This is topic 1701 Reactor Count in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2414.html

---

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
Mmkay, so first, let me admit that despite the reasoned and logical commentary made in the DAC forum here, I nonetheless went back to TrekBBS and, upon seeing something I felt to be idiotic, replied. I was young, and needed the 'tard-smacking. Or it was dark, I was drunk, and I had bad footing. Whatever.

So, the topic of conversation that I participated in was in regards to which of the following is true:

1. That the Constitution Class Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701, has but one M/AM reactor in the secondary hull.

or

2. That the Constitution Class Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701, has three M/AM reactors, two in the nacelles and a tertiary reactor in the secondary hull.

Please, discuss. I am performing a sanity check, and would like your input.
 

---

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
How about a third choice: 2 M/AM reactors in the nacelles and a fusion reactor in the hull somewhere? If M/AM reactors are so dangerous you have to put them on long pylons, a hull fusion reactor seems more likely to me than a third M/AM in the hull.
 

---

Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
 
The old TOS Constitution was disabled if something happened to the dilithium crystal, in Engineering. that points to a single reactor.
 

---

Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
 
The thread in question, incidentally, is this one.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
I, too, must suggest C for the "A or B" question (as usual).

In complete contrast to Franz Joseph's concept of the Enterprise as an empty shell that the user can fill with bowling alleys or cafeterias any way he pleases, I see the Constitution as a highly integrated machine that is mostly engine. Well, perhaps the saucer isn't, but the secondary hull AND the nacelles could be devoted to a single integrated "reactor" that extends to every nook and cranny of the volume and dictates the very shape of the ship.

Such a reactor would be vulnerable to single-point failure at the critical dilithium thingamabob in the secondary hull. Or to a failure in the nacelles, which do contain their share of antimatter, per the dialogue. If anything, the TOS ship would have an even MORE distributed m/am intermixing network than the TMP ship supposedly has, with the Engineering set(s) acting as local network node(s) rather than self-contained unit(s).

The TNG era ships, with their vertical warp cores, would be a step towards more compact and less integrated systems, towards FJ-like ships whose shape isn't dictated solely by propulsion machinery, with the ultimate goal at the famous walnut-sized engines. But the more primitive the ship, the more of its volume is devoted to reactors or reactor (I sincerely hope to be able to retain this view even with further revelations of NX-01 structure...).

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
That's not entirely unlike the Captain's Chair Constitution MSD, which shows the secondary hull filled with tubes and other technology.

The original intention (if there ever was one) was that the nacelles were self-contained engines, including M/AM and whatever magic created the 'space warp'.

BTW, who made that Captain's Chair cutaway, and what is it based on?
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Drexler made it, probably based on conjectural (read as "pulled out of the ass") deck chart listing in the first Encyclopedia.

Now, just for good measure, I shall remind everyone for the Nth time that Franz Joseph's plans depict the prototype U.S.S. Constitution NCC-1700, which varies significantly in external configuration to its sister ship the Enterprise. Thus, it is not difficult to accept that it may vary equally in its internal configuration. Thus, there is no reason why that layout need apply to the NCC-1701.

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
And, of course, the FJ blueprints are likely to be part of the mysterious data from a certain airbase computer in Omaha on which the Star Fleet Technical Manual is based, too. I rather doubt 1960s computers could have retained a completely error-free copy.

Not to mention that the blueprints of a highly advanced prototype vessel would be an excellent place to use the famous "let's misprint to fool the enemy" schtick used in the TNG TM. The NCC-1700 is decidedly underarmed on paper - perhaps creating a nasty surprise when actually engaging an enemy vessel?

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
 
I don't think most Treknical types realize there's canonical evidence for the number of decks in the 1701, albeit hard to make out. The ship diagram next to the turbolift appears to be a match for the cutaway in The Making of Star Trek, which would give her 20 decks.
 

---

Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
 
No it doesn't. If I'm wrong, show me.
 

---

Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dat:
No it doesn't. If I'm wrong, show me.

---

The lines on it are only visible when the actors are standing right next to it and the camera is *very* close to them. I saw it on one of the episodes I rented a while back on DVD. I'd have to rent and rewatch them to find the place where I saw it.
 

---

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I think it's rather a match for the one seen here, which is obviously not intended to be a realistic portrayal of the ship...

-MMoM
 

---

Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
I think it's rather a match for the one seen here, which is obviously not intended to be a realistic portrayal of the ship...

-MMoM

---