posted
Does anyone have a Treknology reason, written by Rick Sternbach or others, that explains why the warp nacelles are so tiny on the Intrepid-class relative to the size of the saucer and engineering sections? Does the class have super efficient bussard collectors and warp coils?
On the flipside, is their a Treknology reason why the warp nacelles and the impulse drive is so large on the Sovereign-class. From a production design standpoint I assume that they wanted a design that looks fast, but I was wondering if Rick Sternbach or others concocted a reason why they are so large?
Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
One treknology reason that explains this is quite nice.
Basically, short nacelles (like the Defiant [only 4 coils!] and Intrepid) have much higher plasma-firing frequencies than the longer nacelles (like the Excelsior or the Sovereign).
So there is a trade-off between number of coils and the plasma frequency. Perhaps longer, 'slower' nacelles are more durable and shorter, 'faster' nacelles are faster and more manouvrable.
It's only conjecture, and I don't think it's based on any TM.
posted
In a few years Voyager's voice will start to change and it'll begin the akward change into a full grown starship.....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Triton: Does anyone have a Treknology reason, written by Rick Sternbach or others, that explains why the warp nacelles are so tiny on the Intrepid-class relative to the size of the saucer and engineering sections? Does the class have super efficient bussard collectors and warp coils?
IT IS A WOMAN'S SHIP! Therefore it is tiny.
quote:On the flipside, is their a Treknology reason why the warp nacelles and the impulse drive is so large on the Sovereign-class. From a production design standpoint I assume that they wanted a design that looks fast, but I was wondering if Rick Sternbach or others concocted a reason why they are so large?
IS IT A MAN'S SHIP! Therefore everything is big and rargh!
It's not a Treknology answer, but they did try using short nacelles when they were originally designing the Ent-E. No-one liked them though, so Eaves made them all big and long and MAN LIKE!
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I was trying to come up with something, even something far-fetched, but couldn't. Sorry. Any idea I've come up with will only carry one so far before it peters out due to contradictions.
Any theory would need to account for such things as nacelle/coil endurance, the needs for the ship as far as warp speeds and duration of travel are concerned, and warp maneuverability.
The best bet would be that the variable-geometry warp nacelles of the Intrepids allow for the smaller nacelles for some reason, but that this technique is not applicable to all ship classes or has some sort of problems that prevent it from being used on other ship types.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I posed the question to Rick Sternbach on TrekBBS and I got the following response from him:
[QUOTE]Truth be told, the producers wanted the nacelles that size. I went through about thirty different drawings of nacelles, their positions, mounting schemes, etc. until they found a combination they liked. I have no big tech explanation for the design, except to say that the coils are densified over similar coils in the Ent-D size ships, so a smaller coil will yield the same basic warp field output and ship velocity.
Rick
-------------------- Senior Illustrator Emeritus Star Trek 1978-2001
posted
Which leads us to the most natural explanation for the tiny nacelles: they are small because the Intrepids can land on planets.
If warp coils are very dense and massive, you'd want to have as few of those as possible, and very small ones at that, when you build a planetfall/take-off starship. You may have to pay a price - perhaps the Intrepid nacelles are only half as good as the double-length Miranda ones. But if you can compensate in some other manner, you will.
However, if you don't have to compensate, you don't. Humungous Sovereign nacelles might be replaced by a combination of smaller nacelles and engineering doodad X, but why do that when you have no mass limitations and can have both the big nacelles *and* X?
The Defiant could have small nacelles/cowlings for similar reasons: low profile is more important to the ship than good warp performance. And we *know* the Defiant is a slacker at warp. The Intrepid isn't - but then again, we don't know how she compares to other modern designs, since there never was any data on Sovereign top speed, and the one Nova we saw in the timeframe was badly damaged when limited to warp 8.
posted
Bear in mind, though, Timo, that Rick said the coils in the Intrepid were denser than normal due to their limited numbers, so they'd mass the same as longer engines... Maybe having that closer to the ship's centre of mass is sufficient?
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Could be... Or could be that the coils being dense is just another piece of Starfleet disinformation aimed at Klingon readers. Having small and light nacelles for planetary ops just sounds so simple and elegant when the only other known small-naceller is a) a distant background model and b) quite possibly another planetfaller anyway, with "wings" for pylons.
It might also be that the state of the art for nacelles in the 2370s-80s is the supercompact Intrepid standard - but the Novas and Sovereigns and Prometheii and whatnot use a lower standard for economic reasons, because Starfleet went bankrupt with the Galaxy generation of luxury-model ships.
quote:Originally posted by Timo: And we *know* the Defiant is a slacker at warp. The Intrepid isn't - but then again, we don't know how she compares to other modern designs
Well, she compares quite favourable with the Galaxy, and they're only 8 years apart, design wise.
Not to sound crazy though, but we've seen two modern Trek starships that are relatively small, and they both have small nacelles. Therefore, (and I know this is crazy mad sounding), perhaps smaller ships can have smaller nacelles and still get up to good speeds with modern technology?
And how do we know that the Defiant is a slacker at warp?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I believe poor high-warp performance was an oft-mentioned consequence of the Defiant's design, at least early on. But then, I can't think of an episode where this ever came up, and the Defiant never had any trouble getting where it needed to go as quickly as any other ship.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Having small and light nacelles for planetary ops just sounds so simple and elegant when the only other known small-naceller is a) a distant background model and b) quite possibly another planetfaller anyway, with "wings" for pylons.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
