posted
Ok, I read something that ships must have pairs of nacelles, and not an odd number. In designing my own stuff, I'd like to know if this is true...
But, does that make the Freedom and 3 nacelled Enterprise non-canon or what?
------------------ Jeff Raven - Having more fun than any human being should be allowed to have
posted
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'.
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
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
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
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.
posted
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
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
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
