Trekyards EP164 - Starship Design Rules with Andrew Probert (Part 2)

[@jaysus620]

Andrew Probert: If I didn't design it, don't freakin' ask me questions about it!

[@Scripture-Man]

LOL This really seems to be the case. I love him though.

[@millefune]

It's true, though. They weren't designed by him, and don't adhere to the rules he designs by. The Hell is he going to know all the intricacies of how they work?

[@paulbateman858]

Andy is being super patient here, this is a fun show but difficult conversation to listen to as a designer ;)

[@magesentron]

I think Andrew Probert deserves a poetry award for how graceful and poetic the Enterprise-D flows. It's like looking at a ballerina, strong and graceful. Such a stunning ship. I still think it's the most beautiful Enterprise and the one I'd most like to call my home.

[@isfj1009]

Simple fix - at 3:13, where you see the inner side of the starboard nacelle and the ship registry, replace that area of solid paneling on both nacelles with a warp grille fascia. Done. Both nacelles can now see each other, and still looks cool.

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

We (members of the Puget Sound Star Trekkers) had several opportunities to ask Gene about the Schnaubelt Tech Manual: he said, "It's really pretty and he's put a lot of work into it, BUT IT'S NOT MY UNIVERSE." (emphasis mine)

[@hatac]

The best technobabble I've seen on the Borg shops is that they are really a swarm of shuttles tractor beaming the rest of the cube along. Some Startrek ships are seen towing others at warp but stability and safety is a problem. One the Borg simply overcame.

[@StarCrazedMike]

On the subject of the bridge on top: Keep in mind the enemy ship may or may not be aware of the layout of the Federation ship in question... So if the enemy IS aware of where the bridge is located: then they would either having scanning technology advanced enough to properly deduce it with no prior knowledge of cultural/biological/scientific background of said ship. Otherwise they may have had previous contacts with the ship and/or the Federation and possibly would have access to the schematics of the target in question. This means that no matter where you put it, they would be able to target the bridge regardless. Granted, more submerged into the hull would provide more "layers" to go through, but there is also the possibility that engineering the ship in this way could cause functional engineering systems to be the first recipients of damage in a battle. Sure it may sound cruel to put the crew at risk instead of raw hardware, but if critical engineering systems get damaged first then everybody on the ship could be screwed as opposed to some unlucky ones. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." On the flip side, the enemy in question might have no clue who the Federation is or who is on board (and presumably lack of access to the ship's schematics). If that is the case, they could perhaps make an educated guess... But if you had to choose whether to shoot what could perhaps maybe be the bridge of the ship (after all, making such an obvious target screams red herring) or shooting something that you know to be vital to the workings of the ship (namely, the nacelles). So I think it boils down to this: If the enemy knows where the bridge is, then having it "hidden" or buried is likely going to yield you little to no advantage. If the enemy does not know where the bridge is, they're more likely to go after an even more obvious target or pay little attention to what they're hitting and spend more time focusing on ensuring that you are indeed hitting. Let's face it, these ships are travelling at some pretty fast speeds and shooting some of these targets in a precise manner can be difficult. To the point made in the video: If the ship's defences fail then you've got bigger problems on your hands. It doesn't matter anymore if the shields are down: A single photon can do the job that a bunch of these elaborate plans would be too unreliable to use as a strategy consistently. Anyways, that's my take on that issue.

[@ballroomscott]

My headcanon doesn't include the line of sight rule, but I do totally agree with nacelles being in pairs and away from the living space of the ship. Odd numbered nacelles look ridiculous to me. I kinda give the Defiant a pass on having integrated nacelles because perhaps they have thick shielding or something but it's a stretch.

[@EnterpriseKnight]

Technically, the Defiant's Warp Nacelles do see eachother, but there are no grills. Instead of the registry put a blue grill there and bam, you've fixed the design for the rules.

[@chasedespain7109]

I thought the defiant had 2 nacelles on either side. if you view the ship from the back it seems that way.

[@EnterpriseKnight]

Yes, those are warp nacelles but the blue grills point backwards instead at each other. This is the "problem".

[@dhakajack]

Okay, as long as we're rationalizing about the Defiant, here are two more: 1) who's to say that the two projections on each side of the ship do not each house a pair of nacelles? That would satisfy the even number rule; 2) In firing up the warp drive, it is possible that local space curvature gives the flanking structures the necessary line of sight to each other.If i recall correctly, even impulse drive creates microcochrane fields. Discuss.

[@gristlevonraben]

A warp bubble is a forcefield that vibrates at a frequency that slips into subspace. To create a bubble forcefield, you'd need alternating fields to crissscross each other. A single magnetic field switching off and on is going to simply pulse, not form a solid framework in the dark energy field. To form a more concrete field, you'd have two or more oscillating sources so as to shape the field and work as a tight net forcefield.

[@Scripture-Man]

Regarding Bridge placement, I 100% agree with Gene Roddenberry that the Bridge should be on top, and I'll give you 10 reasons why. (5 are 'dramatic' reasons, and 5 are 'in-show' reasons)... *Dramatic reasons* *1. Top-down command* From a psychological point of view, a higher position indicates higher rank. Command is generally "top down" - just like your head sits at the very top of the body. People "on top" are generally superior. Higher-paid office workers are usually found upstairs. Executives usually have the top-floor office, and the richest men have the penthouse suite. So I personally find it very satisfying that the Bridge is at the very top. *2. Windows matter* I also think windows are really important - all those observation lounge meetings would have felt horribly claustrophic if there was just a wall there instead of a window, and the bridge was buried deep within the ship. To me, the window above the Bridge is really important, and it would have felt too enclosed if you couldn't look up and see the stars above your head. *3. Viewers want to see where things are* The whole point of external shots is to let the viewer visually see and imagine where the action is taking place, so putting the Bridge in a clear external location is extremely satisfying. It's a shame we didn't get more external close-ups of the Bridge (or Ten Forward) and I find it frustrating that Engineering has no external cue that would allow for external close-ups. *4. It makes the show more believable* When you create interior sets that have physical consistency with model shots, you create visual cohesion and make the show more believable. This strengthens the believability of both the sets and the model. For example, the British Apprentice series is supposedly set on the top floor of a skyscraper with an angled roof. After a few series, they updated the interior set to have angled walls, which massively strengthens the illusion that they really are at the top of that skyscraper, rather than in some TV studio. *5. The Bridge position mimics natural life on a planet* Psychologically speaking, people feel most comfortable living on a planet where the ground is "down" and the sky is "up". Having the Bridge on top of the Enterprise perfectly mimics this - it makes the Bridge seem kind of like a small building on a planet. You get the feeling of stability, with a large, solid body (the "ground") beneath you, and can "look up" and see all the heavens above you, which is completely natural. If the Bridge had been, say, somewhere near the bottom, with space "below you", it would have felt a lot less stable and more unnatural. Five in-show reasons: *1. It's an exploration vessel* The Enterprise wasn't primarily designed for combat, and that's not really the spirit of Star Trek. Starfleet aren't an aggressive military force, they're a peaceful people, the kind of folks who would drop their weapons as a sign of good faith in order to make peace. *2. Any hull breach is bad* The Bridge may be an "easy target", but so are most of the ship's other vital systems. The fact is that a direct hit _anywhere_ is bad. That's why shields and weapons are essential. *3. External does not = weak* Just because the Bridge sits on the hull, that doesn't mean it's easily damaged. Presumably, the bulkheads enclosing the Bridge (including the transparent alloy windows) would be extremely thick and robust - specially designed to resist heavy attack. The principle is that if you secure your Bridge well enough, it shouldn't matter _where_ you place it. And this proved to be true, as we've never seen a Deck 1 hull breach on a 24th century starship. *4. Bridge never faces the enemy* During combat, the Enterprise will naturally position itself where its weapons can fire at the enemy - and since the weapons are on the lower side, this actually positions the Bridge on the furthest point away from the enemy as possible. *5. Not an easy target from the side* Finally, in the Star Trek universe, almost all ships follow the convention of traveling along the galactic plane, which means ships always encounter one another from the side rather than from above or below. This actually puts the location of the bridge at a hard-to-reach location, since enemy weapons will typically emanate from _below_ the saucer section. So for all ten of these reasons, I like the Bridge being where it is! :)

[@donaldhill3823]

It should be remembered that the original NASA space capsules where designed with out Windows or for that matter with out controls for the Astronauts. The Astronauts argued against this design and won because not being able to see out side made the trip pointless and not being able to control the ship removed the need for a trained pilot. As a Submariner I get the argument that having a Window makes the ship inherently weaker but there is a difference in that part of the reason Submarines used in combat do not have window is that as the sub goes deep pressure changes and when weapons such as depth changes are used they create pressure waves which would break the window with out a direct hit. In Space the internal/external pressure is always going to be the same and there are no shock waves produced by weapons being exerted against the ship. A direct hit against armor is just as likely to cause a hull breach as a window and making the window a double pane design with a armor door closing between the pains and possibly also having an external door as well would solve the problem of the direct hit on the window. During most travel the view screen is only show space and the sensors are being monitored at various stations around the bridge so switching the monitor function of and just looking through a window makes more sense and is generally better for the crew from a psychological point of view. Trust me, while I love my time on Subs and never had an issue with being inside for a couple months at a time the first chance I got to see the sky, light or dark I took it and so did every one else on board.

[@positronicfeed]

"A direct hit against armor is just as likely to cause a hull breach" As we have seen in Star Trek Nemesis. Since you are a submariner do you know why some Russian submarines seem to have windows on the forward sections of their conning towers?

[@Rapinasimplicis]

Conning towers aren't in the pressure hull. They aren't subject to the same pressure as the main body of the ship.

[@resurrectedstarships]

I love how probert is like - Defiant...NOPE...its not warp capable lol; he doesn't give a damn and I totally agree with him!

[@Scripture-Man]

Yeah I just love his attitude. No BS. No trying to appease other designers. He sticks to his guns, which I love. He's old-school and so am I. I don't like anything made after Voyager.

[@Handlealreadytaken.Trythisone.]

He's obviously stubborn.

[@nathanaeleisnerafc.4594]

Thank you Andrew Probert for giving me official reasons to stamp on why I dislike certain starship designs, and... in a way, for finding reasons to dislike many others, some which I had liked.

[@Jack_Stafford]

what Andrew explained at the beginning and doesn't seem to have been clearly understood is that the two have to have line of sight through the grills in order for the energy sources to push against each other to generate forward motion a lot like magnets configured to push against each other and how they can be used in a railgun to push a projectile. If this energy was contained in a conduit between two engines it couldn't provide any forward thrust. in other words they need to be line of sight with open space between them and grills to emit the warp energy fields that Collide and combine and progress sequentially rearward producing a stream which propels the ship forward he was fairly clear about it but didn't explain it again later. So if there were grills on the bottom of the defiant this would work. On the bottom of the Ferengi Marauder the grills are in line of sight each other so that they can direct energy at each other which then meet and then pushes the ship forward. no amount of saying well can't these two units be housed in one nacelle can make sense as he explained because there needs to be open space between them for the energy to come together in order to react and provide the forward momentum past the speed of light. although he didn't specify, even the engines on the Stargazer to generate a warp field as he explained it would not be the two upper or two lower working together he would be the left and the right working together with the grills that can see each other generating forward thrust. in other words it's not enough that just the engine housings are on the same plane is it the actual exhaust grills have to be able to be line of sight so they can project the energy towards each other and meet in the middle providing the forward warp stream. If you watch the first few minutes of part 1 a couple of times he explains it well with a few words that do change some pre-existing Notions about any matter-antimatter engine generating a warp bubble that bends space and some nebulous way. This was a very thought out theoretically possible engineering concept like the rail-gun where sequential magnetic fields in that case are used in order to push a projectile. trying to contain the warp energy in conduits between two engines in a hull would just force that energy to blast a warp hole all the way through the back of the defiant because it has to have access to open space. while it is different from some other commonly accepted theories if it comes from Andrew and Gene to me that makes it Cannon.

[@Scripture-Man]

Fascinating interview, thanks. I'd love to hear Mr Probert discussing Sternbach and Okuda - how he worked with them, and his opinion of some of the choices they made later in the series. I'd also like to know much input he had with the beautiful color scheme of the D's sets and technology. I'm passionate about color and love the D's colors.

[@DarthFolo]

I kinda imagine the warp fields between the nacelles like magnetic fields, you don't just run it through a wire.

[@jaysus620]

Poor Samuel - Andrew keeps shooting you down like Picard telling Worf not to fire phasers.

[@Handlealreadytaken.Trythisone.]

Old vs new style star trek thinking I suppose.

[@paulkdrozd]

Man that was the most awkward conversation I've ever heard about the USS Defiant phew thank goodness that's over lol

[@MoestitiaAddo]

I would listen to the guy that actually DESIGNED ships for Star Trek over fans.

[@raidpwpw]

Well where do you stop? Both the Defiant and Voyager break one or more of these rules. Do you not listen to the designers of those? There are so many canon ships that violate these rules that at some point you can't justify Roddenberry's rules as being correct for the entire Star Trek franchise.

[@Scripture-Man]

@@raidpwpw I just mark these up as continuity errors, and accept that there is probably some 'excuse' we can make for them, like with any error, but that doesn't justify them. Star Trek is not a democracy, it's Roddenberry's show and his rules. That's why STD isn't Trek because it completely violates everything Gene's series stood for.

[@Scripture-Man]

@@raidpwpw I just mark these up as continuity errors, and accept that there is probably some 'excuse' we can make for them, like with any error, but that doesn't justify them. Star Trek is not a democracy, it's Roddenberry's show and his rules. That's why STD isn't Trek because it completely violates everything Gene's series stood for.

[@raidpwpw]

@@Scripture-Man I respect Roddenberry and I absolutely admire that original vision, but to say Star Trek is still his show is absurd when the man has been dead for 28 years. There has been significantly more Star Trek produced since his death than during his life. As much as I agree with you that Discovery violates far too much of the original premise and vision, to say that it isn't Star Trek is simply incorrect, because the rights holder is who determines that. CBS stuck the Star Trek name on Discovery, therefore Discovery is Star Trek. I respect your right to complain about it, hell, I've done enough of that myself, but doing so does not change this fact. Star Trek is, as you say, not a democracy, but CBS is the dictator in that metaphor, not Gene.

[@millefune]

They way they just brushed off and disregarded what Gene and Andrew say was annoying. I know ST canon is what anyone wants it to be, since it's fiction... but their tone and attitude toward the information Andrew was super disrespectful.

[@PlagueOfGripes]

I think Andrew forgets all this is made up sometimes. The rules for design exist to reinforce unified principles for the creation of future designs, not to be technical manuals. Especially in a universe where technology can completely invalidate restrictions on design.

[@amaristudios8573]

What gene says, goes and the bridge should be on top so if the view screen broke it could become a window and the bridge wouldn't be blind

[@lionshinzato561]

I would like to see more videos with Mr. Andrew Probert.

[@shiprek2011]

It is amazing to listen to Andrew who knew TGBOG

[@S1nwar]

the bridge beein on top is a nice representation of the federations utopic we-fight-with-honor style.

[@LegaRoSS]

16:54 "there is always gonna be weak spots on a ship" * *Laughing in Borg*

[@positronicfeed]

Glad someone agrees with me about the flying toilet seat that is the Defiant. Plenty of phasers for bridge defense? Tell that to the redshirt who flew out the front of the Enterprise E in Nemesis. Having the bridge on top makes no sense if you don't have a window. If you won't have a window, why have it on top?

[@CRocketSlim]

So I'm going to say that if we're saying the Ferengi Marauder has sufficient line of sight between warp engines, why not the Defiant?

[@billdunbar7992]

No exposed coil grilles, I suppose. Solid plating.

[@isfj1009]

Indeed. As I said in my comment, just remove that portion of paneling with a warp field grid.

[@hatac]

There is a tiny slightly blue line above the lettering in a few shots.

[@isfj1009]

Once of the best pics I can find. No line of sight here. www.thelightworks.com/wip/defiant/defiant_04.jpg

[@hatac]

From the lettering to the other lettering there is just make the letters glow. That's all the artist did. Cheating but fun.

[@RichardBonomo]

I am surprised that the TNG Enterprise's "battle bridge," located in the drive section, did not come up. That was, no doubt, done in response to the criticisms of having such an exposed bridge. I wonder if it was not a permanent set, as it was very rarely used in the series.

[@Carnyx72]

The Battle Bridge Set, if I'm remembering correctly, was a redress of the Motion Picture enterprise set and was used as the bridge for almost all other starfleet ships we saw (e.g. the Stargazer)

[@RichardBonomo]

@@Carnyx72 Yes, it was, essentially, the ToS bridge, but located in the drive section. I recall it showing up in one of the early TNG episodes. -- Farpoint, I believe. I don't know if it was ever used again, though it was referred to it later episodes.

[@eliotanders3488]

6:49 For non-Federation ships, you could say that they use a technology that does not require 2 nacelles or they have one device (like in the example) that generates the bubble and pulls the ship along. Federation technology just requires 2 nacelles with line of sight to work. It's brilliant. Now the flux chillers, intercoolers and Bussard collectors, the interior notch on the warp nacelle make scene. I really like it. Andrew Probert is my engineer. If he doesn't design it, I'm not flying in it. :-)

[@novax-ig9yt]

My personal canon tends to think this about the 4 rules: 1. Warp Nacelles can be odd numbered, but the 3rd nacelle is used to generate power for the ship systems only (IE Shields, Phasers, ship systems), thus freeing the other two to be used strictly for warp bubble generation and propulsion. 2. I ignore the 50% line of site rule because the Borg, Ferengi ships, and Defiant ignore it, and those ships are canon. Hell, if you think about it, Cochorane's Phoenix doesn't even have 50% line of site, and he invented Warp Tech! Also, just because a ship has Warp Speed doesn't mean it is achieving that speed in the same way traditional federation ships do. Even TOS had the Fesarius, the Doomsday Machine, and the Orion and Tholian ships to name a fewthat violate this rule. 3. The warp nacelles being fully visible from the front view applies only to Federation vessels of the TOS and Movie eras. By TNG, technology has advanced where this rule is not necessary. With alien tech, all bets are off. 4. I agree the bridge should be on top. It doesn't matter where the bridge is located because once you lose shields, phasers and disruptors can cut through any part of the ship like butter, anyway. In TOS, the Enterprise could lay waste to an entire continent, so destroying a ship without shields is easy. By the TNG era, weapons are exponentially more powerful. So, even if the bridge is in the center of the ship, without shields, your bridge can still be destroyed.

[@Handlealreadytaken.Trythisone.]

Nacelles don't generate power right ? It merely stores warpplasma to create a warpfield. I'd think the warpcorereaction supplies the energy needed.

[@noahcheckman8542]

Didn't Commander Riker call the bussard collectors "ramscoops" in Insurrection?

[@AndromedaRoach]

Yes. It was a real idea proposed by Robert W. Bussard a few years before Star Trek premiered. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

[@BlueSatoshi]

Both terms are valid.

[@GordonMassie]

When you got onto the bit about the Borg Cube I thought could Nacelle's be just one way to create a warp field similar to how Oars can move a ship as much as Sails, after all there is the Bajoran Solar Sailor. :) Although these rules (particularly the line of sight rule) means alot of my ship designs wouldn't work. :(

[@MrRandomcommentguy]

The Defiant kind of has line of sight in the same way that the Marauder does because the engines droop down below the center-line, so all the design needs are grilles that can see each other. The Marauder has its engines directly connected to the body of the ship too...

[@EroomYrrah]

fix the defiant...tip the cells downward more and open them up on the inside.

[@Formulka]

How about the three-nacelle designs connecting the side nacelles to the central one? They usually have line of sight to each other just fine and it would create two of those fields.

[@trekman8188]

Thanks guys I have learn't a lot about Federation starship design from this and while watching this came up with a simply solution to the Defiant problem and that is simply add a warp field grill to the nacelles for line of sight, if it works for the Ferengi it can work for the Defiant. Still not sure about Voyager because the warp field grills face outward even in there warp position I may be wrong anyway another great episode keep up the fantastic work.

[@on1yadam]

What about the bird of prey? It can go to warm without "line of sight"

[@josephd-smith4910]

Just saw Beyond! It exceeded all my expectations... I look forward to ur review

[@thomasjenkins5727]

Alright, so now I'm thinking... Rule 1: The distance between the nacelles somehow contributes to the size of the warp field. So if you rely on compact nacelles (two sets of coils housed in the same nacelle) you'd end up with a very small warp field. This isn't the only factor that contributes to field size, so maybe a more advanced design can manage with a compound nacelle at its center. Rule 2: Alcubierre's field has 3 properties; compressed face forward, expanded space backward, and neutral space in the middle. Maybe this field in between is a fourth property, a region where space is expanded and contracted in complicated ways. That would mean that even with the ability to transfer energy through the ship, the ship would still be destroyed by violating this rule. Rule 3: There really isn't any given reason why the collectors couldn't be on the sides, the top, the bottom, or even the back of the nacelles. Maybe even the pilons. I think this rule is another aesthetic choice, like Rule 4. Because let's be honest, the forward profile of a ship looks better if you can see the nacelles. Rule 4: Someone commented on a video somewhere than some naval ships have a bridge for piloting, and a command deck for all the rest. Having both on a Federation Starship, especially one that has a chance to face combat, would make sense. The Bridge has observation, navigation, piloting, and some operations stations. The Command Deck has all of those, plus a few tactical stations. The Command Deck is always manned by a reserve crew, but the Bridge Crew might take over when combat is engaged. This gets the Bridge Crew out of harm's way, and gives the Command Deck the most competent people at its stations. This makes a lot more sense in the age of ablative armor.

[@thomasjenkins5727]

@@smokeykit57 I agree with both your points.

[@sirbobbyuk]

Got me thinking about the line of sight i can understand that to maintain the warp bubble. However i still like single warp configs of the Sadlins class. Great two parter with Andrew Probert. would be interesting to know if he has design any other starship

[@tlynch8757]

MERRY CHRISTMAS GENTLEMEN, I LOVE YOUR SHOW!! KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK. "WARP SPEED" HOO YA!

[@BraedynKelley]

Did Andrew Probert ever mention what purpose the room on deck 2 in the front of the ship with the extra large windows was meant to be? It was shown on this video when he was talking about Ten Forward not fitting into the design of the ship.

[@jamtheberb]

Like the video, not sure about Andrew's view on a couple things. Biggest thing I think he needs to reevaluate is his view on the Defiant. It's one of my favorite little ships. As for line of sight on it, if you notice the nacelle's on this ship are slightly angled. I believe that would alleviate the need for open line of sight as the angles would allow the line of sight to be a more "angle of sight" (I hope you all follow me on that one),

[@enterprise-h312]

I have some thoughts on the bridge, I’ll be asking you about it in your next Captain’s Log.

[@ilejovcevski79]

I would have solved the Defiant's problem in a manner similar to Voyager's variable pylons. The nacelles would drop or rotate downward, exposing otherwise hidden and protected grilling that would connect between and bellow the ships belly. That way you have both protected vulnerable parts when in a sub-light fight, and still have line of sight for FTL travel.

[@1300l]

I have a theory about the bridge on the D at least. Once shields fail and the enemy target the bridge. Once the ship sensors sense the hull of the bridge to be damage, it could have a emergency site to site transport for the bridge crew to go to the battle bridge once the bridge get attacked.

[@stevenheckert4515]

that would work.... except that transporter breakdown is such a common plot device....

[@1300l]

Steven Heckert Yea, in this case i was thinking in a independent emergency system. But well writers will be writers, right? :)

[@stevenheckert4515]

+1300l in the D there were two general turbo lifts at the back and a dedicated turbo lift at the front starboard side (opposite the door to the ready room) that was supposed to run directly to the battle bridge.

[@1300l]

Steven Heckert I think from all shows and movies, the D is the one that they put the most thinking on how the ship is and would work.

[@histguy101]

+1300l And it's the most interesting to think about and mentally explore. And so comfy and luxurious!

[@thomaspaine6496]

If there were three nacelles that were in line of sight of each other could the warp bubble be created amongst them? If one engine failed you still have a pair. This makes sense to me whereas the saladin class does not.

[@hatac]

I've seen some fan art fixing the line of sight problem on the Defiant by making that lettering into the grill. I.E. The lettering glowed and is the grill. And one computer game fixed the Romulan scout by having the belly arch up out of the way so it's three decks at the bow and stern but only one or two in the gap between the nacelles. The nacelles also dropped down a little on take off so someone was thinking about those rules. To bad these did not make it into the cannon but then a few hints may work.

[@Rapinasimplicis]

I tried to like these episodes. I really did. It's just that the hosts are trying to come up with technical loopholes around the rules that Rodenberry came up with for essentially non-technical reasons. It's incumbent on us fans and designers to determine the technical engineering that fits those rules. (Deep breath)... Using the assumption that warp fields are the exact same as the newer tweeks to Alcubierre's solution to quantum field equations then, to me, the reasons for the rules then become obvious. There is a need for 2 nacelles to induce a polarity in the gravitational field. You need to have line of sight and an unobstructed view so that the geometry of the bubble isn't interfered with.

[@gerble36]

I always felt the main bridge should have been in the middle of the neck on the Galaxy. If your in a hostile situation and need to separate, what kind of sense does it make to move the officers from bridge to bridge? That's wasted time that could be the difference between surviving and not. Then the saucer bridge could just be manned in response to a yellow or red alert and ready for a separation if ordered. Although it would mean giving up the term "battle bridge", but I can live with that.

[@tonymilligan8380]

In Star Trek: TMP, if you listen closely when the Epsilon station 1st appears, you can hear them communicating with other starships from Franz Jospeph's Tech Manual. They call out Class, Name and Registry Numbers for 3 ships that are in the book. The Dreadnought Entente, Scout Ship Revere. I cannot remember the 3rd ship's name, but think it was a destroyer. Seems to me that makes those ships from Franz Joseph, Canon. Just my opinion. And I have always loved those ships and wish they would have used them in one form or another. Just watched that part of the movie and the 3rd ship is the Scout Ship Columbia.

[@S1nwar]

17:11 that NCC-500 1 nacelled ship looks so much better than the design where the deflector dish comes out of the underside of the saucer ¦ |. but eeeven that is not the most elegant solution, why not just put it in the front auf the saucer like with the NX. it would even have the same size and shape like on the NCC-500.

[@markbernero9302]

They did that in 2016 Ships of the Line calendar with USS Columbia NCC-621 in this month's image. It looks really good. They also added a sensor array above the saucer.

[@evangreen3080]

Is there a new Trek ships manual coming out soon that Trekyards did a video on with the author a little while ago? I'm trying to find out the release date, but don't remember in which video it was discussed.

[@johnwiebe8581]

Interesting info! Thanks Mr. Probert. Here is a question, do these rules only apply to Fed ships so a borg or cardassian can break these rules?

[@johnwiebe8581]

Also another thought, for rule 4: why could the bridge not be placed on the bottom of the primary hull? with the computer core on top?

[@rmhartman]

If they angled the defiant's nacelles down, they could get a shallow line of sight, like the ferengi marauder.

[@acmenipponair]

I guess the Borg cube just has implemented some kind of alien warp technology that allows to create a big bubble around this cube without narcelles. We must remember, that they come from a different part of the galaxy and the warp drive of the Alpha Quadrant seems to be evolved out of the romulan and vulcan warp designs. We know, the Ferengi bought it, we know, the klingons stole it, so why should the borg not have taken a decentral version of it from an assimilated species ;)

[@shawn2780]

I mentioned this on a tangent reply on another video, but one of the interesting thing of the USS Voyager is that the nacelles break the line of sight rule *until* they're hinged upward for warp travel. They're still problematic in that the blue glowies that generate the field don't connect- which is another requirement based on Andrew's explanation of how the warp field is formed in the first video. It's better than the Defiant though. Note- I love the Defiant, but the man has a point. This still doesn't justify having the Voyager's nacelles' need to move in the first place.. but maybe the fact they can operate at variable geometry (as opposed to just 'up' or 'down') somehow helps shape the warp field. That's backwards justification though. Everyone knows they move because the producers wanted something to move. Second thought- isn't ironic that the very first warp vessel (the Phoenix) breaks this rule too? How's that work? *head scratch*

[@Scripture-Man]

You could maybe excuse the Defiant because it was such an experimental vessel, totally different to anything else, with borrowed cloaking technology. So you could look at it as a kind of Starfleet-alien hybrid and excuse it. As for the Phoenix, you could make the excuse that it may be possible to briefly travel at low warp without line of sight, but it was unstable and dangerous, and Cochrane later perfected his design, realizing that line-of-sight was necessary.

[@adamali1976]

Brilliant video, yet again. Ever thought about doing a movie/episode commentary?

[@dawfydd]

I think the borg cube wasn't designed to have a warp drive more like the transwarp drive.. but it does seem like he isn't interested in thinking further than what he knows.

[@seanoneill9606]

Excellent video.

[@nukmuaynuksoo3955]

Work on not interrupting your guests.

[@robwong7206]

I do have to agree that you guys are right on the Defiant having line-of-sight, though it is minimal, much like the Ferengi's Marauder. Also no grills makes sense, since it's a warship, and the nacelle's should be armored for that purpose alone.

[@MrSheckstr]

It seems like he just doesn't LIKE the defiant so he is not willing to give it ANY slack while at the same time he gives the Maurader a pass even thought the line of sight is so much more relatively smaller

[@robwong7206]

steven heckert Yeah... oh well, the Defiant isn't everyone's cup of tea. But I can see they kept with the line-of-sight rule imo, and I like the Defiant. :3

[@stevenheckert4515]

Yeah. I saw that with his snide comment about the "RV thing" in the front. He is either being deliberately ignorant of what it is OR he hasn't even bothered to do the research. It's sad and a little frustrating but something that I have noticed alot with TOS purists. They can be extremely nit picky with TNG and beyond designs but become very agitated when inconsistency in TOS designs are brought to light. We are just supposed to accept that for some reason TOS bridges are 23° off-center, Spock's Peep show, food looks like hello jigglers, and a proper bridge is 50% art deco gallery, and 50% blinking lights with no labels and Zero Alpha numeric readouts.

[@robwong7206]

I can see what you mean with him being a little snide, and/ or ignorant, but he did work on TNG and designed the Ent-D, so I wouldn't call him a purist per say... Also TOS is my favorite ST series, but I do like TNG, DS9, and ENT (to a point. I got issues with it, but then again nothing's perfect). Wasn'tmuch of a VOY fan, but it does have some gems and interesting ideas. Anyways, before I continue to get side-tracked. It is still Probert's opinion, and I don't hate him for it. He can like ship's the way he likes them. But I do agree the attitude is a little off-putting, and maybe he should mellow that a bit, but no need to get completely upset about it. We see that the design works for the Defiant, and if he doesn't, oh well, it's not that big of a deal. Just chill, and enjoy more Trekyards. :3

[@billdunbar7992]

He's a purist because the franchise was still under GR's sway when the rules were delivered- by GR. Fanon was not a recognized part of production. And, opposed to the Trekyards love for FJ Tech Manual ships, I think Gene's rules were pretty much a way to ensure Mr. Schnaubelt couldn't derive any income from TMP or claim a chunk from future Trek productions, by ensuring no onscreen design would have elements of the Scout or Dreadnought hulls.

[@Bassistking]

Would love to see a Trekyards on the NCC-1701-A (alternate reality). Thanks!

[@StarryDrukhari]

While I've got nothing regarding the single-nacelle ships, couldn't a third nacelle simply be used to supply more power to the weapons and shields? It could also act as a "spare tire" of sorts in case one of the two warp nacelles sustain irreparable damage.

[@KuraIthys]

That Ten forward design looks quite odd. Though I suppose that's because the ten forward seen in the show is on the underside, and the windows were... Hopefully? Matched up with something that actually exists on the model... XD

[@InventorZahran]

The USS Defiant (from Deep Space Nine) looks somewhat like a more compact version of the Romulan War-Bird (from Balance Of Terror)...

[@vilod]

I loved this episode. Andrew and I agree. And that 3rd engine on the future Enterprise D was so bogus.

[@Chiggi0815]

The safest place for a Bridge is not in the middle of the ship but on the side that is pointing away from the enemy. This way you get the most mass in the way of enemy fire. Modern main battle Tanks like the Leopard 2 for example have their ready ammo rack in the back of the turret. It seems very vulnerable there until you remember that the front of the turret is most armored part of such tanks and usually points towards the enemy. Most starfleet ships have their most powerful weapons like the torpedoes somewher on the underside of the saucer section. Same concept i guess.

[@lionshinzato561]

This is a great episode :)

[@draconisthewyvern3664]

+Trekyards I have a question; is it absolutely necessary for the warp pylons to be visible at the front of the ship? the warp pylons seem to be at a very structural weak point and valuable at the same time..two things you dont want...so why not just have the body and the warp pylons coming out from the back of the ship and not being visible to the front side.

[@jeans.plescha1480]

Hmm, I think these could be specific rules to Federation ships "Looks", because, how can we explain the Iconic Klingon Bird of Prey? This is a TMP era ship and Gene was there when ST-III was made. There are many examples of ships not following these rules, therefore I do not think it is a matter of Engineering or Technology.

[@EroomYrrah]

Here's a stab at the motion..the borg ship moves with a torsion field tek...flying saucer like.... the other one... glowing orb in the middle is anti-gravitic... star wars style...or the ORI motherships on Star gate

[@wargodsix]

Defiant kinda has line of sight tho The nacelles haul parts hang down the crew part is kinda above But if the front bazzard collectors could be the size of the nacelle itself the feast could be armor and in the defiant case pulse phasers but there's lots of space to create a line of site if you look at the beginning of part too when the defiant is rotating you can see that the haul is far above the botto of the nacelles

[@cernstormrunner7263]

If the ferengi ships warp engine works than the Defiants warp works

[@cernstormrunner7263]

@Amenadiel The Fallen "Point to me where on the Defiant the warp nacelle grills are" They're right here sir - uss-theurgy.com/w/images/thumb/d/d8/Defiant_class_aft.jpg/300px-Defiant_class_aft.jpg

[@watchthe1369]

Defiant- tilt those suckers down and you have line of sight.

[@michaelsherwin4449]

Okay think of it like this. The newer nacelles produce energy projected in subspace only. Since it is subspace that is warped and not regular space no energy occupying regular space need be present. No line of sight needed. Problem solved!

[@Surveillant33]

Why you did a part 2 from a episode who dosent habe a part 1?!

[@foxpianocovers]

Screw that! The Defiant is an awesome design.

[@Formulka]

Also as pointed out it does have nacelle LOS, just no visible points for the energy flow - which may just be a sign it's not necessary anymore and it works through the housing.

[@resurrectedstarships]

It may be a 'cool' ship but it violates all starfleet design standards - even after JJ trek. One could argue its even an alien ship design.

[@MrSheckstr]

So since he said it is possible for Four Naccelles working at the same time... Is he saying that the top Naccelles interact with each other and the bottom two interact with each other... IF that is the case what is to keep a three nacelle ship and then there are three energy ribbons making a triangle... Your three Naccelles ships would just have to have "chiller grilles" pointing towards both of the other saucers....

[@shawn2780]

Four works because they're two sets of two. Interestingly, because the Constellation nacelles are sideways it basically has a sideways warp field too. IE- the right side top and bottom work together, as do the top and bottom left. I'm surprised no one else has picked up on this!

[@90lancaster]

The Stargazers Grills point straight up and straight down they are also technically upside down too - relative to the usual input placement of that design of nacelle. yet another reason to dismiss that "plasma Caterpillar drive" as seemingly incompatible with the "On screen" portrayal in any series or Movie from any era. The Fasarius pretty much confirmed the idea of "Warp Bubbles" in my mind with it's shape. I just think people make up different explanations of what things are some stick some don't. For example they used to sat Transporters beam a copy in the form of information killing the original person... that was morally disgusting to people so that soon get modified to broadcasting the actual original matter and not just information. Oh and I can totally see the Sensors/Deflector and Bussards being a single component. Look at Voyager it has sensor rings and deflector ring on the same dish. You just add another ring on the outside edge for the Bussards. They don't need to be huge as they are not ramscoops. They are just refuelling conveniences. heck I often got the impression that they are not even on most of the time anyway. The logical way to refuel a Starships it to dip a toe in a Nebula or Gasgiant or sit near a star for a few minutes.

[@MrSheckstr]

+90 Lancaster yeah I also don't buy the "wave pool" warp drive concept.... It never made it on screen so I have a hard time accepting it as canon. Also we have Multiple times On screen of the warp bubble looking like a peeled orange with its core centering on the warp core in main engineering and NOT with the Naccelles. And we have had multiple episodes where the warp drive had been used to power systems other than propulsion. The way I see it the warp core creates the bubble that allows the ship to enter into subspace while the nacelles pushes the vessel through subspace... Therefore the nacelles energetic would be primarily fore and aft energy. Therefore the line of sight and paired Naccelles concepts need not be required. However I would agree that the shape of the energy profile for each Nacelle would have to be properly balance

[@Ambarenya13]

Why are we talking about an interaction solely BETWEEN nacelles, when it has been shown time and again that the warp field appears to be an eka-electromagnetic field that has field lines that project THRU the nacelles and create a closed path that loops around and reenters the nacelle? In this way, it explains how a warp field is generated, and also why warp field integrity is important. The nacelles are the means by which these fields are generated, using huge amounts of energy, especially knowing that our electromagnetic field lines are produced by series of successive solenoid coils -- warp coils are akin to these. Additional nacelles create more complex (and potentially more cohesive or efficient fields), explaining why there are varied designs. I feel like an interaction solely between nacelles doesn't explain how the ships bend spacetime.

[@Blastarr1]

ok what about other alien ships like the cardassian battle, Klingon war bird, and Vulcan ships ships do not have necels

[@Grenson_Brogue]

It occurs to me that the engine set-up of the Defiant is practically a homage to the AMT Leif Ericson Galactic Cruiser kit designed by Matt Jefferies . OK , it's not strictly canon , although the design nearly made it to the animated series . If Jefferies thought it was OK...

[@billdunbar7992]

OK for sublight. The LE wasn't a warp drive starship... purely relativistic velocity thrust for early interstellar travel.

[@Grenson_Brogue]

You might find this informative : www.projectrho.com/SSC/submarine.html

[@Taorakis]

The internal Nacelle thing for the borg ships just doesnt make sense for me. It would mean even the scout ship-probes would have those and that's never been documented anywere, it's just an explanation to justify something that isn't there. that said i also say the rules can be outdated at points, its like saying if you want to fly you need a set of Wings on your plane, and then someone invents a zeppelin or a helicopter, ... Starfleet will surely not rest on just one way to travel fast, and to say there is only one way for all races that use warp travel is just too simple.

[@stevenheckert4515]

the problem with your argument is the helicopter actually does have wings.... the rotors act as wings as they spin around... nd a zeppelin doesn't operate on the same principles as a heavier than air craft.... they create lift by the use of a bag of lighter than air gases....

[@Taorakis]

But that -is- my hole point. I just didnt formulate it as understandable as i hoped i did. Let me try to elaborate. I started thinking: "It's like someone saying you need a set of wings".... and the helicopter might have wings, but it doesn't have to have a set, it can be more, and they don't need to be in the same place as they are with a plane. and the Zeppelin was a Example of a completely different approach to the 'flying' goal. With Starfleet it would be "go faster than light" Solution 1 => Warp , and in my examples, something with Wings. Solution 2 => => Zeppelin, same result (aka flying) but a different approach that comes with other tech and so on. :)

[@stevenheckert4515]

+Tao oh I agree, the problem with Big Bird's Four rules is it assumes that there is absolutely no way technology CAN advance or merge with new technology to overcome these limitations. Imagine an 18 century chimney maker coming face to gas with a gas furnace, central air geothermal heat, electric baseboard, hell even a Franklin Stove.... would he immediately dismiss it because it doesn't follow the 4 simple rules of fireplace construction? where is the chimney, the mantel, the hob, the flue. how do you clean the ash out if a electric baseboard?

[@Taorakis]

So we are actually on the same table here. :)

[@stevenheckert4515]

+Tao oh , I mean.... how boring would Superman if we still tried to assume he couldn't fly.. just able to leap tall building in a single bound...

[@wargodsix]

Rule number 4 it's the bridge it's gonna have tough armor

[@evangreen3080]

I'm all for the rules. I don't mind them being broken occasionally if a design really works, but I'd love to see more creative designs that follow them. The one that's been bugging me lately is the Bussard Collectors. Hydrogen atoms coming in at super fast speeds should shred the saucer immediately upon activation, given where some designs place the Collectors. Similar with impulse engine placement -- the Prometheus's or the E's massive ones especially should incinerate the nacelles directly behind them.

[@peccatumDei]

I've always assumed that the Bussard collectors are only active at sublight speeds, that once the warp bubble surrounds the ship, it's isolated from the interstellar hydrogen. In fact, if we look at Voyager with it's articulated pylons. at sublight speeds, the collectors have a clear line of sight forward. When the ship is about to go to warp however, the nacelles tuck in behind the primary hull.

[@evangreen3080]

peccatumDei I dunno. Even if it's a passive, sublight, mechanism, full impulse is 1/4 c. You're casting a giant magnetic net to collect lots of particles; it only makes sense that the metal hull of the ship isn't being smacked with them as they make their way behind it.

[@evangreen3080]

peccatumDei The Hermes Class in the thumbnail is especially grating to me. Beside the fact that it has no engineering section (a leg, but no torso), there you have the deflector dish pushing matter away from the ship dangling directly in front of the collector bringing it in!

[@stevenheckert4515]

my problem with the Buzzard collectors is.. it doesn't seem like a very efficient was of collecting material. 1 in subspace there shouldn't be anything to collect 2 while you are tooling around in normal space there doesn't seem like a whole lot of atomic level matter available for collection in that fashion. seems like it would be more effective to use the tractor beams to suck up matter of of comets, asteroid belts, and planetary rings (and the odd gas giant) or use the transporters ..... it seems like the BCs remind me of either the solar power vent fans people put in car windows and or taping of the AC condenser for water...

[@evangreen3080]

Steven Heckert Subspace isn't hyperspace. It's still the same surroundings, just warped so the ship is constantly falling forward. All that space they do zoom through, plenty of loose hydrogen or anything else they need gets collected. We've seen them used in "Samaritan Snare" and INS.

[@jaysus620]

Something just occurred to me: For all the debate about the Defiant, there's no talk of the Voyager. The entirety of the Voyager's secondary hull is between the nacelles, which have no inner grills - so even when articulated upward at warp, there's nothing to facilitate that nacelle-to-nacelle transfer.

[@Janoha17]

Jaysus when Voyager goes to warp, the nacelle pylons hinge up, providing the line of sight.

[@Pantherblack]

I think if you're going to get into theorycrafting, Drexler might have been the guy to talk with.

[@gristlevonraben]

Uhhh, star ships have two bridges, my friends, and the auxillary bridge is deeper down into the ship.

[@poppinfresh236]

Awesome episode! I like the idea of rules for the universe, however It seems as though Gene didn't really give a F&@k about the rules in the end.

[@cernstormrunner7263]

The Sovereign has armor over the Bussards because it's a war ship

[@frankharr9466]

For the sci-fi universe I've got (not the same as Star Trek, but obviously ripped off), the semi-military service has two sets of vehicles which look identical form the outside, but the internals are divided up differently. In the "line-ships" those designed for combat, the control room is close to the middle of the pressure hull and is a CIC while the bridge is an observation deck that's useful for servicing the upper shield generator and the sensor/scanner suite. But for "auxilary" ships, those designed for anything BUT combat, the control room, the commander's ready room/cabin ison the bridge and is right beneath the upped shield generator which will keep them safe for one or two hits because they are supposed to run away after that. And there are windows that can be opened should the screens fail. But that's just me.

[@54_skp_kueken]

I know that starfleet isn´t meant to go to war but to explore, but you can find some pretty nasty Aliens in the Galaxy and they don´t want to drink tea. o there is a great Chance that you get into a fight and you should never put the bridge in a position where it can be easily destroyed (deck one) if you are sure that you get into a fight. So Andrew is more than right.

[@54_skp_kueken]

Oh and there is a ship with no weakpoints that you can target with your weapons: THE BORG CUBE

[@sirbobbyuk]

I've just seen the new ship for star trek discovery, not a happy bunny.....this has been taken from one ode concepts of the enterprise tmp

[@Sunny85b]

Ummm the Original Enterprise had encased nacelles and the Defiant still had line of sight

[@cougarfarmer]

Franz Joseph drafted an inaccurate set of drawings that should not be canon. I do love his tug design except for the deflector taking the space for the main sensor. As far as the Enterprise it was a good effort, but it is obvious that he was not schooled in architectural or naval architectural design. His interior is over crowded with state rooms, no hot bunking. He designed a hotel. No room for equipment and service compartments. He place main engineering in the wrong area and did not allow for enough space for shuttle maintenance. Good start for rabid fans. Alan Sinclair has produce a very accurate set for the 11 foot model, which is HO Scale.

[@slippyTT]

But the Constellation class has 4 nacelles, or is that just a strange design and actually has 2?

[@slippyTT]

OH they have to be in pairs... not ONLY TWO... Nvm

[@philipgater6855]

With si fi anything can be explained or justified

[@randybentley2633]

The First Federation Sphere ship, Klingon BoP, and the Saucer of the Prometheus class, a Probert Design, all break these rules.

[@stevenheckert4515]

naughty naughty.... haven't you ever heard the phrase do as I say, not as I do '

[@Ostermond]

the prometheus class was Sternbach, not probert.

[@PeyoteIguana]

I would love to say what he has to say about Discovery!

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

Gene? He'd hate it. CBS/Paramount is energetically dissuading active fandom, and I think it's likely to fail epically due to boycotting by true fans. I don't think Andy's involved at all.

[@montyhedstrom1356]

One explanation I heard for the starship design rules were that Gene R. codified them in part to discredit the work in the original Franz Joseph Tecnical manual. It sounds petty but Mr. Roddenberry did the same thing to the Animated Series. Ok'ing it and then later disavowing it. I don't know the truth. I wasn't there. Just throwing that out there as food for thought.

[@montyhedstrom1356]

you guys mention this towards end of your video but I missed it first listen