"Faster than light, no left or right..."

[Kamen Rider Blade]

7 shows Janeway an animation of their ships generating a massive shaped field around the entire vessel and some vague reference to it "not working like Starfleet warp fields". Something along the lines of their decentralised technology having an array of field emitters under the hull that create a much larger spatial warp aided by 'something' else.

That just gave me a TON of ideas =D.

Thanks for pulling that quote, do you know what episode that was so I can look it up on my DVD collection?

 

[Kemaiku]

That just gave me a TON of ideas =D.

Thanks for pulling that quote, do you know what episode that was so I can look it up on my DVD collection?

I don't remember very much about Voyager, I know they needed the information to try and augment Voyager for some reason, sorry.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The Borg travel at FTL through sheer force of will.

Sorry, only Wesley Crusher and the Traveler do that along with Q like beings!

 

[Kemaiku]

Wait, no.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Transwarp_conduit

Under technical data, it looks like I was thinking of the structural integrity field they project, not a bigger warp field. It looks like they create a field fairly normally then use a powerful SIF to hold them together from the stress.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Transwarp_drive

There's the image, with...Reg but okay, knew they where both somewhere.

 

[DonIago]

Sorry, only Wesley Crusher and the Traveler do that along with Q like beings!

That's what the Borg want you to think!

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I really think that Starfleet designs are more about being modular and that the limitations on how nacelles can be combines are self-imposed limitations as a result of choosing to use nacelles; they make it easier to understand/design ships with this approach. Is DS9's Defiant, or Voyager's USS Raven ever shown making a warp turn? Lacking line-of-sight on the nacelles, perhaps those two ships have limited warp maneuvering like a one-nacelled ship but with the trade-off being that two nacelles operating singularly is much faster than a pair working together. Both ships are used for infiltration into enemy areas. I mean, the Defiant can hold her own in a fight, but i she needs to run, she needs to RUN!!

 

[blssdwlf]

Is DS9's Defiant, or Voyager's USS Raven ever shown making a warp turn?

Not the Defiant, but an identical sister ship, the Valiant in "Valiant" matched "course and speed" with a Dominion battleship and followed it for three hours at warp. Dialogue indicated that the battleship and the Valiant made at least one course change at warp and probably other changes offscreen as well.

I don't see any specific evidence that a single nacelle ship or a dual nacelle ship with no line-of-sight between nacelles would have any maneuvering penalty though.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I don't see any specific evidence that a single nacelle ship or a dual nacelle ship with no line-of-sight between nacelles would have any maneuvering penalty though.

You are correct, I do not think there has been evidence that 1-nacelled ships can't turn at warp, simply because they are so rarely onscreen. In my original post, I was hoping to unite the Freedom, Kelvin, Saladin, etc. types with Gene's "rules" given to Andrew Probert when designing the refit that nacelles must be in pairs and have line of sight by suggesting that maybe 1-nacelled ships or ships with no line of sight have maneuvering limitations compared with ships that have pairs of nacelles with line of sight.

This might help justify an unusual kitbash design like the Buran. Vertical paired nacelles either give the ship more y-axis maneuverability but less x-axis, or maybe they just let it flee really fast in a straight line?!

There is no evidence that 1-nacelled ships have a limitation, but such ships are so rarely seen that there is little evidence to the contrary either.

 

[Mres_was_framed!]

I stated something related on another thread and wanted to add some of that info here, as it relates to the question of warp drive limitations:

January 2003, Volume 3 Issue 09. Pgs. 98-101, written by Rich Sternbach, gives the design goals of the Constellation-class, and it includes a deck-chart cutaway.

It is specifically stated this layout was to meet 4 goals compared to the Constitution refit: 25% more crew, 25% more cargo, same speed rating, fit in existing docks.

Amazingly, this vessel is described as looking the way it does for a reason: to have more labs and crew in a vessel of similar size.

This design approach helps justify a design like the Kelvin, in that it is not really bigger than a Constitution class ship by livable internal volume if the upper secondary hull is mostly open hangar deck, and the nacelle contains basically only engineering and mechanicals. The seemingly large saucer is possibly only 1 deck tall in the middle, and is designed for the crew to have lots of labs and quarters, without an arboretum, pool, large cargo bays, etc. Maybe it needs a big hangar deck because it basically warps directly into a system, the crew spreads out in shuttles to explore, then rejoins the ship to warp away. It's like this ship is sort of a mobile base. That approach would change to a more detached vessel that could do more maneuvering on its own, then later the Galaxy class returns to being a like a base, except this time, it is maneuverable too.