dont accepy those two FASA designs as starfleet ships, they are cool enough to be canon in my book.
Just as "Threshold" and most of TNG's sevent season are some fever induced dreams.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Or would you also like to say that the Enterprise-D was destroyed by the Dominion in "The Jem'Hadar"
Are you referring to the unreadable hull while docked at the station, or the completely relabeled and readable USS Odyssey NCC-71832 during battle scenes?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
excuses ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)