As I understand it you need a left/right balance so that the ship is not torn apart by unequal forces on either side. 3 nacelles would be ok in this case, so would 2, but 1, well that's right out.
------------------ 'Sir, you've been ordered not to take Polermo'
'Ring General HQ, ask them if they want me to give it back'.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Except we have a canon instance of it.
I'm not quite sure what to make of these design "rules." For one thing, rules are made to be broken.
For another, Roddenberry had no problem with such nacelle placements when he approved of Franz Joseph's stuff. I've always wondered why the switch occured. Furthermore, are these design rules, or are they part of some general Starfleet guide for the artists that has since been blown out of proportion?
------------------ "It was sweet, like lead paint's sweet, but the aftereffects left me paralyzed." -- They Might Be Giants
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, for one thing, these rules were never stated on screen, so ignoring them isn't much of a problem, IMO. Also, I wonder if GR really cared about these rules, or if he simply made them up because someone asked him to, or something...
------------------ "I'm not stubborn. I'm just right." -me
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Whether Roddenberry was correctly quoted or not, his design rules are useful hints to starship designers to make their ships look "treknologically correct". Actually, all Federation starships do comply with these rules (except for the Defiant and the Enterprise-B, not counting the Freedom and Niagara whose nacelle designs could not be seen on screen). Moreover, Rick Sternbach apparently had these rules (or something like them) in mind, when he wrote the TNGTM.
Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :
What's wrong with the B?
------------------ What bloke invented signatures?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
I think that the Nebula and Sabre classes also break the rule about there being nothing in between the nacelles. In both cases a large portion of the space in between them is blocked by the ship's hull. The Sydney class as well, and the Raven I think. Not to mention many alien ships. So I think that rule at least is rubbish.
------------------ -->Identity Crisis<--
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Shipmaster: I believe he was referring to the fact that the saucer blocks out a lot of the front of the nacelles.
------------------ "I'm not stubborn. I'm just right." -me
Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :
Oh, right. Well, that occurs on a LOT of other ships. Althoguh the Steamrunner had an interesting way of following it.
------------------ What bloke invented signatures?
Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :
I like to believe that early treknology depended on its design to focus, and maintain a stable warpfield. By the 24th century artificial attempts at controlling warpfields had become advanced enough to manipulate one warpcoil into providing a sufficient warpfield for interstellar travel.
The rule was broken. Somebody developed a better mouse trap.
Experiment credits
Constitution Class Miranda Class Oberth Class Constellation Class Excelsior Class
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
wasn't the rule that about 50% of the nacelles had to be visible between each other - Thus what I reckon about those little 'window-esque' features on the underside - inner layer of the defiant - is structures that still allow this rule to be kept in place - i.e. about 50% of the bottom half of the Defiant nacelles would then be visible between each other
with such ships as the Saber/Sabre the nacelles bend down etc...
but just thinking about things. what about the Danube... - this surely breaks this rule, unless the Danube is in the field of larger shuttlecrafts than smaller starships
Andrew
------------------ "For flavor value, chocolate. But I prefer the Cult of Curry." - Frank G, April 1999 "(strange mouth jerks)" - Krenim, April 1999
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The E-B's Bussard collectors are not visible from the front.
The Sydney's nacelles are above the hull, the design is o.k.
The Defiant may have around 50% line of sight, while it is obviously less for the Nebula and Sabre.
The Raven is another ship violating the line of sight rule ship I forgot to mention, the same goes for the new scout ship and the holoship. Seems no one cares about this rule anymore.
Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :
If I remember correctly two nacelles form a warp bubble easier than three and a better one than just one.
------------------ I need help with getting a new sig. file, graduation, my girlfriend, my college junk. Ugh! I just need help.
Posted by Federation Shipmaster (Member # 15) on :
No, it's just more effiicient, but not as fast.
------------------ What bloke invented signatures?
Posted by windwolf7 on :
In regards to the nacelle placment i think from what I under stand of the warp feild structure is that the nacelles must simply create a stable central linear field so two always works weither the placed high or low so does three and yes even one will work if placed centrally
Now as for how much of the nacelle is visable from the front matter only for the use of the bussard collectors because the warp drive works by moveing high speed plasma in the nacelles to generate the warp field and dont need the bussards.
the bussard collectors are an emergency device used to collect hydrogen to generate power or collect dust( note deflector must be set to allow dust through) as in the case of insurrection they are placed on the front of the nacelles because it is the easiest place to generate the magneted collection scoop. however become unusable at warp due to the deflector and the warp field
proof that the nacelles dont need to be visable is on the cardasian ships which use inbody nacelles to be more compact(DS9 Tech Manual)
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The TNGTM says the Bussard collectors are used at warp speed, and the particles are slowed down in order to allow their accumulation. Hydrogen atoms are not blocked by the warp field, but possibly by the deflector field.
Anyway, they have to be visible from the front.
Posted by windwolf7 on :
Really It says there supossed to be used at warp. thats weird. My understanding was the collectors were basiclly hydrogen ramjet engines named after the scientist who invented the concept. but acually if it wasnt just used in emergencies such as in insurrection, It think your right i think i remember seeing the diagram which apeared that the warp field were shaped to direct the passing particles into the collectors.
thank you for clarifying
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
Actually, there is something stated that the collection rate is only efficient at warp, considering the very thin particle density in interstellar space.
Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
What you need to do is read some Larry Niven: "A World Out Of Time," "Tales Of Known Space." Bussard Ramjet technology features heavily in these and other stories and books. . . basically, it's assumed that the ship needs to be going above a certain speed in order for the EM fields which channel the hydrogen to collect efficiently. . . and maybe the speed that the fuel enters has an effect on the way the ramjet operates.
Of course, these aren't ramjets, but they still collect using the same principles that Bussard applied to the engine.
