posted
I found an interesting passage the other day while doing some research for a friend about warp drive in the TNG Technical Manual. I realize the info is only semi-canon but much of it made it into episodes after it was published. There's a passage in the warp drive section that caught me off guard that gives a date to the active service of ships hinted at in TMP; mainly the Columbia, Revere and Entente:
quote:"In 2269, experimental work with single nacelles and more than two nacelles yielded quick confirmation that two was the optimum number for power generation and vehicle control."
This happens at the conclusion of 1701's mission before refit and as such happens before TMP. So it could mean that the three starships I mentioned above were relatively new designs at that time.
I know this will burst into wild discussion one way then the other, but I thought I'd share the quote anyway. Okuda and Sternbach may have had a reason for choosing a date of 2269 instead of using any other date that they could have gone with.
posted
I remember that passage, and coulnd't reconcile it with the more popular notion that single and triple nacelle designs had been around for longer than that. Personally, I take that quote to mean that studies upon these designs showed that they simply not as adaptable or versatile as the twin configurations.
posted
You pretty much pegged it. Mike glommed onto Gene's covert trashing of FJ and snuck in these little references where he could. However, TMP still included those references to single-nacelled scouts and triple-nacelled dreadnoughts, so he just arbirarily decided Starfleet was experimenting with them roughly around the time the Enterprise was being refitted, which he pegged c.2270, being five years after the start date of Kirk's five-year mission, which he arbitrarily pegged as being exactly three hundred years after the series aired... *sigh*
And no, he didn't worry about the registries being wildly out of whack for the period, as part of Gene's anti-FJ kick saw Mike dismiss the sequential registries model in favor of the Greg Jein/FASA non-sequential (or "self-induced lobotomy," as I call it) registries model that was the current official party line.
God I hate Hollywood politics.
--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
Yeah, I remember that passage. What I've always disliked about that is that someone should've been experimenting with variations on the number of nacelles a long time before 2269. That just doesn't make sense to me.
The choice of 2269 seems to me as nothing more than another explicit attempt to de-canonize the Franz Joseph designs.
-------------------- “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
Absolutely; just look at the amount of experimentation done modern technologies, especially aircraft; there are scores of experimantal planes with varying numbers and types of engines, differing wing and fuselage shape, etc. I find it highly improbable that more that 200 years after the Phoenix's first flight, no one has thought to see what happens if different numbers of nacelles are used.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
It says that, in 2269, they determined that non-dual-nacelled ships were less efficient. It doesn't say that there weren't earlier experiments. Just that those experiments didn't prove anything.
Besides, if they found out that ships with "more than two nacelles" weren't optimum, why did they keep using the Constellation, and why did hey ever build the Cheyenne and Prometheus? Obviously something's missing here.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd like to agree with you, Tim, except that the article specifically said that "experimental work ... yielded quick confirmation" -- to my mind, that means that it was unconfirmed before. And being unconfirmed means that no one bothered to try it before then.
And it's not just Cheyenne and Prometheus... what about Freedom, Niagara, or the Nebula prototype(s)?
-------------------- “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
It does seem to me that the 4-nacelled vessels are just 2-nacelled vessels that have an extra pair of nacelles when the first pair overheats... which extends the maximum speed a ship can travel for 12 more hours, and if there was a way to calculate it the 12 hour rate would be substaintually faster as the two nacelles could switch back and forth, as one heats up the other could kick while it cooled, eventually the heat would build up to the point that this wouldn't work so the engines would both have to be shutdown, but that's the way it is.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
"I'd like to agree with you, Tim, except that the article specifically said that "experimental work ... yielded quick confirmation" -- to my mind, that means that it was unconfirmed before. And being unconfirmed means that no one bothered to try it before then."
Well, that's one interpretation, but not necessarily the only possible one. Something can be unconfirmed, even though it's been tried. For example, we've tried before to look for life on Mars, but it's still unconfirmed. However, if the current probe up there happens to find a puppy behind one of those rocks it's going to look at, that would be "quick confirmation".
Basically, you can assume it means whatever you like, but there are other assumptions that someone else can make, and you can't prove them wrong.
"And it's not just Cheyenne and Prometheus... what about Freedom, Niagara, or the Nebula prototype(s)?"
Well, I was specifically targetting the fact that four-nacelled ships are generally considered "normal", even if less common than two-nacelled. Some people still look on things like the Freedom and Niagara as oddities.
And I didn't mention the four-nacelled Nebula simply because it didn't occur to me. Honestly, I don't know what to think about it. It is pretty silly-looking, after all.
[ January 19, 2004, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It can also be unconfirmed due to the technology requirements. For example, it was long believed that forward swept wings had advantages versus aft swept wings, but it wasn't until the development of light, strong composite materials that the concept could be fully tested.
Also, the TM passage does not state that single and multiple nacelle ships are worthless; it simply states that the dual nacelle design is optimal for power generation and vehicle control. There may very well be applications where an odd number of nacelles may be more practical, but these would not normally apply to long-term, day to day operations.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
This is obviously just part of the disinformation added to the TNG:TM to confuse Threat forces. The reason we so rarely see 3-nacelle ships is that they're the highly efficient ships used for covert ops. We just want those pesky Romulans who got ahold of the TM to think they're lousy prototypes.
-------------------- Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning. - Red Dwarf "The Last Day"
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
He's right! The Prommie and Sovvie are just an elaborate ruse to cover the development of the Federation's greatest weapon. The Freedom class (not to be confused with the hated French class).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
ok, now most commmon designs use dual nassals for thier warp bubble, we agree on that. why then did the great edict banning the "non cannon" and FASA designs occur? what was the back ground story with that arguement vs G and F? money? F's book(s)?
and speaking of Star Fleet Battles & the current series of games of late, why aren't some of the FASA (or who ever owns SFB now) considered semi-cannon at least? how did FASA ever get the rights to ST? do they still have them? if so, what are Paramounts thoughts?
lots of Q's, yes, but you'll sound like you would know...or be able to BS really good excuses
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
excuses 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
