TOS D-7 Nav Deflectors and Bussard Intakes

[CuttingEdge100]

I was thinking about the difference in the design of the bussard intakes or space-matter/energy acquisitions as well as the difference in Navigational Deflector design on the Klingon D-7 and Federation ships.

The Constitution-Class and most other UFP ships mount their bussard-collectors or space matter/energy sinks (I've heard both designations used) on the front of their warp-nacelles.

The D-7, mounted it's Bussard Collectors on the leading-edge of the vessel's wing-sections.

The Constitution's main deflector dish (which also doubles as the main-sensor array) is mounted on a 1950's looking radar-antenna at the front of the engineering-hull with three smaller auxiliary navigational deflectors mounted on the front of the saucer rim.

The D-7 mounted a sensor-dish/navigational deflector in a parabolic dent at the front of the ship. It has a more recessed configuration and is smaller. It has no apparent auxiliary deflector.

Both designs though seem to be quite similar in basic idea, though I am wondering about the D-7 possessing an "engine shield" at the front of it's nacelles.


I was thinking of an idea. Rather than integrate the Bussard intake with the Nacelle, the Klingon's spread it across the wing's leading-edge. It would give more ability to draw in stellar material or reduce the necessary power per given square meter of intake area allowing a simpler design. It could allow a simpler design, it could reduce drag and temperature build up on the vents by spreading it all out.

As for the deflectors, I was thinking, imagine if the "engine shields" were nav-deflectors.

You'd have three deflectors on the ship, the main one in the bow, the other two on the nacelles. The main deflector would have enough power to work on it's own in emergencies, as could the nacelle deflectors, but you could also run all three at lower power. It could potentially require less energy.


Opinions?

 

[JuanBolio]

I have no idea why the Klingons designed the D-7's the way they did. Personally I've always retconned the deflector into a torpedo launcher. The bussard intakes on the leading edge of the wings I think look swell, and would work fine.

The real question is why/how did they mount disruptor cannons on their warp nacelles?

 

[Shawnster]

I have no idea why the Klingons designed the D-7's the way they did. Personally I've always retconned the deflector into a torpedo launcher. The bussard intakes on the leading edge of the wings I think look swell, and would work fine.

The real question is why/how did they mount disruptor cannons on their warp nacelles?

Retconned? I always assumed that was the torpedo launcher. Especially since TMP shows the torpedoes firing from there.

Of course, maybe that's where the retcon starts. I was 8 when TMP came out in theaters. I really didn't start paying attention to tech until I was older. So, everything I saw from TMP onward, including Star Fleet Battles, indicated the torpedoes came from there.

 

[Albertese]

Well in TOS the Klingon ship only fired from the fronts of their engine nacelles. I think the Deflector/scanner descriptor originates with the AMT model kit of the klingon cruiser.

I could be wrong though.

--Alex

 

[Unicron]

IIRC, there was also a TAS ep that showed a D-7 with a sensor/deflector array in the nose.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If you believe as I do that shields and deflectors are separate systems, the bussard collectors would be part of the deflector system operating on similar principles as the warp drive. If Klingons don't use deflectors at all--and instead rely on something like reactive armor or something as their secondary defensive screen--then the smaller nacelles can be explained in that context, and the "hydrogen intake vents," if they really are that, could just be the D-7's atmospheric flight system.

After all, the bird of prey is the size and shape it is for a reason that may or may not have something to do with strafing people on the ground. Maybe the D7 is designed to do something similar?

 

[Timo]

The Feds seem to be so fixated on putting their ramscoops on their nacelles that it almost seems that this is absolutely mandatory, technologically speaking.

Since the TMP style of Starfleet nacelle doesn't feature a big dome for the ramscoop, but rather a series of smallish greeblies and grilles, one might argue that this is where the D-7 ramscoops are located as well - in the assorted boxes and dents and grooves of the nacelle bows.

One has to wonder if the ramscoop is intended as a fuel replenishment device at all. It could be more like a vital facilitator of warp travel - perhaps it scoops in stuff that would otherwise slam into the warp engines, attracted by the warp fields, and thus indeed is part of the deflector system (perhaps its most important part). It's only incidentally that it also collects the useful parts of the incoming dirt for later propulsive purposes...

I agree that the intake vents in the wings make for a convincing argument for atmospheric capabilities, even if the ship cannot readily land. Close-up strafing or even hovering bombardment of ground fortifications might be a standard maneuver; space combat usually degrades into a point-blank melee for some reason, and the same reason might require a heavily shielded fortress to be bombarded from a distance of at most a few kilometers (as in, say, DS9 "Once More Unto the Breach").

As for disruptors in the nacelles, one might say that it's a good idea to have the main guns close to the arguably most capacious power leads of the ship...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo,

The Feds seem to be so fixated on putting their ramscoops on their nacelles that it almost seems that this is absolutely mandatory, technologically speaking.

I think the UFP prefers putting it on the front of the nacelles simply because it is better integrated. The intake and the engine are all together as one piece.

The Klingon's may have not used as integrated a set-up for the following reasons

- The Klingon's preferred a larger intake area as it could take in more fuel and energy at lower warp-factors than Federation designs could. Blueprints made of the Klingon D-7 seem to indicate a massive amount of internal tankage compared to Federation designs which would allow them to fill up those huge tanks easier. At lower warp-factors they'd have a similar fuel intake ability, at higher warp-capabilities they could collect more fuel.

- The Klingon's may have considered it more practical to integrate the vents with the fuel-tanks which according to some diagrams of the D-7have their fuel-tanks in the wing-section.

- They were not capable of designing an intake that was as efficient as UFP designs and as a result used a larger intake area for the same size to do the job.

- The Klingon's may have favored using multiple nav-deflectors instead of just one, to produce the widest nav-deflector field possible, having one on the centerline of the ship and the other two on the nacelles would have been the best. Since they could not put the intakes on the front of the warp-nacelle with the deflector there, they put the intakes elsewhere, and the front of the wing happened to be a good spot.

One has to wonder if the ramscoop is intended as a fuel replenishment device at all. It could be more like a vital facilitator of warp travel - perhaps it scoops in stuff that would otherwise slam into the warp engines, attracted by the warp fields, and thus indeed is part of the deflector system (perhaps its most important part). It's only incidentally that it also collects the useful parts of the incoming dirt for later propulsive purposes...

Personally, I think the bussards are a fuel replenishment device, but it might be able to augment engine power. I mean blueshift would be quite extreme at higher warp-factors. The deflectors might help to an extent, but you could use that extreme energy and use it to help run the engines, more power than the reactors could ever provide on their own. Any hydrogen you'd take in would be gravy.

They were called space energy-matter acquisition/sinks. Maybe they were not just bussard collectors but energy collectors too. Some could be used immediately for propulsive benefits, but it could play a role in generating fuel (There is a type of energy-to-matter interaction in which two sufficiently high energy rays directed along a path that's either perpendicular or along a path that's like a skew-line, you get pair production, a proton and anti-proton which could be stored). At high warp the amount of hydrogen alone that you'd draw in combined with the energy converted into matter could potentially amount to a surplus, eventually you could overflow the tanks and would still be dragging in more. For the hydrogen, you could use the flush-vents to dump the excess out of (you couldn't dump the anti-matter to the best of my knowledge except by ejecting the pods -- though you might be able to somehow convert the anti-proton to an anti-neutron by hitting it with an anti-electron/positron. Anti-neutrons do not turn into energy when hit with a regular neutron and could be safely dumped). By in large it seems to integrate nicely.

The question though is the blue-shift would increase more rapidly as you went faster and that would result in the need to throttle back on the reactor to avoid unnecessary acceleration. Still the energy increase from the blue-shifted energy hitting the intakes could yield a runaway acceleration. Eventually the bussard-collector couldn't take the energy being forced into it and you could cause damage. The navigational-deflectors only work up to a certain speed as well. I suppose to an extent drag forces from hydrogen being drawn into the intakes would help, as would the hydrogen being dumped from the flush vents. However I don't know if it would be enough. You could radiate excess energy out those field-grilles located on the inboard nacelle and get rid of the excess you can't use.

Eventually, I could assume, the amount of power to go faster and faster would become so disproportionately high that even with the increasing energy drawn in through the intakes the acceleration curve would flatten out and the ship couldn't accelerate any faster.

Sound good?

I agree that the intake vents in the wings make for a convincing argument for atmospheric capabilities, even if the ship cannot readily land.

Doesn't seem to make much sense. The engines are not air-breathing, intakes would thus be useless. Drag wouldn't be a gigantic concern at most speeds you'd fly through atmosphere at as the thrust from those engines are enormous.

As for disruptors in the nacelles, one might say that it's a good idea to have the main guns close to the arguably most capacious power leads of the ship...

Only if they have their engine reactors in the nacelle. Otherwise their reactors would be somewhere inside the vessel's hull. That would be the most capacious power-source.


CuttingEdge100

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Doesn't seem to make much sense. The engines are not air-breathing, intakes would thus be useless.

Technically, they ARE air breathing, where "air" is the diffuse gas found in the interplanetary medium. The same engine could theoretically function like a kind of scramjet in an atmosphere, especially if gas is sucked into the intakes and then compressed at hyerpersonic speeds and squired out through the vents in the backs of those wings. It might even be a cheap fuel efficient way to fly in the atmosphere without having to use the impulse engines.

Or it might be a cheese grater, who the hell knows?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Who ever said that the D-7 even has Bussard collectors?

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Captain Robert April,

The vents were listed in at least one schematic if not multiple as being a bussard-collector

 

[Timo]

It's debatable how far offscreen blueprints should be trusted... The "space energy/matter acquisition/sink" thing in the old drawings probably wasn't intended to be a scooping device at all, because it appears in connection with a "space energy/matter source" at the other end of the engine. That makes the engine look like a pole magnet (with a sink and a source), a likely description for a device that creates a forcefield (the warp field)...

It's probably only later that some fans or technical advisors decided that the "sink" should be a ramscoop, and ignored the presence of the "source" end.

The intake and the engine are all together as one piece.

But as far as we know, the engine doesn't use hydrogen for anything. The hydrogen is used in the matter/antimatter reactor, and in the fusion reactors, and only the energy produced in those is channeled to the engines via the plasma conduits. So having the scoops in the engines would mean that the hydrogen would have to be first transported out of the engines and into the engineering hull for use, then its energies pumped back to the nacelles.

Of course, the TOS engine is often argued to be self-contained, so perhaps all the reactions take place within the nacelles. But that would make it unclear what critical operations Scotty is always performing within the engineering hull.

The engines are not air-breathing, intakes would thus be useless.

But the engines probably need cooling. And a cooling system designed for use in the vacuum of space would work poorly within a fluid like air, and vice versa. So there'd probably be two separate cooling systems, one for atmospheric use only. The leading and trailing edge vents of the ST:TMP ship's pylons may be for atmospheric flight, too (they'd make for piss-poor cooling devices in space). And the TOS ship had those series of square plates on her pylons; perhaps those open up for the same purpose in atmospheric flight, a bit like the flip-flopping headlights of sport cars?

Only if they have their engine reactors in the nacelle. Otherwise their reactors would be somewhere inside the vessel's hull. That would be the most capacious power-source.

But the main application for power would be the warp engines in the nacelles. So the main guns should be close to the main application, because that's where the main power leads would go.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain Robert April]

Do large naval vessels have outboard engines? No.

So why must a starship? Because that's what you're arguing for when you insist that the main power generation hardware be put out on the end of those pylons.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Do large naval vessels have outboard engines? No.

So why must a starship? Because that's what you're arguing for when you insist that the main power generation hardware be put out on the end of those pylons.

Yeah, except naval vessels don't have outboard propellers either (with the notable exception of hydrofoils). On the other hand, large military aircraft DO have outboard engines. And designs for nuclear-powered aircraft had outboard engines AND central reactor cores.

Just goes to show: analogies only go so far.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Timo,

It's debatable how far offscreen blueprints should be trusted... The "space energy/matter acquisition/sink" thing in the old drawings probably wasn't intended to be a scooping device at all, because it appears in connection with a "space energy/matter source" at the other end of the engine. That makes the engine look like a pole magnet (with a sink and a source), a likely description for a device that creates a forcefield (the warp field)...

It's probably only later that some fans or technical advisors decided that the "sink" should be a ramscoop, and ignored the presence of the "source" end.

I suppose that may be the case, but a bussard ramscoop that also manages to derive energy from blue-shifting would be quite practical and could work more effectively at lower warp factors than just a pure bussard-collector would, and the enormous energy collected could help augment engine power at high-speeds.

But as far as we know, the engine doesn't use hydrogen for anything. The hydrogen is used in the matter/antimatter reactor, and in the fusion reactors, and only the energy produced in those is channeled to the engines via the plasma conduits.

However if blue-shifted energy was collected it could be directed straight to the nacelle.

So having the scoops in the engines would mean that the hydrogen would have to be first transported out of the engines and into the engineering hull for use, then its energies pumped back to the nacelles.

As I said though if energy was drawn from blue-shifting, it could be fed straight into the nacelles, or used to help produce matter which could be fed into the tanks.

But the engines probably need cooling. And a cooling system designed for use in the vacuum of space would work poorly within a fluid like air, and vice versa. So there'd probably be two separate cooling systems, one for atmospheric use only.

Unlikely, the warp engines would almost certainly be turned off when in the atmosphere, therefore no cooling issue. Fusion engines would not need high power settings to run in the atmosphere.

The hull is almost certainly heat-shielded to a great degree which means most of the heat is deflected away from the hull, even at an atmospheric re-entry. Sure in the show they talked about burning up on re-entry, but the shielding the ship would have to have to withstand all the weapons and abuse the ship would have to withstand in the show, the heat of re-entry sounds like it could be easily managed by the ship's shields.

As for heat-shielding for the skin, we already have the ability to produce sturdy lightweight thermal protection systems since the mid 1960's for orbital spacecraft designs. McDonnell Aircraft Corporation which later became McDonnell Douglas in 1967, and in 1997 merged with Boeing, did a lot of research in this area. Such heat-shielding eliminates the requirement for elaborate cooling-schemes.

But the main application for power would be the warp engines in the nacelles. So the main guns should be close to the main application, because that's where the main power leads would go.

I suppose there is no rule that says the D-7 can't have it's annihilation chambers in the nacelles. Of course there would probably inevitably need to be reactors in the ship as well to power the navigational deflector, gravity, inertial damping, life-support.


Captain Robert April,

Do large naval vessels have outboard engines? No.

Of course not, because having the engines outboard would make the machinery for driving the screws more complicated. It would also induce more yaw if you stopped a screw.

So why must a starship? Because that's what you're arguing for when you insist that the main power generation hardware be put out on the end of those pylons.

Easy, the warp-field is a bubble. The wider the engines are apart, the bigger the bubble.


Helen

 

[T'Girl]

After all, the bird of prey is the size and shape it is for a reason that may or may not have something to do with strafing people on the ground. Maybe the D7 is designed to do something similar?

The shape of the klingon cruiser does have a winged configuration that would be useful in flying through the upper atmosphere of a gas giant, collecting hydrogen was they go. Much thicker that the thin hydrogen in intersteller space.

As for disruptors in the nacelles, one might say that it's a good idea to have the main guns close to the arguably most capacious power leads of the ship...

Only if they have their engine reactors in the nacelle. Otherwise their reactors would be somewhere inside the vessel's hull. That would be the most capacious power-source.
CuttingEdge100

Reviewing the episode "Elaan of Troyius" the visual appearance of Enterprise firing it's torpedoes and the klingons firing the weapons in their engine nacelles would suggest that the klingons are firing torpedoes from the lower leading edges of the nacelles. The colors are different, Enterprise's are blue-white, the klingon's are red. They are both balls of energy that trail smaller spheres or dots of energy.

Do large naval vessels have outboard engines? No.

Of course not, because having the engines outboard would make the machinery for driving the screws more complicated. It would also induce more yaw if you stopped a screw.

A central reactor combined with wide spread engine nacelles would be simular to the azipods on the giant cruise ships. Electric motors and propellors mounted in a steerable pod beneath the rear hull.

 

[Timo]

a bussard ramscoop that also manages to derive energy from blue-shifting would be quite practical

Fair enough.

the warp engines would almost certainly be turned off when in the atmosphere, therefore no cooling issue.

It's not the warp engines that would need cooling - it's the power system. One is unlikely to shut down main power in an atmosphere, because main power feeds the main weapons, at least on the ST:TMP ship and the Defiant.

The hull is almost certainly heat-shielded

No doubt. And one might also argue that waste heat is no longer a problem in power systems, either: treknology might allow for the bending or breaking of the current laws of thermodynamics. Still, there are these fancy forward-facing "intake" slots or grilles on many spacecraft, serving no other obvious purpose but to allow fluids to flow in. What other uses would a starship or a runabout have for fluids besides heat transfer (which may not be needed), energy capture (which might be marginal at best), or conversion into fuel (which is a stated role, at least in TNG, but may still be marginal)? Perhaps runabouts at least scoop gases from atmospheres to replenish their sources of onboard water, air and replication raw materials.

Of course not, because having the engines outboard would make the machinery for driving the screws more complicated.

Probably it would do the exact opposite: one wouldn't need long shafts, one wouldn't need to convert from one type of power to another at an unoptimal point of the power chain, and so forth. One could also make one's propellers swivel almost trivially easily if the engines swiveled with them - although modern ships prefer to do this by having the engines inboard and transferring the power hydraulically or electrically into the swiveling propeller pods.

Podded, hydraulically fed propellers and their inboard power sources are IMHO a closer analogy to the standard Starfleet warp engine than almost completely self-contained aircraft underwing engine pods (only with inboard fuel tanks) are.

Easy, the warp-field is a bubble. The wider the engines are apart, the bigger the bubble.

Might be. But few starship designs try to maximize the separation between the engines. It would be easy to mount the nacelles on longer pylons, or on shorter and presumably stronger pylons but on more distant parts of the ship - say, on both sides of the wide saucer rather than underneath it in ships like Miranda or Nebula. For some reason, this isn't done.


Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Podded, hydraulically fed propellers and their inboard power sources are IMHO a closer analogy to the standard Starfleet warp engine than almost completely self-contained aircraft underwing engine pods (only with inboard fuel tanks) are.

Maybe in 24th century style starships, sure. But then it occurs to me that nuclear-powered aircraft designs used both concepts: a central reactor pumping energy to the engines via heat exchangers (clean version) or a pair of reactors inside the engines themselves pumping heat directly into the airflow (dirty version). I'd bet my fandom that both designs have been tried by Starfleet at one time or another.

Might be. But few starship designs try to maximize the separation between the engines. It would be easy to mount the nacelles on longer pylons, or on shorter and presumably stronger pylons but on more distant parts of the ship - say, on both sides of the wide saucer rather than underneath it in ships like Miranda or Nebula. For some reason, this isn't done.

I've always assumed this is because the warp nacelles are also the primary element in the ship's deflector screens; having them too far away diminishes the defensive envelope of the shields by making the shield bubble larger and therefore more energy intensive.

 

[David Schmidt]

Regarding the D-7 (and K'tinga) main deflectors at the forward end of the nacelle: As I recall, the original Constitution-class rebuild design featured running the power to the phasers directly from the warp drive (read: warpcore). The Klingons are no dummies.

Regarding the Collectors: I assume the bussard Collectors can be used to feed the impulse drive DIRECTLY. This converts into a Bussard Ramjet. The faster the ship travels in normal space > the faster it collects interstellar fuel > the faster the ship travels in normal space. Even if the warp drive is crippled, travel between stars is a matter of years - weeks at relativistic speeds.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Again, why is it assumed that the D-7 even has Bussard collectors?