I was recently thumbing through some tech manuals and blueprints and realized a few ships that have been seen in Star Trek do not necessarily adhere to GR�s �Starship Design Rules.�
1. Warp nacelles MUST be in pairs. 2. Warp nacelles must have at least 50% line-of-sight on each other across the hull. 3. Both warp nacelles must be fully visible from the front. 4. The bridge must be located at the top center of the primary hull.
The �Future� Enterprise-D as seen in All Good Things violates rule number 1, as it has three nacelles. Yes, I am aware of the explanation that each nacelle has a pair of warp coils, but I find this to be a lame explanation at best. It seems that someone is simply trying to rationalize an otherwise �invalid� design. Besides, using the same explanation, one could validate (but not necessarily �canonize�) the odd-nacelle-numbered Franz Joseph designs, as well as others.
The Defiant in DS9 seemingly violates rule number 2, as does the S.S. Aurora seen in TOS: The Way to Eden.
So, I am wondering what other �Canon� starships, if any, violate the �rules.�
[ April 22, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Commander Dan ]
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
A quick look through the database at EAS turns up: 1) Nacelle blockage: Challenger (vertical blockage?), Curry (maybe), Intrepid, Nebula (maybe), Niagara, Oberth (maybe), Sabre, Steamrunner, and Sydney 2) Odd nacelles: Freedom, Springield, Niagara
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Elkins, Soyuz, Raging Queen, Akira (mabye), Steamrunner (mabye) and almost every alien ship ever shown.
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
Upon further research, it would seem that the Ambassador-class may violate rule number 3, as the nacelles are not fully visible from the front (though they mostly are).
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Franz Joseph's scout/destroyer and tug designs are already canon, having appeared on displays in the second and third ST films.
And the Freedom and Niagara from "The Best Of Both Worlds" (TNG) would be subject to the same rationalization as the AGT-D. But, with all respect to Masao, the Springfield has an even number of nacelles.
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
Wow. It looks as if there are several ships that do not adhere to the rules. So then, I am wondering, what good are these supposed �design rules�?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Um...these "design rules" were made up by Roddenberry in a rather childish and retroactive (as you pointed out, even ignoring a ship from TOS itself) attempt to invalidate FJ's designs. (Which was pretty pointless becuase, as I mentioned above, they had already appeared in TWOK and TSFS.)
They really never have had any ACTUAL effect on the design of ships on the show, as you can see. Just more BS spouted by a bitter, spiteful old man.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Um...these "design rules" were made up by Roddenberry in a rather childish and retroactive (as you pointed out, even ignoring a ship from TOS itself) attempt to invalidate FJ's designs. (Which was pretty pointless becuase, as I mentioned above, they had already appeared in TWOK and TSFS.)
They really never have had any ACTUAL effect on the design of ships on the show, as you can see. Just more BS spouted by a bitter, spiteful old man.
....Is reminded of thread about TAS.
Wait, so what is supposedly "wrong" with the Nebula and Intrepid?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Yes, the man seemed to make a habit out of such behavior.
And I presume it is because their nacelles don't have 50% line-of-sight with each other.
Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
Looks like you�re right about the Nebula, though I am not sure about the Intrepid. It depends on just how far up the nacelles fold when the ship goes to warp. Quite frankly, I never understood why the engines weren�t just �fixed� in that position (other than the �coolness� factor) if that is where they needed to be for warp speed.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I remember Rick Sternbach mentioned once that the idea was that the nacelles could go up to varying degrees based on speed, but obviously, that would have taken a bit extra stock footage (and to get the right clip for the right speed in the script every time, hmmm, that would be a mess)...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Franz Joseph's scout/destroyer and tug designs are already canon, having appeared on displays in the second and third ST films.
But canon as what? Maybe those are displays of design ideas that didn't work. "Don't do this." LOL!
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, FJ's Merrimac, Revere, Columbia and Entente were all operational Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Or sending frantic calls for help: "Command, this is Entente. We seem to be missing one nacelle. Or have one too many. Either way, we ain't moving. Please advise."
Didn't the Enterprise-nil herself break the nacelles-visible-from-front rule? In the TMP guise, that is. By a few per cent, but still...
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Whoops, screwed up with Springfield. I probably meant it as an example of nacelle blockage.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Masao, how the heck does the Steamrunner have blockage? from what I've seen, it's nacelles are almost completely clear of the hull.
Posted by Bond, James Bond (Member # 1127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Commander Dan: The Defiant in DS9 seemingly violates rule number 2, as does the S.S. Aurora seen in TOS: The Way to Eden.
If you fudge the details a bit and say the warp coils instead of the entire warp nacelle needs 50% line of sight then there's enough clearance underneath the Defiant for the warp coils to have 50% LOS. The nacelles are partially slung lower then the hull and the warp coils are at the bottom of the nacelle housings.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
You know, these design rules were never mentioned in an episode or film, so they aren't, you know, canon...
Marian
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
i think the original design philosophy was that the nacelles acted as 'lightning rods' and that energy was supposed to be more intense (or even in an arc!) between them (the TOS 1701 had glowy-stuff exhaust grills facing inward towards each other, even if they werent lit as glowy parts most of the time), the 1701 refit continued this, the nacelles glowed towards the inside, originally storyboards were drafted to try and include arcs of energy FX between the nacelles as warp was engaged, to show the audience why that space was left empty of ship components.
if you wanted to honor the original philosophy, state that the space between UFP nacelle was where the warp field formed, radiating its waves of subspace distortion from the point on the arc between the two nacelles, then not that other engines have nacelles with blue glowy ports facing all different, but instead of being straight lines, the emissions are able to arc back on themselves, eliminating the necessity for nacelle line of sight (like the 1701-D's warp field comes from the middle part of the nacelles, each line of warp curves back in on itself to meet its duplicate from the other engine.
deep.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, that's a great theory untill they started designing ship's shuttlebays directly between the nacelles: fully active or no, I wouldnt want to fly a shuttle between anything with "energy arcing between them".
Many ships have at least partial nacelle blockage and they all seem to work just fine so screw this supposed rule.
As to ships being magically made "canon" by being shown on a viewscreen, add in the Orion Blockade Runner (the only Orion ship ever really shown!), and the strange "Lotus Flower" freighter design (supposedly the Kobayashi Maru) both from FASA.
You include the FJ stuff, you get the FASA stuff too!
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
OTOH, both the Orion ship and the Lotus Flower are rather pleasing aesthetically... Although the latter cannot be the Kobayashi Maru, since the dimensions (wrt the dimensions given on those ST2 viewscreen specs) are all wrong.
We could of course say that the FJ'ish things seen on TMP, ST2 and ST3 viewscreens are merely "symbolic" representations of actual ships or interiors, omitting fine detail and simplifying complex shapes. If the TMP pics actually are supposed to represent the refitted vessel, then a similar "conversion formula" could be applied on the ST2 images... But that still wouldn't be enough to make the Saladins two-nacelled or the Federations four-nacelled.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
We get the stuff from on screen... just because it was from FJ or FASA means nothing about the rest of their designs. At best you have the backstory for the ship/class/designs seen on screen... but not other ship/class/designs.
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
Is nacelle blocking anything like cock blocking?
Posted by Captain Mike XLVII (Member # 709) on :
yes.
Posted by StarshipEngineer (Member # 1317) on :
Hello,knock,knock.
I have one propultion system nobody talked about yet.The IMPROVED QSSD[Quantum Slipstream Drive].As a SIMMER ''living'' in the 25th century.I have authoreta on this question
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
huh?
Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
What?
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Again, I ask: Are you retarded?
Posted by MirrorCaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
StarshipEngineer, write about it here.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Mike, did you post that link to the fiery pits of hell again?
Charles warned you....
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
As to the supposed "rules", Andy Probert told me that he was instructed to work with those on TNG and that's why his ships have paried warp engines and clear line of sight between the warp field grilles...even the Fegengi ship's concave underside is for that reason. Anyway, that's what he was told, but clearly the "rule" had been violated before and was violated numerous times since, so precedent pretty much discounts it, Roddenberry's wishes of the moment notwithstanding.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Can you see the Ferengi Maurader's nacelles (or whatever you'd call them) from the front of the ship?
And I know that mentioning this is extremely patronising, but the whole reason the refit Enterprise-D had three nacelles in AGT was because they were playing "let's break all the rules!" Hence the cloak, warp 13, etc...
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Andy never told *me* of any supposed rule that you had to be able to see the nacelles from the front of the ship. The rules he told me were that the engines should have clear line of right of each other and that they should be paired. I'm not saying he might now have said the other elsewhere, but he never told me about that ruke.
I know the one thing he screwed up on the Ferengi ship was he forgot to put a nav deflector of it. Ooops!
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
You also have to see the nacelles from the front (ie unobstructed, presumably for bussard operations) and the bridge has to be on the top (for some inane reason...)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: Andy never told *me* of any supposed rule that you had to be able to see the nacelles from the front of the ship.
Are you throwing a hissy fit?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: I know the one thing he screwed up on the Ferengi ship was he forgot to put a nav deflector of it. Ooops!
Well that depends... Ferengi deflectors may look different.
There are slight glowy slithers in the forward section where it indents.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
As if I've every thrown a hissy fit on this board. I'm the Demonstration Model for tact.
If you re-read my entire post, you'll see I was saying that while Andy never told me of any supposed rule about having to be able to see the nacelles from the front, that doesn't mean he might not have said as much elsewhere.
As to the nav deflector on the Ferengi ship: when he was telling me how the effects people always have the Warbird shooting from its nav deflector, I asked him where the deflector was on the Marauder. His reply, "I forgot it." Sure you can decide some feature is the deflector, but the designer admits he forgot to include one.
Now, the Warbird's lack of impulse engines...that's a different story.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I assumed the Warbirds impulse enginges had something to do with the 'under slung' 'claws' of the Warbird.
Where was the Warbird supposed to fire disrupters from?
At least they've kept the location where the disrupters are fired from consistent over the years.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I assumed the Warbirds impulse enginges had something to do with the 'under slung' 'claws' of the Warbird.
They were supposed to be two slots on the very back end of the ship. Andy never drew it because he ran out of time (he said he had about half the normal time to design this ship).
quote:Where was the Warbird supposed to fire disrupters from?
Here ya go... Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Hey thats really cool!
Holy lots of disruptors...but only one torpedo launcher?
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
Originally posted by Futurama Guy:
quote: Hey thats really cool!
Holy lots of disruptors...but only one torpedo launcher?
And where's the plasma weapon?
Marian
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
We also saw it fire disruprots from the inside center spar in the episode with the Iconian probes.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Can't have it all.
The sad part is, is the complete lack of variety in watching a Warbird fight...thoughout TNG, "Message in a Bottle" and DS9.
They are supposed to be some super huge fearsome juggarnaut but in almost everything weve seen its just one disruptor or torpedo from the nose of the ship as its only defense.
In contrast, think of the Galaxy/Galor scene in "Sacrifice of Angels" and the Galaxy spewing phasers from every which place.
Such a misuse of a beautiful thing. Posted by Captain Boh (Member # 1282) on :
I understand how the paired Nacelles rule might have been made to spide FJ, but where do the other rules come from?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: We also saw it fire disruprots from the inside center spar in the episode with the Iconian probes.
Again, I was saying where the weapons where originally intended to be located, not where the VFX people made them fire from.
If you're referring to Congation, I believe in that episode they also showed a torpedo tube lighting up where those cargo hatches are.
Posted by NeghVar (Member # 62) on :
Photons were fired from the raised bit where the lower neck spar connects to the main hull.
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: We also saw it fire disruptors from the inside center spar in the episode with the Iconian probes.
Again, I was saying where the weapons where originally intended to be located, not where the VFX people made them fire from.
If you're referring to Contagion, I believe in that episode they also showed a torpedo tube lighting up where those cargo hatches are.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
At least those cargo doors look like they could be such, and aren't, say, weirdly lit in a non-doorlike way, or something.
Those big round domes were marked as disruptors on the model I had always intended to finish painting one day. (It suggested they be some sort of yellow. But, then, it suggested the ship itself be some shade of blue, which I just sort of went along with, being young enough to never question instructions, and having only seen the ship once or twice at the time, really. ((Circa season 3, maybe.)) It looks really strange.)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Warbirds have fired from the nose with pulses (TNG, multiple eps) and beams ("The Die is Cast"[DS9-3] et cetera).
They've fired beams from a little thing at the top of the upper wing connection to the upper head section ("Unification"[TNG]).
They've fired a green beam from the forward bottom of the connection between tail and upper wing ("Contagion"[TNG]).
They've attempted to fire photon torpedoes from a point near or within the vertical square bits on the forward part of the lower wing ("Contagion"[TNG]).
And, they've fired something looking like a green photon torpedo from the nose (TDiC).
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Didn't they fire some sort of 'torpedo' in "Face of the Enemy"? I'm asking, haven't seen that episode in years. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
So, to sum up, Warbirds are ships, and they have weapons.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Those big round domes were marked as disruptors on the model I had always intended to finish painting one day. (It suggested they be some sort of yellow. But, then, it suggested the ship itself be some shade of blue, which I just sort of went along with, being young enough to never question instructions, and having only seen the ship once or twice at the time, really. ((Circa season 3, maybe.)) It looks really strange.)
I always wondered about that. I got that set around season 3 too. Although I was fortunate enough to have seen "The Enemy" and "The Defector", so I was well aware that the ship wasn't blue. I did become slightly paranoid though over the fact that maybe it was blue, and my colour blindness had been lying to me all those years. Or year.
It also had the most boring paint instructions of any model ever. I think it was literally "green" (or "duck egg blue") with an arrow pointing to the hull, and that was it.
In contrast, the extremely tiny BOP had a billion and one paint applications. I think they were just being perverse.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
To be fair, there's like three shades on the Warbird and a billion and one on the BOP...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: In contrast, the extremely tiny BOP had a billion and one paint applications. I think they were just being perverse.
They also managed to completely leave out the ship's impulse engines.
Details....
Posted by jesus X (Member # 1201) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: In contrast, the extremely tiny BOP had a billion and one paint applications. I think they were just being perverse.
They also managed to completely leave out the ship's impulse engines.
They'll be installed on tuesday...
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: They also managed to completely leave out the ship's impulse engines.
The model was only about 2 inches long though, so you can't expect it to be uber-detailed.
Where are the impulse engines on a BOP? And, for that matter, where are the impulse engines on a warbird?
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: They also managed to completely leave out the ship's impulse engines.
The model was only about 2 inches long though, so you can't expect it to be uber-detailed.
Where are the impulse engines on a BOP? And, for that matter, where are the impulse engines on a warbird?
Well, a better question is where are a BOP's warp engines, since the glowing thing at the back looks like an impulse engine.
As to the Warbird, Andy Probert told me he had half the normal time to design the ship, so he never had a chance to draw the rear view of the ship for the modelmakers. There were supposed to two impulse exhaust slots, one over the other, on the very back centerline of the ship (on the aft end of the rear bit that connects the upper and lower halves). Greg Jein didn't notice the lack of the impulse engines when he built the model, so...oops.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
I'd always assumed that the warp nacelles on the BOP were the grid things on the dorsal side of the secondary hull myself.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
You mean the "shoulders"?
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
or the "humps", if you will...
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
The warp engines on the BoP are supposed to be the small fins, rather than the grid -- at least according to the Fact Files, the only reference I found about the engines.
BTW, regarding rule #2 (50%), the Raven violates it too. The Defiant as well as various shuttles barely comply with it.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I posted a question for Rick Sternbach at Trek BBS to ask about these rules. He answered thusly Posted by Futurama IV Skin (Member # 968) on :
I especially love the "since this is a show, and not real life" part...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: They also managed to completely leave out the ship's impulse engines.
The model was only about 2 inches long though, so you can't expect it to be uber-detailed.
Sure I can: the 1" long micro machine had all those details, so whay not a model that's 3.5" long? Sloppy. A friend of mine (novahobbies.com) just overhauled one of those kits and had to do a lot of work to make it accurate and to eiminate any large gaps in the model when the wings are in the raised position. The bridge is the wrong shape and mising several details as well.
Mabye he'll release a resin version of his accurized version.
As to the Warbird (and indeed all TNG romulan ships) I just figured the lack of impulse vents was because they disapated the exhaust over the entire hull to stay stealthy.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)