Do The Feds Engine Config Have Any Advantage To It?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2002-12-22 08:45pm

It's ludicrous. It boggles the mind. It's indecent. Who would expose their engines in such a manner that they would become The Protruding Cylinders of Malfunction? It's possible it has been discussed before, but is there ANY paticular advantage to having the engines of Federation spacecraft be arranged in such a way?

Aerodynamics are obviously out, although the earlier designs (and most of the new ones) are about as aerodynamic as a brick.

Does their painfully off-axis position help them turn better? A even better question, do Fed ships vector thrust from their main engines, or is it a seperate system?

Does its unstable matter/antimatter anihalation system make it dangerous to be the main ships body? If so then why do smaller ships employ this configuration, is it that only a certain amount of a byproduct of an M/AM reaction dangerous to the crew? Even more, why can the other cxivilizations tuck their engines away (some of them)?

Or it simply a matter of really bad 23rd century thinking? And the failure of future generations to fix it? After all Conchranes contraption had that specific engine design, so did the E-nil and so on.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-22 08:55pm

IIRC, the defiant and other integrated designs were limited to a lower warp speed than nacelle-based wrap drives. Thus, it is possible that having the warp engines in nacelles improves the efficiency with which they can warp space without compromising the integrity of the main hull.

Of course, it's just as likely that Federation engineers are simply idiots.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2002-12-22 08:55pm

Some new feddy ships seem to be getting rid of that whole nacelles on pylons thing, like Defiants, SRs, Sabres and maybe even Akiras.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-22 09:02pm

I think nacelles are supposed to project the warp field around the ship. I guess having the nacelles farther apart helps spread the warp field into a larger ovoid instead of having to put more power into nacelles to make the same large ovoid.

Though the idea of having those nacelles on pylons is kinda stupid.

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2002-12-22 09:14pm

As Data Link said, having the nacelles out away from the primary hull is supposed to offer a speed advantage compared to ships which recess them into the hull. The recessed designs, however, have less of a target silhouette and maintain propulsive power for longer when damaged. One would assume it also offers an increase in shield strength since there's less area to cover. Also note that the 4-nacelle design of the Constellation class is supposed to be even faster than a 2-nacelle, however the increased complexity of the warp field makes it more difficult to maintain. That's why 3 and 4 nacelle designs are so uncommon. The pylons also make a certain amount of sense considering that the impact of another ship against one of the nacelles of the E-D was enough to detonate it: with them out there on the pylons they can be jettisoned if need be.

What I'd love to know is how a Constitution-class ship avoids spinning out of control since it's impulse engine is off the centerline.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-12-23 06:34am

Ehhh... Treknobabble, shape of the warp field, treknobabble, stability of the warp field, treknobabble, thruster control is located throughout the ship (I think...), treknobabble... Aw, heck! They look cool!

(BTW, I in no way, or capacity, advocate the use of those puny naceles and only a token number of starships actually do look cool with those plastic cigarretes.)

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2002-12-23 07:52am

I think originally the idea was that the whatever the engines did was hazardous to the crew if they were too close so they got stuck way out there. It appeared to be something of a common thing with ship designs in TOS (Feddies, Klingons, Romulans) most of the major ships had their engines away from the rest of the ship.

Andras · Post by **Andras** » 2002-12-23 10:06am

Weren't the warp cores in the nacelles at first, 1 in each. That makes the "radiation" and 'jettisonning' precautions make sense, Without the M/AM cores in the nacelles, both of these features have no value.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2002-12-23 10:25am

data_link wrote:IIRC, the defiant and other integrated designs were limited to a lower warp speed than nacelle-based wrap drives. Thus, it is possible that having the warp engines in nacelles improves the efficiency with which they can warp space without compromising the integrity of the main hull.

Of course, it's just as likely that Federation engineers are simply idiots.

There was a ST rpg book by Last Unicorn Games that had the same explanation about integrated warp engines producing a lower warp speed. However, it also said that vessel with integrated warp engines have stronger shields due to the smaller cross-section. The rpg book also stated it was possible to adjust integrated warp engines to equal nacelle-based warp engines in speed. The info is unofficial but it does seem to fit the official stuff about ST.

I would agree with your second explanation that Federation engineers are idiots.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2002-12-23 10:51am

I thought it was for ease of Maintenace in Shipyards, and so they can be Jettisoned in the event of a instability.

At least that WAS the book, & in SFB that was the excuse.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2002-12-23 12:42pm

might i point out that one of the most popular abd widely used starfighters in the sw galaxy is the Y- wing. said starfighter is also contructed in the pylon/nacelle format. hmmmmmm something to think about. heck most of the 'nacelle' on a Y-Wing is just a frame.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-23 12:58pm

Advantages of Federation engines? You need smaller self-destruct charges.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2002-12-23 01:29pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Advantages of Federation engines? You need smaller self-destruct charges.

why stop there! vs. an ISD the warp core is a fed ships only useful weapon! RAMMING SPEED! WOO-HOO!

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-23 04:03pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:why stop there! vs. an ISD the warp core is a fed ships only useful weapon! RAMMING SPEED! WOO-HOO!

Imperial officer: "Um, sir."
Captain: "Yes, what is it?"
Officer: "The Federation flagship has just rammed itself against our hull."
Captain: "So?"
Officer: "So, when it's warp core exploded, it scratched the paint on the hull, sir."
Captain: "WHAT? I JUST GOT THIS PAINT JOB YESTERDAY! THOSE FEDERATION BASTARDS WILL PAY!"

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-23 05:06pm

There is the whole concept of the engines using bussard collectors to channel the hydrogen directly into the nacelle M/AM reaction (in TOS) which would lend some purpose to the offboard nacelles.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-23 05:10pm

oh and lets not forget that Klingon BOPs have no nacelles. The ends of their wings have disruptors.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2002-12-23 05:52pm

kojikun wrote:There is the whole concept of the engines using bussard collectors to channel the hydrogen directly into the nacelle M/AM reaction (in TOS) which would lend some purpose to the offboard nacelles.

Except you could just as easily mount similar sized devices directly on the hull with a bulge around them and the engines behind for protection.

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2002-12-23 05:54pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
kojikun wrote:There is the whole concept of the engines using bussard collectors to channel the hydrogen directly into the nacelle M/AM reaction (in TOS) which would lend some purpose to the offboard nacelles.
Except you could just as easily mount similar sized devices directly on the hull with a bulge around them and the engines behind for protection.

And run the risk of having their ships look like they could do combat with a fly? I say thee neigh good sir!

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2002-12-23 06:30pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
kojikun wrote:There is the whole concept of the engines using bussard collectors to channel the hydrogen directly into the nacelle M/AM reaction (in TOS) which would lend some purpose to the offboard nacelles.
Except you could just as easily mount similar sized devices directly on the hull with a bulge around them and the engines behind for protection.
And run the risk of having their ships look like they could do combat with a fly? I say thee neigh good sir!

Well, the Steamrunner has the collectors on the saucer...

BTW, isn't the interstellar (atomic, molecular, element, whatever) density stupidiosly low? This would completely void the whole ideia of collecting hydrogen. IIRC, NASA has some of those plans for Bussard collectors, but they're HUGE thingamjigs.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-24 12:54am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Advantages of Federation engines? You need smaller self-destruct charges.

The Galaxy-class, at least, has a number of secondary charges throughout the ship in the event that the antimatter has all been jettisonned. While the diagram doesn't look like enough to totally annihilate the ship, I could recognize that the charges had been put in key areas (the bridge, the computer cores, the warp drive) so as to prevent enemy capture of critical technologies.

The Constitution-class also had them (see Star Trek 3), and while it seems normal procedure to detonate the warp core ("When that much matter and antimatter come together, oh yes..." -Scotty, TMP) at auto-destruct, it seems likely that the computer had lost the ability to trigger the auto-destruct sequence in the rest of the ship due to battle damage.

What I'd love to know is how a Constitution-class ship avoids spinning out of control since it's impulse engine is off the centerline.

The tech manuals describe something they call "vectored thrust"; I can't remember what it was, but it basically let the impulse engines push the ship in different directions.

The pylons also make a certain amount of sense considering that the impact of another ship against one of the nacelles of the E-D was enough to detonate it: with them out there on the pylons they can be jettisoned if need be.

OTOH, Enterprise fired phasers into Reliant's port nacelle... and then moments later blew it off completely. No mention made of Reliant's warp core becoming unstable.

I imagine it's something to do with warp field geometry now in the TNG+ era. I'm pretty sure in the TOS era it was because of potential hazards to the crew (one interview with someone who made models revealed that, at least to the production crew, they thought that if someone were to stand between the nacelles when the ship was at warp drive, they'd be fried) but since we've now got people working IN THE NACELLE ITSELF (there was a TNG episode that showed people working in the nacelle... while in operation, I think) as well as designs like the Defiant, it seems likely that that reason has been tossed to the wind in favor of fanciful ideas about warp geometry and crap like that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-24 12:58am

Stylistic consistency. They were supposed to be dangerous in TOS, but in TNG they fucked that up, so now they make up a bunch of worthless technobabble to explain it even though half the alien ships in the show (and even some Feddie ships) don't need to do that.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2002-12-24 05:15am

Warspite wrote:BTW, isn't the interstellar (atomic, molecular, element, whatever) density stupidiosly low? This would completely void the whole ideia of collecting hydrogen. IIRC, NASA has some of those plans for Bussard collectors, but they're HUGE thingamjigs.

The entire "nacelle bussard collector" concept is wholly a TNG invention. The mechanics of the warp nacelles in the original series ship were never explained beyond a vague mention of the antimatter pods being located within them. But the episode "That Which Survives" seems to contradict this.

The original guides only mention that the warp engines are designed to be jettisoned in an emergency (mentioned in "The Savage Curtain"). One idea I had was that outboard warp drive engines may have been opted for on the concept that they would be easily replaceable; with starbases having warp engine units stored and ready to swap for the damaged unit on a starship to reduce turnaround time in the repair dock.

From everything I've ever understood about the technology in TOS, the "caps" on the nacelles were the actual drivefield projection devices, and the Franz Josef tech manual explains that the warp system is "reversable" with "moderate loss of operation efficency" or something along those lines. This would contraindicate the entire idea that the warp engine unit incorporates a bussard collector.

The warp nacelle bussard collector is first demonstrated in the stupid TNG episode "Samaratan Snare" with the Pakleds, as support for the "crimson forcefield" trick pulled by Geordi and the Enterprise crew. Now a whole library of technobabble has sprouted around what was an idiotic plot device.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2002-12-24 03:17pm

data_link wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:why stop there! vs. an ISD the warp core is a fed ships only useful weapon! RAMMING SPEED! WOO-HOO!
Imperial officer: "Um, sir."
Captain: "Yes, what is it?"
Officer: "The Federation flagship has just rammed itself against our hull."
Captain: "So?"
Officer: "So, when it's warp core exploded, it scratched the paint on the hull, sir."
Captain: "WHAT? I JUST GOT THIS PAINT JOB YESTERDAY! THOSE FEDERATION BASTARDS WILL PAY!"

Jesus, imagine the amount of paint needed to paint the Imperial Navy.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2002-12-24 03:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:Stylistic consistency. They were supposed to be dangerous in TOS, but in TNG they fucked that up, so now they make up a bunch of worthless technobabble to explain it even though half the alien ships in the show (and even some Feddie ships) don't need to do that.

Didn't we in a Voyager episode (forget which) see a Starfleet warship from the 28th century, which lacked nacelles??

However, I admit that the nacelles mainly are there because they look cool.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2002-12-24 03:36pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
data_link wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:why stop there! vs. an ISD the warp core is a fed ships only useful weapon! RAMMING SPEED! WOO-HOO!
Imperial officer: "Um, sir."
Captain: "Yes, what is it?"
Officer: "The Federation flagship has just rammed itself against our hull."
Captain: "So?"
Officer: "So, when it's warp core exploded, it scratched the paint on the hull, sir."
Captain: "WHAT? I JUST GOT THIS PAINT JOB YESTERDAY! THOSE FEDERATION BASTARDS WILL PAY!"
Jesus, imagine the amount of paint needed to paint the Imperial Navy.

It would be a good government contract to have. BIG MONEY!