As most here know, the Next Generation engineering set was redressed and used for the 1701-A engineering room in Star Trek VI. As such, I have always wondered if indeed, that set could be made to �fit� in the 1701-A.
With the Strategic Design Deck plans as a starting point, I decided to give it a shot, having never seen anyone else attempt this. I decided to try to keep it on Deck 15 (Deck �O�), so as to remain as faithful as possible to previous designs and lore.
Certainly, my interpretation can be considered questionable, especially when one takes headroom into account. Additionally, I had little choice but to �squash� the forward part of the engineering room in order for it to fit.
I certainly have no plans to blueprint the entire vessel, and I attempted this only for my own personal amusement. Any suggestions, opinions, and/or constructive criticism are welcome.
[ February 11, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Neat. Problem being that the ceiling clearance wouldn't work.
Now, since so much of the Ent A interiors don't match the refit, it's not unreasonable to assume the engine room is a deck lower than on the refit.
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
Actually, I postulate that the ST6/TNG Engineering Set was the 'Impulse Engineering'.
- Strategic Design
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yet the warp core was right there in the middle of it...
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
As usual, I suggest that the main engineering of both the E-nil and E-A is located farther back than originally intended by Probert. This solves the E-A ceiling clearance problem just as neatly as it solves the E-nil "TARDIS corridor forward" problem.
Also, the engineering systems of E-nil and E-A could be identical, and the facility shown in ST6 would simply be farther down the vertical shaft. Perhaps the E-nil always had an intermix chamber like the one shown in ST6, it simply was at the basement and not at the branch point of vertical and horizontal plasma conduits (not "intermix shafts"!).
In that setup, the vertical pulsating thingamabob in ST6 might be a separate assembly just one deck high or something, while the narrower conduits (recycled from the TMP set) tie directly to the TMP vertical/horizontal plasma conduit system. Orientation of the ST6 set is up to your imagination - perhaps the facility is rotated 180 degrees from the way you show it, so that the pulsating core thing is slightly aft of the vertical plasma conduit.
In case you aren't totally repelled by the blasphemy yet, I suggest this ST6 set was indeed on the lower decks of the engineering hull, was an addition to the original design, and was actually built into where the E-nil had the cavernous cargo hold. If I were refitting a ship, I'd make use of this existing "free" space...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The blueprint looks cool, but in addition to the problems already mentioned, you're also not taking into account the deflector components that would lie directly behind the dish. Seems to me that they would likely take up a good half of the space you have dedicated to the engineering set.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Thought the same thing as Aban - but then realised that the Engineering deck maybe a number of decks above or below the bulk of the deflector equipment... and that outside that 'hull plating' is just the dish.
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
As far as far as the 1701-refit goes (as seen in I, II, and III), I have a hard time accepting that the engineering set could be anywhere but in the location that it is so often placed (deck 15). There are many factors that suggest this: number of decks that can be seen looking down the intermix shaft in TMP; curvature and beam structure built into the ceiling of the set; the correlation between the Reliant�s phaser fire and engineering damage as seen in TWOK.
As for the corridors forward of engineering as seen in TMP; I just accept that as a production error: Much like seventy some-odd decks as seen in Star Trek V, or the way the Millennium Falcon set would never fit into the ship without major rearrangements.
I have always felt that one is somewhat "locked" into the notion of having to put a single intermix shaft forward of the secondary hull, since there is plating on the exterior of the dorsal that clearly marks where this shaft is located. However, with that being said, I may be open to the idea of the shaft making a couple of 90 degree turns (but only on 1701-A) to get it farther back into the hull as suggested by Timo.
I echo AndrewR�s assessment of the deflector issue.
[ February 12, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
I wonder... Isn't the trail of Khan's phasers actually well aft of the "Probert location"? Or at least the trail is long enough and aft enough that one could position the TMP engineering set almost halfway down the hull and still have the phasers cut into it.
I mean, the trail starts below the torp deck docking port, and goes aft from there. That's way behind the section of the connecting fin where Probert places the vertical shaft. Pictures available at the "invisible saucer" thread of General Trek forum...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
Here are some ideas (as suggested by Timo) for alternative locations for Main Engineering:
I've never understood the theories behind using the warp core intermix chamber to connect directly to the impulse engines. Just how the heck does that work, if the impulse engines are supposed to be powered by a chain of fusion reactors, anyway?
Posted by Woodside Kid (Member # 699) on :
The only thing I can see is that both the impulse and warp engines were intended to be powered by the same M/AM reaction. That would seem to be borne out by Scotty's line "Intermix set, Bridge. Impulse power at your discretion."
Given the design of the Engineering set, that's the only way it could work. The up & down injector design of the TNG era just doesn't work, since there seems to be no space anywhere in the design reserved for a deuterium tank; not in the dorsal and not in either hull. At least that's the impression you get from David Kimble's cutaway poster. Since that was done as an attempt to give a real-world layout for the sets (and by the same artist who did the TMP blueprint package), I think that's a reasonable assumption.
The only way I see it could work is if both the matter and antimatter storage pods were at the base of the shaft. The lower section of the shaft would be the actual intermix area, and the resulting plasma would be split off at the junction in main engineering. The bulk of the plasma would power the warp engines, while the rest continued up to the impulse deflection crystal to be diverted to the exhaust ports.
Granted, this conflicts with the way modern Trek has the engines operating, but none of that had been nailed down back in '78.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
I see no problem with this... We know a lot of things changed between the two eras. Somewhere along the line, it was decided that dedicated fusion reactors would be better to power impulse drives. I'm pretty sure that the space/time driver coils had something to do with it. Yeah.
I think the first pic is closer to what I'd like to see inside the ship. The big deuterium tank atop the secondary hull would be consistent with TNG, but as said, TOS tech could well be different in some ways. Coal boilers vs oil-burning engines, or something - both use pistons to translate the expansion of gases created by burning fuel into rotary movement, but the setup within the ship is drastically different.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Posteth Timo: I think the first pic is closer to what I'd like to see inside the ship. The big deuterium tank atop the secondary hull would be consistent with TNG, but as said, TOS tech could well be different in some ways. Coal boilers vs oil-burning engines, or something - both use pistons to translate the expansion of gases created by burning fuel into rotary movement, but the setup within the ship is drastically different.
This might be a topical point to post the following, a rather whimsical essay I tossed off on the Kobayashi Maru and neutronic fuel. For which I would be pleased to receive critical review and constructive criticism.
quote:What The Heck Is The Kobiyashi Maru Hauling? Neutronic Fuel And Why Movie-era Ships Don�t Have Big Dueterium Tanks
If you remember your high school chemistry you know that atoms consist of an equal number of protons and electrons, and (usually) some neutrons as well. Protons have a positive charge. Electrons have a negative charge. Neutrons have no charge, but have almost as much mass as protons. You may also know that the difference between matter and antimatter is polarity: antiprotons have a negative charge, and antielectrons have a positive charge. Anti-electrons have been produced in lab experiments; they are called positrons (yes, Data has antimatter for brains. Are you surprised?)
Suppose that �neutronic fuel� is just what it sounds like: free neutrons. I imagine the advantage of neutronic fuel is density. The Constitution (refit) class starship has a much smaller fuel tank, relative to the ship�s overall size, than the huge balloon that holds the Enterprise-D�s dueterium. Mind you, this is off-the-cuff amateur physics, but a neutron star is the size of Chicago. Even if 23rd-century technology can�t achieve that degree of density, there�s still a lot of bang for your bunkerage.
The existance of �antineutrons� in the Star Trek universe is also established in Star Trek IV, when Spock is challenged by a computer test to �adjust a sine wave�s magnetic envelope so that antineutrons can pass through it but antigravitons cannot.�
The disadvantage? Real life chemistry provides the answer: �free neutrons have great penetrating capabilities and are highly damaging to living tissue.� This stuff is dangerous! And a lot harder to keep contained than mere cryogenic liquid. No wonder those guys wore rad suits. TNG-era starships are bigger, and probably built of lighter, stronger materials, so they can afford the greater volume penalty of using deuterium for the sake of increased safety.
The situation is analagous to atmosphere in modern spacecraft. NASA has always used partial-pressure atmospheres of pure oxygen in its spacecraft, eliminating the mass of the inert nitrogen present in Earth�s atmosphere. Pressures in spacesuits are even lower. The disadvantage is the need to decompress�adjust to the lower pressure. Which may be fine for highly trained professionals, but once we no longer need to save every gram of mass, it would be wise to add some nitro to the mix and equalize the pressure. Otherwise you might have a real incident like the one in Ben Bova�s novel Moonrise, where an astronaut in a decompressing moonbase scrambles into a spacesuit to breathe�and promptly dies of an embolism.
Spotted the problem yet? If the difference between matter and antimatter is the reversed electrical charge, and neutrons have no charge, how can there be antineutrons? Beats me, but gravitons don�t exist either. Maybe in the next 200 years advances in the understanding of physics will make the definition of antimatter more complex. After all, if you don�t know anything about intersexuality or gender dysphoria, gender and biological sex seem like simple either/or propositions too.
(I postulate that early Starfleet ships also used dueterium, because the technology (and possibly the physics) needed for nuetronic fuels did not exist yet. This situation may have obtained into the TOS era, since I have only seen neutronic fuel mentioned in movie-era sources. On the other hand, antineutrons might be used to explain the exaggerations of antimatter�s explosive power which some TOS episodes are guilty of. See http://www.ditl.org/index.htm?list=/listarticles.htm for details of the problem.)
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Fusion reactors over antimatter for power. No way. I believe the idea in the TMP impulse engine was that it what's sometimes called an "antimatter annihilation engine", in which antiprotons are slammed intro deuterium and the resulting enegy is directed by a magnetic field out an exhaust port. The refit supposedly had fushion reactors for backup, that would burn deuterium alone. Since a matter-antimatter explosion is just about as 100% fuel efficient as you can get, it's doubtful it would be "replaced" by pokey old fusion.
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Also remember that the 'Kobiyashi Maru Scenario dates back to Kirk's Academy days, so it follows that the use of Neutronic fuel is at least as old. That doesn't necessarily mean that Starfleet ships have ever used that fuel source though, given that the Kobiyashi Maru was a civilian ship it could easily have been transporting Neutronic fuel for a non-starfleet client. It's possible that NF is a popular alternative fuel for commercial ships or unmanned vessles.
Also I think I've heard another definition of NF as being a special variety of Deuterium, I don't recall exactly how it's different, maybe the Deuterium atoms have an extra Neutron or something.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
From the very little non-Trek results Google returns, it seems that 'neutronic fuel' is sometimes (although very very rarely) used to describe tritium in the context of deuterium-tritium fusion reactions, apparenty because this reaction releases energized neutrons (radioactivity).
Since we know Starfleet uses deuterium for it's M/AM and fusion reactions, they might also need tritium for the impulse engines. Although tritium is nasty artificial radioactive stuff.
(BTW, the only time tritium is mentioned on DS9 and TNG is here. Klingons use tritium in their warp cores, apperently).
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Spotted the problem yet? If the difference between matter and antimatter is the reversed electrical charge, and neutrons have no charge, how can there be antineutrons?
It's not that simple. I did a short google search and came up with this:
quote:In the case of a neutron, you are very much right, the charge cannot be opposite, since it does not have a charge. The trick is however, that the neutron is not an ELEMENTARY particle!!!
It is made from 3 other smaller particles, called QUARKS! Namely, the neutron is made out of one quark called Up quark and two quarks called Down quarks. ( just for reference, the proton is made out of two Up quarks and one Down quark). These quarks HAVE CHARGE!!! The charge of the Up is +2/3*1.606*10^-19 C and the charge of the Down is -1/3*1.606*10^-19 C. ( That way you can see, the neutron is really neutral and the proton has really charge +1.606*10^-19 C )
Now, the antineutron, is made out of one ANTI Up ( which has a charge -2/3*1.606*10^-19 C and two ANTI Downs ( each of them having a charge +1/3*1.606*10^-19 C), and that makes him very different from a neutron.
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Fusion reactors over antimatter for power. No way. I believe the idea in the TMP impulse engine was that it what's sometimes called an "antimatter annihilation engine", in which antiprotons are slammed intro deuterium and the resulting enegy is directed by a magnetic field out an exhaust port. The refit supposedly had fushion reactors for backup, that would burn deuterium alone. Since a matter-antimatter explosion is just about as 100% fuel efficient as you can get, it's doubtful it would be "replaced" by pokey old fusion.
I think you must have misunderstood me. I never said anything about fusion. I'm describing a matter-antimatter reaction using neutrons/antineutrons as opposed to deuterium/anti deuterium. I apologise if that wasn't clear.
I too think the movie-era impulse drive was a variation on an antimatter rocket, although I imagined it as being more like an old-style Sanger rocket, which wouldn't require any fuel other than the matter/antimatter reactants. Since starships at impulse must cheat Newton somehow regardless, the limitations of Dr. Sanger's original design would not necessarily be a problem.
You're quite right about the backup fusion reactors needing a fuel supply though.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: Also remember that the 'Kobiyashi Maru Scenario dates back to Kirk's Academy days, so it follows that the use of Neutronic fuel is at least as old.
Good argument. Although there is a counterargument, that there's no reason why the details of the test can't vary over time. Maybe when Kirk took the test the Kobayashi Maru was hauling deuterium. Or maybe cobalt, for all we know. =)
Certainly there are other possible explanations of what neutronic fuel is and what it's used for, and I'm sorry if I suggested otherwise. I'm not messianic about my interpretations of Treknology. It's just a theory.
Marian
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: It's not that simple. I did a short google search and came up with this:
quote:In the case of a neutron, you are very much right, the charge cannot be opposite, since it does not have a charge. The trick is however, that the neutron is not an ELEMENTARY particle!!!
It is made from 3 other smaller particles, called QUARKS! Namely, the neutron is made out of one quark called Up quark and two quarks called Down quarks. ( just for reference, the proton is made out of two Up quarks and one Down quark). These quarks HAVE CHARGE!!! The charge of the Up is +2/3*1.606*10^-19 C and the charge of the Down is -1/3*1.606*10^-19 C. ( That way you can see, the neutron is really neutral and the proton has really charge +1.606*10^-19 C )
Now, the antineutron, is made out of one ANTI Up ( which has a charge -2/3*1.606*10^-19 C and two ANTI Downs ( each of them having a charge +1/3*1.606*10^-19 C), and that makes him very different from a neutron.
And it's all Quarks fault too. Now I know how Odo feels...
Marian
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Deuterium/tritium loading procedures are also mentioned on a screen showing the engineering logs of the E-D in "Galaxy's Child"[TNG4].
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Re: Harry's terminology point: The term "neutronic" makes a lot of sense in connection with fusionables such as deuterium and tritium. After all, basic hydrogen could also be used as fusion fuel; there could well be a practical need to distinguish it from the hydrogen isotopes that are "neutronic", that is, have one or two neutrons in addition to the obligatory proton.
Fanfic speaks of different fuel types, with deuterium-tritium fusion in use during TOS and deuterium-deuterium fusion taking over later on. Similarly, TNG speaks of different kinds of lithium crystals (di-, para-, tri-) with different properties and applications. Different types of transport ships might be needed for the different commodities, and thus complex terminology might emerge. And today, we have LNG tankers for hauling liquid natural gas, but we don't have tankers that would haul non-liquid natural gas. The letter L appears superfluous here... "Neutronic" could be just as superfluous in Trek.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
Maybe 'Neutronic' referes to the state that the fuel is shipped in.