I... don't remember seeing any smaller nacelles on the Gal-X. Just the three and the two cannons on the saucer.
We also have oddball ships like the TNG Freedom and the Kelvin. Some speculate that the single nacelle ships might actually have a dual setup within the nacelle, so it still has paired warp coils. Honestly I just think it would be easier to explain that even numbers of nacelles are just more effecient. I mean Vulcans used Warp Rings for many years and... I can't see how you can have the paired setup with that.
One of the Trek tech gurus at Paramount (I think it was Okuda, but the interview was so long ago I am not sure) mentioned that the inline-dual setup in one nacelle was not as efficient or maneuverable as the two nacelle setup so it wasn't used much. Presumably the third nacelle on the Enterprise-D was mostly used for power or perhaps as a spare in case one of the nacelles was nocked out but as far as I know of the reason for it was never pinned down officially.
The inefficiency angle makes sense, and most likely why you don't see many ships like the Saladin class around which probably made the efficiency tradeoff to rush production for the war (at least in the original history) by sharing the armored nacelle tubes (along with the saucer) with the Constitution class since it would require less unique tooling and training to build.
As for the rings, the official word on those was that they were faster than the equivalent dual setup for long range travel, but not very maneuverable for things like combat. They didn't mention how the coils were set up in the rings, whether they were a single or dual huge coil in themselves or whether they had a lot of smaller coils arranged along the ring working together.
A ship needs...a deflector, to push debris and micrometeorites etc, out of the way. Warp nacelles and bussard collectors...although is there a rule that those have to be mounted at the front of the nacelles? They're designed to take things it, but do they actually then pass immediately to the nacelles? It makes you think that a ship with plain nacelles at the back and then a combination deflector and collector at the front might make for a more efficient streamline ship.
But alas, why the negativity about toilets? They are places of calm and relief, indispensable for daily life. A ship looking like one is not a bad thing! I shall christen mine Ferguson and proudly saily my Stradivari of bowls through space. If only it was an account wide unlock, it could even properly be captained by Al Bundy...
A ship needs...a deflector, to push debris and micrometeorites etc, out of the way. Warp nacelles and bussard collectors...although is there a rule that those have to be mounted at the front of the nacelles? They're designed to take things it, but do they actually then pass immediately to the nacelles? It makes you think that a ship with plain nacelles at the back and then a combination deflector and collector at the front might make for a more efficient streamline ship.
Klingon ships like the D7 don't have Bussards on the front of the nacelles, they are those grills on the leading edge of the "wings" the nacelles are attached to. That separate scoop arrangement was also used in the original McQuarrie design that the Discovery is loosely based on, which is probably why its engines were so small in the drawings.
Y'know, looking at that pic, if that's the first thing that springs to mind when you see that ship I gotta wonder what kind of incredibly uncomfortable modern-art toilets y'all are used to.
Y'know, looking at that pic, if that's the first thing that springs to mind when you see that ship I gotta wonder what kind of incredibly uncomfortable modern-art toilets y'all are used to.
If you simplify the lines slightly it does look a lot like one of the models that is popular with companies who like to give the impression that they are trendy and 'upwardly mobile' like a company I worked for back in the first decade of this century. The vertical being right were the drain pedestal would be on the bottom and the Slone valve on the top does not help dispel that image any either.
That said, the design has a lot more problems than a resemblance to that particular real-world object, especially the fact that it takes all of its design cues from well known non-Trek sources which further dilutes any Star Trek feel to the series.
Comments
One of the Trek tech gurus at Paramount (I think it was Okuda, but the interview was so long ago I am not sure) mentioned that the inline-dual setup in one nacelle was not as efficient or maneuverable as the two nacelle setup so it wasn't used much. Presumably the third nacelle on the Enterprise-D was mostly used for power or perhaps as a spare in case one of the nacelles was nocked out but as far as I know of the reason for it was never pinned down officially.
The inefficiency angle makes sense, and most likely why you don't see many ships like the Saladin class around which probably made the efficiency tradeoff to rush production for the war (at least in the original history) by sharing the armored nacelle tubes (along with the saucer) with the Constitution class since it would require less unique tooling and training to build.
As for the rings, the official word on those was that they were faster than the equivalent dual setup for long range travel, but not very maneuverable for things like combat. They didn't mention how the coils were set up in the rings, whether they were a single or dual huge coil in themselves or whether they had a lot of smaller coils arranged along the ring working together.
Of course, one of my first thoughts about it was that this might literally be the unboxing video:
Al Bundy's Ferguson
But alas, why the negativity about toilets? They are places of calm and relief, indispensable for daily life. A ship looking like one is not a bad thing! I shall christen mine Ferguson and proudly saily my Stradivari of bowls through space. If only it was an account wide unlock, it could even properly be captained by Al Bundy...
Klingon ships like the D7 don't have Bussards on the front of the nacelles, they are those grills on the leading edge of the "wings" the nacelles are attached to. That separate scoop arrangement was also used in the original McQuarrie design that the Discovery is loosely based on, which is probably why its engines were so small in the drawings.
https://i.redd.it/v4luycw6h1e71.png
If you simplify the lines slightly it does look a lot like one of the models that is popular with companies who like to give the impression that they are trendy and 'upwardly mobile' like a company I worked for back in the first decade of this century. The vertical being right were the drain pedestal would be on the bottom and the Slone valve on the top does not help dispel that image any either.
That said, the design has a lot more problems than a resemblance to that particular real-world object, especially the fact that it takes all of its design cues from well known non-Trek sources which further dilutes any Star Trek feel to the series.
That is truly genius, right down to the NX. I've got to know though...sure The Powers That Be could see this coming?