One-Nacelle Warp-Engines

[CuttingEdge100]

I was thinking about something: A lot of people have made a big deal including Gene Roddenberry about single-engined warp-nacelled vessels.

I've done some thinking about it and I actually am of the opinion that there is no problem with a single warp-engine so long as the warp engine can project a warp-bubble that can surround the whole vessel.

A ring-ship for example only has one nacelle. It apparently doesn't count though for the simple fact that the ring can project a bubble that surrounds the whole vessel easily.

If a one nacelle vessel had it's engine pod in an area where it could project it's warp field around the whole vessel there wouldn't be any problem. I've done some thinking about this and based on two concepts: One based on a scifi-author who had a background in aerospace engineering who proposed his concept in a book he wrote and also based much of his technical advice for TMP on it, and another based on a physicist named Miguel Alcubierre who came up with a conceptual warp drive (which actually was unworkable due to the sheer power requrements)

Regardless their concepts called for basically the same thing: Constricting the fabric of space in front of the vessel, yanking it forward, and stretching it out behind the vessel pushing the vessel ahead.

There is an area in the nacelle which on the TMP nacelle would probably be located either on the Magnetomic Flux-Constrictor or between the Magnatomic Flux Chiller and the Magnetomic Flux-Constriction areas which would be the area which would be where the fields project out from the nacelles which would constrict the space ahead of the vessel and expand it behind. Technically even though working on a totally different principle, the TMP drawings illustrate it fairly well.

Regardless as long as that area in the nacelle is not obstructed on at least two sides, the bubble could cover the ship as the field could expand out then spread around the whole vessel -- so long as the warp drive projected a somewhat more powerful field on the bottom (as the nacelle would be farther away from the bottom side of the ship than the top -- this would balance that out) than the top you'd be set.

I'm not sure how easy this is to explain and I'd probably have to draw a complicated set of drawings out to get it across, but you can take my word on it.

 

[Unicron]

Personally, I'm inclined to agree; Gene seemed to think that the nacelles had to be codependent, and therefore in pairs, but we haven't really seen anything that makes this an absolute necessity. I've also seen it suggested that a single nacelle is fine as a housing as long as it contained paired warp coils. But not being an expert on warp theory, I will admit I'm uncertain whether that really matters much either.

I certainly think it's plausible that even-numbered configurations might be a more optimum one than odd-numbered configurations, at least for larger ship platforms.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Was it really a case that Roddenberry said "No odd-numbered nacelles period!" or that "Two is just the optimum number?" If it was the latter, then it would probably mean that one- or three-nacelled ships are possible, but that most would likely have two.

I do think, however, that the line should be drawn at four nacelles. Anything beyond that just starts looking very fanboyish and ungainly, IMO...

 

[Albertese]

Gene Roddenberry was trying to milk his show for all it was worth in the 70's and therefore granted official licensed status to anyone who had their nickel ready and so happily signed off on Franz Joseph's technical manual as the official goods (one- and three-nacelle starships included). However, when TMP came along and GR figured there was more and better money to be made, he revoked the official status to the best of his ability and invented the rules that warp nacelles must (1) be paired, (2) have line of sight to each other and (3) not be at all obstructed when view from straight ahead. These rules are pretty much universally seen as GR's attempt to override FJ's work as none of the ship's in the TM meet these qualifiers. However, since multiple ships in all four shows that followed the original series violated all these rules, I'm sure they can be ignored altogether.

(Interestingly, FJ's work can be seen in the first three Star Trek movies on screen. Even more interesting is that there is spoken dialogue from the TM in TMP verifying the existence of the Columbia, the Revere, and the Entente complete with registry numbers (though not actually seen) and the pre-launch countdown in engineering lists off all the warp engine parts as labeled in FJ's work. So there.)

 

[Forbin]

Single-nacelle ships are no problem because it's all fictional anyway!
Personally, I don't need to examine it any further than that.

 

[Deks]

Having a singular warp nacelle would likely reduce a ship's velocity (lesser number of warp coils and all that), but not make it impossible for it to go to warp.
You need a subspace warp-field generator (which every ship is able of generating), and a warp nacelle positioned at an appropriate section of the ship to be used as a main housing for the warp coils.

 

[Unicron]

Gene Roddenberry was trying to milk his show for all it was worth in the 70's and therefore granted official licensed status to anyone who had their nickel ready and so happily signed off on Franz Joseph's technical manual as the official goods (one- and three-nacelle starships included). However, when TMP came along and GR figured there was more and better money to be made, he revoked the official status to the best of his ability and invented the rules that warp nacelles must (1) be paired, (2) have line of sight to each other and (3) not be at all obstructed when view from straight ahead. These rules are pretty much universally seen as GR's attempt to override FJ's work as none of the ship's in the TM meet these qualifiers. However, since multiple ships in all four shows that followed the original series violated all these rules, I'm sure they can be ignored altogether.

The only "official" rule that Gene created was having paired, codependent nacelles. The other so-called Roddenberry Rules were developed in part by Andrew Probert, working from that first rule. He developed for example the 50% LOS between nacelles, because he had the idea for TMP that the nacelles would actually exchange energy as part of their functioning. That effect never actually made it to the film due to budget constraints.

 

[JNG]

Since FJ had the front of the nacelles as a "matter sink" or something anyway, he should have anticipated the criticism about their blockage. It belongs in the category of stuff from that book that one could only stick up for out of nostalgia, like the alien emblems and circuit diagrams.

Jefferies had some opinions on the paired engine pods concept also, and Roddenberry was almost certainly taking cues from that and other things Jefferies discussed with him when he set some directions for later ship designs, but people overlook this because they are salivating at the opportunity to denigrate Gene Roddenberry.

It's mostly irrelevant because there are one-nacelled ships in the canon. Think of it like tricycle automobiles; there must sometimes be a good reason to do it, but it's usually not the best way to go.

 

[Timo]

We also have a nice parallel in the way propellers are used in naval warfare. Two is standard for a medium combatant like cruiser (or nowadays destroyer), while one is cheaper but less versatile and redundant and thus best serves a cheap unit like a corvette or what we nowadays call a frigate (but what in old USN parlance and perhaps also in Starfleet would be destroyer). Three or four is reserved for the big capital ships, battleships and carriers, and mainly serves the function of channeling more of the onboard power into propulsion, as there are limits to what two propellers of reasonable size can do.

All naval vessels have an alternate means of steering, typically a rudder, but the single-prop ships are unique in not having an emergency steer-by-prop mode. That is, unless the single propeller is steerable in itself. Perhaps the single-nacellers of Trek also suffer from lack of emergency steering modes?

Really, I'd rather fault FJ for not introducing a greater number of types and sizes of engine, or hull, yet accept his choices of engine numbers per ship without question...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Was it really a case that Roddenberry said "No odd-numbered nacelles period!" or that "Two is just the optimum number?" If it was the latter, then it would probably mean that one- or three-nacelled ships are possible, but that most would likely have two.

I do think, however, that the line should be drawn at four nacelles. Anything beyond that just starts looking very fanboyish and ungainly, IMO...

He actually never said either of the above. What he said (and that was, I suspect, something he "palmed" off of someone else... I vaguely remember Andrew Probert mentioning this at some point, I think) was that nacelles always come in PAIRS. This doesn't mean "two" though... it could mean four, or six, or a dozen just as easily.

I don't buy into that... because a nacelle is a housing, nothing more or less. ANYTHING can be kept inside a single nacelle.

Look, for instance, at the TNG Enterprise. It has two nacelles, but each nacelle has two rows of coils.

By altering the output of each set of coils, you can steer the ship at warp... imagine each row providing some warp-dynamic equivalent of "thrust" and you'll get the picture.

A single set of coils would be unable to steer. Two sets of coils could pitch only in the direction defined by their mutual "normal vector." Say, if you had just one TNG-Enterprise nacelle, you could pitch up or down, but not roll or yaw. Add that additional nacelle, with its additional two sets of coils, and you can do all three.

Basic physics (if you accept the "thrust analogy" idea) says that the further apart two "thrust sources" are, the more easily you can alter your vector by varying their relative thrust levels.

Similarly, though... think about electrical fields. The closer two field sources are, the more easily they combine into a common, unified field.

So... my idea is that having coils closer together makes the propulsion system much more efficient, at the expense of it being less maneuverable. and having the coils further apart makes the vessel far more maneuverable, but requires more power to maintain the same "thrust."

In a single-nacelle design, perhaps you have four coil sets (or even just three... that would be workable if you don't care about rolling at warp, only pitching and yawing), all inside of a single housing.

Remember... "nacelle" isn't just another translation for "warp engine." "Nacelle" simply means "outboard-mounted housing." Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Unicron]

^^ That's seemed to be implied with many of the three-nacelled designs I've seen, that the purpose of the extra nacelle is to give the vessel more power and good speed (since such designs are typically more military oriented, such as dreadnoughts and command vessels). I've seen it suggested that many of the single nacelled ships are supposed to fast equipment platforms essentially, with smaller profiles.