Rule number 14: The bridge ceiling must be constructed of loose girders, panels and pieces of rubble that will collapse onto the floor when the vessel is under heavy enemy fire.
Oh, you misunderstand! What's really going on, is the artificial gravity grids in the deck plates are very sensitive to power fluctuations. So when the ship takes a hit, the energy absorbed by the shields bleeds through the shield generators, into the spaceframe, where it overloads the grid conduits, causing a massive spike in grav generation. The result is it tearing out the overhead structure.
@@lawrencejones1517 if it’s strong enough to rip the roof off it’d also be strong enough to liquify the crew, if that was a possibility the two systems shouldn’t be connected.
And what about those other crewmen that are standing while everyone else is belted in! Bones would just hold on sheepishly to that damn rail and that would seem to keep him in place! While the damn ship would hit into the side of a mountain !
Why in the holy Hell would you ever send Oberth class vessels into battle against the Dominion?! They would have been better off mass-producing a bunch of Defiant class ships, instead.
at least the Romulans and Klingons also use Explodium too.....but Romulans use Explodium 232 and Klingons use Explodium 395-C, it's a far more unstable version, it's why their moon blew up in ST6.....
Funny. Oberth Class Federation star-ships were science vessels. They were never used for combat. They usually only had rudimentary shields and basic weapons. They were often used for testing prototypes and experimental technology, sometimes in secret. The USS Grissom that was destroyed in Star Trek three while researching the Genesis Planet tried to run from a Klingon Bird-of-Prey instead of fighting.
The worse of all is that there may be a reason to have stones. Take a Washe and dry modern machine from LG for example, it has two 25kg stones inside to give weigh to the machine so it wont rock when centrifuge the clothes before the dry cycle. As modern tech and materials are actually light. Maybe the consoles are so light that they need artificial weigh so it would anchor and not flappy with every touch? :P
All consoles must have at least 1 stick of dynamite in them. They let the operator know when the shields of the ship get hit by a powerful but non penetrating shot.
For future references: NX stands for Naval eXperimental, so when a new ship design is approved and is built, they will always receive that prefix until they have had a shakedown trial run to see how well the ship copes; like with what happened with the Defiant. If it passes it's trial run then it will receive it's NCC prefix, which stands for Naval Construction Contract.
Or maybe the 'CC' part of NCC just indicates a 'Cruiser' and all long-range ships are regarded as cruisers by starfleet no matter their size or capability.
@@Akm72 slight problem there, Starfleet has used battleships and Dreadnoughts in the past and have recognised them as such, but they have kept using the same registry prefix. The only time you see a non standard prefix is with civilian vessels which uses the "NAR" registry prefix. But it could be fun to see in a fan canon if Starfleet was more of a military organisation
@@TenebrariusRhade It's not really necessary to mirror image 20th century naval designations. In cannon Star Trek they almost never use terms like 'cruiser', 'frigate', 'destroyer', 'battleship', etc. Those terms tend to appear in novels and games rather than the television series and films (as far as I recall anyway). Cannon terms tend to be 'starship', 'scout', 'science vessel' or 'shuttle'. Of course I'm sure you'll find some exceptions. :) EDIT: Maybe they use NCC for everything in the same way the USAF uses 'F-' for aircraft like the F-105, F-111 and F-117 which are all ground attack aircraft.
In Star Trek memories William Shatner writes about the conversation between Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffreys about the design of the Enterprise (the Yorktown in early drafts) where Roddenberry specified that he wanted a ship that looked functional powerful and nothing like 50's scifi rocket ships or flying saucers I submit that without Jeffreys brilliant interpretation of those instructions Star Trek never gets off the ground
It's kind of funny when you think about just how OLD ST is. There really wasn't a TV Sci-Fi franchise that cared about realism to some degree like ST did before it.
@@T__TheWhite_Bearded_Gamer but not sputtering Buck Rogers type rockets which is what I believe he was trying to avoid but the saucer section point is interesting because a major influence on Gene Roddenberry was Forbidden Planet which definitely has a star cruiser that is a flying saucer
@@hoytrichardson3448 The problems were explained in the show as the Defiant having a warp core bigger and more powerful than a ship it's size should have. At full power the ship nearly shook itself apart until O'Brien fixed it. Presumably there's harmonics for every core that normally would be dampened by the mass of the ship. Defian't is small enough that it couldn't dampen the vibration initially. The problem is similar to putting a V8 into a Citroen C2V. You can make it fit, but the first time you give it full throttle, the car would likely fall apart unless you modify it to compensate.
Klingon Bird of Prey ships also have blocked "line of sight" between engines. Maybe a dated design by TNG era but definitely a proven (and threatening) little warship design with a long and glorious service life. Defiant basically copies this inboard engine approach, built behind a saucer instead of behind a neck. I wonder what occupies the hull volume between these engines. it should be full of "harmful radiations".
@@hoytrichardson3448 What problem? The engines were to powerful for a ship that size. The only problem was the unusually high power output made the cloak less effective.
I feel like rules like these can be very useful to set down for a design language, because then when something _breaks_ one of the rules deliberately, it can be used to draw attention and present questions and curiosity about the thing.
"Rule number four: The bridge must be visible from the exterior of the ship." Well now you've stepped into nautical territory. Consider the submarine. It doesn't matter what make, model, or country. Every submarine has a structure that sits on top like a fin. This structure is called "the sail." I kid you not. At the top of every sail is a deck which is called "the bridge." No, the bridge is not the _command center_ of a ship. It's the ship's highest level. It's just that, usually, ships at sea put their command centers on the bridge. Submarines, though, are an exception to this. Remember in the movie _The Hunt for Red October_ (if you've seen it) when Captain Marco Ramius is walking the decks of the sub and he comes to the command center. His first officer is standing watch and gives him an update on the kinds of information one monitors when standing Officer of the Deck as he is doing, then informs him that the political officer is in his cabin. Ramius then tells him, "Very well. You have the con," before going off to his cabin. "The con." It's called "the con," not "the bridge." So, yes, of _course_ the bridge has to be visible from the exterior of the ship. That's because "the bridge" is what ships call their highest deck. Accordingly, while I don't dispute that the Shenzhou had its _command center_ on the bottom of the ship, it was not called "the bridge," because that's not what the word "bridge" _means._
Not exactly. It's usualy near the top, but the bridge is not the highest deck on most Navy ships. And the command center for a surface warship is combat information center, not the bridge. The bridge only does navigation and sailing. Command and control is done from combat.
While your essentaly correct, the term bridge was a survivor of the time when steam powered ships utilized their steam powered engines to drive paddle wheels at the sides, or rear of the ship. On these paddle wheelers the engineering officer, or for that matter the captain, needed a place to check the paddle wheels condition. The bridge was literally a wooden platform that transited over the side facilitated a view of the port and starboard wheels. Rear wheel paddles were visible from the deck aft of the wheelhouse or the great cabin(mostly on river steamboats). When screws came along as the means of generating movement the term bridge survived.
@@templerman1 But as a former member of the crew of a submarine, I can tell you for a fact that the surface at the top of the sail on a submarine is called "the bridge."
Actually, I'd argue that the Defiant's nacelles don't violate the Line of Sight rule. It's hard to see from most angles (for obvious reasons) but the Defiant's nacelles extend sufficiently below the main hull of the ship. A much bigger offender in this regard would be pretty much every single shuttle and runabout.
@@OmegaReaver I can see where you'd think that, but no. I'd recommend paying attention to whenever Voyager actually goes to warp. The nacelles pivot into a rules-compliant position before the drive engages.
I believe the bridge can be easily removed and updated as we see in many of the Star Trek films of the Enterprise. The location helps in easy removal. Basically its popped off and replace with a updated bridge.
One line of reasoning. Another is that in an Abandon Ship scenario, the bridge on larger ships like the Galaxy Class can be ejected wholesale; it's in the ST:TNG technical manual.
The "structural integrity fields" and "shields are ubiquitous" arguments always bother me from an engineering standpoint. Any structure or structural reinforcement that can go away when the power fails is terrible design, IMO.
Losing active structural integrity on power loss is really the least of their concerns... Why? Antimatter. Starfleet ships carry enough antimatter to destroy the entire ship multiple times over. And I doubt it's contained by permanent magnets.
The structural integrity field might actually be self contained to. In mega engineering there is a concept called space fountain. In it you use a stream of matter to support the structure, creating a active support structure. This allows you to build space elevator like structures in theory. The space fountain. Works similar to how a hose can gain rigidity though a stream of water passing though it. But while the space fountain may have been one of the first concepts for this sort of active support structure it can actually be applied to lot of different concepts. Including space ships. If you try to minimize "leakage" in forms for example friction then you do not need to add much for any energy to this. You can make extremely strong structures. Of course punching such integer field would also release a lot of energy. So it not all good. Though if you can direct it this might actually work as added defence. A bit like how reactive armour works. Is this how it works in Star Trek? Most likely not. Most likely hand waving. But in theory if you just make the system self contain you should be need to fear even losing power since the structural integrity field it self is self powers in a sense.
@@Cythil Pushed to the limits, you could build a matrioshka world. Possibly on top of a black hole, like a galactic one. Or use at least use active support to support a launch loop.
@@SakuraNyan Yeah I hope we will be seeing them be used in the near future. So much you can do with the tech. And is all stuff we understand. Even if we have not made any major engineering attempts yet. But not not like we need crazy new scientific discovery like we need for a warp drive.
There's also no gravity or aerodynamic drag in space, so the nacelle pylons don't have to be particularly strong to either support the nacelle's weight (because there isn't any) or keep them from ripping off during flight (because they won't).
The nacelles Defiant (from DS9) DO have LOS with each other, but it's a very, very narrow LOS... but I hear ya. I like that the Defiant largely breaks this rule... like many alien ships do. This is a great video. I prefer when Star Trek designers adhere to these rules and guidelines. I haven't been too thrilled with the more recent evolution of Starfleet ship designs... I personally prefer saucer sections over "shovel sections" or "spoon sections" or "arrowhead sections." I agree with the idea that these ships can have seemingly structural weak points. These ships are supposed to operate in space, after all. The Reliant DOES have navigational deflectors. In the TOS/TMP era, the navigational deflector was separate from the dish. Trekyards did a video on this.
I always though Defiant had LOS along the ventral length of the nacelle cowlings. Given that the ventral aspect the ship is concave or set in a deck or two allows for that LOS. One possible arguement against this woumd be the placement of the drop hanger, be I don't it think it interferes with the narrow LOS of the nacelles. The roundabouts and the Nebulas have this same narrow LOS.
I would only comment that the “sorry, Defiant” remark may be premature. Two points to consider: the bottom half of the Defiant’s nacelles are visible to one another, and heavy ablative armor on Starfleet’s first, pure warship would no doubt protect the crew. In TNG, they firmly established that the “warp field” had a variable, concentric shape that extended away from the nacelles and in waves around the ship. So, I think Roddenberry’s Rules effectively went out the window early in TNG. Just some thoughts.
Also keep in mind that the rules were made during the TOS/TMP era so any violations in TNG and beyond could be hand-waved away by saying the intervening 70ish years of technological advancement nullified those rules. Starfleet did have to recalculate the entire warp speed scale between TOS and TNG, which strongly indicates some massive breakthrough in warp engineering occurred during that time that made warp speeds much faster and more efficient, so it's reasonable to assume also more safe. Also keep in mind that after it was brought to Starfleet's attention that warp bubbles were damaging the very fabric of space, they went to work designing new nacelles and refining the warp technology to lessen or completely negate that effect, advancements that were seen with the Intrepid-class's variable nacelle positions and the Sovereign-class's more contained looking nacelles.
It was brought up shortly after the Defiant joined DS9 that the radiation was becoming a problem. They had to modify the shielding system to handle it.
I always thought it likely that it had paired coils - but i find that it has living & working space shared with the nacelles much more peculiar, I would speculate that a single coil (or pairs in one nacelle) can generate a warp bubble but it might require stabilisers like the NX-01 has to bend it to the proper shape, though some have speculated the warp field might be able to be shaped by the navigational shields too. It might work perfectly fine just less controllable. Also a low warp speed with one damaged nacelle might be possible, if you only have one nacelle you'd be stuck.
You sure? Both secondary hulls clearly had stuff in them that weren't nacelles. So either the nacelles were built into both secondary hulls, giving the Kelvin 2 nacelles, or the Kelvin had NO nacelles at all.
A very well structured report. I have but a trio of comments in conflict: 1: the Defiant Class. While it does violate the radiation distancing, the more modern and advanced engines may be more efficient in preventing radioactive emissions, and while not easily seen at most views, the nacelles do hang down to have exactly 50% view to one another. While not as efficient as a ship with 100% view, it still follows the rule. 2: The three Nacelle argument. I’ve always had the theory that nacelles must operate in pairs, but having a third doesn’t break the rule if one of two courses of action are taken: A, the third Nacelle is actually 2 simply combined into a single shape, and it pairs with the other two, or B, the nacelle after as a back-up to either provide a smaller stabilizing field or to take over should another fail. 3. One rule I see often misunderstood or dismissed is Impulse + Nacelles. Nacelles do not generate thrust, but instead generate a warp field. The Impulse engines must push the vessel, and the compression rate of the field determines how fast it does. This is why the Galaxy-Class’ huge nacelles and rather small impulse engines (especially when undocked from the saucer) can go very fast, but still be outpaced or matched by the later design of the Defiant-Class when it goes all out, which uses small nacelles but hyper-powerful Impulse engines to make up for it. If the Sovereign-Class detached its saucer, the aft section (with no impulse engines) would be unable to go to warp, and the D’Deridex (which has no visible engines) is genuinely terrifying for being able to move at any speed, let alone warp 7-ish. I look forward to others’ thoughts.
On the 3, No. The Impulse engines do in fact have an exhaust that generates thrust, though you are correct that it actually generates warp thrust, instead an Impulse engine creats a smaller >1 Cochrane subspace field (Cochrane is the measure for subspace field strength 1 Cochrane = a warp field that is strong enough for warp 1). The fact that it generates exhaust was a final plot point in Star Trek VI. "Under impulse power she expends fuel just as any other vessel, we call it plasma, but whatever the Klingon designation, it is simple ionized gas." ~ Spock. These two things operate in concert with the plasma exhaust providing physical thrust and the mass driver coils "lightening" the vessel allowing the thrust to work on a lighter object. The stardrive section of a Sovereign class would in fact be able to move without the Saucer's impulse engines, since while an Impulse engine can't normally break the warp speed barrier, there's nothing stopping a warp engine from producing subluminal motion. And indeed as the Sovereign's stardrive has the main Navigational Deflector, it has everything it needs to go to warp. I imagine that without the saucer section that the warp field would become less efficient however.
I believe it is the shape of the warp field that propels a ship no thrust involved. Impulse is a legacy drive. But i don't have a tech manual in front of me.
@@3Rayfire I'd like to believe impulse led to the discovery of warp by creating weak subspace fields by accident. However as I recall what you are describing with subspace fields lightening the ship is an advanced feature added to get more bang out of an impulse drive thrust.
@@lucasbachmann The history has always been presented that Zephram Cochrane discovered a potential for higher energies that allowed him to break the lightspeed barrier. Presumably he discovered the ability to warp space first. It's interesting, looking at the tech manual, they stated that the Impulse Engine in the Ambassador class was originally going to use reaction thrust, including experimenting with reaction thrust accelerants accelerated to past light speed, which had no effect since it wasn't coupled to the space frame. That's when they decided to add the driver coil. So the TNG Tech Manual indicates that just raw Fusion powered thrust came before adding a continuum distorting coil. Page 75. Usage of just a mass lightening coil is certainly possible as far as I'm concerned, heck that's how the Normandy in Mass Effect moves in stealth mode (coincidentally making it more stealthy in that regard than General Chang's Bird of Prey.)
For those of you who believe warp nacelles can generate thrust, I would like to explain my perspective. From my knowledge, warp nacelles have always created warp bubbles which bend space time to allow for FTL travel, but do not generate motion themselves. While t. Impulse engines and Even basic thrusters produce the gas or plasma to create motion, neither they or the nacelles can independently complete the whole of warp drive without the other. I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
The Defiant and the Sovereign are my top two favorite Starfleet designs hands down. But for different reasons. Sovereign class design is a refinement of both the Constitution and Galaxy classes while being a true spiritual successor to the Constitution. It reflects a Borg aware Federation that is still the Federation, but it looks not only fast, but tough. The Defiant, on the other hand, is a no nonsense punch-your-face design that, while it violates one or two rules, works because it was intended to break those rules. It is such a departure to what fans are used to, that any violation of the rules Probert set is easily accepted in this radical design.
Thank you for being one of the first, maybe only, vloggers to acknowledge it's all "rationalizing" otherwise completely arbitrary choices on the part of the shows' designers!
what would be great about the bridge placement so far on top or bottom, that it can be completely ejected in and emergency....but most likely without any drive capabilities.....just a rescue capsule while the captain sits comfortable in the Captains yacht
A year ago,I made a drawing of a Starfleet-Like ship. I didn't know of these design rules until right now,but looking at the sketch now,I actually followed every rule. What's even more interesting is that my Ship was not actually inspired by Star Trek,but by it's competitor(?),The Orville,where funnily enough,the main Ship actually violates most of these design rules.
I've always liked the Constellation class (USS Stargazer, Hathaway) and it's robust hull armored, four nacelle design. It always gave me the impression of a vessel that could endure a lot of abuse and still function at acceptable mission capacity, while at the same time being more maneuverable than most other Starfleet ships. The only thing that would give me pause are the very basic living conditions offered to the crews of Constellation class ships. It makes me want to tell Picard: "So your first command was the USS Stargazer? Wow...I'm sorry."
Have you seen the saucer section on that thing? That thing probably had solid amenties since that's the living and working portion of the ship. Lots of space. Better that than a Miranda. @Főfasírozó The warp bubble that moves the ship faster than light.
I've always found it ironic how the Starfleet ships look closer to the the classical alien ship designs we're used to than the actual alien ships in the show. The Enterprise is literally a flying saucer with some extra attachments. So was the Stargazer, and many other Starfleet ships. It's like humans in the Star Trek universe decided to design their space ships based on alien movies.
the saucer shape is a flattend sphere giving it less surface area (kind of), and i'm assuming you're talking about the NX-01 and the ships without the secondary hull, yes, but they can't really aerodynamically fly. and they can't be mistaken for saucers. ther classical engineering section is a oblong sphere, again less surface area
I liked the rainbow effect of the original Enterprise in ToS. It's still mostly red, but it has a unique look to it. And while I agree Starfleet ships should be bright, I prefer the original series' matte white/light grey -- your model has a lot of awesome detail, but it's a bit too shiny for me.
Yeah, the matte light grey is in my opinion a must. As well as the red lines with the insignia. There are a few things that a starfleet ship has to have, otherwise it doesnt fit the rest. Imagine a US Navy Ship which is all of a sudden Black , or polished chrome. Doesnt make any sense.
@@DoctorX17 The Pinstripes, and the slightly darker colors around hull details, like escape pods and so on . :D The Hull of Sovereign and Galaxy are full of darker contrasts
@@JohnJ469 Originally Gene Roddenberry likened the Constitution Class vessel to a US Navy Freighter, like an FFG. A multiplatform vessel capable of multiple missions. Starfleet was always been about peace so why would they build battle-cruisers? Klingons and Romulans have battle-cruisers. In universe, she was designated Starship, Constitution Class.
I am fairly 'geeky" of old; I had all the Fasa books and designed many a starship. I agree with all you said, and think you're spot on with your "safety" analogy with regard to the placement of the warp nacelles. It's equivalent of how Soviet era nuclear subs had much less shielding and also used a more dangerous design of nuclear reactor than America. Also, the Russians of course used that peroxide fuel in their torpedoes, long know to corrode the copper tubing within and causing ruptures and potential fires...ie the Kursk. So yes, I think it's even mentioned in either the Klingon or Romulan recognition manual that they're less concerned with shielding of their engines, ie lesser weight. I do think the Navigational Deflector is designed to "deflect" miniscule particles "at speed," whether it be impulse or warp. Yes, the shields could do the same thing, but at awful energy drain. Even a grain of sand could destroy a starship if the ship flies into it at many times the speed of light, hence the Navigational Deflector I think acts as a "Cow Catcher" for small particulates up to maybe golf-ball or what have you, but anything larger would either be charted, detected on sensors, or navigated around with shields up. Just my middle-aged geek opinion.
If you take the Enterprise designs (A-E) thru the years and look at side views, you'll notice that the warp nacelles and main saucer sections were gradually getting closer to the primary hull. The explanation was to make them less vulnerable to enemy attack.
Not to rag on any one show, but ship designs made after the cgi era have the annoying habit of being Theoretically Unique but in Reality Dull in Shape. A few random protrusions does not an interesting ship make. First thought is the Ent E, but I do love that ship. I think it's the nacelles that save it. Using such ships, sweeping shots become more necessary to convey action while ships with stand-out features can use fly-by motion and still catch your eye. I really like those rules, but I still like the idea of a 3rd nacelle on the Ent D. Even from the first time I saw it when I was young, I always felt that nacelle was compensation for being behind the times. A 'modern' ship ought to keep it's nacelles in pairs, but a single nacelle makes it look 'short-range.' Still, I am a huge fan of the Kelvin class even though they call it a long range scout. That might be because the secondary hull fools the brain into thinking the ship actually has 2 nacelles. I think when new technologies become mainstream, such as slipstream or transwarp, I wouldn't mind taking another look at those rules. Also, its not a navigational deflector, its an interstellar screwdriver.
FUN fact the USS Reliant was going to have its Neceles on the Dorsal side, but Roodebrerry held the Plans up side down, so the ship was built upsidown.
Totally agree. Especially the TNG movie CGI era designs and the ships designed for trek games are prone to this design "sickness". And i have a different "beef" with these new designs. As an architect and interior designer, i can tell you it would be HELL to design a usefull, functional interior for all these new "cool" designs of ships. All the curves, bends, protrusions, and such make for a horrible shape to house any usefull interiors. Every interior room would have slanted walls, weird angles, ... To design logical hallways connecting different areas of the ship in a logical way would be near impossible sometimes. I think the intrepid was the last design that was both beautiful and made sense from a design standpoint. From the enterprise E on, the designs just became more and more outlandish and "unrealistic". They're more flash than function. That's what i always loved about trek, that the ships looked cool, but also made sense from a design and logical use standpoint. From the TNG movie era on i liked the new designs less and less. For example, I know many people like the akira, but it makes no sense whatsoever from an internal design standpoint. The main thing i always hated in "old trek" was the thin neck of the constitution that had windows. It's too narrow to be usefull in any way exept for structure, turbolifts and ducts/conduits. As a kid/teenager i was always designing trek-style star ships, and one of the first things i always thought about was "how is this going to work on the inside". It's one of the reasons i became an architect i think... And it's the main reason why these new designs bug me so much... :)
Very good. There is a practical rational for the bridge being on the exterior of the hull. You touched on it without connecting the dots: in the universe of Star Trek, protection is provided by energy fields (deflector/ structural integrity); the hull and bulkheads would provide NO defense against high energy, relativistic or super-luminal threats. By placing the bridge on the exterior of the ship, it can be surrounded by its own shield making it a hard point. If the bridge were inside the hull it could not be independently shielded without endangering/irradiating the surrounding decks. By placing the bridge the top center of the saucer it is defended by both the saucers deflector shield and its own. On the underside the conflicting field radiated by the main deflector would complicate the integrity of an independent bridge deflector - not impossible but less than ideal.
The Reliant did have deflector dishes.. sorta. There are a matched pair of very small pods built into the front of the upraised section of the hull. Not the mega phasers on the roll bar, but at the ends of the registration numbers if you follow the definition lines to their ends.
The Starfleet design rule of warp nacelles arrayed in pairs is referred to as Bilateral Symmetry, and it makes sense as Chief O’Brian would attest to. 👽💚
Adding my two cents here, I think color is especially fascinating when thinking about the intent of a ship and communicating to vessels what the organization is about. The idea of brighter ships being a signifier of hope and optimism in the Federation is something I appreciate a lot in Starfleet design. I will say that both in starship design (and uniform as well), I'm very much one to bend color guidelines both as an expression of individuality to ships in the Federation. My ship in STO is a modified version of a pre-existing class with the nacelles further away from the hull than usual to create a more elegant shape rather than a muscular and bulky design. With that in mind, I gave my ship accents of blue and magenta to evoke the image and colors of a beautiful nebula, paying tribute to the exploratory nature of the vessel. One might argue that this would make camouflaging more difficult, but the workaround for that is in situations that particularly require stealth, my ship has a set of prototype Reman shields that can change the appearance of the hull plating to reflect light and particles, creating a camouflaging effect. While this is approach is not as stealthy as the cloaking devices of the Klingons and Romulans, the logic was that this would still be effective in combat situations given the priority towards discovery and cooperation for the ship and her crew.
A thought: ships with a "single" nacelle could actually have a pair of nacelles placed together inside a superstructure, and ships with an odd number of nacelles could be using number 3 as a sort of spare tire. If a nacelle becomes to damaged to function in battle, simply redirect power and continue fighting. Also, some ships may have a hollow internal space to allow line of sight between otherwise obscured nacelles. Also, the defiant's nacelles use another good way to have close tucked nacelles by having them hang down under the hull but still he tucked in close.
I never liked the "Galaxy-X" approach of bolting on a third nacelle. It's like putting more wheels on a car, not going to make the engine more powerful, not going to make it drive any faster.
@@pwnmeisterage me neither aesthetically but if it's basically a spare tire, then I understand why it would be there. Most cars have a 5th wheel as a spare in case one in damaged after all. Why not use the same philosophy with a space ship where if your ftl gets disabled permanently, you're basically dead bar however long it takes your ship to run out of power, air and water.
@@davidthomas2870 I understand your logic. But a third nacelle is a sizeable chunk of tech. Adds a lot of mass, needs a lot of maintenance. Seems to me that extra communications gear would be better insurance. Anything which could already wreck two engines would likely wreck all three.
Paul White except for certain spheres, although they do have plenty of sharp edges if you look close enough. And certain franchises disagree with you on that. In B5, humans have dark, blocky ships, while alien ships are almost always colorful and more aesthetically pleasing. In Halo, humans ships are also more angular and dark, while Covenant ships are rounded and purple. And W40K... actually, there aren’t any good guys here.
on my 1701-f model, the regular deflector was just above the lower saucer dome. it had a weapon deflector that looked like the constution class, when the primary part was damaged, it discarded, and the secondary looked like the 1701-a deflector.
I like the fact that you mentioned to color of the ship. I can't stand how dark Discovery ships are. But nice vid, nice to see you making use of that HD Constitution model.
There was a time in cinema when the good guys always wore white ( old weaterns, white hats on the heros, black hats on the villains). I can't help but notice as the era of Kurtzman trek as the Federation becomes darker and more dystopian the ship are shifting from whites to greys.
while it may NOT be pleasing to the eye, its more Tactical. #1 - I don't like Exposed bridges. #2 - I don't like Bright white paint jobs. #3 - I don't like long thin Exposed necks. #4 - I don't like Engine Naclles near the Body of the ship. #5 - I don't like thin Seccondary hulls.
I like DISCO's depiction. I think the starships are the same colour as other series; they're just showing a more accurate depiction of what anything looks like in deep space. If they're not being lit by a nearby star or reflection from a planet, they should be pretty much completely dark aside from what light they generate themselves.
The rules of build are quite evident in the Ares class NCC-1650 from the 4-years wars. It follows the rules but has much more fire power, ablative armor over critical systems and has the navigational deflector buried into it's blended saucer/hull design (much like the future Sovereign class) with the nacelles slung low (like the future Centaur class) to aide in their protection and shrink the forward cross session making it tougher to target.
@@85MasterV If the Galaxy X is a projected refit in the future and considering Timeless took place 20 years after TNG ended, then hypothetically it is possible.
I myself am a fan of Roddemberry's four rules, regardless of how unrealistic a design they may make. The give a consistency of design that sets the franchise apart. And my own ship designs follow them as best I can. The problem with the four rules is that they are in direct conflict with Star Trek's Three Rules of canon: #1 Does it work for the story of the current scene, episode, or movie, regardless of any rules, standards, or explanations given in previous episodes. (Star Trek canon has ALWAYS been "flexible" and in service of the story of the week). #2 Does it look "cool" on screen. (Don't get me started on the utter silliness of space fighters in Trek - but they're there on screen.) #3 Can the SFX department make it within budget. any other aspects of trek lore or canon are superseded by these three rules, and this holds true from the very first episodes of TOS all the way to current year. For example, Gene's explanation of warp drive and how it worked was pretty much thrown out the window by Berman and Okuda when they were writing the tech bible for TNG. Gene imagined the warp field centered between the two nacelles so there shouldn't be any part of the ship in the way, and certainly no crewmen anywhere near there. An energy field powerful enough to propel a couple hundred thousand metric tons of starship thousands of times the speed of light would be a pretty intense energy field. Berman re-imagined the center of the warp field being the warp core (why? I don't know, the nacelles generate the warp field, the core is merely the power source. An electromagnet's magnetic field isn't centered on the battery, but the magnetic coil; in fact you don't want the battery all that close to the magnet's field - but Berman thought the core was where all the REAL magic happened or something because that's the thing the audience can see on screen, so that's where he centered the field) Thus Berman centered the warp field in the very HEART of the ship where crew lived and worked in fabric uniforms (not radiation shielded suits like in Wrath of Khan) with the actual business end of the field in the nested layers of the warp field far out beyond the ship's hull. Which meant that he didn't think the warp field presented very much danger to the crew or structure of the ship, or that the structure of the ship posed any problem or obstacle for the core and nacelles generating the warp field. And this rewrite happened when they were crafting the tech bible for the series early on in the pre-production and filming of the first season of TNG when Gene had to sign off on everything they were doing, so it's as "official" as Roddenberry's 4 rules. This is also why, after Roddenberry's death, you start to see Trek designers ignoring Gene's 4 rules more and more often.
"You see, the warp nacelles emit harmful radiation. So if you've ever wondered why the warp nacelles are extended so far out on these pylons, well this is why. Other powers may not care about protecting the crews as much and have them much closer to the body of the ship but it's easier to protect them if the nacelles are at some distance away. Especially if they may be severely damaged and they can be jettisoned." It's also conceivable that other powers have better means of _shielding_ their crews from this radiation, and the chance of damage to a warp nacelle, it seems to me, is not significantly different from the odds of damage to the _rest_ of the ship.
On your comment on nacelles, it could also be possible the nacelles need to be further away from the ship due to how much more powerful engines Starfleet ships employ at a given time period. They are generally, some of the fastest ships of local powers with only a few powers like the borg being faster. I mean, on average, a Federation Ship can outrun comparable powers like the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Dominion, the Kazon, the Veterans, and the Malon. I believe, according to cannon, outside a few ships designed with such rules, the maximum warp they can achieve is between Warp 7-8, while most Federation ships can reach Warp 8-9.985 with Warp 9.5 becoming the average. And races that reach similar or greater speeds to Federation, like the Romulans and Vong due follow a similar design to Federation keeping nacelles away from the hull. While the rest are like the borg with a crew that can regenerate from any damage taken, being of energy, or automated ships that do not have to worry about the crew dying.
If you haven't read it yet, a book named The Federation, It is a 3 generation type book starting with Dr.Cochrane , then Capt. Kirk and ending with Capt. Picard. It goes into some detail as to why the warp engines are placed as they are and how the warp bubble/ field work to cause faster then light speeds. I have reread mine a dozen times. You can picture the Dr.Cochrane from the TOS instead of the one from TNG movie. Its gives you a look into the beginning of WW3 and during the take over by Greens army. As said a great read .
I think having the warp nacells away from the hull also imporves efficiency and speed at the cost of being easier to damage in combat. This is why federation ships were generally faster and had better high warp endurance than peer opponents like the romulans and klingons.
@Caleb Reese The Defiant seems like the F-4 of that universe. Putting a warp core designed for a full-sized Galaxy class in the size of something not a whole lot larger than a runabout. Brute-forced their way to higher speeds and nearly destroyed itself in the process. No wonder it needed the miracle worker O'Brian just to get it to work. In the end, it is by-far the least efficient starfleet vessel ever. But that's okay, cause it has huge guns.
That I believe is true, the Defiant has terrible fuel and warp field efficiency, but made up for it with power and small size. And Starfleet certainly does seem to be the leading edge in local space on warp speeds. Warp 9.5 is fast, but keep in mind the contemporaries, the decade older Galaxy class had a stock max warp of 9.6, the Voyager was up to 9.975, the Sovereign is between Warp 9.8 and 9.9, the Prometheus is at warp 9.99. The Defiant was not a speed demon.
The Intrepid class was, until the Sovereign class, the fastest in Starfleet @ 9.975. It too violates the Line-of-Sight and standoff rules. So no, I'd say the evidence is strongly against a performance justification for either.
Thank you for creating & sharing a fun & informative video. Long time Trek fan attempting my 1st design / build of a starship. My favourite era is TOS. Due to storylines & budgets we didn’t get to see smaller Starfleet vessels in any detail. To that end, I’ve been seeing how far I can “compact” the traditional Enterprise configuration into a smaller, 4 deck vessel. It’s a quarter the length of a Constitution class at 240’. I call it a “Sparrow” class as it’s small & fast so likely a science vessel or scout or courier perhaps. It’s jokingly named U.S.S. Vortex NCC-973 for now in honour of the holo-doctors novel. It’s a work-in-progress but I’m really trying to let the function dictate much of the form. Building a 1/96 scale model as well. In time I plan to learn how to import a finished model into a virtual, shared environment. ruclips.net/video/PbXGOpWusjM/видео.html
the navigational deflector is more to move even subatomic particles out of the way of the path of the ship while moving at FTL speeds or warp. It can be used in sublight as you implied, however its primary purpose isn't to be used at sublight speeds and when at sublight speeds is mainly used as just a giant sensor dish. when moving at speeds faster than light and many many times faster than light of subatomic particle like a proton could puncture the haul moving at those speeds the size of a person. Having Shields up at warp speeds is usually said to be a big no no, at least at first during the TOS years, as it encloses the radiation being emitted from the cells inside the shield bubble and it irradiates the crew. This is why the Nav Deflector was developed (that end in universe Starfleet apparently hadn't develop shielding technology yet and so the only option for safely traveling at FTL speeds without running into subatomic particles drifting in space was a deflector, apparently).
Can also be used in later Starfleet models to channel large amounts of directed energy, too. Look up "Heavy Graviton Beam" in the TNG episode "Best Of Both Worlds." Or Voyagers numerous times they channeled different kinds of particles into beams directly through the deflector. however its primary purpose is this is a giant eye and sensor dish for the starship, and to force push things out of the way at FTL speeds.
The Navigational Deflector and the Long Range sensors have a special relationship. When the Navigational Deflector is operating at warp it can actually scramble sensors. But if you align them the Navigational Deflector can actually act like a telescope lens and the long range sensors look down the deflector beam with no problem. I don't remember anything about the shields keeping radiation from escaping. If that was the case they likely overcame that technological limitation. The Navigational deflector has been around since TOS and depending on your view of canon since the beginning as it's also on the NX-01 and even some of its predecessors.
I was wondering if someone would point this out. Space is most certainly not empty. Think of the idea of Solar Sails, which we've also seen in Star Trek. Those are pushed by sub-atomic particles(i.e. radiation and ions) which are in space due to stars. They aren't a problem at Newtonian speeds, but as you get to more relativistic speeds close to the speed of light, then having an impact from a few protons would be enough to cause issues. Think about the concerns of super colliders and the energy produced from a collision within one.
at sublight speeds it is still used as a deflector, but when the TOS enterprise was designed, it took on the appearance of a large receiver dish that NASA was using.
@@sagesheahan6732 Been rewatching Voyager again lately and was just thinking the other day that the deflectors almost get used as a weapon as much as the phasers and torpedoes
From beneath the Defiant's nacelles do actually have that area in the middle for the field to have line of sight if I remember correctly! Another good vid!
“In order to break the rules, you must first understand them.” That said, considering how “dedicated warships” like the Defiant were essentially “breaking the rules” of Federation pacifism, it’d make sense to see such extraordinary circumstances creating mold-breaking ship designs v
@@EddBlackheart I thought this same thing. If you look underneath the defiant the nacelles have at least a partial line of sight. Since it was an experimental combat vessel with minimal crew having them integrated into the hull makes sense too. Without any civilian families on board they would know and accept the risks.
The defiant doesn't break the rule. You see inside the plasma feed system is built in a Y shaped feed system so the coil resonance propagates through this channel from side to side inside the ship. This providing a means of safeguarding this components from being more exposed out on pylons. Excess warp coil radiation that is normally harmful to human crews is contained in the coil field passages and shunted back out in the wake of the ships warp envelope.
@@UGNAvalon First comment is about understanding the rules, the next four are people not understanding the rules. You tried to teach but they would not listen hahaha
I notice your main Enterprise model is the earlier one with spikes on the Bussard collectors and a grill on the back of the nacelles.That model also had a super-size deflector dish and a taller bridge module. On the show, the exterior shots are often contradictory, with earlier and later versions interspersed. But to the extent there's any regularity to them, the earlier spiked-Bussards version seems to have been replaced after the second pilot story.
It never did. That was a fanon backronym that someone came up with because they didn't know that Matt Jefferies created the prefix by combining the NC prefix then in use for American civil aircraft and the CCCC registry used by the Soviets, thus NCC. Originally it was the _number_ that was supposed to be information regarding the vessel: in his sketches, 1701 meant 17th cruiser design, serial number 01. That was never referenced on screen and that explanation obviously ignored, and the numbers simply became regarded as registry numbers.
Haven't heard the Naval Construction Contract backronym but have heard someone claim it ment Nominal Cruiser Class. Nominal being used, I guess, as the "existing or being something in name or form only" definition meaning they called it a cruiser but it really wasn't. I do recall reading in a tech manual that the USS stands for United Star Ship. Guess it's a good thing it's the United Federation of Planets and not the Allied Federation of Planets. lol
NCC always stood for Naval Construction Contact. As approved by Gene Roddenberry when presented with Franz Joseph orginal Enterprise blueprints. 1701, as brought forward by Matt Jefferies stood for the 17th ship built by Starfleet and 01 as the 1st Constitution class starship.
Chris Cheshire As for the use of NCC as a prefix for Starfleet registry numbers, its designer Matt Jefferies said, when he conceived the prefix in 1964, that the registries for American civil aircraft are preceded by NC, and Soviet craft used a prefix of CCCC, and as such, he more-or-less combined the two. His philosophy was, "If we do anything in space, we (Americans and Russians) have to do it together." In contrast, the Star Trek Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 69) claims that the second C was just an arbitrary addition to make the registry look better. This notion had actually been confirmed by Jefferies himself on another occasion, "Since the 1920's, N has indicated the United States in Navy terms, and C means 'commercial' vessel. I added an extra C just for fun. Interestingly, Russia's designation is CCC [sic.: Jefferies meant The Soviet Union]. So The N and C together made it kind of international." (Star Trek: The Original Series Sketchbook, p. 62; Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 69)) A less common alternative to Franz Joseph's designation, "Navigational Contact Code", has been floating around in fan circles. This designation originated from David John Nielsen's U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints and Todd Allan Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet reference book series. The 1975 *licensed* publication Star Trek Blueprints (sheets 1 & 3), which was the work of Franz Joseph, designate the abbreviation to stand for the "Naval Construction Contract Number" of a starship, akin to the real world maritime hull numbering practice. While MA considers a very limited amount of Franz Joseph's work as valid background information for canon purposes, insofar it had actually made onscreen appearances, the abbreviation explanation has not been part of it and remains apocryphal. Still, Joseph's work was once considered "official" by the franchise and, ranking among the very first published works of this kind, enjoyed considerable popularity in "Trekdom" at the time, and his explanation of the abbreviation appears to be the more commonly accepted one by them. As "fanon" the designation has been adopted by some Star Trek novelists, such as the below mentioned Diane Carey. The novel Best Destiny, by Diane Carey, gives the meaning of NCC as "Naval Construction Contract", taking her cue from the 1975 Franz Joseph Blueprints.
@@chrischeshire6528, I know the backstory to the Constellation' s registry number NCC- 1017 being due to the prop crew having the Enterprise numbers 1701 being on hand to quickly place upon the Connie model for filming. As for 01 indicating first ship of the class- how does that square with there being the U.S.S. Constitution NCC- 1700 bearing the titular ship of the Constitution Class?
I like the idea that the nav deflector is more necessary for exploration and deep space missions into uncharted territory where unexpected phenomena are more frequent.
I remember reading a book, many years ago, regarding the design choices for the show. More than anything else, Roddenberry insisted that it look nothing like a rocket, which is what everyone thought of when thinking of space travel at the time. He wanted to distance the show from the silly "space adventure" type shows and serials. It's somewhat ironic that, with The Expanse, we've come full circle back to the rocket-type design. Because that's how you generate "gravity" in space.
Spot on about the main deflector dish. Deep space exploration ships (that operate in uncharted space at high warp speeds) need them. More pedestrian starships that operate within the confines of the Federation, and well-charted space, like the Miranda Class, can get by with secondary deflectors.
I think the design for the "All good things" Enterprise D's third engine can be rationalized as a back up engine in case one of the other two are damaged or destroyed. Of course, there would be a noticeable penalty for the warp field but it would be better than being potentially stuck in the middle of nowhere without a working engine to get you to the nearest mechanic.
From what I've read, the 3rd nacelle was there to act as a power source for additional shields and weapons (diverting warp power from that 3rd nacelle to other systems)
EXACTLY!! i’m so glad you have documented this because there is world building in these rules. it outlines why even allies spacecraft follow similar rules. if we ever find a way to break the FTL barrier there will be rules and there probably won’t be very many other ways to do so. So these rules explain the similar configurations of ships from separate FTL development histories. People should follow these rules. that being said the defiant does have room at the bottom to put two glowing Warfield grills along the ventral portion of the work from the cells facing each other giving the defiant at least an attempt at line of sight so it can work if they just took these rules into account and made the model with work grills there they might be thin there may not be a lot of room but that might the part of the reason it doesn’t achieveExtremely high work speeds and only cheese hire work speeds due to the compact nature of the whole design itself. These are world building rules not only world but galaxy or even universe building rules and everyone everyone designing ships should abide by them. That’s what separates Star Trek from Star Wars. Star Trek uses a real space time FTL system well something like Star Wars and or the Borg use a kind of hyper space or what Star Trek would call sub space tunneling FTL system.
There are a lot of interesting subtle design principles you can see in the original (TOS) Constitution Class. These are generally totally ignored by later designers. The biggest thing is that there is no “acceleration” in a star ship (other than in evasive maneuvers where people are thrown side to side from G forces that should have made them go spat like bugs on a car window, but I digress). The warp bubble accelerates and everything within it remains static within that bubble. That’s why the connection to the nacelles don’t have to be overly thick and why the connection between the primary and secondary hulls can look a lot like the old Flatiron building in NYC. I do have some exception for the three nacelle Franz Joseph Dreadnought Class (I only hate the front facing shuttle craft doors). It actually keeps a lot of the other design principles (as opposed to the transport / tug class where the cargo container breaks the line of sight between the nacelles) and you can even hand wave the function by only having two of the nacelles operational at any one time (but rotating much like three phase AC current).
I always figured one of the reasons the nacelles would be separate from the hull would also be heat management. In space shedding heat is the problem, not staying warm, separating the nacelles from the hull would allow them to get much hotter than you'd want something within the main hull to get. The pylons themselves could also act as a heat sink, I don't remember ever seeing anything that went into detail on what's in the pylons other than a Jefferies tube and the power conduits but you could add in storage containers for ionic hydrogen that could be heated into plasma then dumped into space to reduce heat if neccessary. Would look cool too, a V of plasma trailing behind the ship like a wake or wings. As for the bridge exposed on the top I never had a problem with that. For one thing, even though it's never mentioned, Starfleet ships must have some ECM to prevent precision targeting because torpedoes usually just hit where ever, seems like only phasers have a good chance of precision targeting. But the main defense on the ship is the shields, once they go down it doesn't matter where the bridge is, a single hit can blast straight through the ship (unless the narrative says "not this time'). And I remember reading somewhere that the bridge has a second set of shields just around the bridge to make it even harder to damage. But it would be cool to see a Starfleet like ship with the bridge on top most of the time but during battle the bridge could be dropped deeper into the ship with a pair of blast doors closing over where the bridge was. It wouldn't be practical at all but it would look cool on screen. Camera pans over the hull and you see the entire bridge suddenly drop as a pair of heavy metal doors begin closing over the hole then switch to an inside view from the bridge looking up through the window on the ceiling and seeing bands of light receding as the bridge descends and the stars become occluded by the blast doors before they close completely. "Shut up Wesley and drop the bridge, damnit!"
Acctually I got inspired and motivated by your videos and started designing my own starfleet ship few days ago. Im doing it in engineering 3D software that I have for school purpouses. It is not perfect program but it is good enough. The only rule that my ship violates is that part of warp nacellas are above the saucer, but I want to excuse it by adding additional radiation shielding. The only thing I hope is that it will look original. There are hundreds of designs.
I’m definitely not arguing these rules they make sense but I’ve always had it in my head cannon that because the Phoenix brakes the rules in terms of the line of sight that ships that don’t follow the rules would be combat or defensive ships due to the more inefficient designs.ships that follow the rules are deep space or exploratory vessels with excellent performance and power . Excellent video.
As a Star Trek fan born in the 70's & raised on the Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical Manual & the Star Fleet battles games before TNG or I had heard of the "rule", I still love the Single or Triple warp nacelle designs. I just assume that the nacelles are canted towards each other on the triple ones & the single nacelles have some sort of "Doppleganger" system that lets them work. I figure why not, the transporters have the "Heisenberg Compensators" that get around problems with the transporters working without explaining how.
Best Sci Fi show ever, except for one thing. Beaming someone up will never be possible. Totally non plausible, shuttles could have added drama anyway. Maybe they should have modeled them on the NASA shuttles
Since Starfleet capital ships can not land on planet, shuttles are a basic necessity. You can't make entering and exiting the ship entirely reliant on transporters. There are much too many situations where transporters might not be available.
I know you endeavor to be accurate so I wanted to make sure you were aware of a problem with your analysis, in the TOS-TMP era what you referred to as the 'navigational deflector dish" is nothing of the kind, the front of the Connie in both TOS and TMP is a sensor dish, in fact, if you look carefully you will see surrounding the sensor dish three nodules, to port, starboard, and underside those are in fact the navigational deflectors. on the Reliant you will find identical nodules on the saucer far to port and starboard where the Engineering decks meet the proper saucer section. I learned this myself when I made the same assumption you did and Captain Foley of Trekyards explained it to me.
In 1985, I spoke with Mr. Roddenberry. He asked if I knew why Star fleet ships were pearl white with a red pin stripe. He said that was a tribute to the US Coast Guard, because he admired it's missions and capabilities to operate in both peace time, and war (switching hats at the drop of a dime, as he put it).
@@resurrectedstarships I have this FanFic writing project for this crazy Mega Sci-Fi Crossover thingy, and one of the core questions is: What would Klingon or Romulan ships look and "feel" like if they didn't use the Star Trek technology and "Rulebook"? For example, what would a Klingon Battlestar or the Donnager from the Expanse be like when made by Klingons; would Klingons even want to build a Battlestar or instead go the Basestar route? Also I want to know the how/why Discovery Klingon ships just don't work except for the most part their essential stick figure frame. From this, I want to imagine or see a Klingon ship that doesn’t follow that repetitive wide back wings and long front neck shape that defines the quintessential D7/K’tinga, B’rel, Vor’cha and Negh’var Birds-of-Prey / Warbirds. It's a thought exercise and experiment that I live for. Also, I would love to see that interesting Discovery designs 'given a new coat of paint or new set of clothes' so they actually look and feel like the tried and true Klingons we all love.
Klingons have an honor code that glorifies personal combat. Seems like they'd prefer fighters over starships if possible, more personal glory. Imagine a Klingon carrier and star fighters. Of course they didn't have the FX tech when TOS was made to do that but would have been cool.
One of the things I always disliked about the Ambassador class (Enterprise-C) was that the Bussard ramscoops were behind the saucer... defeating their purpose.
The Excelsior-class sort of had the same problem as well - especially when viewing a foreword profile of it. The Enterprise-B refit made it worse by putting additional impulse engines more or less in front of the redesigned bussard collectors. Back in the TNG/DS9 days, somebody in the production studio made an Ambassador refit that actually lowered the nacelles, thereby making the Ambassador’s port/starboard profile similar to a Galaxy-class. This arrangement still kept the line-of-sight - as it wasn’t lowered that much - and finally gives those nacelles a fully clear foreword line-of-sight. Shortening the height of the pylons so the nacelles are lower definitely gives the Ambassador-class a better look too. Ex Astris Scientia has a detailed analysis of this “refit” on his page.
Clear line of sight to the bussard collectors, while a good and rational rule can probably be fudged a little bit. I mean, you have to make a hole in the navigational deflector anyway and a funnel to bring the interstellar hydrogen to the collectors in the first place, so manipulating the field so it can arc around a saucer section isn't impossible, but it's not exactly efficient either.
@@DarinRWagner When did I say otherwise? You have two components at play here, one that pushes things away and one that sucks things in. The former needs to make accommodations so the latter can function.
I like this video, although I feel one last point was missed. These are all requirements for a flagship design, the ship to carry the name Enterprise, but rule breaking can work in a ship's favor. A few examples: The Miranda class lacks a forward deflector and a secondary hull. But it still works as TOS design, owing to borrowed parts, and those missing features tie into its identity. It's a workhorse ship you're not supposed to see on flyers. It's a compact and slightly unsightly ship that looks like a cut down version of the Enterprise, and it is a "budget" Constitution Class ship. When you get on a Miranda, you think to yourself, "I want to be on a Constitution." The USS Vengeance's very dark colors belies the fact it is distinctly not a Starfleet ship. Especially compared to the organic curves of TNG and Kelvin ships, it's flat on many surfaces and especially angular along the secondary hull. It is a Constitution gone wrong, almost cementing the rift between Starfleet as a whole and Section 31. This dichotomy especially is evident when the two flagships met one another, and through the many scenes of the Vengeance's weapons. It's a warship, Enterprise never once fires a shot in Into Darkness, while the Vengeance is throwing up phasers and torpedoes constantly. The Defiant's compact, no spacing and no LoS nacelles borrow over design language from the shuttles. Indeed, it was an oversized shuttle during early design. It's not a shuttle now, but it definitely makes us feel like the Defiant is smaller than ships we've seen before. It's an extension of DS9, and it looks the part by looking like a fraction of a whole ship. You might even say that it's a saucer section missing its secondary hull.
The ramjet and deflector dish are complimentary. I have my doubts about starships using ramjet technology, the amount of energy generated using antimatter should be sufficient.
It doesn't seem to be a "rule" based on Trek physics or Roddenberry decree. Just a stylistic preference for the capital warships. Which wasn't applied to all Federation starships in the shows anyhow. Civilian ships (colony, freighter, transport, etc) and small craft (shuttles, runabouts, etc) have never had saucers. And since late-VOY, the fashion seems to prefer replacing round saucers with angled pointy wedges.
I’ve always felt that crew safety was always part of star fleet, and star fleet is always pressing limits of tech and science on every ship. So all three parts are generally designed to eject or separate to keep crew safe. But other species crew safety was not a concern or they weren’t pressing limits with their normal ships.
From what I have seen, the blue glow from the warp fields can vary to a violet or purple; and the red color in the Bussard collectors are sometimes orange or orange-yellowish. Plus the deflector dish in Kirk’s 1965-ish Enterprise is often described as bronze in color. So some variation is authorized. Finally, the argument for a strong structure is what happens when the structural integrity fails? Space May be vast and empty - you can’t imagine how incredibly vast and empty it is - but there are pockets of heavy gravity around black holes and large celestial bodies. The ship ought to be prepared in case it strays a little too close. Of course, if the structural integrity field is failing, the ship probably has bigger problems to worry about.
@@xheralt - because a Long Range scout, a Destroyer or Survey platform , does NOT need the MOST Efficient and Fastest warp Engines. however a Torpedeo "boat" does, and the PT cruiser used Full Sized Siamesed warp nacelle for Superior Performance. same goes for a WARP tug which uses 4 warp Nacelle.
The Reliant had two little round “nubs” on either side of the saucer, on the dorsal side where it met the “square” rear section. In my mind those modules were dual nav deflectors.
Great video putting everything in perspective. Can anyone tell me why the Enterprise D had an oval saucer section facing sideways? The Enterprise E had an oval saucer section stretched in the direction the ship travels giving the illusion it had been warped (no pun intended) by space travel, but the Enterprise D had a saucer section that made it look like the ship had come to a sudden stop and compressed cartoon style! What gives?
In some Trek publications I've read the reason for the saucer section in almost all Federation ships is also a minor rule. That being designed for the reason of the primary hull to serve as a possible 'lifeboat' to hopefully survive a atmosphere landing after saucer separation if that ship isn't intigrated into the rest like the Reliant, which would still attempt it with the entire hull. It was to be a 'hail Mary' last hope as it was to be at least somewhat aerodynamic. This wasn't done in cannon until the Enterprise D in the 'Generations' movie. It was to also be unrecoverable for the ship to be used again. Kirk's Enterprise for example was supposed to be able to attempt it if it had to separating the saucer with explosive bolts but could not reattach after.
Tyler Durden's Rules of Starship Design The first rule of Starship design is.... that you don't talk about Restrooms. The second rule of Starship design is that You. Don't. Talk. About. Restrooms.
4:46 While most of the Starfleet ships are explorers , the Vengeance (bottom left) is actually a "pure-blooded" warship. It is dark to give the sense of danger and might and also for camo.
Considering that the original 4 Roddenberry rules were set in place during production of TMP, when the TOS Constitution Class was the only Starfleet ship type we'd really seen, it doesn't surprise me that they're geared towards preserving the design language of that ship.
Official canon １, Divided into main hull and secondary hull ２, the bridges are always located above the center of the main hull ３, the warp engine must be paired ４, when viewed from the front, the sight of the warp engine cannot be blocked
I once designed a ship based o the concept of the growth of a vertebrata pelvis. It made sense to me that growing a hull is easier that constructing them. Turned out pretty well. It looked like Trek and now I know it does not violate the rules.
Cool, I'll be ignoring all these "rules" when if I ever make a starfleet design; i'm all for consistency but some of these old rules are silly. Joking aside, I think you can easily make a good starfleet designs that fits just fine without even acknowledging these design rules at all, they seem limiting and most dont make any sense like the bridge for scale rule.
@@wagrhodes13 Very true, if he followed all the rules we'd have a very bland looking universe of ships all having the same vague shapes and configurations.
@@rueceless7580 Personally, I want an in universe explanation for why Earth uses Saucer shaped hull configurations. I have never heard any real explanation. The only one I have ever heard is a vague "efficient use of space."
Just found this channel and enjoying it. Just pick up your point on painting of ships though.....on earth steel ships and cars are painted to protect them from the environment including rust. However in space there is nothing to make the ships rust (on the outside at least) so only need to paint them would to make them look shiny and smart. No need to touch up the paint by the crew whilst on a mission as she would still look as good as she sailed space-dock (unless attacked my a bird of prey of course!)
The original explanation of warp drive does NOT have the fronts of the nacelles as Bussard Collectors. They were actually emitters. THAT'S why they could NOT be obstructed. In order to speed up to warp speed the engines would send matter and anti-matter out through the nacelle fronts to collide at a specific distance in front of the ship, creating an artificial, invisible black hole. As we all know black holes have immense gravity thus pulling the ship towards it. However since the emitters project the matter/anti-matter fuel a specific distance, the ship never reaches the black hole and just continues to move forward as the black hole moves forward. To go to a faster warp speed, additional fuel was emitted and the black hole grew in size and so did the gravity thus pulling the ship faster. This was another reason for the structural integrity fields. Now with all that being said, Excelsior's Transwarp Drive was experimental as what we know as a warp bubble or warp shell used in the 24th century. As it was explained to me at a Star Trek convention in the early 80s by a producer of the movies. Excelsior, back then and during its "trial runs" was destroyed. This was BEFORE the 6th movie. It was the Transwarp bubble/shell that collapsed in on itself, crushing the Excelsior and destroying it. Apparently when testing Transwarp the shell/bubble decreased in height size the higher the warp speed. When they increased to a higher speed eventually the bubble/shell crushed the Excelsior like an egg between your two hands applying pressure. BOOM! So naturally years later when they wanted to give Sulu his own command and he had a hard-on for Excelsior, they ditched that original story, since it never made it on screen, and gave him the Excelsior. BUT, even in the 6th movie it did NOT have Transwarp drive. Just ordinary warp drive because they retold the story that Transwarp simply failed to work to begin with.
So Starfleet ships must be red and blue. Don't tell me that in the 23rd / 24th century AMD and Intel are still battling it out for dominance in the technology world and they have moved on to spaceships?
The roundabouts have a tandem deflector, the orange glows in toward recessed portions of the pylons. And as for the Miranda class, same set up. Those roundish protrusions flanking the bridges from the raised section of the saucer act as deflectors too.
Rule number 14: The bridge ceiling must be constructed of loose girders, panels and pieces of rubble that will collapse onto the floor when the vessel is under heavy enemy fire.
and all panels must be rigged to explode, ESPECIALLY if there is a crew member standing by it :P
Oh, you misunderstand! What's really going on, is the artificial gravity grids in the deck plates are very sensitive to power fluctuations. So when the ship takes a hit, the energy absorbed by the shields bleeds through the shield generators, into the spaceframe, where it overloads the grid conduits, causing a massive spike in grav generation. The result is it tearing out the overhead structure.
@@lawrencejones1517 if it’s strong enough to rip the roof off it’d also be strong enough to liquify the crew, if that was a possibility the two systems shouldn’t be connected.
Don't forget about all those hoses with wires coming out of them!
And what about those other crewmen that are standing while everyone else is belted in! Bones would just hold on sheepishly to that damn rail and that would seem to keep him in place! While the damn ship would hit into the side of a mountain !
Rule 11: All Starfleet Consoles as well as Oberth-Class Ships must be constructed from Explodium.
Why in the holy Hell would you ever send Oberth class vessels into battle against the Dominion?! They would have been better off mass-producing a bunch of Defiant class ships, instead.
@@GlidingZephyr where have you ever seen an Oberth in the dominion war? or in DS9 for that matter?
at least the Romulans and Klingons also use Explodium too.....but Romulans use Explodium 232 and Klingons use Explodium 395-C, it's a far more unstable version, it's why their moon blew up in ST6.....
@@Red_Lanterns_Rage And yet in that same movie nothing in the Excelsior exploded, Sulu must have make several illegal modifications to his ship.
Funny.
Oberth Class Federation star-ships were science vessels. They were never used for combat. They usually only had rudimentary shields and basic weapons. They were often used for testing prototypes and experimental technology, sometimes in secret. The USS Grissom that was destroyed in Star Trek three while researching the Genesis Planet tried to run from a Klingon Bird-of-Prey instead of fighting.
One obvious rule: the ships are symmetrical!
Yep, that's a good one too.
You could easily explain that away with some technobabble about :warp field mechanics" or something.
Breen ships aren't, but all starfleey ships commonly are symmetrical
Even most other powers. The Borg and the aformentioned Breen are the only ones that come to mind off the top of my head
zExcvept that Borgy ships are a mess of plates and exposed tubing on the outside. The Sillohette is symetrical. The detail is not.
Rule number 11: there must be stone pieces inside every console.
I see Junkball transmissions are finding their way to your brain. :D
Rule number 12: there mustn't be any seatbelts anywhere on the ship.
The worse of all is that there may be a reason to have stones. Take a Washe and dry modern machine from LG for example, it has two 25kg stones inside to give weigh to the machine so it wont rock when centrifuge the clothes before the dry cycle. As modern tech and materials are actually light.
Maybe the consoles are so light that they need artificial weigh so it would anchor and not flappy with every touch? :P
@@Vanessinha91Pucca I buy that as a good reason. I bet they have some rule or reason for them to be small piles of loose stones/rocks/pebbles too...
@@resurrectedstarships Rule 12: All Starfleet Consoles as well as Oberth-Class Ships must be constructed from Explodium.
All consoles must have at least 1 stick of dynamite in them. They let the operator know when the shields of the ship get hit by a powerful but non penetrating shot.
Is that a KSP screenshot you have for your avatar? :D
@@Atlessa KSP from about 6 few years ago I believe.
perhaps a power breaker for overload power to consoles
Most important rule: The ship must be referred to as "she" and be treated like a lady so she'll always get you home.
That's what's knows as the "Prime Directive of Starship Design".
Something else from the age of sail that will live on throughout time. I call my cars that too, for the same reason.
That’s except for viewers in Scotland.
@@rojh9351 why?
@@Thurgosh_OG The Scottish Maritime Museum changed their policy of referring to ships with a female pronoun.
For future references: NX stands for Naval eXperimental, so when a new ship design is approved and is built, they will always receive that prefix until they have had a shakedown trial run to see how well the ship copes; like with what happened with the Defiant. If it passes it's trial run then it will receive it's NCC prefix, which stands for Naval Construction Contract.
Or maybe the 'CC' part of NCC just indicates a 'Cruiser' and all long-range ships are regarded as cruisers by starfleet no matter their size or capability.
@@Akm72 slight problem there, Starfleet has used battleships and Dreadnoughts in the past and have recognised them as such, but they have kept using the same registry prefix. The only time you see a non standard prefix is with civilian vessels which uses the "NAR" registry prefix. But it could be fun to see in a fan canon if Starfleet was more of a military organisation
@@TenebrariusRhade It's not really necessary to mirror image 20th century naval designations. In cannon Star Trek they almost never use terms like 'cruiser', 'frigate', 'destroyer', 'battleship', etc. Those terms tend to appear in novels and games rather than the television series and films (as far as I recall anyway). Cannon terms tend to be 'starship', 'scout', 'science vessel' or 'shuttle'. Of course I'm sure you'll find some exceptions. :)
EDIT: Maybe they use NCC for everything in the same way the USAF uses 'F-' for aircraft like the F-105, F-111 and F-117 which are all ground attack aircraft.
From what I can find, that is generally accepted, but not strictly canon
memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/NCC#Background_information
NCC = Naval Call Code.
NAR = Naval Auxiliary Register.
In Star Trek memories William Shatner writes about the conversation between Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jeffreys about the design of the Enterprise (the Yorktown in early drafts) where Roddenberry specified that he wanted a ship that looked functional powerful and nothing like 50's scifi rocket ships or flying saucers I submit that without Jeffreys brilliant interpretation of those instructions Star Trek never gets off the ground
And he made awesome maintenance tubes.
It's kind of funny when you think about just how OLD ST is. There really wasn't a TV Sci-Fi franchise that cared about realism to some degree like ST did before it.
hrmmm... and yet most star fleet ships are designed with saucers and rocket looking parts. :)
@@T__TheWhite_Bearded_Gamer but not sputtering Buck Rogers type rockets which is what I believe he was trying to avoid but the saucer section point is interesting because a major influence on Gene Roddenberry was Forbidden Planet which definitely has a star cruiser that is a flying saucer
@@johntabler349 yes I know, I made a loose correlation to establish a base for a pun. :)
The Defiant's Nacelles actually do have line of sight. From the underside this can be seen.
It's not even a rule, technically. It's just something Probert specifically was obsessed with, and very vocal in insisting was true.
But the Danube class runabouts don't have line of sight
@@hoytrichardson3448 The problems were explained in the show as the Defiant having a warp core bigger and more powerful than a ship it's size should have. At full power the ship nearly shook itself apart until O'Brien fixed it.
Presumably there's harmonics for every core that normally would be dampened by the mass of the ship.
Defian't is small enough that it couldn't dampen the vibration initially.
The problem is similar to putting a V8 into a Citroen C2V. You can make it fit, but the first time you give it full throttle, the car would likely fall apart unless you modify it to compensate.
Klingon Bird of Prey ships also have blocked "line of sight" between engines. Maybe a dated design by TNG era but definitely a proven (and threatening) little warship design with a long and glorious service life. Defiant basically copies this inboard engine approach, built behind a saucer instead of behind a neck.
I wonder what occupies the hull volume between these engines. it should be full of "harmful radiations".
@@hoytrichardson3448 What problem? The engines were to powerful for a ship that size. The only problem was the unusually high power output made the cloak less effective.
I feel like rules like these can be very useful to set down for a design language, because then when something _breaks_ one of the rules deliberately, it can be used to draw attention and present questions and curiosity about the thing.
I've also read how the Original NCC-1701 design follows the classic Golden Ratio from it's 3 main angles; Above, Side and Front.
"Rule number four: The bridge must be visible from the exterior of the ship."
Well now you've stepped into nautical territory. Consider the submarine. It doesn't matter what make, model, or country.
Every submarine has a structure that sits on top like a fin. This structure is called "the sail." I kid you not.
At the top of every sail is a deck which is called "the bridge." No, the bridge is not the _command center_ of a ship. It's the ship's highest level. It's just that, usually, ships at sea put their command centers on the bridge.
Submarines, though, are an exception to this. Remember in the movie _The Hunt for Red October_ (if you've seen it) when Captain Marco Ramius is walking the decks of the sub and he comes to the command center. His first officer is standing watch and gives him an update on the kinds of information one monitors when standing Officer of the Deck as he is doing, then informs him that the political officer is in his cabin. Ramius then tells him, "Very well. You have the con," before going off to his cabin. "The con." It's called "the con," not "the bridge."
So, yes, of _course_ the bridge has to be visible from the exterior of the ship. That's because "the bridge" is what ships call their highest deck.
Accordingly, while I don't dispute that the Shenzhou had its _command center_ on the bottom of the ship, it was not called "the bridge," because that's not what the word "bridge" _means._
Not exactly. It's usualy near the top, but the bridge is not the highest deck on most Navy ships. And the command center for a surface warship is combat information center, not the bridge. The bridge only does navigation and sailing. Command and control is done from combat.
While your essentaly correct, the term bridge was a survivor of the time when steam powered ships utilized their steam powered engines to drive paddle wheels at the sides, or rear of the ship. On these paddle wheelers the engineering officer, or for that matter the captain, needed a place to check the paddle wheels condition. The bridge was literally a wooden platform that transited over the side facilitated a view of the port and starboard wheels. Rear wheel paddles were visible from the deck aft of the wheelhouse or the great cabin(mostly on river steamboats). When screws came along as the means of generating movement the term bridge survived.
@@templerman1 But as a former member of the crew of a submarine, I can tell you for a fact that the surface at the top of the sail on a submarine is called "the bridge."
Also, having the conn means you have the right to give steering orders for the ship. It is not a location.
@En Passant It was on Deck 1 of the _drive_ section, though.
The ONLY rule for 99% of Star Trek admirals: They MUST be VERY corrupt.
I think that there is politics behind that.
There is politics behind most everything, directly or indirectly
@@JoshLin17 nice to know that even in utopia, politics and corruption still exist.
Bonus points if they are, in fact, replaced by an alien
Woah 35 likes im so unpopular this is the most ive gotten
Actually, I'd argue that the Defiant's nacelles don't violate the Line of Sight rule. It's hard to see from most angles (for obvious reasons) but the Defiant's nacelles extend sufficiently below the main hull of the ship. A much bigger offender in this regard would be pretty much every single shuttle and runabout.
I’m pretty sure the runabout nacelles are a little bit below the hull
Runabout nacelles only extend down very slightly such that when the ship lands its onto the nacelle’s landing pads not the belly of the main body.
An even worse offender would be Voyager.
@@OmegaReaver
I can see where you'd think that, but no. I'd recommend paying attention to whenever Voyager actually goes to warp. The nacelles pivot into a rules-compliant position before the drive engages.
Yes
I believe the bridge can be easily removed and updated as we see in many of the Star Trek films of the Enterprise. The location helps in easy removal. Basically its popped off and replace with a updated bridge.
One line of reasoning.
Another is that in an Abandon Ship scenario, the bridge on larger ships like the Galaxy Class can be ejected wholesale; it's in the ST:TNG technical manual.
The "structural integrity fields" and "shields are ubiquitous" arguments always bother me from an engineering standpoint. Any structure or structural reinforcement that can go away when the power fails is terrible design, IMO.
Losing active structural integrity on power loss is really the least of their concerns...
Why? Antimatter.
Starfleet ships carry enough antimatter to destroy the entire ship multiple times over. And I doubt it's contained by permanent magnets.
The structural integrity field might actually be self contained to. In mega engineering there is a concept called space fountain. In it you use a stream of matter to support the structure, creating a active support structure. This allows you to build space elevator like structures in theory. The space fountain. Works similar to how a hose can gain rigidity though a stream of water passing though it. But while the space fountain may have been one of the first concepts for this sort of active support structure it can actually be applied to lot of different concepts. Including space ships. If you try to minimize "leakage" in forms for example friction then you do not need to add much for any energy to this. You can make extremely strong structures. Of course punching such integer field would also release a lot of energy. So it not all good. Though if you can direct it this might actually work as added defence. A bit like how reactive armour works.
Is this how it works in Star Trek? Most likely not. Most likely hand waving. But in theory if you just make the system self contain you should be need to fear even losing power since the structural integrity field it self is self powers in a sense.
@@Cythil Pushed to the limits, you could build a matrioshka world. Possibly on top of a black hole, like a galactic one. Or use at least use active support to support a launch loop.
@@SakuraNyan Yeah I hope we will be seeing them be used in the near future. So much you can do with the tech. And is all stuff we understand. Even if we have not made any major engineering attempts yet. But not not like we need crazy new scientific discovery like we need for a warp drive.
There's also no gravity or aerodynamic drag in space, so the nacelle pylons don't have to be particularly strong to either support the nacelle's weight (because there isn't any) or keep them from ripping off during flight (because they won't).
The nacelles Defiant (from DS9) DO have LOS with each other, but it's a very, very narrow LOS... but I hear ya. I like that the Defiant largely breaks this rule... like many alien ships do. This is a great video. I prefer when Star Trek designers adhere to these rules and guidelines. I haven't been too thrilled with the more recent evolution of Starfleet ship designs... I personally prefer saucer sections over "shovel sections" or "spoon sections" or "arrowhead sections." I agree with the idea that these ships can have seemingly structural weak points. These ships are supposed to operate in space, after all. The Reliant DOES have navigational deflectors. In the TOS/TMP era, the navigational deflector was separate from the dish. Trekyards did a video on this.
I love alot of the shovel/spoon/arrowhead section designs though I understand the want for more circular saucer sections
I always though Defiant had LOS along the ventral length of the nacelle cowlings. Given that the ventral aspect the ship is concave or set in a deck or two allows for that LOS. One possible arguement against this woumd be the placement of the drop hanger, be I don't it think it interferes with the narrow LOS of the nacelles. The roundabouts and the Nebulas have this same narrow LOS.
I would only comment that the “sorry, Defiant” remark may be premature. Two points to consider: the bottom half of the Defiant’s nacelles are visible to one another, and heavy ablative armor on Starfleet’s first, pure warship would no doubt protect the crew. In TNG, they firmly established that the “warp field” had a variable, concentric shape that extended away from the nacelles and in waves around the ship. So, I think Roddenberry’s Rules effectively went out the window early in TNG. Just some thoughts.
Also keep in mind that the rules were made during the TOS/TMP era so any violations in TNG and beyond could be hand-waved away by saying the intervening 70ish years of technological advancement nullified those rules. Starfleet did have to recalculate the entire warp speed scale between TOS and TNG, which strongly indicates some massive breakthrough in warp engineering occurred during that time that made warp speeds much faster and more efficient, so it's reasonable to assume also more safe.
Also keep in mind that after it was brought to Starfleet's attention that warp bubbles were damaging the very fabric of space, they went to work designing new nacelles and refining the warp technology to lessen or completely negate that effect, advancements that were seen with the Intrepid-class's variable nacelle positions and the Sovereign-class's more contained looking nacelles.
It was brought up shortly after the Defiant joined DS9 that the radiation was becoming a problem. They had to modify the shielding system to handle it.
I love rules, they give structure. if anything goes, it seems like less effort is put in.
Agreed, its why when the US military wants a new vehicle built. It has to be within their specifications.
There's also design language to be considered. The rules are the letters.
then what about the Enterprise J which uses Folded Space in Interdimentional Properies
@@markplott4820 I would prefer not to speak of the J.
CBS 🤬
I would like to see your own design, based on the rules layed out.
The USS Kelvin also violated the dual warp nacelles as it only had 1 warp nacelle.
I always thought it likely that it had paired coils - but i find that it has living & working space shared with the nacelles much more peculiar, I would speculate that a single coil (or pairs in one nacelle) can generate a warp bubble but it might require stabilisers like the NX-01 has to bend it to the proper shape, though some have speculated the warp field might be able to be shaped by the navigational shields too. It might work perfectly fine just less controllable.
Also a low warp speed with one damaged nacelle might be possible, if you only have one nacelle you'd be stuck.
I mean, Saladin classes too have one Warp Nacelle..
@@90lancaster If it had a secondary coil, likely it was behind the hanger bay in possibly a second engineering section.
You sure? Both secondary hulls clearly had stuff in them that weren't nacelles. So either the nacelles were built into both secondary hulls, giving the Kelvin 2 nacelles, or the Kelvin had NO nacelles at all.
@@90lancaster Now that you mention it, didn't the NX-01 go part of season 3 with only one functional nacelle?
A very well structured report. I have but a trio of comments in conflict:
1: the Defiant Class. While it does violate the radiation distancing, the more modern and advanced engines may be more efficient in preventing radioactive emissions, and while not easily seen at most views, the nacelles do hang down to have exactly 50% view to one another. While not as efficient as a ship with 100% view, it still follows the rule.
2: The three Nacelle argument. I’ve always had the theory that nacelles must operate in pairs, but having a third doesn’t break the rule if one of two courses of action are taken: A, the third Nacelle is actually 2 simply combined into a single shape, and it pairs with the other two, or B, the nacelle after as a back-up to either provide a smaller stabilizing field or to take over should another fail.
3. One rule I see often misunderstood or dismissed is Impulse + Nacelles. Nacelles do not generate thrust, but instead generate a warp field. The Impulse engines must push the vessel, and the compression rate of the field determines how fast it does. This is why the Galaxy-Class’ huge nacelles and rather small impulse engines (especially when undocked from the saucer) can go very fast, but still be outpaced or matched by the later design of the Defiant-Class when it goes all out, which uses small nacelles but hyper-powerful Impulse engines to make up for it.
If the Sovereign-Class detached its saucer, the aft section (with no impulse engines) would be unable to go to warp, and the D’Deridex (which has no visible engines) is genuinely terrifying for being able to move at any speed, let alone warp 7-ish.
I look forward to others’ thoughts.
On the 3, No. The Impulse engines do in fact have an exhaust that generates thrust, though you are correct that it actually generates warp thrust, instead an Impulse engine creats a smaller >1 Cochrane subspace field (Cochrane is the measure for subspace field strength 1 Cochrane = a warp field that is strong enough for warp 1). The fact that it generates exhaust was a final plot point in Star Trek VI. "Under impulse power she expends fuel just as any other vessel, we call it plasma, but whatever the Klingon designation, it is simple ionized gas." ~ Spock. These two things operate in concert with the plasma exhaust providing physical thrust and the mass driver coils "lightening" the vessel allowing the thrust to work on a lighter object.
The stardrive section of a Sovereign class would in fact be able to move without the Saucer's impulse engines, since while an Impulse engine can't normally break the warp speed barrier, there's nothing stopping a warp engine from producing subluminal motion. And indeed as the Sovereign's stardrive has the main Navigational Deflector, it has everything it needs to go to warp. I imagine that without the saucer section that the warp field would become less efficient however.
I believe it is the shape of the warp field that propels a ship no thrust involved. Impulse is a legacy drive. But i don't have a tech manual in front of me.
@@3Rayfire I'd like to believe impulse led to the discovery of warp by creating weak subspace fields by accident. However as I recall what you are describing with subspace fields lightening the ship is an advanced feature added to get more bang out of an impulse drive thrust.
@@lucasbachmann The history has always been presented that Zephram Cochrane discovered a potential for higher energies that allowed him to break the lightspeed barrier. Presumably he discovered the ability to warp space first. It's interesting, looking at the tech manual, they stated that the Impulse Engine in the Ambassador class was originally going to use reaction thrust, including experimenting with reaction thrust accelerants accelerated to past light speed, which had no effect since it wasn't coupled to the space frame. That's when they decided to add the driver coil. So the TNG Tech Manual indicates that just raw Fusion powered thrust came before adding a continuum distorting coil. Page 75.
Usage of just a mass lightening coil is certainly possible as far as I'm concerned, heck that's how the Normandy in Mass Effect moves in stealth mode (coincidentally making it more stealthy in that regard than General Chang's Bird of Prey.)
For those of you who believe warp nacelles can generate thrust, I would like to explain my perspective.
From my knowledge, warp nacelles have always created warp bubbles which bend space time to allow for FTL travel, but do not generate motion themselves. While t. Impulse engines and Even basic thrusters produce the gas or plasma to create motion, neither they or the nacelles can independently complete the whole of warp drive without the other.
I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
Defiant - "Screw your rules. My name is Defiant for a reason."
The Defiant and the Sovereign are my top two favorite Starfleet designs hands down. But for different reasons.
Sovereign class design is a refinement of both the Constitution and Galaxy classes while being a true spiritual successor to the Constitution. It reflects a Borg aware Federation that is still the Federation, but it looks not only fast, but tough.
The Defiant, on the other hand, is a no nonsense punch-your-face design that, while it violates one or two rules, works because it was intended to break those rules. It is such a departure to what fans are used to, that any violation of the rules Probert set is easily accepted in this radical design.
Thank you for being one of the first, maybe only, vloggers to acknowledge it's all "rationalizing" otherwise completely arbitrary choices on the part of the shows' designers!
Regarding bridge placement:
"For the best shot at the Captain, shoot here!" -Commander Mackenzie Calhoun First Officer USS Grissom.
Wish they mentioned Calhoun in Picard. Hell he should have showed at the end to help out
what would be great about the bridge placement so far on top or bottom, that it can be completely ejected in and emergency....but most likely without any drive capabilities.....just a rescue capsule while the captain sits comfortable in the Captains yacht
ST Nemesis
Look me in the Eye XD
@@maxnoerenberg6370 And like Saucer Separation, by the time you realize you need it in most scenarios, your ship's blown up already.
A year ago,I made a drawing of a Starfleet-Like ship.
I didn't know of these design rules until right now,but looking at the sketch now,I actually followed every rule.
What's even more interesting is that my Ship was not actually inspired by Star Trek,but by it's competitor(?),The Orville,where funnily enough,the main Ship actually violates most of these design rules.
I've always liked the Constellation class (USS Stargazer, Hathaway) and it's robust hull armored, four nacelle design. It always gave me the impression of a vessel that could endure a lot of abuse and still function at acceptable mission capacity, while at the same time being more maneuverable than most other Starfleet ships.
The only thing that would give me pause are the very basic living conditions offered to the crews of Constellation class ships. It makes me want to tell Picard: "So your first command was the USS Stargazer? Wow...I'm sorry."
Just ask a modern navy sailor about basic living conditions aboard ship. They make Starfleet look nice.
Have you seen the saucer section on that thing? That thing probably had solid amenties since that's the living and working portion of the ship. Lots of space. Better that than a Miranda.
@Főfasírozó The warp bubble that moves the ship faster than light.
I've always found it ironic how the Starfleet ships look closer to the the classical alien ship designs we're used to than the actual alien ships in the show.
The Enterprise is literally a flying saucer with some extra attachments. So was the Stargazer, and many other Starfleet ships. It's like humans in the Star Trek universe decided to design their space ships based on alien movies.
Headcanon; All UFO sightings are actually Starfleet ships time travelling
@@Cheesusful Which actually explains a lot.
@@Atlessa Yes, yes it does.
the saucer shape is a flattend sphere giving it less surface area (kind of), and i'm assuming you're talking about the NX-01 and the ships without the secondary hull, yes, but they can't really aerodynamically fly. and they can't be mistaken for saucers. ther classical engineering section is a oblong sphere, again less surface area
We went to space and the only alien race using saucers is us.
I liked the rainbow effect of the original Enterprise in ToS. It's still mostly red, but it has a unique look to it. And while I agree Starfleet ships should be bright, I prefer the original series' matte white/light grey -- your model has a lot of awesome detail, but it's a bit too shiny for me.
Yeah, the matte light grey is in my opinion a must.
As well as the red lines with the insignia.
There are a few things that a starfleet ship has to have, otherwise it doesnt fit the rest.
Imagine a US Navy Ship which is all of a sudden Black , or polished chrome.
Doesnt make any sense.
@@Intrepid17011 oh, yeah, I didn't even notice the pinstripes were missing.... Good memory
@@DoctorX17 The Pinstripes, and the slightly darker colors around hull details, like escape pods and so on . :D The Hull of Sovereign and Galaxy are full of darker contrasts
The ToS Enterprise was a Battlecruiser, so it made sense for it to be painted a variant of "Warship Grey". (I like the original colour myself)
@@JohnJ469 Originally Gene Roddenberry likened the Constitution Class vessel to a US Navy Freighter, like an FFG. A multiplatform vessel capable of multiple missions. Starfleet was always been about peace so why would they build battle-cruisers? Klingons and Romulans have battle-cruisers. In universe, she was designated Starship, Constitution Class.
I am fairly 'geeky" of old; I had all the Fasa books and designed many a starship. I agree with all you said, and think you're spot on with your "safety" analogy with regard to the placement of the warp nacelles. It's equivalent of how Soviet era nuclear subs had much less shielding and also used a more dangerous design of nuclear reactor than America. Also, the Russians of course used that peroxide fuel in their torpedoes, long know to corrode the copper tubing within and causing ruptures and potential fires...ie the Kursk. So yes, I think it's even mentioned in either the Klingon or Romulan recognition manual that they're less concerned with shielding of their engines, ie lesser weight. I do think the Navigational Deflector is designed to "deflect" miniscule particles "at speed," whether it be impulse or warp. Yes, the shields could do the same thing, but at awful energy drain. Even a grain of sand could destroy a starship if the ship flies into it at many times the speed of light, hence the Navigational Deflector I think acts as a "Cow Catcher" for small particulates up to maybe golf-ball or what have you, but anything larger would either be charted, detected on sensors, or navigated around with shields up. Just my middle-aged geek opinion.
If you take the Enterprise designs (A-E) thru the years and look at side views, you'll notice that the warp nacelles and main saucer sections were gradually getting closer to the primary hull. The explanation was to make them less vulnerable to enemy attack.
@7:50 The deflector dish is for use when in warp. You DO NOT want to bump into a floating asteroid particle traveling faster than the speed of light.
Not to rag on any one show, but ship designs made after the cgi era have the annoying habit of being Theoretically Unique but in Reality Dull in Shape. A few random protrusions does not an interesting ship make. First thought is the Ent E, but I do love that ship. I think it's the nacelles that save it. Using such ships, sweeping shots become more necessary to convey action while ships with stand-out features can use fly-by motion and still catch your eye. I really like those rules, but I still like the idea of a 3rd nacelle on the Ent D. Even from the first time I saw it when I was young, I always felt that nacelle was compensation for being behind the times. A 'modern' ship ought to keep it's nacelles in pairs, but a single nacelle makes it look 'short-range.' Still, I am a huge fan of the Kelvin class even though they call it a long range scout. That might be because the secondary hull fools the brain into thinking the ship actually has 2 nacelles.
I think when new technologies become mainstream, such as slipstream or transwarp, I wouldn't mind taking another look at those rules.
Also, its not a navigational deflector, its an interstellar screwdriver.
FUN fact the USS Reliant was going to have its Neceles on the Dorsal side, but Roodebrerry held the Plans up side down, so the ship was built upsidown.
Totally agree. Especially the TNG movie CGI era designs and the ships designed for trek games are prone to this design "sickness".
And i have a different "beef" with these new designs. As an architect and interior designer, i can tell you it would be HELL to design a usefull, functional interior for all these new "cool" designs of ships. All the curves, bends, protrusions, and such make for a horrible shape to house any usefull interiors. Every interior room would have slanted walls, weird angles, ... To design logical hallways connecting different areas of the ship in a logical way would be near impossible sometimes. I think the intrepid was the last design that was both beautiful and made sense from a design standpoint. From the enterprise E on, the designs just became more and more outlandish and "unrealistic". They're more flash than function.
That's what i always loved about trek, that the ships looked cool, but also made sense from a design and logical use standpoint. From the TNG movie era on i liked the new designs less and less. For example, I know many people like the akira, but it makes no sense whatsoever from an internal design standpoint.
The main thing i always hated in "old trek" was the thin neck of the constitution that had windows. It's too narrow to be usefull in any way exept for structure, turbolifts and ducts/conduits.
As a kid/teenager i was always designing trek-style star ships, and one of the first things i always thought about was "how is this going to work on the inside". It's one of the reasons i became an architect i think... And it's the main reason why these new designs bug me so much... :)
Yeah, all the CGI ships are full of spines and claws to make them look evil or complicated, but impossible to make into a toy or model.
Thumbs up simply for "interstellar screwdriver".
Very good. There is a practical rational for the bridge being on the exterior of the hull. You touched on it without connecting the dots: in the universe of Star Trek, protection is provided by energy fields (deflector/ structural integrity); the hull and bulkheads would provide NO defense against high energy, relativistic or super-luminal threats. By placing the bridge on the exterior of the ship, it can be surrounded by its own shield making it a hard point. If the bridge were inside the hull it could not be independently shielded without endangering/irradiating the surrounding decks. By placing the bridge the top center of the saucer it is defended by both the saucers deflector shield and its own. On the underside the conflicting field radiated by the main deflector would complicate the integrity of an independent bridge deflector - not impossible but less than ideal.
02:07 I have strong vibes of Anakin's podracer...
I the field was around the exterior
Another bit of Lucas "creatively" copy/pasting something he liked.
The Reliant did have deflector dishes.. sorta. There are a matched pair of very small pods built into the front of the upraised section of the hull. Not the mega phasers on the roll bar, but at the ends of the registration numbers if you follow the definition lines to their ends.
The Starfleet design rule of warp nacelles arrayed in pairs is referred to as Bilateral Symmetry, and it makes sense as Chief O’Brian would attest to.
👽💚
Adding my two cents here, I think color is especially fascinating when thinking about the intent of a ship and communicating to vessels what the organization is about. The idea of brighter ships being a signifier of hope and optimism in the Federation is something I appreciate a lot in Starfleet design. I will say that both in starship design (and uniform as well), I'm very much one to bend color guidelines both as an expression of individuality to ships in the Federation.
My ship in STO is a modified version of a pre-existing class with the nacelles further away from the hull than usual to create a more elegant shape rather than a muscular and bulky design. With that in mind, I gave my ship accents of blue and magenta to evoke the image and colors of a beautiful nebula, paying tribute to the exploratory nature of the vessel. One might argue that this would make camouflaging more difficult, but the workaround for that is in situations that particularly require stealth, my ship has a set of prototype Reman shields that can change the appearance of the hull plating to reflect light and particles, creating a camouflaging effect. While this is approach is not as stealthy as the cloaking devices of the Klingons and Romulans, the logic was that this would still be effective in combat situations given the priority towards discovery and cooperation for the ship and her crew.
A thought: ships with a "single" nacelle could actually have a pair of nacelles placed together inside a superstructure, and ships with an odd number of nacelles could be using number 3 as a sort of spare tire. If a nacelle becomes to damaged to function in battle, simply redirect power and continue fighting. Also, some ships may have a hollow internal space to allow line of sight between otherwise obscured nacelles. Also, the defiant's nacelles use another good way to have close tucked nacelles by having them hang down under the hull but still he tucked in close.
I never liked the "Galaxy-X" approach of bolting on a third nacelle.
It's like putting more wheels on a car, not going to make the engine more powerful, not going to make it drive any faster.
@@pwnmeisterage me neither aesthetically but if it's basically a spare tire, then I understand why it would be there. Most cars have a 5th wheel as a spare in case one in damaged after all. Why not use the same philosophy with a space ship where if your ftl gets disabled permanently, you're basically dead bar however long it takes your ship to run out of power, air and water.
@@davidthomas2870 I understand your logic. But a third nacelle is a sizeable chunk of tech. Adds a lot of mass, needs a lot of maintenance. Seems to me that extra communications gear would be better insurance. Anything which could already wreck two engines would likely wreck all three.
@@pwnmeisterage fair point.
Fun video! I'm glad that you provided examples of shops that broke the rules.
A truly intimidating ship must look like a gold pyramid with carvings everywhere and no windows.
Or a cross between a crab and a spider
The "good" ships are always rounded and shiny. The "bad" ships are rectangular or spiky and dark colored.
Paul White except for certain spheres, although they do have plenty of sharp edges if you look close enough.
And certain franchises disagree with you on that. In B5, humans have dark, blocky ships, while alien ships are almost always colorful and more aesthetically pleasing. In Halo, humans ships are also more angular and dark, while Covenant ships are rounded and purple. And W40K... actually, there aren’t any good guys here.
@@Paul12345671 but in Star Trek Into Darkness the USS Vengeance was a mean looking ship......huge and dark...dreadnought class
@@artembentsionov found the sg1 fan
So... a Goa'uld Ha'tak
or a Necron Carin
on my 1701-f model, the regular deflector was just above the lower saucer dome. it had a weapon deflector that looked like the constution class, when the primary part was damaged, it discarded, and the secondary looked like the 1701-a deflector.
I like the fact that you mentioned to color of the ship. I can't stand how dark Discovery ships are. But nice vid, nice to see you making use of that HD Constitution model.
There was a time in cinema when the good guys always wore white ( old weaterns, white hats on the heros, black hats on the villains). I can't help but notice as the era of Kurtzman trek as the Federation becomes darker and more dystopian the ship are shifting from whites to greys.
while it may NOT be pleasing to the eye, its more Tactical.
#1 - I don't like Exposed bridges.
#2 - I don't like Bright white paint jobs.
#3 - I don't like long thin Exposed necks.
#4 - I don't like Engine Naclles near the Body of the ship.
#5 - I don't like thin Seccondary hulls.
I like DISCO's depiction. I think the starships are the same colour as other series; they're just showing a more accurate depiction of what anything looks like in deep space. If they're not being lit by a nearby star or reflection from a planet, they should be pretty much completely dark aside from what light they generate themselves.
The rules of build are quite evident in the Ares class NCC-1650 from the 4-years wars. It follows the rules but has much more fire power, ablative armor over critical systems and has the navigational deflector buried into it's blended saucer/hull design (much like the future Sovereign class) with the nacelles slung low (like the future Centaur class) to aide in their protection and shrink the forward cross session making it tougher to target.
Totally random thought: I wish Captain La Forge’s ship, the Challenger, was a Galaxy-X Dreadnaught in the Voyager episode Timeless.
That would have been sick.. but even then, would it still happen in the prime timeline?
@@85MasterV If the Galaxy X is a projected refit in the future and considering Timeless took place 20 years after TNG ended, then hypothetically it is possible.
I myself am a fan of Roddemberry's four rules, regardless of how unrealistic a design they may make. The give a consistency of design that sets the franchise apart. And my own ship designs follow them as best I can.
The problem with the four rules is that they are in direct conflict with Star Trek's Three Rules of canon:
#1 Does it work for the story of the current scene, episode, or movie, regardless of any rules, standards, or explanations given in previous episodes. (Star Trek canon has ALWAYS been "flexible" and in service of the story of the week).
#2 Does it look "cool" on screen. (Don't get me started on the utter silliness of space fighters in Trek - but they're there on screen.)
#3 Can the SFX department make it within budget.
any other aspects of trek lore or canon are superseded by these three rules, and this holds true from the very first episodes of TOS all the way to current year.
For example, Gene's explanation of warp drive and how it worked was pretty much thrown out the window by Berman and Okuda when they were writing the tech bible for TNG. Gene imagined the warp field centered between the two nacelles so there shouldn't be any part of the ship in the way, and certainly no crewmen anywhere near there. An energy field powerful enough to propel a couple hundred thousand metric tons of starship thousands of times the speed of light would be a pretty intense energy field.
Berman re-imagined the center of the warp field being the warp core (why? I don't know, the nacelles generate the warp field, the core is merely the power source. An electromagnet's magnetic field isn't centered on the battery, but the magnetic coil; in fact you don't want the battery all that close to the magnet's field - but Berman thought the core was where all the REAL magic happened or something because that's the thing the audience can see on screen, so that's where he centered the field) Thus Berman centered the warp field in the very HEART of the ship where crew lived and worked in fabric uniforms (not radiation shielded suits like in Wrath of Khan) with the actual business end of the field in the nested layers of the warp field far out beyond the ship's hull. Which meant that he didn't think the warp field presented very much danger to the crew or structure of the ship, or that the structure of the ship posed any problem or obstacle for the core and nacelles generating the warp field. And this rewrite happened when they were crafting the tech bible for the series early on in the pre-production and filming of the first season of TNG when Gene had to sign off on everything they were doing, so it's as "official" as Roddenberry's 4 rules. This is also why, after Roddenberry's death, you start to see Trek designers ignoring Gene's 4 rules more and more often.
"You see, the warp nacelles emit harmful radiation. So if you've ever wondered why the warp nacelles are extended so far out on these pylons, well this is why. Other powers may not care about protecting the crews as much and have them much closer to the body of the ship but it's easier to protect them if the nacelles are at some distance away. Especially if they may be severely damaged and they can be jettisoned."
It's also conceivable that other powers have better means of _shielding_ their crews from this radiation, and the chance of damage to a warp nacelle, it seems to me, is not significantly different from the odds of damage to the _rest_ of the ship.
On your comment on nacelles, it could also be possible the nacelles need to be further away from the ship due to how much more powerful engines Starfleet ships employ at a given time period. They are generally, some of the fastest ships of local powers with only a few powers like the borg being faster. I mean, on average, a Federation Ship can outrun comparable powers like the Klingons, the Cardassians, the Dominion, the Kazon, the Veterans, and the Malon. I believe, according to cannon, outside a few ships designed with such rules, the maximum warp they can achieve is between Warp 7-8, while most Federation ships can reach Warp 8-9.985 with Warp 9.5 becoming the average.
And races that reach similar or greater speeds to Federation, like the Romulans and Vong due follow a similar design to Federation keeping nacelles away from the hull. While the rest are like the borg with a crew that can regenerate from any damage taken, being of energy, or automated ships that do not have to worry about the crew dying.
@@raw6668 The Ferengi don't separate their nacelles, but they all have really good(and expensive)health care plans.
@@MostlyOdi They don't have health care plans. Just a expensive Health System and Loan Sharks. Its sink or swim when it comes to the Ferengi.
If you haven't read it yet, a book named The Federation,
It is a 3 generation type book starting with Dr.Cochrane , then Capt. Kirk and ending with Capt. Picard.
It goes into some detail as to why the warp engines are placed as they are and how the warp bubble/ field work to cause faster then light speeds. I have reread mine a dozen times. You can picture the Dr.Cochrane from the TOS instead of the one from TNG movie. Its gives you a look into the beginning of WW3 and during the take over by Greens army. As said a great read .
I think having the warp nacells away from the hull also imporves efficiency and speed at the cost of being easier to damage in combat. This is why federation ships were generally faster and had better high warp endurance than peer opponents like the romulans and klingons.
@Caleb Reese The Defiant seems like the F-4 of that universe. Putting a warp core designed for a full-sized Galaxy class in the size of something not a whole lot larger than a runabout. Brute-forced their way to higher speeds and nearly destroyed itself in the process. No wonder it needed the miracle worker O'Brian just to get it to work. In the end, it is by-far the least efficient starfleet vessel ever. But that's okay, cause it has huge guns.
That I believe is true, the Defiant has terrible fuel and warp field efficiency, but made up for it with power and small size. And Starfleet certainly does seem to be the leading edge in local space on warp speeds.
Warp 9.5 is fast, but keep in mind the contemporaries, the decade older Galaxy class had a stock max warp of 9.6, the Voyager was up to 9.975, the Sovereign is between Warp 9.8 and 9.9, the Prometheus is at warp 9.99. The Defiant was not a speed demon.
The Intrepid class was, until the Sovereign class, the fastest in Starfleet @ 9.975. It too violates the Line-of-Sight and standoff rules. So no, I'd say the evidence is strongly against a performance justification for either.
I'd give the Voyager a pass on the line-of-sight rule because its nacelles tilt in order to warp.
@@jamesgrose510 the secondary hull is still in between the nacelles when they are angled up during Warp.
Thank you for creating & sharing a fun & informative video.
Long time Trek fan attempting my 1st design / build of a starship. My favourite era is TOS. Due to storylines & budgets we didn’t get to see smaller Starfleet vessels in any detail.
To that end, I’ve been seeing how far I can “compact” the traditional Enterprise configuration into a smaller, 4 deck vessel. It’s a quarter the length of a Constitution class at 240’. I call it a “Sparrow” class as it’s small & fast so likely a science vessel or scout or courier perhaps. It’s jokingly named U.S.S. Vortex NCC-973 for now in honour of the holo-doctors novel.
It’s a work-in-progress but I’m really trying to let the function dictate much of the form.
Building a 1/96 scale model as well.
In time I plan to learn how to import a finished model into a virtual, shared environment.
ruclips.net/video/PbXGOpWusjM/видео.html
the navigational deflector is more to move even subatomic particles out of the way of the path of the ship while moving at FTL speeds or warp. It can be used in sublight as you implied, however its primary purpose isn't to be used at sublight speeds and when at sublight speeds is mainly used as just a giant sensor dish. when moving at speeds faster than light and many many times faster than light of subatomic particle like a proton could puncture the haul moving at those speeds the size of a person. Having Shields up at warp speeds is usually said to be a big no no, at least at first during the TOS years, as it encloses the radiation being emitted from the cells inside the shield bubble and it irradiates the crew. This is why the Nav Deflector was developed (that end in universe Starfleet apparently hadn't develop shielding technology yet and so the only option for safely traveling at FTL speeds without running into subatomic particles drifting in space was a deflector, apparently).
Can also be used in later Starfleet models to channel large amounts of directed energy, too.
Look up "Heavy Graviton Beam" in the TNG episode "Best Of Both Worlds."
Or Voyagers numerous times they channeled different kinds of particles into beams directly through the deflector.
however its primary purpose is this is a giant eye and sensor dish for the starship, and to force push things out of the way at FTL speeds.
The Navigational Deflector and the Long Range sensors have a special relationship. When the Navigational Deflector is operating at warp it can actually scramble sensors. But if you align them the Navigational Deflector can actually act like a telescope lens and the long range sensors look down the deflector beam with no problem.
I don't remember anything about the shields keeping radiation from escaping. If that was the case they likely overcame that technological limitation. The Navigational deflector has been around since TOS and depending on your view of canon since the beginning as it's also on the NX-01 and even some of its predecessors.
I was wondering if someone would point this out. Space is most certainly not empty. Think of the idea of Solar Sails, which we've also seen in Star Trek. Those are pushed by sub-atomic particles(i.e. radiation and ions) which are in space due to stars. They aren't a problem at Newtonian speeds, but as you get to more relativistic speeds close to the speed of light, then having an impact from a few protons would be enough to cause issues. Think about the concerns of super colliders and the energy produced from a collision within one.
at sublight speeds it is still used as a deflector, but when the TOS enterprise was designed, it took on the appearance of a large receiver dish that NASA was using.
@@sagesheahan6732 Been rewatching Voyager again lately and was just thinking the other day that the deflectors almost get used as a weapon as much as the phasers and torpedoes
From beneath the Defiant's nacelles do actually have that area in the middle for the field to have line of sight if I remember correctly!
Another good vid!
I'll Violate rule 4 if I'm making a combat vessel like the Defiant i think that should be an exception
“In order to break the rules, you must first understand them.”
That said, considering how “dedicated warships” like the Defiant were essentially “breaking the rules” of Federation pacifism, it’d make sense to see such extraordinary circumstances creating mold-breaking ship designs v
I don't think the defiant technicality breaks the line of sight rule. There's a lot of clearance on the underside of the ship.
@@EddBlackheart I thought this same thing. If you look underneath the defiant the nacelles have at least a partial line of sight. Since it was an experimental combat vessel with minimal crew having them integrated into the hull makes sense too. Without any civilian families on board they would know and accept the risks.
The defiant doesn't break the rule. You see inside the plasma feed system is built in a Y shaped feed system so the coil resonance propagates through this channel from side to side inside the ship. This providing a means of safeguarding this components from being more exposed out on pylons. Excess warp coil radiation that is normally harmful to human crews is contained in the coil field passages and shunted back out in the wake of the ships warp envelope.
@@UGNAvalon
First comment is about understanding the rules, the next four are people not understanding the rules. You tried to teach but they would not listen hahaha
I notice your main Enterprise model is the earlier one with spikes on the Bussard collectors and a grill on the back of the nacelles.That model also had a super-size deflector dish and a taller bridge module. On the show, the exterior shots are often contradictory, with earlier and later versions interspersed. But to the extent there's any regularity to them, the earlier spiked-Bussards version seems to have been replaced after the second pilot story.
It’s my understanding the NCC stands for Naval Construction Contract.
It never did. That was a fanon backronym that someone came up with because they didn't know that Matt Jefferies created the prefix by combining the NC prefix then in use for American civil aircraft and the CCCC registry used by the Soviets, thus NCC. Originally it was the _number_ that was supposed to be information regarding the vessel: in his sketches, 1701 meant 17th cruiser design, serial number 01. That was never referenced on screen and that explanation obviously ignored, and the numbers simply became regarded as registry numbers.
Haven't heard the Naval Construction Contract backronym but have heard someone claim it ment Nominal Cruiser Class. Nominal being used, I guess, as the "existing or being something in name or form only" definition meaning they called it a cruiser but it really wasn't. I do recall reading in a tech manual that the USS stands for United Star Ship. Guess it's a good thing it's the United Federation of Planets and not the Allied Federation of Planets. lol
NCC always stood for Naval Construction Contact. As approved by Gene Roddenberry when presented with Franz Joseph orginal Enterprise blueprints. 1701, as brought forward by Matt Jefferies stood for the 17th ship built by Starfleet and 01 as the 1st Constitution class starship.
Chris Cheshire As for the use of NCC as a prefix for Starfleet registry numbers, its designer Matt Jefferies said, when he conceived the prefix in 1964, that the registries for American civil aircraft are preceded by NC, and Soviet craft used a prefix of CCCC, and as such, he more-or-less combined the two. His philosophy was, "If we do anything in space, we (Americans and Russians) have to do it together." In contrast, the Star Trek Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 69) claims that the second C was just an arbitrary addition to make the registry look better. This notion had actually been confirmed by Jefferies himself on another occasion, "Since the 1920's, N has indicated the United States in Navy terms, and C means 'commercial' vessel. I added an extra C just for fun. Interestingly, Russia's designation is CCC [sic.: Jefferies meant The Soviet Union]. So The N and C together made it kind of international." (Star Trek: The Original Series Sketchbook, p. 62; Encyclopedia (4th ed., vol. 2, p. 69))
A less common alternative to Franz Joseph's designation, "Navigational Contact Code", has been floating around in fan circles. This designation originated from David John Nielsen's U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy Cruiser Evolution Blueprints and Todd Allan Guenther's Ships of the Star Fleet reference book series.
The 1975 *licensed* publication Star Trek Blueprints (sheets 1 & 3), which was the work of Franz Joseph, designate the abbreviation to stand for the "Naval Construction Contract Number" of a starship, akin to the real world maritime hull numbering practice. While MA considers a very limited amount of Franz Joseph's work as valid background information for canon purposes, insofar it had actually made onscreen appearances, the abbreviation explanation has not been part of it and remains apocryphal. Still, Joseph's work was once considered "official" by the franchise and, ranking among the very first published works of this kind, enjoyed considerable popularity in "Trekdom" at the time, and his explanation of the abbreviation appears to be the more commonly accepted one by them. As "fanon" the designation has been adopted by some Star Trek novelists, such as the below mentioned Diane Carey.
The novel Best Destiny, by Diane Carey, gives the meaning of NCC as "Naval Construction Contract", taking her cue from the 1975 Franz Joseph Blueprints.
@@chrischeshire6528, I know the backstory to the Constellation' s registry number NCC- 1017 being due to the prop crew having the Enterprise numbers 1701 being on hand to quickly place upon the Connie model for filming. As for 01 indicating first ship of the class- how does that square with there being the U.S.S. Constitution NCC- 1700 bearing the titular ship of the Constitution Class?
I like the idea that the nav deflector is more necessary for exploration and deep space missions into uncharted territory where unexpected phenomena are more frequent.
I remember reading a book, many years ago, regarding the design choices for the show. More than anything else, Roddenberry insisted that it look nothing like a rocket, which is what everyone thought of when thinking of space travel at the time. He wanted to distance the show from the silly "space adventure" type shows and serials.
It's somewhat ironic that, with The Expanse, we've come full circle back to the rocket-type design. Because that's how you generate "gravity" in space.
Spot on about the main deflector dish. Deep space exploration ships (that operate in uncharted space at high warp speeds) need them. More pedestrian starships that operate within the confines of the Federation, and well-charted space, like the Miranda Class, can get by with secondary deflectors.
I think the design for the "All good things" Enterprise D's third engine can be rationalized as a back up engine in case one of the other two are damaged or destroyed. Of course, there would be a noticeable penalty for the warp field but it would be better than being potentially stuck in the middle of nowhere without a working engine to get you to the nearest mechanic.
From what I've read, the 3rd nacelle was there to act as a power source for additional shields and weapons (diverting warp power from that 3rd nacelle to other systems)
EXACTLY!! i’m so glad you have documented this because there is world building in these rules. it outlines why even allies spacecraft follow similar rules. if we ever find a way to break the FTL barrier there will be rules and there probably won’t be very many other ways to do so. So these rules explain the similar configurations of ships from separate FTL development histories. People should follow these rules. that being said the defiant does have room at the bottom to put two glowing Warfield grills along the ventral portion of the work from the cells facing each other giving the defiant at least an attempt at line of sight so it can work if they just took these rules into account and made the model with work grills there they might be thin there may not be a lot of room but that might the part of the reason it doesn’t achieveExtremely high work speeds and only cheese hire work speeds due to the compact nature of the whole design itself. These are world building rules not only world but galaxy or even universe building rules and everyone everyone designing ships should abide by them. That’s what separates Star Trek from Star Wars. Star Trek uses a real space time FTL system well something like Star Wars and or the Borg use a kind of hyper space or what Star Trek would call sub space tunneling FTL system.
There are a lot of interesting subtle design principles you can see in the original (TOS) Constitution Class. These are generally totally ignored by later designers. The biggest thing is that there is no “acceleration” in a star ship (other than in evasive maneuvers where people are thrown side to side from G forces that should have made them go spat like bugs on a car window, but I digress). The warp bubble accelerates and everything within it remains static within that bubble. That’s why the connection to the nacelles don’t have to be overly thick and why the connection between the primary and secondary hulls can look a lot like the old Flatiron building in NYC.
I do have some exception for the three nacelle Franz Joseph Dreadnought Class (I only hate the front facing shuttle craft doors). It actually keeps a lot of the other design principles (as opposed to the transport / tug class where the cargo container breaks the line of sight between the nacelles) and you can even hand wave the function by only having two of the nacelles operational at any one time (but rotating much like three phase AC current).
I always figured one of the reasons the nacelles would be separate from the hull would also be heat management. In space shedding heat is the problem, not staying warm, separating the nacelles from the hull would allow them to get much hotter than you'd want something within the main hull to get. The pylons themselves could also act as a heat sink, I don't remember ever seeing anything that went into detail on what's in the pylons other than a Jefferies tube and the power conduits but you could add in storage containers for ionic hydrogen that could be heated into plasma then dumped into space to reduce heat if neccessary. Would look cool too, a V of plasma trailing behind the ship like a wake or wings.
As for the bridge exposed on the top I never had a problem with that. For one thing, even though it's never mentioned, Starfleet ships must have some ECM to prevent precision targeting because torpedoes usually just hit where ever, seems like only phasers have a good chance of precision targeting. But the main defense on the ship is the shields, once they go down it doesn't matter where the bridge is, a single hit can blast straight through the ship (unless the narrative says "not this time'). And I remember reading somewhere that the bridge has a second set of shields just around the bridge to make it even harder to damage. But it would be cool to see a Starfleet like ship with the bridge on top most of the time but during battle the bridge could be dropped deeper into the ship with a pair of blast doors closing over where the bridge was. It wouldn't be practical at all but it would look cool on screen.
Camera pans over the hull and you see the entire bridge suddenly drop as a pair of heavy metal doors begin closing over the hole then switch to an inside view from the bridge looking up through the window on the ceiling and seeing bands of light receding as the bridge descends and the stars become occluded by the blast doors before they close completely. "Shut up Wesley and drop the bridge, damnit!"
Did you work on Stargate universe? :P
The ice machine is kept in the "arms" holding up the nacelles. 🥶🧊
Acctually I got inspired and motivated by your videos and started designing my own starfleet ship few days ago. Im doing it in engineering 3D software that I have for school purpouses. It is not perfect program but it is good enough.
The only rule that my ship violates is that part of warp nacellas are above the saucer, but I want to excuse it by adding additional radiation shielding.
The only thing I hope is that it will look original. There are hundreds of designs.
I’m definitely not arguing these rules they make sense but I’ve always had it in my head cannon that because the Phoenix brakes the rules in terms of the line of sight that ships that don’t follow the rules would be combat or defensive ships due to the more inefficient designs.ships that follow the rules are deep space or exploratory vessels with excellent performance and power . Excellent video.
I knew there was a reason the Refit Enterprise looked fantastic.
Really, what about phase 2 variant Enterprise also?!
Excellent rules. Clear, easy to understand. Very ' logical'.
Now can we see a custom ship using only these rules.
I have a design in my head someday will make it.
@@resurrectedstarships We'll be looking forward to the day where you show it!
As a Star Trek fan born in the 70's & raised on the Franz Joseph Star Fleet Technical Manual & the Star Fleet battles games before TNG or I had heard of the "rule", I still love the Single or Triple warp nacelle designs. I just assume that the nacelles are canted towards each other on the triple ones & the single nacelles have some sort of "Doppleganger" system that lets them work. I figure why not, the transporters have the "Heisenberg Compensators" that get around problems with the transporters working without explaining how.
if i was designing a starfleet (capital)ship, i'd take care to include a shuttle bay. miss this an many early STO ships
Best Sci Fi show ever, except for one thing. Beaming someone up will never be possible. Totally non plausible, shuttles could have added drama anyway. Maybe they should have modeled them on the NASA shuttles
@@dalepeto9620 The NASA shuttles didn't exist when TOS was written.
@@SakuraNyan Exactly - the first NASA shuttle was named Enterprise after the NCC-1701.
Since Starfleet capital ships can not land on planet, shuttles are a basic necessity. You can't make entering and exiting the ship entirely reliant on transporters. There are much too many situations where transporters might not be available.
I love the Tech Room feel of this vid, it's all very technical and animated ♥
I know you endeavor to be accurate so I wanted to make sure you were aware of a problem with your analysis, in the TOS-TMP era what you referred to as the 'navigational deflector dish" is nothing of the kind, the front of the Connie in both TOS and TMP is a sensor dish, in fact, if you look carefully you will see surrounding the sensor dish three nodules, to port, starboard, and underside those are in fact the navigational deflectors. on the Reliant you will find identical nodules on the saucer far to port and starboard where the Engineering decks meet the proper saucer section. I learned this myself when I made the same assumption you did and Captain Foley of Trekyards explained it to me.
In 1985, I spoke with Mr. Roddenberry. He asked if I knew why Star fleet ships were pearl white with a red pin stripe. He said that was a tribute to the US Coast Guard, because he admired it's missions and capabilities to operate in both peace time, and war (switching hats at the drop of a dime, as he put it).
Cool. Do Klingon ships have their own rules like these, I would love to know those. :]
Sort of but not so strict.
@@resurrectedstarships
I have this FanFic writing project for this crazy Mega Sci-Fi Crossover thingy, and one of the core questions is: What would Klingon or Romulan ships look and "feel" like if they didn't use the Star Trek technology and "Rulebook"? For example, what would a Klingon Battlestar or the Donnager from the Expanse be like when made by Klingons; would Klingons even want to build a Battlestar or instead go the Basestar route? Also I want to know the how/why Discovery Klingon ships just don't work except for the most part their essential stick figure frame. From this, I want to imagine or see a Klingon ship that doesn’t follow that repetitive wide back wings and long front neck shape that defines the quintessential D7/K’tinga, B’rel, Vor’cha and Negh’var Birds-of-Prey / Warbirds.
It's a thought exercise and experiment that I live for.
Also, I would love to see that interesting Discovery designs 'given a new coat of paint or new set of clothes' so they actually look and feel like the tried and true Klingons we all love.
@@ApsalusSigma You're the master.. that's an awesome idea..
Rule 1: At all times resemble a death metal band stage that has developed interstellar spaceflight.
Klingons have an honor code that glorifies personal combat. Seems like they'd prefer fighters over starships if possible, more personal glory. Imagine a Klingon carrier and star fighters. Of course they didn't have the FX tech when TOS was made to do that but would have been cool.
For the Reliant, I also assumed that the module in the roll bar is some form of Deflector Dish ( even is it is partially obscured).
One of the things I always disliked about the Ambassador class (Enterprise-C) was that the Bussard ramscoops were behind the saucer... defeating their purpose.
The Excelsior-class sort of had the same problem as well - especially when viewing a foreword profile of it. The Enterprise-B refit made it worse by putting additional impulse engines more or less in front of the redesigned bussard collectors.
Back in the TNG/DS9 days, somebody in the production studio made an Ambassador refit that actually lowered the nacelles, thereby making the Ambassador’s port/starboard profile similar to a Galaxy-class. This arrangement still kept the line-of-sight - as it wasn’t lowered that much - and finally gives those nacelles a fully clear foreword line-of-sight. Shortening the height of the pylons so the nacelles are lower definitely gives the Ambassador-class a better look too. Ex Astris Scientia has a detailed analysis of this “refit” on his page.
Clear line of sight to the bussard collectors, while a good and rational rule can probably be fudged a little bit. I mean, you have to make a hole in the navigational deflector anyway and a funnel to bring the interstellar hydrogen to the collectors in the first place, so manipulating the field so it can arc around a saucer section isn't impossible, but it's not exactly efficient either.
@@3Rayfire The navigational deflector and the Bussard collector are two different things.
@@DarinRWagner When did I say otherwise? You have two components at play here, one that pushes things away and one that sucks things in. The former needs to make accommodations so the latter can function.
@@3Rayfire Reread what you typed and then tell me.
I like this video, although I feel one last point was missed. These are all requirements for a flagship design, the ship to carry the name Enterprise, but rule breaking can work in a ship's favor. A few examples:
The Miranda class lacks a forward deflector and a secondary hull. But it still works as TOS design, owing to borrowed parts, and those missing features tie into its identity. It's a workhorse ship you're not supposed to see on flyers. It's a compact and slightly unsightly ship that looks like a cut down version of the Enterprise, and it is a "budget" Constitution Class ship. When you get on a Miranda, you think to yourself, "I want to be on a Constitution."
The USS Vengeance's very dark colors belies the fact it is distinctly not a Starfleet ship. Especially compared to the organic curves of TNG and Kelvin ships, it's flat on many surfaces and especially angular along the secondary hull. It is a Constitution gone wrong, almost cementing the rift between Starfleet as a whole and Section 31. This dichotomy especially is evident when the two flagships met one another, and through the many scenes of the Vengeance's weapons. It's a warship, Enterprise never once fires a shot in Into Darkness, while the Vengeance is throwing up phasers and torpedoes constantly.
The Defiant's compact, no spacing and no LoS nacelles borrow over design language from the shuttles. Indeed, it was an oversized shuttle during early design. It's not a shuttle now, but it definitely makes us feel like the Defiant is smaller than ships we've seen before. It's an extension of DS9, and it looks the part by looking like a fraction of a whole ship. You might even say that it's a saucer section missing its secondary hull.
Remember that one scene on TOS when plaster fell from the Romulan ship's ceiling when the Enterprise blasted it ? As if the ship was a building.
The ramjet and deflector dish are complimentary. I have my doubts about starships using ramjet technology, the amount of energy generated using antimatter should be sufficient.
Can’t believe he didn’t mention each ship must have some type of saucer shape
It doesn't seem to be a "rule" based on Trek physics or Roddenberry decree. Just a stylistic preference for the capital warships. Which wasn't applied to all Federation starships in the shows anyhow.
Civilian ships (colony, freighter, transport, etc) and small craft (shuttles, runabouts, etc) have never had saucers.
And since late-VOY, the fashion seems to prefer replacing round saucers with angled pointy wedges.
Wow. I've watched Star Trek since the debut of the animated series and this is the first time I heard about these rules about Starfleet design rules.
I’ve always felt that crew safety was always part of star fleet, and star fleet is always pressing limits of tech and science on every ship. So all three parts are generally designed to eject or separate to keep crew safe. But other species crew safety was not a concern or they weren’t pressing limits with their normal ships.
From what I have seen, the blue glow from the warp fields can vary to a violet or purple; and the red color in the Bussard collectors are sometimes orange or orange-yellowish. Plus the deflector dish in Kirk’s 1965-ish Enterprise is often described as bronze in color. So some variation is authorized.
Finally, the argument for a strong structure is what happens when the structural integrity fails? Space May be vast and empty - you can’t imagine how incredibly vast and empty it is - but there are pockets of heavy gravity around black holes and large celestial bodies. The ship ought to be prepared in case it strays a little too close. Of course, if the structural integrity field is failing, the ship probably has bigger problems to worry about.
do a video on "times the rules were broken" like the Kelvin single nacelle, and talk about maybe why the rule exceptions work for those vessels
as we dont know the Internal Specifications of the Nacells , I can only assume it was a Siamesed pair of Engines wethin a Single housing.
@@markplott4820 If single nacelles like that can be built, _why ever build any other kind of nacelles?_
@@xheralt - because a Long Range scout, a Destroyer or Survey platform , does NOT need the MOST Efficient and Fastest warp Engines.
however a Torpedeo "boat" does, and the PT cruiser used Full Sized Siamesed warp nacelle for Superior Performance.
same goes for a WARP tug which uses 4 warp Nacelle.
The Reliant had two little round “nubs” on either side of the saucer, on the dorsal side where it met the “square” rear section. In my mind those modules were dual nav deflectors.
I never liked the Defiant to be honest. It looks like a damned tick!
Great video putting everything in perspective.
Can anyone tell me why the Enterprise D had an oval saucer section facing sideways? The Enterprise E had an oval saucer section stretched in the direction the ship travels giving the illusion it had been warped (no pun intended) by space travel, but the Enterprise D had a saucer section that made it look like the ship had come to a sudden stop and compressed cartoon style! What gives?
In some Trek publications I've read the reason for the saucer section in almost all Federation ships is also a minor rule. That being designed for the reason of the primary hull to serve as a possible 'lifeboat' to hopefully survive a atmosphere landing after saucer separation if that ship isn't intigrated into the rest like the Reliant, which would still attempt it with the entire hull. It was to be a 'hail Mary' last hope as it was to be at least somewhat aerodynamic. This wasn't done in cannon until the Enterprise D in the 'Generations' movie. It was to also be unrecoverable for the ship to be used again. Kirk's Enterprise for example was supposed to be able to attempt it if it had to separating the saucer with explosive bolts but could not reattach after.
Tyler Durden's Rules of Starship Design
The first rule of Starship design is.... that you don't talk about Restrooms.
The second rule of Starship design is that You. Don't. Talk. About. Restrooms.
Ssv Normandy would like to know your location
4:46 While most of the Starfleet ships are explorers , the Vengeance (bottom left) is actually a "pure-blooded" warship. It is dark to give the sense of danger and might and also for camo.
*(bottom right)
XD
This should be named “8 rules to recreate the TOS enterprise”
Considering that the original 4 Roddenberry rules were set in place during production of TMP, when the TOS Constitution Class was the only Starfleet ship type we'd really seen, it doesn't surprise me that they're geared towards preserving the design language of that ship.
Well, I mean, it IS the Original Star Trek ship and, for a long time, was almost implied to be Starfleet's ONLY class of ship.
Official canon
１, Divided into main hull and secondary hull
２, the bridges are always located above the center of the main hull
３, the warp engine must be paired
４, when viewed from the front, the sight of the warp engine cannot be blocked
"Sometimes people think they can get away with nonsensical chaos and call it creativity" - looking at you, Star Citizen! Lol.
I once designed a ship based o the concept of the growth of a vertebrata pelvis. It made sense to me that growing a hull is easier that constructing them. Turned out pretty well. It looked like Trek and now I know it does not violate the rules.
Cool, I'll be ignoring all these "rules" when if I ever make a starfleet design; i'm all for consistency but some of these old rules are silly.
Joking aside, I think you can easily make a good starfleet designs that fits just fine without even acknowledging these design rules at all, they seem limiting and most dont make any sense like the bridge for scale rule.
Why not, CBS dont listen to them anymore...
@@Graytail I dont think any trek series ever listened to them.
@@rueceless7580 exactly even some of Probart's own alien designs arguably violate one or more of these. Probart is full of it.
@@wagrhodes13 Very true, if he followed all the rules we'd have a very bland looking universe of ships all having the same vague shapes and configurations.
@@rueceless7580 Personally, I want an in universe explanation for why Earth uses Saucer shaped hull configurations. I have never heard any real explanation. The only one I have ever heard is a vague "efficient use of space."
Just found this channel and enjoying it. Just pick up your point on painting of ships though.....on earth steel ships and cars are painted to protect them from the environment including rust. However in space there is nothing to make the ships rust (on the outside at least) so only need to paint them would to make them look shiny and smart. No need to touch up the paint by the crew whilst on a mission as she would still look as good as she sailed space-dock (unless attacked my a bird of prey of course!)
The rules Alex Kurtzman has never heard of.
@Joseph Bryant it can function, but can it create a warp drive with just one nacelle.......or just impulse drive then
The original explanation of warp drive does NOT have the fronts of the nacelles as Bussard Collectors. They were actually emitters. THAT'S why they could NOT be obstructed. In order to speed up to warp speed the engines would send matter and anti-matter out through the nacelle fronts to collide at a specific distance in front of the ship, creating an artificial, invisible black hole. As we all know black holes have immense gravity thus pulling the ship towards it. However since the emitters project the matter/anti-matter fuel a specific distance, the ship never reaches the black hole and just continues to move forward as the black hole moves forward. To go to a faster warp speed, additional fuel was emitted and the black hole grew in size and so did the gravity thus pulling the ship faster. This was another reason for the structural integrity fields.
Now with all that being said, Excelsior's Transwarp Drive was experimental as what we know as a warp bubble or warp shell used in the 24th century. As it was explained to me at a Star Trek convention in the early 80s by a producer of the movies. Excelsior, back then and during its "trial runs" was destroyed. This was BEFORE the 6th movie. It was the Transwarp bubble/shell that collapsed in on itself, crushing the Excelsior and destroying it. Apparently when testing Transwarp the shell/bubble decreased in height size the higher the warp speed. When they increased to a higher speed eventually the bubble/shell crushed the Excelsior like an egg between your two hands applying pressure. BOOM!
So naturally years later when they wanted to give Sulu his own command and he had a hard-on for Excelsior, they ditched that original story, since it never made it on screen, and gave him the Excelsior. BUT, even in the 6th movie it did NOT have Transwarp drive. Just ordinary warp drive because they retold the story that Transwarp simply failed to work to begin with.
So Starfleet ships must be red and blue. Don't tell me that in the 23rd / 24th century AMD and Intel are still battling it out for dominance in the technology world and they have moved on to spaceships?
The roundabouts have a tandem deflector, the orange glows in toward recessed portions of the pylons. And as for the Miranda class, same set up. Those roundish protrusions flanking the bridges from the raised section of the saucer act as deflectors too.
No seat belts.
And if the defiant breaks the rules then does every shuttle
It's fascinating how many of FASA's designs obeyed these rules