Why Extra Nacelles?

[@bc175]

I've always like the idea that 4 necelle designs being able to use them in pairs for longer high warp cruising. When the first pair reach their limits you bring the others online and take the first offline. Depending on the cool down time you could cruise for as long as you wanted just swapping back and forth.

[@808bigisland]

There is no cooling inside a physical warp bubble and a particle hitting the deflector shield at ftl adds so much heat it would fry the entire universe. That's why our alien visitors use a positive displacement drive and rip space-time apart to create a particle free tunnel.

[@lukedogwalker]

I recall reading that the Galaxy class technically had 4 warp drives, because each nacelle had two independent sets of warp coils. Thus, they could probably warp coast, and had redundancy and the other benefits. This arrangement was supposedly possible because they built the Galaxy class big for various reasons, including allowing them to fit four nacelles into two big ones, keeping the design balanced and compact and low-profile. This would mean that the Freedom class variant, using a single Galaxy nacelle, is in fact a conventional twin nacelle design!

[@ChrisCooper312]

That would fit with the high warp speeds of the galaxy class. Being able to sustain high warp through warp coasting, but also able to reach very high warp factors by running all 4 at maximum for a limited time.

[@347Jimmy]

On a related note, I recall reading that single nacelles are always a two-in-one design, which supports what you're saying

[@Callsign-Wildcard]

Would this likely mean that later quad-nacelles made after that likely also incorporate the two sets of coils in each nacelle? From the Prometheus to the newer Sagans we've seen in Picard?

[@builder396]

I also wanted to add that Enterprise had a nice tidbit thats relevant: In Twilight they pretty much lost the starboard nacelle and Trip gives a top speed of Warp 1.7, meaning ships can technically go on one intact nacelle in some cases, though in Damage they suffer similar damage to one nacelle and warp drive is completely out, so its not entirely consistent. Voyagers Year of Hell also had a case of one nacelle giving them trouble and them limping around on the good one.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

Besides having less engine "power" there might also be an issue with asymmetric "thrust" which would have to be balanced out. We don't want to fly in a big circle... Oh and obviously a design similar to jetliners. A single engine failure isn't an emergency, only an "event", and they are build to do a diverted landing safely.

[@raideurng2508]

One race that seems to particularly favor additional nacelles is the Dominion. All of their larger vessels use 4 nacelles, with pairs often being of different sizes or designs.

[@SkylerLinux]

Honestly, the Kelvin class is the only Mono-Nacelle that isn't unpleasant looking ships

[@xxnightdriverxx9576]

@spaceace1006 you may not like it. Okay, thats fine. But dont go around blaring it at other people when it is completely unrelated. Dont force your opinion on people when it isnt relevant at all, like in this case. The Kelvin era movies, weather you like them or not, have introduced a whole new generation to the Star Trek Universe. The generation that grew up with Trek is in the retirement age now and slowly dying out. And 90+% of the current generation will not watch the old stuff from the last century, simply because of its horrible (compared to today) special effects. For the old generation that grew up with it its nostalgia, for the new one its just very, very bad. The Kelvin movies have revived the Trek Universe. We now have lots of new movies, series and games about Star Trek again, only thanks to the success those moves had. And that has revived the classic old Universe as well, see Strange New Worlds for that.

[@ConradLarsonGaming]

​@SpaceAce100 you're not Trek. You're too intolerant.

[@chheinrich8486]

Because it symetrical (from the side)

[@chheinrich8486]

@@EngineerST in the comic "star trek year 5" we see a tos style Kelvin in one panel, you can actually see it at 7:38

[@emperorofscelnar8443]

I would call it the Sloop of Starship or a Star Sloop, yeah know because sloops have one mast and the Einstein Class the USS Kelvin has one warp nacelle.

[@rodan9773]

A more Stabilized Warp Field meaning Faster more accurate Travel that's my guess. Respect Rick and keep up the epic work.

[@arisakathedappergoose4796]

not nec faster, jsut more stable field > less impact by subspace turbulance > more robust against natural subspace phenomina AND/OR more efficient warp field per Cochran (even tho more energy is used)

[@jackhosier8498]

SPEED AND POWER!!!!

[@whearts]

Notice most of the battleships had four nacelle. Extra power means more pew pew.

[@oldmanjim2376]

No extra power without extra M/ARA reactors. They explained in books that the double pairs actually are so the ship can go higher warp for longer without shutting down. One pair is used at a time, swapped so one charges up, takes over, the other then shuts down and cools. Basically doubling high warp travel

[@RobinTheBot]

Rick sucks, all my homies hate Rick

[@krisgonynor689]

The original Star Trek Technical Manual had a design for a single nacelle ship classified as a "Destroyer" class ship. Basically a larger version of the Constitution era class single nacelle scout ship shown in this video. It also had a 3 nacelle ship classified as a "Battleship". Larger than the Constitution class and far more heavily armed. Now, I don't know if they gave up such specific warship type designs as they felt that the Federation didn't need them, or because the technology wasn't quite there yet. I built a few of the Destroyer class from the old small model kits, they looked quite nice actually. Obviously not scale since it was made up of Constitution parts kit-bashed together, but was fun as a kid. I do love the Vulcan style of ships, they look just like the design that NASA has come up with for their own future warp drive ship. Though much larger of course.

[@wendigos_eat_people7177]

In Star Trek II You can see a 3 nacelle dreadnought on one of the console's veiwscreens before The Enterprise leaves spacedock.

[@calvinnickel9995]

Yeah the original Franz Josef Star Trek manual had several different starship classes. First was the two nacelle Constitution heavy cruiser class. Then single nacelle destroyer/scout class. Then a two nacelle vessel kind of like the Miranda class with the nacelles below the primary hull.. but it was designed to tow cylindrical modules beneath it. Then the three nacelle dreadnought that was shown here as well.

[@hudsonball4702]

"Because it can split into three parts like a Madlad." - Gave me a hardy laugh C.I. Thanks.

[@sulphurous2656]

That TOS themed Kelvin looks absolutely gorgeous. It's definitely the most structurally sound looking single-nacelle design of the bunch as well.

[@FLAME4564]

So in other words the TOS,TMP and even TNG and even Kelvin/JJverse eras had more efficiant Naccell designs also note the Naccels on the JJverse Enteprise are ofc called the Church Naccellles named after Ryan Curch just so u all know that fact and since the Kelvin Timeline is named after the USS Kelvin's destruction by the I.R.W Nerada.

[@GLynham]

The Proxima class is my favourite 4 nacelle design, it feels so much like a support vessel with tasks that the galaxy class would later fill (like colony support). The dual shuttlebays would be useful in an emergency evacuation and the large saucer section would provide greater shield coverage if it got between the vulnerable shuttles and the attacking ships.

[@laisphinto6372]

can you do a collab with Venom Geek Media? would be interesting since you both go very deep into the lore and have headcanon for making it make sense

[@shanenolan5625]

Wonderful channel. I'm seem to listen to his play lists more than is normal 🤔

[@sicnic6390]

I agree dude

[@BurningFlamesofDivineDragon]

That would be a very interesting collab I'd like to see it.

[@jhallam2011]

I agree what a collaboration not to mention the accents for us non Brits

[@QalOrt]

They need to bring Drachinefels in to make certain that no piece of information is forgotten

[@twisted202]

I have a lot of headcannon about nacelle designs and choices. To me 3+ nacelles is a matter of plasma efficiency. Generate more cochranes over a larger volume using the same plasma recirculating. Energy efficient, but no faster. Capable of making a larger warp of the same relative strength.

[@EdricLysharae]

So you think it's a reciprocating nacelle? Heh, interesting! I wonder how main engineering would have the main plasma conduits configured?

[@SI-fz1zv]

that is interesting, I always thought of it like decreasing returns for speed and linear for energy/cost while making bigger/newer engines cost exponentially more rare materials/energy while increasing speed linearly. So two type 2's cost half as much as one type 4 but go just as fast, while four type 2s cost just as much as a single type 4 or two type 3s and are slower than the type 3s. I do believe there would be things like you say the matter of plasma efficiency probably some energy efficiency as well. However, I do wonder what the power bleed would be trying to send those massive power loads in four directions rather than two. I also tend to use Halo logic of an ftl drive being the most expensive piece of technology to create, the better the drive the smaller the pieces/more rare the materials with the way of getting around that being a bigger drive or multiple drives. 1 warp nacelle goes speed 1 at cost 1 2 warp nacelles go speed 2 at cost 2 3 warp nacelles go speed 2.5 at cost 3 4 warp nacelles go speed 2.75 at cost 4 type 1 warp nacelle goes speed 1 at cost 1 type 2 warp nacelle goes speed 2 at cost 2 type 3 warp nacelle goes speed 3 at cost 4 type 4 warp nacelle goes speed 4 at cost 8 2 type 2 warp nacelles go speed 4 at cost 4 4 type 2 warp nacelles go speed 5.5 at cost 8 2 type 3 warp nacelles go speed 6 at cost 8 1 type 4 warp nacelle goes speed 4 at cost 8

[@twisted202]

@@EdricLysharae like a 2-4 loop circulation system like the heart, only doubled or quadrupled. Individual larger channels breaking off from the central out port. Two to four interlocking but separate EPS channels. I had considered twin engines but trek has a problem with power scaling that is not often discussed. A constitution class fusion drive could obliterate the entire surface of a planet, a phaser battery could create a small atomic blast, etc etc. Problem is the amount of power coming from these engines is a number picked by artists and writers. Not engineers and physicists. A galaxy class engine would be capable of putting out more power than running every system on board in parallel. The problem in my opinion with ship engines is not power, but how that power is distributed, What demands it creates on different systems and/or cooling needs. The intricacy of these technologies controls their utility, not the raw antimatter pumped into the core. More gas isn't nessicarily a hotter fire.

[@DoremiFasolatido1979]

No odd numbers. It looks stupid, and it just makes ships grab-bags of bullshit.

[@twisted202]

@@DoremiFasolatido1979 Forgive me for trying to be charitable of a franchise I don't own, but simply appreciate. Lol. There are space frame/nacelle arraignments that I think would make you say otherwise. Now I'll have to experiment more with 3 nacelle drafting. As a matter of fact the second to last ship I drafted had two nacelles at the fore and a RING nacelle at the back. So technically 3.

[@drguykss]

I think it would be interesting to do a video on General Mission profiles for the different types of ships (i.e. cruisers, science vessels, tactical ships). Additionally I would like to see a video covering the Vesta class if it hasn't been done yet. The Vesta class is one of my favorite classification of ships. In that video you could even revisit quantum slipstream drive and how it relates to that classification of ship.

[@BenMonroe964]

Thanks for this video, I had always wondered and it had always bugged the hell out of me.

[@josephmassaro]

I've always liked both the three nacelle dreadnoughts and the single nacelle destroyer/scouts (Hermes and Saladin) that appeared in both FASA and Starfleet Battles. Interestingly, in one of the 80s/90s DC Comics Star Trek issues, it shows Kirk commanding the USS Saladin, a destroyer/scout, right before he assumes command of the Enterprise.

[@xheralt]

see my comment to C von S, upthread.

[@spudz7405]

I think of the Nacelles rules as soft rules so basic that creates the most optimal warp field geometry

[@DAKOTA56777]

Personally I think single nacelle ships are pretty neat, and their light duty role makes sense, as I imagine a single nacelle also makes them significantly more inexpensive to produce. Though I kinda wish they were laid out more like the _Kelvin_ with a proportionally long nacelle and short pylon, it helps avoid the saucer on a stick look of the _Freedom_ and _Saladin._ Speaking of, can we get some videos of the single nacelle ships, since they get less love.

[@deadlymouse7033]

Kind of a odd ship to name after Admiral Archer. You'd think he would rate a ship with a higher mission profile.

[@cabarto]

The designers did not enough faith of the heart.

[@janreznak881]

Just another example of them shitting on what has come before.

[@martind4721]

yeah, i like the design (beeing so close to the other canon tos ship i forgot the name of), but in discovery you list archer as the captain with the highest honors, he's an admiral, and the ship you name after him is a small scout ship? in TNG entire planets (or at least colonies, i remember hearing Archer-4) are named after him (even though they did not know it at the time). Pretty sad tbh

[@aldrinmilespartosa1578]

@@martind4721 probably so renown that he is honored with the name wayy before he has an admiral. Though it doesnt fit now, it was good enough at that time.

[@ItsTheNatMan]

I’d never heard of the Discovery ships having bigger and bigger nacelles to put in more warp coils to try and get a small power increase before just upgrading the whole system for TOS. I love it lore wise!

[@vaevictis6990]

People get really annoyed by these things like odd vs even nacelles. First, it's science-fiction. 2nd, lore encompasses like 250 years from Earth's first launch to contemporary stories. Hard to imagine they didn't experiment during that time. It's like saying modern militaries should look and function a certain way based on US Civil War military technology knowledge.... people should just enjoy the lore and story for what it is. You do fantastic videos, please keep it up

[@jasonwright8546]

I have wondered why they never made a ship with a design imitating the Vulcan drive section. It would have made sense for there to be some attempts, given the close role Vulcan played with Earth during its early ship development. I can imagine some really cool looking hybrids...

[@DrewLSsix]

There's the ring ship seen in The Motion Picture, as for a reasonable canon answer the Vulcans were notoriously adverse to dealing with starfleet, thanks to Discovery we can puck out 22nd/23rd century designs that seem to have been influenced by other species like the Andorians, but if the Vulcans were less friendly towards starfleet they may have simply denied them access to much of their technology.

[@hakuchan738]

There was indeed at least one ship design that imitated the rings of the vulcan ships. The USS Enterprise (XCV 330). From memory alpha: It is presumed to have a conjectural type of warp drive called the annular warp drive by the Star Trek Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 1, pp. 30 & 243). Instead of conventional nacelles, a ship equipped with this drive would have a large hoop-shaped field generator. The ship's designer Matt Jefferies, on one of the drawings of this ship, labeled the large ring as a "dynertia" propulsion system. Though it seems this particular configuration would be discountinued for future vessels favoring the warp nacelle instead. Also, fun fact, it was one of the early concepts for the Enterprise, but due to dificulties involving the structure of the ship for use on a filming set it was discarded, then reused as one of the first starships named enterprise before the NCC-1701 and NX-01, making small cameos in the form of paintings and sculptures through diferent trek series and movies such as TOS, TNG, and Enterprise. Plus it also may have been the inspiration that solidified the designs of the vulcan ships: In Star Trek: The Magazine Volume 3, Issue 3 (July 2002), Doug Drexler stated that the Enterprise was one of the inspirations for his design of the Vulcan Suurok-class starship. The ring-shaped configuration was solidified for other Vulcan starships in the series.

[@jasonwright8546]

@@hakuchan738 Wow, thanks for all that research!

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@DrewLSsix I do like how a bunch of those designs push the NX-class-type hull profile as far as it can go, with extra add-ons in various ways, before they finally decided to just have larger and entirely separate engineering sections. I don’t dig all the angles and hard lines, but the rest I can jive with.

[@joshuahadams]

A Daedalus style spherical superstructure with a Vulcan style warp ring around the engineering hull would be cool as hell, if it was radially symmetric.

[@chan742]

One thought on non-line of sight nacelle design is that putting the mass of the ship between the nacelles limits the total size of the ship. The bigger the ship, the more output is required by the nacelles, and that can have adverse effects if you're living between those nacelles. So smaller ships, like the Defiant can get away with it, but a Galaxy class can't. At least until you start using Borg tech.

[@enterprisethesylveon5787]

The Galaxy X Class has a third Nacelle between the main ones. Is that like a moderator of some kind or just a redundant nacelle?

[@chan742]

@@enterprisethesylveon5787 Hmm, that's a good question. Maybe it's redundant in the way that Rick says in the video, so that battle damage to a single nacelle doesn't prevent going to warp? Or if the refits that added the big phaser cannon meant that a new nacelle was needed?

[@enterprisethesylveon5787]

@@chan742 Phaser Lance... And probably both...

[@danielkorladis7869]

The Defiant's nacelles extend below the rest of the hull, so at that spot they do have unobstructed line of sight.

[@ffnbbq]

@@danielkorladis7869 The line of sight applies to the grills, not solid hull plating. But ultimately, the line of sight rule never really mattered in terms of fake ship design or in-universe.

[@Numba003]

I enjoy all these in universe explanations for the design differences! Thank you for making these videos. They make for great listening. Live long and prosper, and God be with you out there everybody! ✝️ :)

[@Marastife]

I'm happy you covered this. I totally asked about this just a week or so ago on another vid of yours.

[@davitto01]

The Freedom Class was purely a survey ship. Yet, for some reason, Starfleet thought it could help at Wolf 359. Possibly as cannon fodder.

[@DrewLSsix]

You have to figure the defensive ships were posted out from the core worlds because most threats would be approaching via traditional warp and be detected. The ships at Wolf359 were very much going to be the ships not capable of or intended to serve on the frontier. The Borg probably dropped into federation space vis conduit and bypassed the Frontline ships. The more substantial ships at the battle were likely just near by incidentally.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

I think it still qualifies as a light destroyer, frankly. It has torpedo tubes too - more than Challenger-class has (or seems to) So I'd not count out the Freedom casually, yet. Potentially two of them there, too - the USS Firebrand NCC-68723, and maybe the USS Liberator NCC-67016.

[@RocketHarry865]

Honestly a survery ship could have been useful if it had far more powerful sensors than available on standard vessel able to far more precise reading away from the main engagement able to gather information for the whole fleet in safety allowing identification of possible weakness that allows the rest of the Federation Fleet to focus on fighting and exploit the weaknesses, kinda like AWCAS. It would show how powerful the Borg are really are despite the best effort of the Federation the Borg just smashed through all of the combat vessels and attacked the support ships on the peripheries before the support ships could escape

[@scottjgray]

Interesting takes guys, I just assumed desperation but I like these better.

[@PathsUnwritten]

"Make it a flying saucer with a bunch of flimsy pipes sticking out one side." - Gene Roddenberry

[@kaitlyn__L]

I like the idea that the Disco nacelles were an older type that they had to keep adding more and more; until they reached a thermal limit and had to design brand new higher performance coils such as in the Connie. That’s kind of like how performance engines have gone from huge naturally aspirated V8, 10 or 12s versus a double-turbo supercharger combo on much smaller 4 or 6-cylinder engines. I really enjoy these videos which combine little tidbits from all sorts of sources to paint a bigger picture.

[@johngaltline9933]

My head canon was always that the primary purpose of four nacelle ships was to provide a large warp field to act as a support vessel for fleet movements. A large warp bubble could wrap around several ships, reducing the total energy needed to move them all and/or allow fleets to move at sustained high speeds. They have the side benefits of the 'coasting' and redundancy mentioned here, making them good for exploration or other missions where they may need sustained high warp or have limited access to maintenance facilities. As such would be used for such jobs when not needed as a "fleet tug".

[@archades115]

Honestly, I like the Beta canon version of the Constellation class. It had the Constitution class refit saucer section, a Miranda class torpedo pod suspended slightly below the saucer section, and only two warp necelles of the same style. One held above the saucer section and one just under the torpedo pod, under the saucer section. Technically a little weaker of the Alpha canon version of the Constellation class, about equal to the Miranda class, it was very maneuverable and packed a punch thanks to it's torpedo load out.

[@Adam_Boots]

That sounds very similar to the Akula class ship.

[@herbderbler1585]

I always thought of more nacelles as being analogous to more cylinders in a piston engine. It's not the only way to get more power, and it's not always the most efficient, but depending on what kind of duty the engine is expected to perform, it might be the way to go. Also the idea of the nacelles needing line of sight seems like more of a design consideration not based on strict warp theory requirements, rather the requirements that arise from some specific method Starfleet prefers when generating warp fields. Obviously this isn't 100% required since we've seen plenty of ships without line-of-sight nacelles, single nacelle designs, and ships that take damage and limp along on only one nacelle. I would assume redundancy against damage and max-warp timeout is the biggest argument for going with 3-4 nacelles when clearly 1-2 will work, but as long as you have four it also opens you up to other benefits like increased speed or efficiency. Lots of ways to skin a cat and I'm glad Starfleet isn't afraid to experiment. Apparently they're the only major power in the galaxy that bothers.

[@r.connor9280]

really need to see more Leading nacelle designs, basically nacelles in front to the ship Or In-line models where they are lined up in a row instead of side by side Possibly asymmetric placement similar to catamaran or outrigger boat

[@baystated]

Since the Q's-alternate-future Enterprise D commanded by Admiral Riker never happened, does its 3rd nacelle not deserve any mention?

[@BNuts]

Only in Apocrypha. The Galaxy-X Dreadnaught _Ent-D_ could not go any faster than the Galaxy-class _Ent-D_ , however its warp drive did support additional, heavier phaser strips, a cloak, and of course, the spinal phaser lance. In _Star Trek Online_ , a report by Picard must have lead to the Yamato-class, a more refined looking version of the Galaxy-X with the same capabilities. It's also interesting to note that the Terran Empire made a variant of the Odyssey-class, the Lexington-class, with a tactical mission pod and a spinal phaser lance. No third nacelle, though. It seems like three nacelles were fairly rare.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@BNuts but… warp 13! ;)

[@tba113]

I've never understood why it's considered apocryphal. It's from a canon episode of one of the most widely popular main TV series, not a comic, novel, game, or other peripheral secondary material.

[@Shinzon23]

With the exception of the Kelvin, which oddly makes a lot of aesthetic sense all of the single nacelle ships are hilarious, just because of how like much of an afterthought warp engine very clearly was to the design

[@tonyah.960]

Thank you, Rick!

[@calamitysi]

@CertifiablyIngame Thanks for that Rick. I've actually just designed a 4-nacelled Quantum Slipstream vessel called the USS Exodus, and the reasoning I used for that extra pair of nacelles was somewhat similar to the reasoning you posted in this video. Essentially Quantum Slipstream corridors tend to dissipate after short periods, so the extra pair of nacelles meant that the Exodus can maintain a Slipstream corridor for longer, thus extending it's range.

[@JeremyBuxman]

Headcanon: two nacelles w/los are great for sturdy, reliablle efficient speed. the nacelle-less make a "skinny" bubble, so it works for smaller ships (birds of prey, defiants) 4 is good for longer distance (as you said) a lot of civilian ships have 1 nacelle, you just don't see them. Vulcan rings are the "logical" choice--efficient, adaptable--but you need a Vulcan engineer to be anal retentive to get them to work well.

[@kaitlyn__L]

I love that last line. In some VFX shots they rendered the light slowly circling round the entire ring in opposing pairs, so there must’ve been an awful lot of smaller coils synchronised perfectly. While Starfleet rarely goes above a dozen and often has even fewer per nacelle

[@gizfpv]

I always assumed more nacelles = more pushing force. Not to go faster, but to move more mass

[@axelhopfinger533]

More like more nacelles = bigger warp field with a more stable and variable field geometry.

[@DegeneragentX]

Like hitching more horses to a wagon!

[@Phryj]

I think the in-universe explanation for the 2 nacelles that can "see" each other rule was that their warp fields synchronized better without obstructions and it created a stronger, more stable, and more efficient total field that allowed for faster travel while placing less stress on the ship. The IRL justification was probably just making sure Federation/Starfleet ships have a consistent design language that was distinct from alien vessels. In-universe, advancements in warp technology probably led to designs where the advantages of other configurations outweighed the benefits of the standard layout. IRL, rule of cool gradually won out over traditional design ethos, which is how we got ships like the Defiant and Prometheus.

[@SchneeflockeMonsoon]

I’ve always thought the 4-nacelle design was for long range ships so they could minimize wear and tear for long trips at high warp, but also so they could mix and match which pair was in use if something needed repair or to be shut down to save it for later.

[@TheBigExclusive]

This reminds me of a Venom Geek Media video. You two should do a collaboration.

[@XanderKHD]

So, while it is non-canon in the Prime Timeline, what about the addition of a third nacelle for the Galaxy Dreadnought Class in "All Good things" which is a canon design for STO, simply for higher warp factors?

[@xheralt]

No. warp coil technology remains the same and wouldn't change that. Third nacelle reduces heat stresses of high warp speed, helps keep the system cooler longer (although it will still inevitably overheat if run too hard too long). Also helps with moving the added mass of the additional armor and weapons emplacements at speeds expected of a Galaxy class.

[@richardthackeray6179]

All of these are valid points that became my personal headcanon a while ago. I’ve always wondered if it would be possible to build a ship capable of sustaining maximum warp indefinitely, given adequate fuel, with it swapping between pairs of nacelles to take the load while an exhausted pair cools down. Such a ship wouldn’t even need to be conventionally “quick” as it could just keep going

[@MrArgus11111]

3 nacelle designs, such as the Franz Joseph Dreadnaught Class, seem possibly troublesome or even dangerous, which might explain their rarity.

[@xheralt]

The Federation-class dreadnaughts were the last practical ones. I think it has something to do with the changeover to flat nacelles. Look up the Belknap/Decatur class starships if you don't know them. First ships to use flat nacelles OEM, and they have the curious design feature wherein BOTH nacelles can be (have to be!) ejected at once in case of emergency. Why design that feature in? Must be necessary! The flat nacelles (FWG's in FASA parlance) were fast and hot, bucking broncos compared to previous nacelles. Hard to handle and dangerous, at least at first, at least until procedures and protocols could be figured out. Once figured out, THEN AND ONLY THEN approved for fleetwide deployment/refitting. The Ascension 3-nacelle variant must have had even rougher trial runs, maybe even rough enough to convince Fleet Management that 3-nacelle ships were a Bad Idea, and avoided for decades after.

[@FLAME4564]

@@xheralt Many would agree the Frederation Class had its practical use since upon seperation the warp capable saucer would be able to act as an emergancy ship in the event that the secondary hull should suffer problems such as core breeches or have to jetason the port and starboard nacelles since the 3rd nacelle can allow the federation class dreadnought saucer to also go to warp as well as land on any planet

[@KatrinaLeFaye]

"Faster than light, no left or right!"

[@PathsUnwritten]

Still makes no sense why Federation Starfleet chose to use Earth ship designs instead of one of the other founders who had been warp-capable for centuries longer.

[@thanqualthehighseer]

could be Starfleets configuration was the most compatable with all the different technologies the Vulcan ring drive system might not have worked with the addition of Andorian plasma generators

[@EdricLysharae]

It's implied in the writing that Humanity's technology development curve is *much* faster than most other space-faring civilizations. It is likely why the Vulcans stayed to guide Humanity into the interstellar community: they saw what we could pull off in just a decade after a global nuclear war. They saw Humanity's potential and they wanted to make sure that the darker side of our passions didn't get the better of us once again. Humanity pushes the envelope; accepting higher risks. The NX Enterprise was *Not* ready for what was out there, but they boldly went nonetheless. That's why I love ENT Season 1, Episode 23, when they push Humanity's best technology to its breaking limits by reaching Warp 5 for the first time.

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@thanqualthehighseer the Vulcan rings have more warp coils than Starfleet nacelles too, makes me think they might be weaker/overheat faster and the Vulcan’s speed advantage came purely from synchronising a huge number of lower-capacity coils carefully (like the N1 Soviet moon rocket did, whereas the Saturn V had just 5 huge ones).

[@thanqualthehighseer]

@@kaitlyn__L considering Vulcan logic the ring system probably allowed waste energy to be recycled back into the coils reducing power demand but with a upper limit which was ok while they were the fastest most advanced ships of the time and local area. but human twin nacelles allowed for damaging plasma/energy to be vented and eventually when they catch up in tech starfleet ships would be faster and have higher endurance

[@hazel7296]

The Constellation will always and only be in my head as the repair cruiser from the Star Trek armada 3 mod for sins

[@PhilDrury]

A certain website creator named Masao had the very interesting idea that older starships (if you could call those starships given the premise) had dedicated nacelles for turning at warp, typically the twin configuration with the primary warp drive often being a single aft facing bulb. There's a kot there that could be used in ideas for warp field dynamics in videos.

[@eleweyter4462]

Now that I know about the textmarkers, I see them every time, I look at that ship. Thanks. ^^°

[@PineappleForFun]

The vulcans kept the warp ring into the TNG era. The Apollo class is used by both the Vulcan National Merchant Fleet as well as Starfleet in TNG and DS9 with a prominent warp ring (called an 'annular warp drive' in backstage materials).

[@tetravega567]

Romulan D'deridex Warbirds kept the ring shape, but used 2 nacelles.

[@ConsolasEight]

I always thought that the placement of the warp nacelles better suited different uses. The rearward sweep as seen on the Constellation right up the Sovereign was for explorer craft and allowed for higher sustained speed to allow for long range. The underslung position as on the Miranda and Nebula that didn't do much exploring enjoyed a smaller, simpler warp field and less stress on the engines for a lower maximum speed - never far from support bases. And the quad-style as in the Stargazer was more like an all-terrain design, for going "offroad" through places with gravitational shifts or large gravitational bodies - like anomalies, asteroid systems, or high gravity stars. The "pinched" rearward position of the Intrepid always suggested to me a dragracer - that Voyager was fast and agile at warp.

[@flatline8580]

The aircraft terms for nacelle came from (afaik) ancient sailing ships like the trimiran, which had the outboard nacelle connected with a pylon.

[@tetravega567]

Modern ships still have nacelles. They can turn them like an oscillating fan to maneouver easier.

[@vegeta002]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of the reason for the nacelle variation was simply down to the preferences of the engineering teams that designed the ships just feeling like mixing things up from time to time. Keep things from getting "stale", rather than just a performance thing. It is noticeable that much of the variation tends to come from Starfleet ships, and Starfleet has always tended to have something of an aesthetic focus with their ship designs, often preferring ships that combine both form _and_ function. They've got a lot more variation than pretty much every other interstellar civilization _combined_ and change their "style" pretty frequently. I think I remember seeing a site that included a (likely non-canon) quote by Spock stating that Starfleet designs their ships in a way that embodies the Federations belief that life means something, rather than simply being tools.

[@MLB9000]

My theory has always been that the Stargazer was part of the R&D project which came after the failed Transwarp experiments. It essentially utilised two sets of nacelles but somehow 'interlaced' them to produce a more efficient warp bubble. This then allowed missions of longer duration and more deep space exploration, which then led to the Federation's rapid expansion between TOS and TNG. I also assume the warp speed scale (and by extension the star date system) were re-calibrated at this time, with warp 10 being the upper limit that can never be reached. By the time the Ambassador class was developed, the new warp field dynamics could be achieved with new engines without the need for a quad arrangement, and this can also be seen in the Galaxy class with its wider and larger nacelles.

[@mickeyholding7970]

Loved this video Rick

[@hihellven]

Thank you was Asking for a while

[@Brickticks]

So, Nacelles are afterburners, which means that my Lego Nexus Class Cruiser has five, two primary, one port one starboard, two secondary, again port and starboard, and one centrally mounted one inside the main fuselage for tertiary. Technically, there are two more, but they only activate when the bridge separates from Nexus-1 as the Attack Landing Craft Nexus-3, so I don’t count them in the total lineup. Plus, they are tiny.

[@drewf41]

Thought you were about to mention some crazy Mirror-Soong hillbilly right at the end.

[@danielkorladis7869]

I mean technically the Defiant's nacelles *do* have line of sight with each other, as the extend below the rest of the hull.

[@xheralt]

Yeah, but that's not a heck of a lot of surface area.

[@jacara1981]

So from what I understand is that when traveling at high warp speeds there is a wake that is produced in from of the ship, this wake causes instability in the warp field acting as a break. So in order to travel faster or sustain high warp you need a increasing amount of power to be pumped into the warp field, thus over taxing the warp coils and warp drive. However I think the increased number of Nacelles would allow a more stable warp field for longer as they handle the wake better, though this would still be at a cost of more power, it would be more efficient at stabilizing the warp field.

[@inurokuwarz]

Wowee! Thanks for answering my question :D

[@shingshongshamalama]

I can only imagine the main reason multiple-warp-core ships didn't catch on after the Prometheus is because having multiple warp cores sounds cool but is an absolute bastard to make work properly so the entire engineering corps just up and refused to make another design.

[@chebochevato8336]

They say no odd numbers, but it seems a tri nacelle setup (triangular) would be perfectly acceptable. Also. Maybe the vulcans were on to something with the warp ring. Considering later on, it turns out standard warp travel is damaging to subspace, maybe the ring style would cause less damage. Seeing as a ring makes a more concentric field that's more balanced all the way around. Seems like the twin nacelle style would create a more chaotic field, or at least one that doesn't surround the entire ship equally.

[@hakuchan738]

Since the Vulcans kept these designs over time there must be a logical reason to it, and what you said falls very in line with what I would think. I considered these may also have a higher level of calibration giving more control over the warp field, and has remained a strict doctrine for Vulcan science ships design because of it. There may also come a higher level of sophistication with it, and may be more expensive wich led to starfleet choosing a more practical, simpler and cheaper option so they opted for warp nacelles instead.

[@tristanmendoza4628]

Saladin and Freedom Class ships always made me imagine that when they went to warp the rest of the ship would spin around the nacelle like a top and navigating randomly out of control with cartoon sound effects, and eventually lose integrity and explode.

[@Merennulli]

I'd love to know more about the 24th century Freedom Class. I know it was a kitbash of the Ent-D for the Wolf 359 graveyard scene, but having the random phaser cannon turret mounted under the saucer is such a jarring design choice for a Federation ship. The best excuse I can give for it is that maybe it was in drydock, heard the Borg were coming and the captain said "Hurry! Bolt on the biggest gun you can find!"

[@thadBegay]

I thought I remember hearing somewhere that the disco ships with four nacelles also had two warp cores. It may have been beta cannon but it's a neat idea. Also a neat idea I heard, the three nacelled ships actually have two in one housing module, this still keeping with the "even numbers only" design. Again no idea how accurate this info is, but a nice idea I thinks.

[@kaitlyn__L]

Yeah you could probably make smaller warp coils and stick pairs inside one nacelle housing. In theory it should be the same as just making two smaller nacelles (like the very first Nebula class model had).

[@SephirothRyu]

Clearly, the answer is to build a ship with 8 nacelles, and then give it multiple smaller deflector dishes instead of one. Which may or may not be painted red and arranged similar to a spider's eyes. Make the torpedo launchers look like fangs too. Man, can you imagine if Starfleet allowed captains to modify the appearance of their ships more?

[@Buncible]

Drawing the instability caused by a third nacelle from the Spaceflight Chronology was a decision. One I can respect.

[@chton]

An extra pet theory of mine is that more nacelles help reduce the warp coil mass of each individual nacelle for the same overall warp field strength. We know nacelles need to be energized and polarized in order to work, and it would make sense that the larger the coil mass in a nacelle, the longer that takes. A design with more nacelles can have much lighter coils, so it can go from a standstill to warp with much less prep time, at the cost of reducing reliability (lighter coils are more likely to run out of alignment and get damaged from sustained warp). Warp coasting would certainly help with that problem. Conversely, 1 nacelle vs 2 makes a super reliable ship, but less efficient and way slower on the pickup. It's a long haul trucker vs the 4 nacelle dragster. 2 seems the sensible middle ground. Of course, even a 4 nacelle dragster can be a reliable workhorse if you underpower it enough that the reliability doesn't matter, but it probably wasn't designed for that :p

[@gameoverinsertcointocontin8102]

I think in one of the Mirror Picard comics where Picard takes command of the Enterprise-D which is actually a warship and build with a third nacelle, the third one gives the Enterprise better ability for short 'jumps'. Using the ability with a mirror Picard maneuver to seemingly striking from multiple directions and taking out a Cardassian task force single handidly.

[@thechosen3171]

Hey,Rick……I think your odyssey class look good with the Lexington class design in the story series…..because that’s what my odyssey class,the u.s.s. Bedford will get for her refit.

[@qdllc]

I'm under the impression from all the Trek lore I know that a single nacelle can establish a warp field (scout classes had only one), but if a ship had to rely on only one working nacelle for FTL, it would be limited to a low warp factor because of the less-than-optimal configuration of the warp bubble.

[@Adam_Boots]

That is my impression as well. There is one instance I know of off the top of my head that shows this. In 'Year of Hell' B'Lanna mentions that one nacelle is at reduced efficiency and that the other is a lost cause implying it no longer functions. They were still able to go to warp though showing that while two works best one will still work.

[@kaitlyn__L]

In Enterprise Trip said with only one nacelle they’re limited to warp 2 (maybe it had a low decimal point after it), further lending credence to the idea. I think it makes sense since you’d have to be pushing the coils in that one nacelle harder, to make the larger field to ensure the whole ship is still encompassed.

[@bdr420i]

Has there been an incident to force a double nacelles ship to go to warp using one nacelle?

[@pumaconcolor7301]

I actually had a theory for the Discovery Era ships. So the NX nacelle design perfectly transitions into the TOS/SNW Constitution. Then we have all the Binary Star Background ships. So, one common feature is that many of those ships :Crossfield, Shepard, Cardenas... all actually have 3 Bussard Collectors on each nacelle; 1 "normal sized" one and 2 "mini sized" ones. So what I think they basically did was was strap 2 smaller wrap engines to a normal sized one, then encase the whole contraption in a single boxy nacelle. This was a stopgap measure, and eventually, warp nacelle design became more efficient, and the whole mini warp engine strategy was dropped.

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

3 and 4 nacelles is easy to explain ships can only maintain high warp for a set amount of time... we hear this in almost every episode, "we can only maintain this speed for x hours" With several warp nacelles it allows a scout, survay, long range ship, the ability to "cycle" nacelles, powering 1-2 down, for maintenance/cool down, while keeping the others running. This ends up being a more efficant way of doing high speed long distance travel. a ship that could cruise at warp 6, and pull warp 8 for 12 hours might be able to run at warp 7 indefinatly by cycling its nacells. this can also provide a "cheaper" solution to needing a more powerful engine in a star ship. So rather then needing say a larger warp core and a warp 9.5 engine. You can cover the same "cruising speed" by running a lower power warp core, and the 4 nacelles hot in alteration.

[@GuitarsnCars]

My guess would be that the purpose of multiple nacelles is increased range and sustained warp speeds. You could even periodically shut 2 of them down to give them cool-down time and maintenance whilst remaining at warp .

[@asvarien]

Nacelles are also very vulnerable, in the time loop episode of STTNG, a light bump on a single nacelle that doesn't even scratch the paintwork destroys the entire ship.

[@sarcastrophe9090]

I cant unsee the marker pens now!

[@TheOneTrueDragonKing]

I heard, according to some source I cannot recall right now (Star Trek Encyclopedia, I believe?) that the warp nacelles are designed to break away in case of emergency. For example if a runaway reaction were to start in a nacelle the ship's crew could blow the explosive bolts on the pylons holding the nacelles in place and the entire nacelle would warp away, leaving the rest of the ship behind. This way the ship would not be dragged into an uncontrolled, runaway, infinite warp to god-knows-where. This is why the pylons are so thin as well. In the event of such an emergency, the crew would be safe from harm until a tug or other ship arrived to recover them. They'd also be stranded, of course, but they'd be alive and not Missing In Action.

[@tetravega567]

In the TOS Episode The Apple, it's mentioned along with saucer seperation.

[@TheOneTrueDragonKing]

@@tetravega567 Thank you!

[@boxfoxscoot1614]

the Nimitz actually looks really cool with its very blocky design

[@ultimatedbz2]

I always imagined it was because 4-nacell ships had much less advanced nacells then most 2-nacell designs we see in hero ships. It makes sence for starfleet engineers and ship yards to always be inovating new and resource intenisve nacell models to reach the fastest and most efficent speeds that are possible. Because these shiny new nacells are so "expensive" to make SF designs new hulls around the 2-nacell design which seems to be a minum requirement for a ship with a long range mission prophile. Since besides maybe the warp core the nacell is the most advanced and resource intensive parts of the ship it's relatively cheap to build your ship around your nacells so it's much better for starfleet to have 10 2-nacell ships then 5 4-nacell ones. As more advanced nacells enter the market and older/less advanced models are becoming easier to produce/salvage it becomes less expensive to put more of the lower grade nacells on ships which in tern need a multi-nacell configuration if there are going to be useful as a cheaper but competitive altenative to the most advanced starships. Even the prometheis must be using substandard nacells if even with 6 it's still matching the 2-nacell Intrepid and Soverign classes in terms of speed in it's 4 (or 6? don't know if it uses all 6 when combined) nacell configuration. 1-nacell ships comparitively can't substain long range or extended missions so would simularly be using older model or mass production nacells since they only need enough juice to get within a specified short range.

[@tripitaka5444]

The analogy of "prop" and "turbine engine" driven planes is accurate. Gene Roddenberry was a pilot and drew inspiration to create almost all the ship designs from his life experience. No, he did not create those designs, but as the creator of the pilot and ToS (yes pun intended) he had the last word on what was used. So, taking your initial point that Trek ship hulls and engines were inspired by him, the dual warp nacelle's were almost certainly NOT the starting point for the "Fleet ship progression". The original planes only had one engine due to weight/space constraints. Thus the first ships that used "warp drive" used only one engine. Why was this done ? Because you have to learn to crawl, then learn to walk, then learn to run. ST- First Contact is the exception, yes I know it had TWO warp engines when it in canon had only ONE (and also it was made for a mass audience not just trek fans). The Trek series Enterprise used a "warp field governor" to BALANCE BOTH ENGINES to enable a safe engagement of the warp drive. ST- The Motion Picture shows that if the warp field balance calculations are even slightly incorrect disaster can result.

[@Chuck_vs._The_Comment_Section]

In my humble opinion, the best "experimental" warp drive design is still that of the USS Arges. - A design that avoids nacelles completely.

[@InevitableVitare]

My headcanon was always that 4 nacelle ships were basically like Sports Cars. Overpowered, high-performance machines, faster than is necessary for 90% of Starfleet's purposes, that cost so much to build (in terms of resources, time, manpower, maintainence costs etc) that for each one you could build 2 or more regular ships. As a result, they're fairly rare. A one nacelle ship would be the inverse, something cheap, maybe even slapped together leftover parts, intended to just hobble around Federation space helping bulk up fleet numbers. After all, the only thing the nacelles effect is Warp Speed; diplomatic missions, scientific studies, even combat, have nothing to do with them.

[@DavidSiebert]

There is a theory that the Galaxy had two sets of warp cores in each nacelle to use aircraft example think of the B-52 has two engines mounted on each pylon in joined nacelles or the Concord which had four engines in two nacelles. But the truth is that it is fiction so whatever looks good works. I am just glad the older Franz Joshpe ships are back :)

[@xheralt]

Warp CORES are not in nacelles, they are in the secondary hull of the ship. Warp COILS are in the nacelles, and what makes the magic happen. Dual inline coils have been proposed as a way to get two-nacelle balancing effect out of one nacelle (explaining away Kelvin), but if that's possible, why isn't EVERY ship built like a Kelvin? Intrepid-class ships like Voyager are mentioned as having _triple_ helical warp coils though, so I suppose its possible.

[@brianpeterson5559]

Wow I thought I was a fan 😂😂 very informative thank you good sir

[@TheEDFLegacy]

Correction: The Nacelle on a jet is the outer shell on a jet engine, that holds it in place. If you look up photos of jet engines, you'll see them as very mechanical constructs and covered with tubes and whatnot. The nacelle is only there to provide the jet engine an aerodynamic profile, protection from the elements, protection in the event of a catastrophic failure, and an installation point for the engine. Likewise in Star Trek, the nacelle is the outer shell that holds the busard collectors, the warp coils, and, essentially, the warp field generators as a whole - or, in other words, the ship's warp engines.

[@WolfeSaber]

In the Kelvin timeline movies, the first movie had a three nacelle ship in the fleet that was jumping to Vulcan.

[@deeacosta2734]

Three nacelles is where it's at.

[@GeekFilter]

A single and triple nacelle ship design appeared in the starship stuck in the Delta Triangle in TAS's "The Time Trap"

[@justinsander7654]

In both fictional and RL (*theoretical) warp engines a field is established around a structure. That field excludes the structure from normal space. The purpose being how warp field travel actually work. See you may think and the show surely seems to support that the warm engines are "driving the ship" meaning that they are pushing the mass at higher and higher speeds. In reality the warp field excludes the area inside of it from normal space. This is shown in an episode of TNG where as they used the warp field to lighten the mass of a moon with a degrading orbit in order to relocate it so it would not collide with the planet. With the field established and the perceived mass of the vessel thusly reduced by several "factors" the ship could then be moved more easily. However I'll again state the ship its self is not being pushed. rather the field is compressing space in front of the ship in conjunction with the mass altering effect both by a degree referred to as the "warp factor" and then letting it travel around the field where it is released so the entire field "ship and all" is propelled in that direction to fill the vacuum while the expanding space behind it also play a part in nudging it along. Warp field symmetry is the reason for multiple nacelles. By controlling the shape and regional factor density of the warp field you can more efficiently bend space/time around the field its self meaning a more stable ride and lessened possibility of warp field failure. In quantum slipstream you would be using the property normally only held by sub atomic structures to displace all of the mater of the ship to another location nearly instantly. This is currently being developed in real life to overcome the one atom law of computing which says that circuits can only be as small as a single atom before we tap out of development and can no longer make them smaller. Learning to control quantum phasing could eventually produce this form of propulsion.

[@STho205]

Nacelles were in B17s and DC3s also. It is just an aircraft engine aerodynamic housing cup typically mounted on the foils (wings) or tail....instead of at the head of the fuselage Snoopy and Red Baron style.

[@LogicalNiko]

I always viewed it more in the nature of warp coils and nacelles simply being a side effect of their placement. Essentially in the ship’s design you had to balance the potential mass, distance/geometry you needed to extend the field, the speed to create and vary a field (ships agility), ability to accelerate, maximum speed, and duration of time it is able to maintain it. And then that somehow the more mass near to the coils the more limited the design flexibility and lower efficiency. If you look at the galaxy class it has very large uniform coils of all equal size, where as the intrepid and sovereign class had a size and shape progression (maybe larger coils equal mass and stability, smaller tuned coils provide better agility and efficiency). By this logic I assumed that having one nacelle really limited the space tuning (just had enough to generate the field, no frills warp), having 4 means you have space for specialization in the stack (specific coils tuned for specific aspects of flight), and two was a good middle ground. Ships with no nacelles had to compromise even more of this space flexibility by needing larger chunky coils to overcome the inefficiencies of having the ships mass so close to the coils (as this somehow impedes their ability to generate a stable and efficient distortion free field) kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYmkoHx9ibZ4eLs

[@Callsign-Wildcard]

Whenever I dive into stuff about the number of warp nacelles a ship has and why, I realize that we never really see more than one or two nacelles on alien ship designs. Some keep them often on their wing tips like the Romulans, Jem'Hadar, and most Klingon ships other than their birds of prey, while others have them built into the main bulk of the ship like the Cardassians. And all four of those, especially the Jem'Hadar, gear everything towards use for war and combat. So I find it curious how we don't see quad nacelles on some of them. They'd make a lot of sense on Klingon ships since Klingon anatomy is full of redudancies. An extra pair of nacelles in case one or both of the others get damaged would be right in line with their duplicate internal organs.

[@cfhollister8766]

In my head-canon I've been speculating on a difference between square vs round nacelles having to do with their coils. I think that square warp coils may be manufactured by gamma-welding most of their shape from more-easily mass-produced slabs of laminate warp coil materials. These would be cheaper and faster to produce but would be somewhat cruder in function and have performance drawbacks compared to fully cast warp coils. (See TNG Tech Manual for coil manufacture) Thus I see a potential cost vs performance calculus going on between square vs rounder nacelles.

[@crazu333]

Any thoughts about the voyager J detached nacelles?

[@brianwalker859]

I'm not sure they can ever make actual sense of it, but I think it's a cool looking '80s throwback overall

[@kaitlyn__L]

@@brianwalker859 my headcanon is the conventional warp reactors are now so small (isn’t the one in refit Discovery just a foot or two across?), even ones powerful enough for capital ships, so they just put one in each nacelle. Especially since they reconnect to the ship when they’re not active, so they probably refuel in those times, then float to their most ideal position - similar to Voyager’s variable geometry drive but with all 6 degrees of freedom. Part of the reason I like to think that is it harks back to Jeffries’ original idea, which was to have the reactors in there. It’s just certain episodes and then Phase II said “actually let’s make the warp core huge and central”!

[@TheZamaron]

I like to think ships with a single engine are basically "canon fodder" ships, or just generally mass produced ships that don't stray too far from core Federation space, essentially a quicker made ship to fill out the fleet, we don't see many of them as their either experimental, or just doing general grunt work keeping the Federation running, kind of like the California class, a general workhorse, rarely called in unless they're desperate for ships like Wolf 359. Otherwise having more engines is probably just as a backup, we usually see this on ships like the Constellation, what I'd call a Light Cruiser, heavier then the single engine ships, but not as versatile as the more frontline ships like the Enterprise classes.

[@MrSheckstr]

Head cannon to explain 1,2,3,4 nacelle ships and nacelles on pylons and inter grated nacelles: A warp coil emits warp energy and that warp energy starts to build a warp bubble where the warp energy of one warp coil intersects the warp energy of another coil. The most simple and efficient warp bubble is where those intersection points occur is in a single line as close to the center of the ships profile , but multiple lines of intersection are more efficient but more difficult to maintain. Single nacelles create a warp bubble by having the energy of the coils being projected fore and aft and the instead of intersection points you get consecutive rings of intersection inside the nacelle but this is not ideal for higher warp function because of the energy being released is inside the hull instead of at points outside of the ship This is how warp coils can interact with adjacent warp coils in its own nacelle, with one other nacelle , or with coils in multiple nacelles. This is also how you can’t have both kinds of interaction at the same time occur with 3&4 nacelles ships while at the same time agree that the simplest and most efficient warp bubbles are created by a single pair of nacelles as is the default configuration in star fleet

[@navysealinguardiantank2679]

I would like to note that in *very early* star trek lore the "engine pods" aka nacelles is where the power was generated so more of them ment more power

[@TomMcD71]

The Prometheus is my favorite multi nacelle design also there was the future Enterprise in the TNG series finale. I don't acknowledge Discovery or Picard at all to me those are just fanfic

[@yzdatabase4175]

fans wouldn't produce such garbage

[@richardkohlhof]

Always great show no matter what! I love your shows- I do have a question. Somewhere I can recall- it may have been in a trek manual reading, that Warp Geometry is the same from side to side- no matter what, you had to stop and enter new coordinates in order to change your line of warp travel, because your line of travel would always be line of sight to reach destination, because trying to alter course while at warp would tear your ship apart. (To try to alter the side to side work geometry) am I right or am I wrong or has that changed?❤