First, I love all of this. Second, There doesn’t have to be an up and down is space or sub-space, because there is an up and down on any ship with artificial gravity. It’s reasonable to expect a ship’s AG systems would interact with the warp field.
I was thinking along those lines, too. It could also be a justification for ships always seeming to meet each other with their decks oriented to the same 'down' (Apart from I guess some general protocol that might be a pretty common idea for people that come from planets, at least if they don't normally meet each other hanging under branches or something.)
@@OllamhDrab do warp capable probes and torpedos have artificial gravity? If a starship turns off its gravity plating does the warp field just collapse?
@@ransom182 I presume by this train of thought, that's why probes and torpedos don't bother to have outboard nacelles. I mean, it's not too much of a stretch to figure that if you *have* artificial gravity, it applies to other spacetime effects, but if you don't, who cares. It just goes like it goes. Get it?)
@@theharbingerofconflation He puts in more work than the any of the creators did for any of the movies or series, but ultimately it's not a real universe and there are contradictions. If there is a coherent explanation VenomGeek will certainly find it.
@@theharbingerofconflation Nah, he intentionally didn't put labels on the buttons so there wouldn't be contradictions or bloopers when the actor pressed the wrong button. Venom would be telling the actors what "535" with a big rounded green button meant and why.
Surprised you didn’t mention the Defiant. She would sit almost dead center in her warp bubble. Add in the additional effect of her overpowered warp engine. The variable geometry of the Intrepid would be a video of its own. Basically being able to turn the poles of the individual nacelle warp bubbles in in themselves would make it a very interesting on its own.
This video has indeed been a long time coming. Nice to finally see it. Looking at the examples in the video, it would seem that ships with high speed + stability or high acceleration + stability are rather rare.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Though I do agree with use of additional nacelle for stability and maneuverability. And those effect undeniably did have some level of presence and could be tested especially around NX era. I personally fallow rule of tumb complaisant to Roddenberry rule that gains were typically negligible to justify costs of additional nacelles. I personally use separate explanation for multi-nacelle solutions, relevant to TOS era revolution and after. So: - Single nacelle ships were usually substandard, short range ships. Most commonly constructed in pre-TOS era (around Kelvin specifically). They were mostly result of Starfleet, what just become Federation standard. Basically mass producing ships from similar modules. As small two nacelles were technically still better solution, though there is known effectiveness issue with those at the time. - Two nacelle were standard. - Three nacelle solution was most common in dedicated Battleships (expected to take a hits). It was combination of veritable geometry, emergency warp drives (best known in Federation and Dreadnought classes) and additional nacelle what allow ship stay operational, as nacelle lost was one of most common form of battle damage (stated additional effects were bonus). - Quad nacelle in my opinion are systematic for deep space explorers. Those ships didn't have chance for rescue if warp engine was fried. So it did make sense for them to have two separate systems. Ability to switch between high acceleration and high speed mode, was just added bonus. It also decreased wear of systems, as one set could be in maintenance when other was still operational.
Cool Video. How about two ships sharing the same warp bubble, I remember when seen done on screen the chief engineer is freaking out trying to keep up with the disruption, Has your experience with all things Star Trek lore given any details on when this happens? and would a mass going at warp speed if it was to enter a warp bubble would that bring the ship out of warp or just outright destroy it? If so, that would be a weapon within the relm of possibility in the Star Trk universe. IF I remember correctly gravitic weapons exist in the ST universe.
Excellent points, I can see where a difference in hull form and placement/location of nacelles would come into play with comparing the Constitution/Enterprise 1701A and the Belknap class or an Andor class.
This is interesting! I was a little confused at first where a Ferengi D'Kora class marauder would fit here at first though. I'd assumed it was a heavily armed and shielded cargo ship but the warp nacelles are located in relation to the hull much like a Klingon D-7 (pushing the hull forward and to the top of the warp bubble) which I assume would make it a fast light and nimble ship. Then again it's been described as an 'attack' ship as well so this kinda fits. Maybe the D'Kora's design is built more as a fast agile smuggling ship rather than a slow efficient transport ship? In 'Menage a Troi' LaForge does give the ships speed as almost as great as the Enterprise.
So about the up and down thing: My idea is that rather say that there's an arbitrary direction in subspace or that direction is determined by the ship's artificial gravity (which can be shifted and changed), we simply consider that a warp field, like an electromagnetic field, has a polarity. This way the warp field can still have an "up" and "down (in the form of its north and south pole) and have the ship's performance at warp be influenced by being closer to either of these poles, without any particular artificiality.
It has to be like this for his system, otherwise a ship can just fly upside-down relative to the absolute subspace direction to flip acceleration and speed. I don't find this scheme convincing, though. I adhere to the Starfleet Museum postulate that the flat shapes have warp dynamic effect because otherwise there's not a lot of sense to the shift from the Daedelus's spherical primary hull to saucers and this means there's another very large variable involved.
The video on warp speed combat a while back inspired me to worldbuild a universe where almost all combat took place at warp primarily because warp fields were used as both offense and defense. Instead of Shields or other sorts of passive defenses, ships primarily relied on warp integrity to stop incoming fire. Mass drivers using sustainer-engine-equipped projectiles and missiles with similar tech are the primary weapons in the setting. It's very much a WIP and a side project, mostly to see how much I can stretch that one single concept rather than making a combat system that's a pastiche of other space operas.
You can also make a difference between missiles and torpedoes. Missiles would be at non-warp/FTL speeds while torpedoes will be at warp/FTL speeds. Heck could even make sub(space)marines even which are undetectable ar warp/FTL. And all Starfighters will be at warp speeds. Surface ships would be the only ones that can go either warp or normal. Sorry, this is your setting, not mine. I just got a little carried away.
@@Marinealver Appreciate the ideas, but I'm trying to stick to a more expanse-style approach of having a limited set of weapons, with a more realistic physics/one big lie approach. Warp also doesn't use subspace, but I have something similar to that in my main sci-fi worldbuilding project. But, yeah, it is a fun concept, isn't it? Feel free to use the ideas for your own stuff if you want. I've been a proponent of the idea that fiction is inherently derivative and it's just about how you use the pieces you have that makes it unique.
Basically what would happen would be gassification. So if you use a warp field to disintegrate an object, you end up with a spray of super-hot plasma in its place. Could even be a quark plasma if it's tearing atoms apart. Plus a lot of beta and gamma ray radiation, of course.
You missed single nacelle designs (Freedom Class, etc). Would indicate high acceleration and maneuverability. But it is also sitting in just 1 warp field instead of the overlap of the 2.
Love all of this. Thank you for the hard works. This is everything I like about trek. Its the science in scifi Whereas star wars is the fiction in scifi Here, it may not have the grand, and galactic scale wars of annihilation But you can understand it, you can follow it. It makes sense.
great work man! the up and down thing doesn't matter, cuz you're not talking about the ship relative to the universe, but relative to it's own nacelles.
I think your hypothesis needs refining. You really need to remove the need for subspace to having spatial references of up and down. You might want to use direction of travel as spatial reference instead and the warp field as a compression wave the ship travels in whether the center of mass of the ship is in relation warp nacelles. As far as acceleration and top speed comes down to power and projecting that power though nacelles( ie. How many warp coils, how densely they are packed), subspace streamlining does have a effect also. I can agree on the distance between naccelles affecting maneuverability and top speed. I can also agree that a tighter warp field is more efficient then a more oblate one. I hope I have given you food for thought on refining warp geometry.
Nicely put. It makes sense in-universe when you consider that the nacelles - for the most part, warp subspace rather than real-space. It's not completely clear though if the subspace warp creates a corresponding real-space warp or does something really complicated that enables the starship to accelerate past c. Given that going to warp near a planet doesn't rip it to pieces or at least cause a tsunami suggests the latter, as does the need for inertial dampeners, which wouldn't be necessary for a real-space warp, although don't quote me on that last point.
I like this! It is a solidly reasonable analogy for warp field geometry. All other things being equal, primarily technology of the super advance kind, this works!
Favourite Ship Classes 1).Odyssey/ YorkTown/ Lexington Class 2).Sovereign/Noble Class 3).Venture/ Cygnus Class 4). Nimitz Class 5). Nova Class 6).2009 JJ Constitution Class 7). Obena Class 8). Valiant Class 9). PathFinder Class 10). Sagan Class
I just noticed that in the bottom of the warp field diagram you have a category named "warp engine systems" and under it a bar just titled "Coffee". Suggesting that how much coffee the engineering crew has had will have an effect on the warp engine.
Don't you know that the most important piece of equipment on a modern Naval vessel IS THE COFFEE POT? I can show you DOZENS of warships where weapons, engineering, and sensor systems don't work properly, but those ships are still going underway. Show me just ONE SHIP UNDERWAY where the coffee pot doesn't work. Hell, US Navy ships carry Star Bucks products to improve crew efficiency. :D
Great video, but you have the Y & Z switched. Y is left to right and Z is up and down. Case in point from Admiral Kirk himself in ST:2 TWoK when he ordered the Z-Minus 10,000 meters maneuver to take advantage of Khan's two-dimensional thinking.
Hi mr. VGM(Venom Geek Media), I am Aahlaad Nagesha, your videos are good but, I like your battlespace series more so can you make more battlespace videos?
Hello Venom. I really liked this video. Well done. You explained things pretty well, and showed with graphics the various aspects of varying positions of warp fields generated from Nacelles. I would love if you could create a graphic for me. Back during a period (roughly from 1983 through 1990) of time, I was a part of a Trek based Creative Writer's Group. In that group, I created my own species and their technologies and ways of building star ships. For my 'race', I decided that other than heavily armored exoskeleton combat suits, that they would build their star ships in an 'odd' manner. Let me explain. The Kindred Compact built their star ships after capturing several pirate vessels. Pirates that were capturing ships for the slave trade. Slavery was anathema to my species and racial mores, so pirates were hunted down after a small pirate ship landed upon one of my colony worlds and attempted to capture its population as slaves. Using their armored warriors, they were able to capture or kill the pirates, and take over their landed spaceship. Using the ship's data banks, the Kindred were able to translate the ship's service manuals and operations manuals, and pilot the ship back to their home world, where the ship was deconstructed, and its various systems studied in detail. With experimentation, the Kindred discovered that multiple warp nacelles could be used to 'streamline' the shape of a ship's warp field, thus increasing its effectiveness. Also, the Kindred 'blended' the power of multiple smaller warp cores to produce higher amounts of available power for their warp fields. Thus, they designed and built ships that were basically solid geometrically simple shapes. Faceted 'gemstone' shapes, usually lozenges, where multiple nacelles were housed above and below the ventral and dorsal hull plating, partially inset into the ship's hull, with retractable protective armor plating. This plating would move into place to cover and protect the nacelles in sub-light maneuvering, leaving only the 'exhaust ports' of the ship's massive impulse drives exposed. During warp maneuvers and overall warp travel, the armor plating would be retracted into the hull of the ship to allow such usage and not interfere with generating the warp bubble(s). Kindred ships usually have a ratio of length to width to height as follows... Overall Length X, Width 1/2 X, and Height 1/10th X. So, a ship 1,000 meters long would be 500 meters wide, and 100 meters tall. These are maximum numbers for a given ship's length, and most would be somewhat lower than given maximal figures. For instance... The Naruna Class Heavy Cruiser is 991 meters long, 432 meters wide, and 98 meters tall. Warp Nacelles are always in the after third of the overall hull, and always placed in equal numbers dorsally, and ventrally. As mentioned, the Kindred used smaller drive cores and smaller nacelles, but their use of them was in the blending of multiple core outputs, and using multiple nacelles to 'flatten' the overall warp field, making it more efficient. This resulted in ships that were long, flat, lozenges in shape, with massive numbers of weapons along their sides, fore, and aft, with relatively few to zenith and nadir. This led to the Kindred massively armoring their ships with thick plates of armor, as well as building them with 'bulk heads' in a manner that would channel the 'explosive' effects of incoming Enemy fire and either dissipating it, or venting it to space at some other point along the hull. In general combat operations, Kindred ships 'pump down' the entire ship to near-vacuum state, and ALL personnel wear a form of light powered armor. Out of combat, only the 'on duty' personnel are required to wear the armored 'Ship Suit' while on duty, although every crew member has a Ship Suit, and wears it while on duty... All ship's personnel wear Ship Suits, with the ship pumped down to near vacuum state for combat operations, or dangerous operations where extensive damage to the ship might occur. Given my descriptions, can you create a graphic of the average Kindred Naruna class vessel?
Space isn't 2D? Don't worry, you're not Khan! ...right? I hadn't considered how distance between nacelles could have an effect on things. I tend to think of nacelles as, say, screws/propellors and paired nacelles (ie standard Starfleet practice with line of sight between nacelle warp grilles) as also rudders via warp field connecting the two nacelles. More space between nacelles could lead to more energy bleed off into space, but also more space for a "rudder" to "swing" and have an effect. So a single nacelle ship would have the equivalent of an outboard motor or azimuth thruster for its warp drive, while most ships would have a two screw, 1 rudder set-up. The quad nacelle ships we've seen are 4 screws two rudders. Tri nacelle designs... the Chevron style like on Gal-X? 3 screws, 2 rudders. The V style? Not sure. I mean, it'd be 3 screws, 1 rudder, but it's like for some reason they stuck the third screw past the rudder instead of before it. Or maybe it's 2 screws + 1 rudder + 1 azimuth thruster? Something to get Drach back to discuss, maybe? ;) Could we get a follow-up at some point on how warp speeds might be affected by where the warp field comes out of the nacelles? After all, Defiant (and DSC S1 designs) have rear facing warp grilles, which would seem like it would have the warp field strongest at the rear and weakest at the front. And if you need overall Cochrane strength in the field above a certain threshold for a given speed, that would imply having to pump more power in than required in order to get the front of the field past the threshold (though maybe that's dependent on ship size?). Perhaps also where the placement of the nacelles could affect the overall strength of the warp field? And what does that mean for the warp "bubble" for ships with no "outward" facing warp grilles, like TOS Connie?
Hummm... And how will this apply to : - Single nacel ships like Saladin class - Vertical aligned warp nacels ships like Akula class and some (potentially) alien ships.
You know, fun idea, for all those nitpickers who yabble on about space not being 2D. How about you give them the answers? I mean some of yours viewers are quite scientifically knowledgeable, so they may actually find that interesting and engaging and the others would finally shut up and learn a bit respect.
So how do you apply this to borg cube ? is it like D'deridex its perfecly sits in own bubble ? (though borg cubes use transwarp so again maybe its diffrent?).
Shows some of the differing priorities in the designs of the Constitution and Miranda classes. Both have similar efficiency and manoeuvrability. The Constitution is optimized for cruise performance, ideal for longer distance exploration and longer patrols. The Miranda is more like a Klingon design, with her higher acceleration better suited to a rapid response over a shorter distance. And the poor old Oberth is built for cruise and stability, more like a freighter than most Starfleet ships!
I got interested in warp field geometry from the episode about the traveler in TNG. From my understanding, he created his own neural link between himself and the computer. Using that link, he used the mental energy of people to alter the warp field of the enterprise to accelerate to speeds beyond normal. What amazed me was how the created field was so stable that the ships structural integrity wasn't tested during the travel. We've also seen times were the warp field worked in tandem with the deflector field to create transwarp and slipstream.
You didn’t mention the true mission of the Steam Runner class. The steam runners special was that it was a long range artillery ship. It has tri cobalt device launchers and Carries a good supply of them. It can launch them at range at borg ships or any enemy ships.
Maneuverability? I thought in Voyager they basically said you're moving in a straight line during Warp, no matter what. Paris even had a little jingle: "Faster than light, no left or right."
2:07 I get what you’re going for, but I think a better way to express this would be to say the ship (and its nacelles) still cares about its own local “up or down” (possibly, as suggested in another comment, due to an interaction with the ship’s artificial gravity field). And the only reason I say this is due to that scene in Enterprise where the Columbia is flying inverted relative to the Enterprise before they match speeds and Trip transfers via cable. That still works with everything else in this video if the up and down is localized.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 That's probably a better way of expressing it. Instead of "up" and "down," each end of the diagram represents a "performance pole" where a given attribute is stressed and certain "attributes" conflict by nature.
Vulcan ring ships might be a nice little add on to the warp geometry discussion. They are technically mono nacelle and every once in a while in trek they do feature craft with significant negative space. IIRC the warp pocket is responsible for the ion trail people track. One idea I haven't seen is a flotilla ship where the nacelles are a swarm of warp tugs but I have heard detached nacelles are a thing in the newer programs. Cheers!
Iirc the warp and ion trails are similar but not identical. A warp trail is basically the wake left in subspace by a vehicle travelling faster than light - the Enterprise’s wake in Beyond comes to mind - and an ion trail is caused by the deflector shields colliding with the interstellar medium and ionizing the trace gasses and dust. They’re basically two separate wakes left in real and sub space.
@@joshuahadams I've heard that the warp fields overlap in some places causing spacial anomalies which I would think lead to ions. That being said it's more of headcannon than cannon since it's been a while since I've watched trek.
Ok sorry I know you did make the point we assume a up and down. But I would like to take the point of: Front manuvabile Back stable. Like a raindrop. Where the front is more effected by force. But I don't like the up and down thingy. I did thought of that part more like: If you have to shove it up against the ships gravity and feed it from "down". You have a. Stable output. But if you slope it in from above it's like a gravity feed engine. It's easy to get fuel in and ramp the engine. But it's hard to starve it to don't be so fule intense without collapsing the feld And why does up and down matter there? I don't fucking know. I would take the ships gravity and the alignment of the engine to each other. If you would Flipp them they wouldn't point the same side to each other.
So to conclude: I would be aligned to monste sad. But would put acceleration to designe: How they feed the engine. And that's changing the designe.... Maybe it hust have to do with some tech bale where the core sides relativ to the ship
Personally, I think speed is determined more by size of the warpfield in the direction of movement. A long nacelle allows for the field to thrown fowrad or back. Maneuverability would be dependent shifting the warpfield to bias one direction. That is why spreading the nacelles out can provide greater maneuverability. Acceleration is dependent on the steepness of the warpfied. As for the center of mass being off center, I would say that has more to do with where the ship's engines (Matter/Ant-matter) and Warp core are located and the need for the warp field to not interfere with the energy flow.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Very true. I make head canon/sense that to throw a warp field further forward or to increase the warp gradient would require more power.
What would you consider the limits of maneuver at warp? Let me expand a bit; with a bike, a car, an airplane, or a ship; at top speed you will have a larger turning radius than at slower speeds. It seems that their would be a limit of change from one's base heading before it would be easier (or safer due to stresses on the ships frame) to drop out of warp and change directions. It seems to me that something greater than a 45-90 degree course correction might require a ship to drop out of warp to change heading. Your thoughts sir.
Or a drop to a lower warp speed. That's more preferable. So as you approach an objective you'd drop to lower warp speeds so you dropped out of warp in the correct position.
One way you could justify the top and bottom in space could be related to the gravitational field interference with the warp field that makes the warp field's effect interact with the ship's orientation in relation to its artificial gravitational field
I'd love a video break down on Starship combat in a 3 Dimensional space. Covering firing/firing arcs vs. speed/maneuvering against angle of attack distance factors and inclusions of facts from your previous videos using weapons data. I think you could not only narrate but depict a very interesting battle break down
You can throw out all of this video after mentioning subspace. The beauty of warp travel is that you don't leave normal space. This is the reason you must take consideration of the position of the planets and other structures to avoid collisions.
If we were to apply the graphs to Dominion ships or at least the main 3 that we saw during DS9, we see that the smaller fighter stands higher on the Y-Axis with a small lean going towards manoeuverability, With the standard Mantis class we see that it rides lower on the Y-Axis with a heavier leaning on manoeuverability at least if we're countng the dorsal nacells, the battleship rides closer to the balancing point much like the D'Deridex class.
I vaguely recall seeing a graphic of the Enterprises warp field where the warp field was centered on the front of the warp nacelles. But my memory sucks so...
I have a book on Star Trek from the 80 that depicts this as well. The theory in the book was that Starships "projected" or "threw" their war fields out in front of the ship and the speed at which this was done along with the size of the field dictated how fast the ship could travel. Having two engines allowed you to alternately "throw" a field from each engine, doubling efficiency. The warp engines would also be "cycling" ie "pulsing" their matter-antimatter reaction, meaning that more advanced engines could create stronger fields and "refresh the power" of those fields faster. Keep in mind, that this "pulsing or refreshing" is probably occurring in milliseconds like the refreshing of a computer screen. We can all see the difference between a refresh rate of 60 and 120 in our monitors, so I'm inclined to believe warp cores operate in a similar way. That's why the STNG series ships have light pulses running in their cores. It's the warp engines cycling. The original concept was sort of like in sailing where the sail catches the wind creating a low-pressure zone in front of the boat and a high-pressure zone behind the boat. The wind wants to collapse that low-pressure zone and moves there pushing the boat along with it. The warp fields apparently act the same way. Thus, if this book is to be believed, warp speed is based on the power (intensity of the low-pressure zone) and size (or the distance of movement) of the warp field in question. This is why a ship can also expand its warp field to "share said field" with another ship.
Hi. Woow! Its soooo fascinating!!! 😂 I wonder if you could do geometry video for Galaxy NCC 1701 D? Maybe including the Manual for Engineering? I do have doubts here. Dilithium crystal acts like piezoelectric, bringing more % of matter and antimatter together, which gives us plasma for Electroplasma Conduits, which are already filled with it, which fill more and more, raising pressure and may blow up sometimes, thats why Nacelles may be vented when necessary, right? If so, where exactly in each Galaxy nacelle is the venting port and where inbetween MARA engineering matter antimatter reactor and the Nacelle plasma can be vented in case Pressure is too high? Thanks for exciting Channel and Video! mwuaah! Kylie Desire France, Paris
@Venom Geek Media 98 - the in front of warp field variant @ 4:30 is basically like the "Eurofighter" (alias "Jäger 90") with its steering wings in front of the main wing
@@venomgeekmedia9886 - these canards in front of the main wing makes the Eurofighter extra maneuverable but also extra unstable , without all these permanent corrections by the onboard computer , it could not fly ...
I must compliment U on U're displays & narrative. Using said, it would all point to the Steamerunner class as a near perfect design. But using the "Zed" axis as the focal point. W/ one nacelle out, the warp field geometry would have to be tuned or redefined. Hence, X & Y axis can be tune. No? There is too much "Cannon" regarding modifying warp signature.......yes. Kirk & Picard were notorious for this practice. As a base...Kudos, seriously. Many thanx 👍👍
Fascinating. I like this. I always assumed starships with only one nacelle had four warp coils in the nacelle: dorsal-port, dorsal-starboard, ventral-port and ventral-starboard . Extra energy into the dorsal coils would steer the ship aloft; extra energy to the ventral coil would steer it alow; and similar energy gradients port and starboard would steer the vessel horizontally. (Of course, it could be opposite --excess ventral energy steers aloft-- but it would hardly matter for the point I'm making.) I also always assumed the difference in distance between the starboard-most and port-most coils would be so low in a one-nacelle vessel that her maneuverability would suffer severely. Furthermore, I figured vessels with four nacelles would have one warp coil per nacelle and balancing/diverting energy to these different coils steer the vessel in the same way but have much higher maneuverability and, since there would be more available mass per coil to absorb more energy, such a vessel could achieve faster speeds and while reducing wear and tear on the coils; however, they would be more expensive to build and harder to sync-up the timing of the coil excitations to get proper warp-field shape and structure. As such, vessels with two nacelles were a compromise between good maneuverability, build cost, maintenance requirements and complexity; and vessels of three nacelles were an attempt to get the same maneuverability and low-maintenance as four nacelles at lower cost while excepting the disadvantage of weird warp-field mechanics. It seems to me that vessels of four, staggered nacelles could do more than just have one or the other set active. it seems to me, by carefully manipulating the energy density at each set of nacelles, and each subset of coils within those nacelles, you should be able to vary the warp geometry between the two extremes, with the practical limit being the ability to calculate how the all warp fields interact. It also seems clear that warp coils made of different material --or, perhaps the same material but forged as a different meta-material crystals-- would change the warp-power curve. For example, the power requirement difference between low and high segments of a warp regime could be made to be less extreme, so that it would cost more energy to cruise at low warp integers --1.0wf, 2.0wf, 9.0wf, etc-- but less energy to cruise at high warp fractionals --1.9wf, 2.9wf, 9.9wf. In this example, if you spent more time in the higher warp factors, say 7wf to 9.99wf, it would cost you less to energy as a whole; but would cost more if you tended to cruise below 7wf. I suspect the Ent-D, for example, was expected to cruise below 7wf, which is why the transition between warp factor regimes is so extreme on her warp curve chart; where as, I suspect the Ent-E was designed to cruise in the higher 9wf regime for longer and so, by this guess, would have a far less saw-toothed energy curve. While we're on this subject, I've suspect that Vulcan warp rings can be thought of as a single, very large warp coil that would have exceptionally high efficiency at converting energy to warp fields and would have high manuverability, to boot. The warp geometry should be simpler to calculate, too, IMNO. The compromise would be high complexity, engineering-wise: lots of plasma conduits, plasma feeds, injectors, field manipulations... An engineering nightmare. However, I also suspect that early Vulcan warp rings were partially a duel particle accelerator system, and the accelerated beam met just below each warp coil segment. This would allow for the energy from a M/AM reaction or a fusion reaction to impinge on the coils without any need for dilithium. This would probably be a less efficient engineering solution but it would let you build warp-ships without any knowledge or access to dilithium.
Something interest about space is how stuff works... In an open system it flattens to a disk open meaning it is loosely interacting masses like a bad creates nebulae or asteroids creating belts and rings with other debris. In a closed system things round like in stars and planets and large asteroids... The ups and downs of space are nonexistent as to defined either you have to have a plane of reference. Like Earth is in space so if there is no up and down at all we wouldn't experience it here either. However up and downs referenced with gravity on a planet. So up is out and in is down. This applies to our spherical plane perfectly as once you reach the core up and down exists the same as like Space you run out of down just like if you go up you essentially run out there as well. But you don't your reference frame changed once you are out of earth up is the heliosphere of the sun. Because regardless of direction you are either going in or down to the sun or out and up from the sums influence. Then from there out reference becomes galactic in scales. You are either traveling in deeper or out deeper. Then finally between galaxies up becomes impossible there is only downs and from this point the centre of the universe either is a thing and you found true down... Or you can't find the thing this down is your own reference only being at your feet. Even if you curl up cause this has been a long time floating through the cosmos. You can't point your feet to be above your head. Though internally we would comprehend down as the base of our spine or tail bone.
To add I'd figure seeing as galaxies are dense open systems they are both spherical and flat in nature... Essentially being a 4th dimensional entinity that encloses other 4th dimensional entities. So the next stage at the observable universe would look funny cause everything overlaps in like a netting. Which isn't the case it's more like interwoven rings that's are also disks and balls. Likely the 5th dimensional base that sets out orbits direction as finite not infinite. The only point that other "realities" or the "multiverse" could be defined. I mean maybe if you are out that far and change angle you may not even be in our universal constants anymore.
There is no up or down in space, thats not because there literally isnt an up or down, just that up or down loses meaning. So a relativistic up or down is the only up or down that exists anyway, this works fine. Especially since we are talking about relative to its own nacelles.
Wasp is a tri nacelle design so has a more unstable warp field. As for the romulan war ships a lot of those have their nacelles positioned forward so they would sit in the back of the field.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 by the way sorry for some of the typos out there but it is kind of interesting to use that template on certain ships should try it on some other ships that are spaceships but not necessarily Star Trek and see how that would work
Grayscale logo? Also, I pronounce it "Zee" and don't really like "Zed". There is this thing I think you are overlooking in terms of maneuverability vs stability. Actually two things: (1) Moment of inertia. The further your pivot point is from your center of mass, the harder it is to rotate. I would like to hear how warp fields overcome this obstacle. (2) The pendulum rocket fallacy. The longitudinal position of the center of thrust doesn't matter unless the craft is very, very flexible (think Kerbal Space Program with auto strut turned off). I fail to see how the warp drive can produce stability or maneuverability unless a side-slip in the warp field produces a lateral force on the ship like the vertical stabilizer of an aircraft. But even then, the later force comes from the thing that the plane is traveling through (namely, air). Does subspace resist warp field movements in a way that manifests as a lateral force against the craft? If that's the case, then the diagram is reversed of what it should be (unless you have an explanation for why it's not that way). For alternate systems, I think I'll agree that tri-nacelles produce instability while turning while quad-nacelles produce more stability. I would also agree that tighter warp fields are more efficient. Don't quite remember what you said about distance between nacelles and stability or control, but I think putting the nacelles further apart will result in greater maneuverability at warp (more torque when nacelle power output is imbalanced) while tighter nacelles provide for more fine-tuning of the ships course. And for vertical position, I'm not exactly sure other than how tightly the warp field can be fitted around the ship (efficiency).
I terms of the moment of inertia having your ships center of mass ahead of the pivot point it allows you greater maneuverability but you do need the power to do so. I'm not clear on your 2nd point but we do see in designs like sovereign that a tighter Hull and warp profile is more advantageous.
This is a fascinating discussion. To me, this justifies Gene Roddenberry's rule of using warp nacelles in pairs. I do not see a single nacelle ship performing very well at all in this geometry. Having 2 or 4 nacelles provides much more versatility for starship design.
I wish I could leave picture comments. I have a class I made in Star Trek Online that I would love to see here. I call the Fortress class, after the Boeing bombers of the 20th century. Its an upgraded Prometheus but one set of nacelles are tucked in and the other are farther out.
I would put a deflector on the saucer and the the stardrive section, because why would you put a deflector behind the the habitat area that is just stupid so having both sections with a deflector would make some sense to me anyway.
When I first read Kobayashi Maru, I was shocked at what happened to both the Horizon and the Kobayashi Maru. But where did the Battle of Sol system in which book did that occurred??
After seeing this I was thinking. What if that's why we see all these ships always right side up to each other? Like the warp fields are tied to something like say the galactic plain. Meaning that a ship needs to maintain a certain orientation (within a reasonable amount) to enter warp. That would explain why ships are always right side up when they encounter each other. Food for thought.
First, I love all of this. Second, There doesn’t have to be an up and down is space or sub-space, because there is an up and down on any ship with artificial gravity. It’s reasonable to expect a ship’s AG systems would interact with the warp field.
I was thinking along those lines, too. It could also be a justification for ships always seeming to meet each other with their decks oriented to the same 'down' (Apart from I guess some general protocol that might be a pretty common idea for people that come from planets, at least if they don't normally meet each other hanging under branches or something.)
What happens when a ship doesn't have artificial gravity?
@@ransom182 What does? We haven't seen warp drive without it.
@@OllamhDrab do warp capable probes and torpedos have artificial gravity? If a starship turns off its gravity plating does the warp field just collapse?
@@ransom182 I presume by this train of thought, that's why probes and torpedos don't bother to have outboard nacelles. I mean, it's not too much of a stretch to figure that if you *have* artificial gravity, it applies to other spacetime effects, but if you don't, who cares. It just goes like it goes. Get it?)
I see you have changed your pfp to be without color. Understandable given the current event today. It is indeed quite tragic.
She was a class act if there ever was one. My sympathies to all my cousin's over the pond.
You put more effort into understanding and translating the Trek universe than the current show creators do.
Excellent work.
In all fairness at this point I’m not sure if that’s a compliment or a given
@@theharbingerofconflation He puts in more work than the any of the creators did for any of the movies or series, but ultimately it's not a real universe and there are contradictions. If there is a coherent explanation VenomGeek will certainly find it.
@@trygveskogsholm5963 I'd say Okuda is a Contestant
@@theharbingerofconflation Nah, he intentionally didn't put labels on the buttons so there wouldn't be contradictions or bloopers when the actor pressed the wrong button.
Venom would be telling the actors what "535" with a big rounded green button meant and why.
Some one Please make a new Starfleet command modern graphics with no modern writing -just like original were you control everything in ship .
Surprised you didn’t mention the Defiant. She would sit almost dead center in her warp bubble. Add in the additional effect of her overpowered warp engine.
The variable geometry of the Intrepid would be a video of its own. Basically being able to turn the poles of the individual nacelle warp bubbles in in themselves would make it a very interesting on its own.
This video has indeed been a long time coming. Nice to finally see it.
Looking at the examples in the video, it would seem that ships with high speed + stability or high acceleration + stability are rather rare.
Maybe kit bash one together. Find out why.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Though I do agree with use of additional nacelle for stability and maneuverability. And those effect undeniably did have some level of presence and could be tested especially around NX era. I personally fallow rule of tumb complaisant to Roddenberry rule that gains were typically negligible to justify costs of additional nacelles. I personally use separate explanation for multi-nacelle solutions, relevant to TOS era revolution and after. So:
- Single nacelle ships were usually substandard, short range ships. Most commonly constructed in pre-TOS era (around Kelvin specifically). They were mostly result of Starfleet, what just become Federation standard. Basically mass producing ships from similar modules. As small two nacelles were technically still better solution, though there is known effectiveness issue with those at the time.
- Two nacelle were standard.
- Three nacelle solution was most common in dedicated Battleships (expected to take a hits). It was combination of veritable geometry, emergency warp drives (best known in Federation and Dreadnought classes) and additional nacelle what allow ship stay operational, as nacelle lost was one of most common form of battle damage (stated additional effects were bonus).
- Quad nacelle in my opinion are systematic for deep space explorers. Those ships didn't have chance for rescue if warp engine was fried. So it did make sense for them to have two separate systems. Ability to switch between high acceleration and high speed mode, was just added bonus. It also decreased wear of systems, as one set could be in maintenance when other was still operational.
My guess is visually, it doesn’t easily look ‘cool’ but I’m gonna try some designs for that. We shall see….
Cool Video. How about two ships sharing the same warp bubble, I remember when seen done on screen the chief engineer is freaking out trying to keep up with the disruption, Has your experience with all things Star Trek lore given any details on when this happens? and would a mass going at warp speed if it was to enter a warp bubble would that bring the ship out of warp or just outright destroy it? If so, that would be a weapon within the relm of possibility in the Star Trk universe. IF I remember correctly gravitic weapons exist in the ST universe.
Excellent points, I can see where a difference in hull form and placement/location of nacelles would come into play with comparing the Constitution/Enterprise 1701A and the Belknap class or an Andor class.
This is interesting! I was a little confused at first where a Ferengi D'Kora class marauder would fit here at first though. I'd assumed it was a heavily armed and shielded cargo ship but the warp nacelles are located in relation to the hull much like a Klingon D-7 (pushing the hull forward and to the top of the warp bubble) which I assume would make it a fast light and nimble ship. Then again it's been described as an 'attack' ship as well so this kinda fits. Maybe the D'Kora's design is built more as a fast agile smuggling ship rather than a slow efficient transport ship? In 'Menage a Troi' LaForge does give the ships speed as almost as great as the Enterprise.
So about the up and down thing:
My idea is that rather say that there's an arbitrary direction in subspace or that direction is determined by the ship's artificial gravity (which can be shifted and changed), we simply consider that a warp field, like an electromagnetic field, has a polarity. This way the warp field can still have an "up" and "down (in the form of its north and south pole) and have the ship's performance at warp be influenced by being closer to either of these poles, without any particular artificiality.
It has to be like this for his system, otherwise a ship can just fly upside-down relative to the absolute subspace direction to flip acceleration and speed.
I don't find this scheme convincing, though. I adhere to the Starfleet Museum postulate that the flat shapes have warp dynamic effect because otherwise there's not a lot of sense to the shift from the Daedelus's spherical primary hull to saucers and this means there's another very large variable involved.
The colour change was an appropriate touch. Perhaps the hunt for the hutet video. Uss queen Elizabeth played a major role. Would be worth a rewatch.
Yesssss, good video for a sad day.
The video on warp speed combat a while back inspired me to worldbuild a universe where almost all combat took place at warp primarily because warp fields were used as both offense and defense. Instead of Shields or other sorts of passive defenses, ships primarily relied on warp integrity to stop incoming fire. Mass drivers using sustainer-engine-equipped projectiles and missiles with similar tech are the primary weapons in the setting.
It's very much a WIP and a side project, mostly to see how much I can stretch that one single concept rather than making a combat system that's a pastiche of other space operas.
You can also make a difference between missiles and torpedoes.
Missiles would be at non-warp/FTL speeds while torpedoes will be at warp/FTL speeds.
Heck could even make sub(space)marines even which are undetectable ar warp/FTL. And all Starfighters will be at warp speeds. Surface ships would be the only ones that can go either warp or normal.
Sorry, this is your setting, not mine. I just got a little carried away.
@@Marinealver Appreciate the ideas, but I'm trying to stick to a more expanse-style approach of having a limited set of weapons, with a more realistic physics/one big lie approach. Warp also doesn't use subspace, but I have something similar to that in my main sci-fi worldbuilding project.
But, yeah, it is a fun concept, isn't it? Feel free to use the ideas for your own stuff if you want. I've been a proponent of the idea that fiction is inherently derivative and it's just about how you use the pieces you have that makes it unique.
Basically what would happen would be gassification. So if you use a warp field to disintegrate an object, you end up with a spray of super-hot plasma in its place. Could even be a quark plasma if it's tearing atoms apart. Plus a lot of beta and gamma ray radiation, of course.
You missed single nacelle designs (Freedom Class, etc). Would indicate high acceleration and maneuverability. But it is also sitting in just 1 warp field instead of the overlap of the 2.
I'll cover that when i look at various nacelle configurations the main thing with monos is that they can't steer
Makes sense, altering the warp field of 1 nacelle vs the other(s) for turning...
Love all of this. Thank you for the hard works.
This is everything I like about trek.
Its the science in scifi
Whereas star wars is the fiction in scifi
Here, it may not have the grand, and galactic scale wars of annihilation
But you can understand it, you can follow it. It makes sense.
great work man! the up and down thing doesn't matter, cuz you're not talking about the ship relative to the universe, but relative to it's own nacelles.
I think your hypothesis needs refining. You really need to remove the need for subspace to having spatial references of up and down. You might want to use direction of travel as spatial reference instead and the warp field as a compression wave the ship travels in whether the center of mass of the ship is in relation warp nacelles. As far as acceleration and top speed comes down to power and projecting that power though nacelles( ie. How many warp coils, how densely they are packed), subspace streamlining does have a effect also. I can agree on the distance between naccelles affecting maneuverability and top speed. I can also agree that a tighter warp field is more efficient then a more oblate one. I hope I have given you food for thought on refining warp geometry.
Nicely put. It makes sense in-universe when you consider that the nacelles - for the most part, warp subspace rather than real-space. It's not completely clear though if the subspace warp creates a corresponding real-space warp or does something really complicated that enables the starship to accelerate past c.
Given that going to warp near a planet doesn't rip it to pieces or at least cause a tsunami suggests the latter, as does the need for inertial dampeners, which wouldn't be necessary for a real-space warp, although don't quote me on that last point.
I like this! It is a solidly reasonable analogy for warp field geometry. All other things being equal, primarily technology of the super advance kind, this works!
Favourite Ship Classes
1).Odyssey/ YorkTown/ Lexington Class
2).Sovereign/Noble Class
3).Venture/ Cygnus Class
4). Nimitz Class
5). Nova Class
6).2009 JJ Constitution Class
7). Obena Class
8). Valiant Class
9). PathFinder Class
10). Sagan Class
I just noticed that in the bottom of the warp field diagram you have a category named "warp engine systems" and under it a bar just titled "Coffee".
Suggesting that how much coffee the engineering crew has had will have an effect on the warp engine.
Don't you know that the most important piece of equipment on a modern Naval vessel IS THE COFFEE POT? I can show you DOZENS of warships where weapons, engineering, and sensor systems don't work properly, but those ships are still going underway. Show me just ONE SHIP UNDERWAY where the coffee pot doesn't work. Hell, US Navy ships carry Star Bucks products to improve crew efficiency. :D
Zee or zed, doesn't matter. The English is malliable, which to me contributes to its survival and popularity lol.
Great video, but you have the Y & Z switched. Y is left to right and Z is up and down. Case in point from Admiral Kirk himself in ST:2 TWoK when he ordered the Z-Minus 10,000 meters maneuver to take advantage of Khan's two-dimensional thinking.
Hi mr. VGM(Venom Geek Media), I am Aahlaad Nagesha, your videos are good but, I like your battlespace series more so can you make more battlespace videos?
Hello Venom.
I really liked this video. Well done. You explained things pretty well, and showed with graphics the various aspects of varying positions of warp fields generated from Nacelles.
I would love if you could create a graphic for me.
Back during a period (roughly from 1983 through 1990) of time, I was a part of a Trek based Creative Writer's Group. In that group, I created my own species and their technologies and ways of building star ships. For my 'race', I decided that other than heavily armored exoskeleton combat suits, that they would build their star ships in an 'odd' manner. Let me explain.
The Kindred Compact built their star ships after capturing several pirate vessels. Pirates that were capturing ships for the slave trade. Slavery was anathema to my species and racial mores, so pirates were hunted down after a small pirate ship landed upon one of my colony worlds and attempted to capture its population as slaves. Using their armored warriors, they were able to capture or kill the pirates, and take over their landed spaceship. Using the ship's data banks, the Kindred were able to translate the ship's service manuals and operations manuals, and pilot the ship back to their home world, where the ship was deconstructed, and its various systems studied in detail.
With experimentation, the Kindred discovered that multiple warp nacelles could be used to 'streamline' the shape of a ship's warp field, thus increasing its effectiveness. Also, the Kindred 'blended' the power of multiple smaller warp cores to produce higher amounts of available power for their warp fields.
Thus, they designed and built ships that were basically solid geometrically simple shapes. Faceted 'gemstone' shapes, usually lozenges, where multiple nacelles were housed above and below the ventral and dorsal hull plating, partially inset into the ship's hull, with retractable protective armor plating. This plating would move into place to cover and protect the nacelles in sub-light maneuvering, leaving only the 'exhaust ports' of the ship's massive impulse drives exposed.
During warp maneuvers and overall warp travel, the armor plating would be retracted into the hull of the ship to allow such usage and not interfere with generating the warp bubble(s).
Kindred ships usually have a ratio of length to width to height as follows... Overall Length X, Width 1/2 X, and Height 1/10th X. So, a ship 1,000 meters long would be 500 meters wide, and 100 meters tall. These are maximum numbers for a given ship's length, and most would be somewhat lower than given maximal figures. For instance... The Naruna Class Heavy Cruiser is 991 meters long, 432 meters wide, and 98 meters tall.
Warp Nacelles are always in the after third of the overall hull, and always placed in equal numbers dorsally, and ventrally.
As mentioned, the Kindred used smaller drive cores and smaller nacelles, but their use of them was in the blending of multiple core outputs, and using multiple nacelles to 'flatten' the overall warp field, making it more efficient. This resulted in ships that were long, flat, lozenges in shape, with massive numbers of weapons along their sides, fore, and aft, with relatively few to zenith and nadir.
This led to the Kindred massively armoring their ships with thick plates of armor, as well as building them with 'bulk heads' in a manner that would channel the 'explosive' effects of incoming Enemy fire and either dissipating it, or venting it to space at some other point along the hull.
In general combat operations, Kindred ships 'pump down' the entire ship to near-vacuum state, and ALL personnel wear a form of light powered armor. Out of combat, only the 'on duty' personnel are required to wear the armored 'Ship Suit' while on duty, although every crew member has a Ship Suit, and wears it while on duty... All ship's personnel wear Ship Suits, with the ship pumped down to near vacuum state for combat operations, or dangerous operations where extensive damage to the ship might occur.
Given my descriptions, can you create a graphic of the average Kindred Naruna class vessel?
Space isn't 2D? Don't worry, you're not Khan! ...right?
I hadn't considered how distance between nacelles could have an effect on things. I tend to think of nacelles as, say, screws/propellors and paired nacelles (ie standard Starfleet practice with line of sight between nacelle warp grilles) as also rudders via warp field connecting the two nacelles. More space between nacelles could lead to more energy bleed off into space, but also more space for a "rudder" to "swing" and have an effect. So a single nacelle ship would have the equivalent of an outboard motor or azimuth thruster for its warp drive, while most ships would have a two screw, 1 rudder set-up. The quad nacelle ships we've seen are 4 screws two rudders. Tri nacelle designs... the Chevron style like on Gal-X? 3 screws, 2 rudders. The V style? Not sure. I mean, it'd be 3 screws, 1 rudder, but it's like for some reason they stuck the third screw past the rudder instead of before it. Or maybe it's 2 screws + 1 rudder + 1 azimuth thruster?
Something to get Drach back to discuss, maybe? ;)
Could we get a follow-up at some point on how warp speeds might be affected by where the warp field comes out of the nacelles? After all, Defiant (and DSC S1 designs) have rear facing warp grilles, which would seem like it would have the warp field strongest at the rear and weakest at the front. And if you need overall Cochrane strength in the field above a certain threshold for a given speed, that would imply having to pump more power in than required in order to get the front of the field past the threshold (though maybe that's dependent on ship size?). Perhaps also where the placement of the nacelles could affect the overall strength of the warp field? And what does that mean for the warp "bubble" for ships with no "outward" facing warp grilles, like TOS Connie?
Hummm... And how will this apply to :
- Single nacel ships like Saladin class
- Vertical aligned warp nacels ships like Akula class and some (potentially) alien ships.
Single nacelles are hard to turn. Vertically aligned nacelles mean you steer by banking and rolling
You know, fun idea, for all those nitpickers who yabble on about space not being 2D. How about you give them the answers? I mean some of yours viewers are quite scientifically knowledgeable, so they may actually find that interesting and engaging and the others would finally shut up and learn a bit respect.
So how do you apply this to borg cube ? is it like D'deridex its perfecly sits in own bubble ? (though borg cubes use transwarp so again maybe its diffrent?).
I wouldn't dare speculate if it even had a warp field.
Shows some of the differing priorities in the designs of the Constitution and Miranda classes.
Both have similar efficiency and manoeuvrability. The Constitution is optimized for cruise performance, ideal for longer distance exploration and longer patrols. The Miranda is more like a Klingon design, with her higher acceleration better suited to a rapid response over a shorter distance.
And the poor old Oberth is built for cruise and stability, more like a freighter than most Starfleet ships!
I got interested in warp field geometry from the episode about the traveler in TNG. From my understanding, he created his own neural link between himself and the computer. Using that link, he used the mental energy of people to alter the warp field of the enterprise to accelerate to speeds beyond normal. What amazed me was how the created field was so stable that the ships structural integrity wasn't tested during the travel. We've also seen times were the warp field worked in tandem with the deflector field to create transwarp and slipstream.
You didn’t mention the true mission of the Steam Runner class. The steam runners special was that it was a long range artillery ship. It has tri cobalt device launchers and Carries a good supply of them. It can launch them at range at borg ships or any enemy ships.
“Some sort of subspace nonsense” could be used to replace at least 80% of TNG-era technobabble
Maneuverability? I thought in Voyager they basically said you're moving in a straight line during Warp, no matter what. Paris even had a little jingle: "Faster than light, no left or right."
Yeah but that's voyager.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 😂😂😂
how would the Defiant fair in this respect?
2:07 I get what you’re going for, but I think a better way to express this would be to say the ship (and its nacelles) still cares about its own local “up or down” (possibly, as suggested in another comment, due to an interaction with the ship’s artificial gravity field). And the only reason I say this is due to that scene in Enterprise where the Columbia is flying inverted relative to the Enterprise before they match speeds and Trip transfers via cable. That still works with everything else in this video if the up and down is localized.
Yeah the field effectively having its own internal poles.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 That's probably a better way of expressing it. Instead of "up" and "down," each end of the diagram represents a "performance pole" where a given attribute is stressed and certain "attributes" conflict by nature.
I found this very interesting, I’ve also always kind of wondered about the Voyager episode where they had one good nacelle, but still had warp.
What about the ring ships? What would their warp field geometry look like?
Generally the Hull sits in the middle as is the mass. Its a very stable field and can give tons of power but you cannot turn.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 Thank you.
i woud think 4 nacelles would be the best.
Vulcan ring ships might be a nice little add on to the warp geometry discussion. They are technically mono nacelle and every once in a while in trek they do feature craft with significant negative space. IIRC the warp pocket is responsible for the ion trail people track.
One idea I haven't seen is a flotilla ship where the nacelles are a swarm of warp tugs but I have heard detached nacelles are a thing in the newer programs.
Cheers!
Iirc the warp and ion trails are similar but not identical. A warp trail is basically the wake left in subspace by a vehicle travelling faster than light - the Enterprise’s wake in Beyond comes to mind - and an ion trail is caused by the deflector shields colliding with the interstellar medium and ionizing the trace gasses and dust.
They’re basically two separate wakes left in real and sub space.
@@joshuahadams I've heard that the warp fields overlap in some places causing spacial anomalies which I would think lead to ions.
That being said it's more of headcannon than cannon since it's been a while since I've watched trek.
No up and down but there is top and bottom.
The warp bubble has no relevance.
Ok sorry I know you did make the point we assume a up and down.
But I would like to take the point of:
Front manuvabile
Back stable.
Like a raindrop. Where the front is more effected by force.
But I don't like the up and down thingy. I did thought of that part more like:
If you have to shove it up against the ships gravity and feed it from "down".
You have a. Stable output. But if you slope it in from above it's like a gravity feed engine.
It's easy to get fuel in and ramp the engine. But it's hard to starve it to don't be so fule intense without collapsing the feld
And why does up and down matter there? I don't fucking know.
I would take the ships gravity and the alignment of the engine to each other.
If you would Flipp them they wouldn't point the same side to each other.
So to conclude: I would be aligned to monste sad. But would put acceleration to designe:
How they feed the engine. And that's changing the designe....
Maybe it hust have to do with some tech bale where the core sides relativ to the ship
Personally, I think speed is determined more by size of the warpfield in the direction of movement. A long nacelle allows for the field to thrown fowrad or back. Maneuverability would be dependent shifting the warpfield to bias one direction. That is why spreading the nacelles out can provide greater maneuverability. Acceleration is dependent on the steepness of the warpfied.
As for the center of mass being off center, I would say that has more to do with where the ship's engines (Matter/Ant-matter) and Warp core are located and the need for the warp field to not interfere with the energy flow.
Nacelle length does affect power too. And I will probably delve into different nacelle types and their traits.
@@venomgeekmedia9886
Very true. I make head canon/sense that to throw a warp field further forward or to increase the warp gradient would require more power.
to be clear, all this is during warp right? during sublight manoeuvring is all together different?
Yes.
My prayers are with you today
What would you consider the limits of maneuver at warp? Let me expand a bit; with a bike, a car, an airplane, or a ship; at top speed you will have a larger turning radius than at slower speeds. It seems that their would be a limit of change from one's base heading before it would be easier (or safer due to stresses on the ships frame) to drop out of warp and change directions. It seems to me that something greater than a 45-90 degree course correction might require a ship to drop out of warp to change heading. Your thoughts sir.
Or a drop to a lower warp speed. That's more preferable. So as you approach an objective you'd drop to lower warp speeds so you dropped out of warp in the correct position.
One way you could justify the top and bottom in space could be related to the gravitational field interference with the warp field that makes the warp field's effect interact with the ship's orientation in relation to its artificial gravitational field
That is a really smart workaround!
I'd love a video break down on Starship combat in a 3 Dimensional space. Covering firing/firing arcs vs. speed/maneuvering against angle of attack distance factors and inclusions of facts from your previous videos using weapons data. I think you could not only narrate but depict a very interesting battle break down
You can throw out all of this video after mentioning subspace. The beauty of warp travel is that you don't leave normal space. This is the reason you must take consideration of the position of the planets and other structures to avoid collisions.
The main thing it would affect is steering. The saladin would be hard to turn at all. And the akula would bank and roll.
If we were to apply the graphs to Dominion ships or at least the main 3 that we saw during DS9, we see that the smaller fighter stands higher on the Y-Axis with a small lean going towards manoeuverability, With the standard Mantis class we see that it rides lower on the Y-Axis with a heavier leaning on manoeuverability at least if we're countng the dorsal nacells, the battleship rides closer to the balancing point much like the D'Deridex class.
Well interestingly the two dominion capital ships are one of the few 24th century ships which have dual mode nacelles.
Nice explanation
I vaguely recall seeing a graphic of the Enterprises warp field where the warp field was centered on the front of the warp nacelles. But my memory sucks so...
Possibly. I've seen that graphic where the warp field is very similar to a magnetic field.
I have a book on Star Trek from the 80 that depicts this as well. The theory in the book was that Starships "projected" or "threw" their war fields out in front of the ship and the speed at which this was done along with the size of the field dictated how fast the ship could travel. Having two engines allowed you to alternately "throw" a field from each engine, doubling efficiency. The warp engines would also be "cycling" ie "pulsing" their matter-antimatter reaction, meaning that more advanced engines could create stronger fields and "refresh the power" of those fields faster. Keep in mind, that this "pulsing or refreshing" is probably occurring in milliseconds like the refreshing of a computer screen. We can all see the difference between a refresh rate of 60 and 120 in our monitors, so I'm inclined to believe warp cores operate in a similar way. That's why the STNG series ships have light pulses running in their cores. It's the warp engines cycling.
The original concept was sort of like in sailing where the sail catches the wind creating a low-pressure zone in front of the boat and a high-pressure zone behind the boat. The wind wants to collapse that low-pressure zone and moves there pushing the boat along with it. The warp fields apparently act the same way. Thus, if this book is to be believed, warp speed is based on the power (intensity of the low-pressure zone) and size (or the distance of movement) of the warp field in question. This is why a ship can also expand its warp field to "share said field" with another ship.
Hi. Woow! Its soooo fascinating!!! 😂 I wonder if you could do geometry video for Galaxy NCC 1701 D? Maybe including the Manual for Engineering? I do have doubts here. Dilithium crystal acts like piezoelectric, bringing more % of matter and antimatter together, which gives us plasma for Electroplasma Conduits, which are already filled with it, which fill more and more, raising pressure and may blow up sometimes, thats why Nacelles may be vented when necessary, right? If so, where exactly in each Galaxy nacelle is the venting port and where inbetween MARA engineering matter antimatter reactor and the Nacelle plasma can be vented in case Pressure is too high?
Thanks for exciting Channel and Video!
mwuaah!
Kylie Desire
France, Paris
YES! YES! YES!
Where do Cardassian ships put their warp nacelles?
Very far forward in the wing section.
How the heck do you get this information? 👍😀
My own head ;)
@Venom Geek Media 98 -
the in front of warp field variant @ 4:30 is basically like the "Eurofighter" (alias "Jäger 90") with its steering wings in front of the main wing
Interesting. Didn't realise it used the canards for maneuvering
@@venomgeekmedia9886 -
these canards in front of the main wing makes the Eurofighter extra maneuverable but also extra unstable , without all these permanent corrections by the onboard computer , it could not fly ...
I must compliment U on U're displays & narrative. Using said, it would all point to the Steamerunner class as a near perfect design. But using the "Zed" axis as the focal point. W/ one nacelle out, the warp field geometry would have to be tuned or redefined. Hence, X & Y axis can be tune. No? There is too much "Cannon" regarding modifying warp signature.......yes. Kirk & Picard were notorious for this practice. As a base...Kudos, seriously. Many thanx 👍👍
Fascinating. I like this.
I always assumed starships with only one nacelle had four warp coils in the nacelle: dorsal-port, dorsal-starboard, ventral-port and ventral-starboard . Extra energy into the dorsal coils would steer the ship aloft; extra energy to the ventral coil would steer it alow; and similar energy gradients port and starboard would steer the vessel horizontally. (Of course, it could be opposite --excess ventral energy steers aloft-- but it would hardly matter for the point I'm making.) I also always assumed the difference in distance between the starboard-most and port-most coils would be so low in a one-nacelle vessel that her maneuverability would suffer severely.
Furthermore, I figured vessels with four nacelles would have one warp coil per nacelle and balancing/diverting energy to these different coils steer the vessel in the same way but have much higher maneuverability and, since there would be more available mass per coil to absorb more energy, such a vessel could achieve faster speeds and while reducing wear and tear on the coils; however, they would be more expensive to build and harder to sync-up the timing of the coil excitations to get proper warp-field shape and structure.
As such, vessels with two nacelles were a compromise between good maneuverability, build cost, maintenance requirements and complexity; and vessels of three nacelles were an attempt to get the same maneuverability and low-maintenance as four nacelles at lower cost while excepting the disadvantage of weird warp-field mechanics.
It seems to me that vessels of four, staggered nacelles could do more than just have one or the other set active. it seems to me, by carefully manipulating the energy density at each set of nacelles, and each subset of coils within those nacelles, you should be able to vary the warp geometry between the two extremes, with the practical limit being the ability to calculate how the all warp fields interact.
It also seems clear that warp coils made of different material --or, perhaps the same material but forged as a different meta-material crystals-- would change the warp-power curve. For example, the power requirement difference between low and high segments of a warp regime could be made to be less extreme, so that it would cost more energy to cruise at low warp integers --1.0wf, 2.0wf, 9.0wf, etc-- but less energy to cruise at high warp fractionals --1.9wf, 2.9wf, 9.9wf. In this example, if you spent more time in the higher warp factors, say 7wf to 9.99wf, it would cost you less to energy as a whole; but would cost more if you tended to cruise below 7wf. I suspect the Ent-D, for example, was expected to cruise below 7wf, which is why the transition between warp factor regimes is so extreme on her warp curve chart; where as, I suspect the Ent-E was designed to cruise in the higher 9wf regime for longer and so, by this guess, would have a far less saw-toothed energy curve.
While we're on this subject, I've suspect that Vulcan warp rings can be thought of as a single, very large warp coil that would have exceptionally high efficiency at converting energy to warp fields and would have high manuverability, to boot. The warp geometry should be simpler to calculate, too, IMNO. The compromise would be high complexity, engineering-wise: lots of plasma conduits, plasma feeds, injectors, field manipulations... An engineering nightmare. However, I also suspect that early Vulcan warp rings were partially a duel particle accelerator system, and the accelerated beam met just below each warp coil segment. This would allow for the energy from a M/AM reaction or a fusion reaction to impinge on the coils without any need for dilithium. This would probably be a less efficient engineering solution but it would let you build warp-ships without any knowledge or access to dilithium.
Something interest about space is how stuff works...
In an open system it flattens to a disk open meaning it is loosely interacting masses like a bad creates nebulae or asteroids creating belts and rings with other debris. In a closed system things round like in stars and planets and large asteroids... The ups and downs of space are nonexistent as to defined either you have to have a plane of reference. Like Earth is in space so if there is no up and down at all we wouldn't experience it here either. However up and downs referenced with gravity on a planet. So up is out and in is down. This applies to our spherical plane perfectly as once you reach the core up and down exists the same as like Space you run out of down just like if you go up you essentially run out there as well. But you don't your reference frame changed once you are out of earth up is the heliosphere of the sun. Because regardless of direction you are either going in or down to the sun or out and up from the sums influence. Then from there out reference becomes galactic in scales. You are either traveling in deeper or out deeper. Then finally between galaxies up becomes impossible there is only downs and from this point the centre of the universe either is a thing and you found true down... Or you can't find the thing this down is your own reference only being at your feet. Even if you curl up cause this has been a long time floating through the cosmos. You can't point your feet to be above your head. Though internally we would comprehend down as the base of our spine or tail bone.
Gas not bad... Autocorrect is completely indifferent to context
To add I'd figure seeing as galaxies are dense open systems they are both spherical and flat in nature... Essentially being a 4th dimensional entinity that encloses other 4th dimensional entities. So the next stage at the observable universe would look funny cause everything overlaps in like a netting. Which isn't the case it's more like interwoven rings that's are also disks and balls. Likely the 5th dimensional base that sets out orbits direction as finite not infinite. The only point that other "realities" or the "multiverse" could be defined. I mean maybe if you are out that far and change angle you may not even be in our universal constants anymore.
There is no up or down in space, thats not because there literally isnt an up or down, just that up or down loses meaning. So a relativistic up or down is the only up or down that exists anyway, this works fine. Especially since we are talking about relative to its own nacelles.
I'm so where would the WASP fit in that bubble and the chips from the earth on Robin war fit into that template
Wasp is a tri nacelle design so has a more unstable warp field. As for the romulan war ships a lot of those have their nacelles positioned forward so they would sit in the back of the field.
@@venomgeekmedia9886 by the way sorry for some of the typos out there but it is kind of interesting to use that template on certain ships should try it on some other ships that are spaceships but not necessarily Star Trek and see how that would work
Grayscale logo? Also, I pronounce it "Zee" and don't really like "Zed".
There is this thing I think you are overlooking in terms of maneuverability vs stability. Actually two things:
(1) Moment of inertia. The further your pivot point is from your center of mass, the harder it is to rotate. I would like to hear how warp fields overcome this obstacle.
(2) The pendulum rocket fallacy. The longitudinal position of the center of thrust doesn't matter unless the craft is very, very flexible (think Kerbal Space Program with auto strut turned off). I fail to see how the warp drive can produce stability or maneuverability unless a side-slip in the warp field produces a lateral force on the ship like the vertical stabilizer of an aircraft. But even then, the later force comes from the thing that the plane is traveling through (namely, air). Does subspace resist warp field movements in a way that manifests as a lateral force against the craft? If that's the case, then the diagram is reversed of what it should be (unless you have an explanation for why it's not that way).
For alternate systems, I think I'll agree that tri-nacelles produce instability while turning while quad-nacelles produce more stability. I would also agree that tighter warp fields are more efficient. Don't quite remember what you said about distance between nacelles and stability or control, but I think putting the nacelles further apart will result in greater maneuverability at warp (more torque when nacelle power output is imbalanced) while tighter nacelles provide for more fine-tuning of the ships course. And for vertical position, I'm not exactly sure other than how tightly the warp field can be fitted around the ship (efficiency).
I terms of the moment of inertia having your ships center of mass ahead of the pivot point it allows you greater maneuverability but you do need the power to do so.
I'm not clear on your 2nd point but we do see in designs like sovereign that a tighter Hull and warp profile is more advantageous.
The logo change is for the queen
This is a fascinating discussion. To me, this justifies Gene Roddenberry's rule of using warp nacelles in pairs. I do not see a single nacelle ship performing very well at all in this geometry. Having 2 or 4 nacelles provides much more versatility for starship design.
I wish I could leave picture comments. I have a class I made in Star Trek Online that I would love to see here. I call the Fortress class, after the Boeing bombers of the 20th century. Its an upgraded Prometheus but one set of nacelles are tucked in and the other are farther out.
have you not seen the BTS of new Star Wars and Star Trek? that is very cols to holodecks. but i agree with you.
I would put a deflector on the saucer and the the stardrive section, because why would you put a deflector behind the the habitat area that is just stupid so having both sections with a deflector would make some sense to me anyway.
When I first read Kobayashi Maru, I was shocked at what happened to both the Horizon and the Kobayashi Maru. But where did the Battle of Sol system in which book did that occurred??
how do the interactions between warp field afftec how you line up your fleet for large battles.
After seeing this I was thinking. What if that's why we see all these ships always right side up to each other? Like the warp fields are tied to something like say the galactic plain. Meaning that a ship needs to maintain a certain orientation (within a reasonable amount) to enter warp. That would explain why ships are always right side up when they encounter each other.
Food for thought.
The D'deridex is the best looking TNG era ship
Head canon is essential .
His head cannon is better than the real cannon these days. LOL
@@thetrekwrightchannel4186 indeed
@@thetrekwrightchannel4186 yep, hell yes!