Nacelle design hypothesis

[WarpFactorZ]

So all the ships on "Discovery" have nacelles that aren't cylindrical like we think they should be. But why do we think this? Because the only other exposure we've had to this era is TOS -- but TOS showed us only the Constitution class (plus their shuttles). Should we really expect ALL nacelles on ALL Starfleet vessels to be identical? TOS established that the shape of the nacelle isn't the thing that makes or breaks it -- Klingon D7s have TMP-style nacelles. So what's the difference?

Look at it this way. Perhaps Starfleet has different contractors building warp engines for them, just like Boeing has GE-built engines, and Airbus has Rolls Royce. Each has their own design, constrained by the physics at work (aerodynamics). Since we already know the nacelle shape isn't constrained by the physics, what's the problem? We see nacelles in Discovery that aren't the familiar round ones, but maybe that's because SF switched their contracts for a period of time, or had different contractors for different ship builds. Furthermore, it's possible the round Constitution nacelles are specific to that special class (which DISC has indicated is a special assignment), and are designed to have a longer range.

Does that make people happier? Discuss!

 

[XCV330]

Starships in Trek don't even have to have nacelles, or the alternate ring system. Where's the nacelles on the Sarajevo type from ENT? Seems like most alien of the week ships didn't have anything remotely like the nacelle.

Since the whole thing is made up and routinely retconned, I can't offer much in the way of suggestion except that cylindrical pressure hulls are easier to produce than more complex shapes, and a sphere easier than that. (first manned orbital vehicle, Vostok, was a spherical pressure vessel atop a series of cylindrical pressure hulls). Case in point the Lockheed X-33 of the late 1990's and early 2000's, which was supposed to lead to the Venture Star seen in the opening credits of Enterprise, failed for a lot of reasons but one of the biggest was the inability to make complicated composite tanks to form fit the non-cylindrical shape of the frame. If you want to go simple, you go with what works.

One reason why I like the old Daedalus design is that it really does look like an ugly cheap last-ditch ship composed of mass produced cylindrical segments connected to a spherical pressure vessel.

 

[Vger23]

Starships in Trek don't even have to have nacelles, or the alternate ring system. Where's the nacelles on the Sarajevo type from ENT? Seems like most alien of the week ships didn't have anything remotely like the nacelle.

Since the whole thing is made up and routinely retconned, I can't offer much in the way of suggestion except that cylindrical pressure hulls are easier to produce than more complex shapes, and a sphere easier than that. (first manned orbital vehicle, Vostok, was a spherical pressure vessel atop a series of cylindrical pressure hulls). Case in point the Lockheed X-33 of the late 1990's and early 2000's, which was supposed to lead to the Venture Star seen in the opening credits of Enterprise, failed for a lot of reasons but one of the biggest was the inability to make complicated composite tanks to form fit the non-cylindrical shape of the frame. If you want to go simple, you go with what works.

One reason why I like the old Daedalus design is that it really does look like an ugly cheap last-ditch ship composed of mass produced cylindrical segments connected to a spherical pressure vessel.

Interestingly most Klingon ships, for example, have those stubby downward-deployed nacelles, but the Bird of Prey has none.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

So all the ships on "Discovery" have nacelles that aren't cylindrical like we think they should be. But why do we think this? Because the only other exposure we've had to this era is TOS -- but TOS showed us only the Constitution class (plus their shuttles).

This. Cannot. Be. Emphasized. Enough.

It is quite explicit in TOS that the Enterprise and her sister ships are "very special vessels" that are unique and different to others. Per the original text, they should be outliers.

 

[David cgc]

I'm fine with the mid-23rd century Starfleet having as much diversity in design styles as the 24th century. In the TNG era, there were plenty of "families" of ships that were similar to each other but still distinct from their more distant cousins. The Galaxy, Nebula and Wolf 359 ships were one style, the Sovereign and other FC ships were another, the Intrepid, Prometheus, and Nova a third, and so on.

The only thing I'd like is if they weren't so unified in presentation. All the ships we see in ST09 are from the Kelvin family, all the ones we saw in TOS were the Constitution family, and, so far, all the ships we've in Discovery belong to the Shenzhou family. I'm hoping that once they're more confident in establishing their look-and-feel, DSC will incorporate more vintage designs, and we'll see more Starfleet ships aren't just kitbashes of one ship (but instead kitbashes of three ships!).

 

[XCV330]

I'm fine with the mid-23rd century Starfleet having as much diversity in design styles as the 24th century. In the TNG era, there were plenty of "families" of ships that were similar to each other but still distinct from their more distant cousins. The Galaxy, Nebula and Wolf 359 ships were one style, the Sovereign and other FC ships were another, the Intrepid, Prometheus, and Nova a third, and so on.

The only thing I'd like is if they weren't so unified in presentation. All the ships we see in ST09 are from the Kelvin family, all the ones we saw in TOS were the Constitution family, and, so far, all the ships we've in Discovery belong to the Shenzhou family. I'm hoping that once they're more confident in establishing their look-and-feel, DSC will incorporate more vintage designs, and we'll see more Starfleet ships aren't just kitbashes of one ship (but instead kitbashes of three ships!).

The Crossfield class doesn't really look like the Shenzou to me.

 

[velour]

One of the peculiar things about the TOS Enterprise and the other Constitution class ships are those handle bar looking structures at the top rear of the nacelles.

When I was younger, I thought those handle bars were for the convenience of those people who had to handle or carry the model of the Enterprise.

 

[David cgc]

The Crossfield class doesn't really look like the Shenzou to me.

That'll teach me to almost write "the Binary Stars battle" before remembering we've seen those ships in later episodes and deciding to generalize. I also said "all" of the ships in ST09 were Kelvin variants, disregarding the unique hero ship in that movie, too.

 

[F. King Daniel]

This. Cannot. Be. Emphasized. Enough.

It is quite explicit in TOS that the Enterprise and her sister ships are "very special vessels" that are unique and different to others. Per the original text, they should be outliers.

In TOS, they were Starships, everything else just a spaceship. This would hold meaning only if the Enterprise could do something the Discovery and the other DSC ships (or even NX-01) couldn't.

Alas, same shit, different container.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Cochrane's Phoenix had cylindrical nacelles.

 

[Michael]

So all the ships on "Discovery" have nacelles that aren't cylindrical like we think they should be. But why do we think this?

Do we?

 

[Ithekro]

We assumed they would have cylindrical nacelles based on the only known pieces of evidence we had up until this year. With rare exceptions all of the Starfleet ships, and Earth ships for that matter, have had cylindrical nacelles since the Phoenix up until the USS Enterprise got a major refit for TMP. Most of the Starfleet ships in ENT had cylindrical nacelles, and the few TOS era Starfleet ships or shuttles we did see had them as well. Add to this the USS Kevin having a massive cylinder as a nacelle and her universe's Starfleet had similar nacelles until USS Enterprise is built with a tapered nacelle, followed the Dreadnought which does not have cylindrical things on it.

So far in Discovery, no ships have cylinders for their nacelles regardless of their age. This may be just to show that the paths of Starfleet took a different path in the universe where Nero didn't attack USS Kelvin. And the only ship class that has cylinders in the current Starfleet is the Constitution-class, which has them for unknown reasons. Perhaps its a retro style based on the NX-class era and the naming convention for these is the "Starship-class", named after famous starships. While the rest of Starfleet seems to be named after test pilots, and other things.

 

[Tuskin38]

I feel like the nacelles (other then the Shenzhou's) fit between the Connie and the Movie Era.

They're angular, but still have dome shaped bussard collectors.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Do we?

Yes, we do. It was decided at last month's meeting.

 

[XCV330]

Constitution class ships seem to be designed with extreme long range missions, often operating alone and out of reach of starbases and drydocks. This is just fan hypothesizing, but in such a situation you want to keep things as simple as possible for any potential emergency field-repairs. Simple shapes to fabricate, smooth surfaces, etc.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Most of the Fed ships from TAS also had cylindrical nacelles, and TAS is now generally regarded as “canon”.
My two cents worth is that not having cylindrical nacelles was a bad Idea because cylindrical nacelles are one of the visual cues that would help ground the show in the era in which it is supposed to take place.
As it stands, there is nothing in ST: Discovery that makes it necessary in the overall scheme of things for it to take place in the “Pike era”, and quite a bit that would work better if it were set in late “TNG” or post “Nemesis” eras.
Makes me wonder why the show runners bothered at all to choose the era they did, since the relative minority of the TOS fan base they appealed to by doing so, now feel betrayed and “disenfranchised” by what amounts to a “bait and switch” tactic.

 

[uniderth]

The Romulan ship had cylindrical nacelles. If that ship was based of stolen designs then it would stand to reason that cylindrical nacelles were fairly common. Also if you consider TAS canon or the remastered then there are many more examples of round nacelled ships. They seem to be pretty common.

I don't think nacelles HAVE to be a certain shape, becasue we can clearly see a lot of variety in Warp technologies. However, cylindrical nacelles are probably (and if not, then SHOULD be) part of the same Federation design philosophy. The general look of the Constitution Class is probably the same general look of other Starfleet ships of the same era. There's a lot of variation that can come with that. But the Discovery as she is now, sits too far outside that for my taste.

They're angular, but still have dome shaped bussard collectors.

But the Constitution Class didn't have dome shaped bussard collectors.

 

[Wulfsa]

I like nacelles, in all shapes and sizes.

- Montgomery Scott 1645

 

[Tuskin38]

But the Constitution Class didn't have dome shaped bussard collectors.

If they're Bussard collectors in the 24th century, they're Bussard collectors in the 23rd.

The warp engine design in the two centuries is basically the same, long thing with red glowy thing in the front.

It only makes sense.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

In TOS, they were Starships, everything else just a spaceship. This would hold meaning only if the Enterprise could do something the Discovery and the other DSC ships (or even NX-01) couldn't.

Alas, same shit, different container.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, here. The terminology used in-universe, and the fact that it changed later out-of-universe, is ultimately irrelevant. Kirk tells us there are only twelve ships like the Enterprise in the fleet in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" (TOS), and this loses no meaning, whatever term those ships or any others are or aren't called by. If the "shit" is the same, as you say, then it only makes all the more sense for the container to be the rare and special thing.

The Romulan ship had cylindrical nacelles. If that ship was based of stolen designs then it would stand to reason that cylindrical nacelles were fairly common. Also if you consider TAS canon or the remastered then there are many more examples of round nacelled ships. They seem to be pretty common.

I don't think nacelles HAVE to be a certain shape, becasue we can clearly see a lot of variety in Warp technologies. However, cylindrical nacelles are probably (and if not, then SHOULD be) part of the same Federation design philosophy. The general look of the Constitution Class is probably the same general look of other Starfleet ships of the same era.There's a lot of variation that can come with that. But the Discovery as she is now, sits too far outside that for my taste.

You do raise a few good points in this, to be sure. I'm so used to people refusing to accept any evidence from TAS, and so averse to the "remastered" TOS myself, that I sometimes completely forget to consider those designs. So let's do so...

None but the Bonaventure from "The Time Trap" (which doesn't exactly have totally round nacelles, but close enough I suppose) explicitly predates the Enterprise, whose design—intended to be the specific source for the Romulan BoP, though that angle never made it into the episode in any form as aired—dates back "about forty years" (mid 2220s by today's reckoning) per The Making Of Star Trek (1968), even if she herself only dates to 2245, as suggested by later materials. (Incidentally, this means that even if there are only a dozen left in Kirk's era, there could have been more of them in the past, considering the rate at which we see them lost!)

The Huron from "The Pirates Of Orion" (TAS) readily might or might not:

The cargo drones from "More Tribbles, More Troubles" (TAS) are identical to the Woden from the remastered "The Ultimate Computer" (TOS), and to the Antares from the remastered "Charlie X" (TOS) sans crew module:

The age and origins of other "remastered" designs such as Mudd's "class J cargo ship" from "Mudd's Women" (TOS)—which is identical, or nearly so, to the remastered Aurora from "The Way To Eden" (TOS), yet need not (and IMO really ought not) be the same as the unseen "old class J starship" aboard which Pike was injured in "The Menagerie" (TOS)—are unlcear:

Pegging them as being of Federation origin does seem reasonable, though, and was indeed the stated intent in at least the case of the Medusan vessel from the remastered "Is There No Truth In Beauty" (TOS):

But of course, TAS gives us examples of other craft of similar extraction that instead have cigar-shaped nacelles, in the form of Carter Winston's from "The Survivor" and Cyrano Jones' from "More Tribbles, More Troubles" (TAS):

We should also be generous and not forget to throw in the Franz Joseph designs shown fleetingly (no pun intended) on background monitors in STII and STIII as well:

But again, did they come about before, during, or after TOS? In any case, they appear to co-exist right alongside the movie-era designs of TMP onward, despite the latter's quite different aesthetics, ones which are also similar in notable ways to some of the DSC ships. The Discovery herself has her origins in a design that was specifically devised to follow on from the TOS Enterprise (which again, is decades old there). So I don't really see the cause for discomfort.

-MMoM