Warp Engines (number)

[skree]

The following was cobbled together from various sources (from here and eleswhere). Assuming Table 1.11 Starships book list the Engines as tandem.


SINGLE WARP ENGINES
• Space Cost: 1/2 Size(rounded up)
• Maximum Size: Size -1
• -1 to all Warp Factors and -1 to Reliability Rating (cannot go below Reliability Rating A)
• Starships with Single Warp Engine automatically gain Design Defect (Warp)[Flaw]

EXAMPLE: Lets say you want to mount a single PB-32 mod 3 on the starship you want to build. Looking at Table 1.11(p.13) of the Starships book, a PB-32 mod 3 has a Space Cost of 4+ half-size; Standard/Sustainable/Maximum speed 6/7/8, Maximum Size 6 and a Reliability Rating of a D.
Now, that is for Tandem PB-32 mod 3. To mount this as a Single Warp Engine on the Starship you want to build, The Maximum Size that a PB-32 mod 3 mounted singlarly would be Maximum Size of a 5. The Space Cost would be 4 (5/2=2.5(rnd up)3, 3+4=7,7/2=3.5(rnd up)4) The WF would be 5/6/7 with a Reliability Rating of C.


NOTE: Single Warp Engines are possible by 2227-2229. After 2269 Single Warp Engines on starships drop the Design Defect(Warp System )[Flaw]. Also, TNG Single Warp Engines drop the -1 to all Warp Factors and -1 Reliability Rating penalties.


SPECIAL NOTE: Any starship that has Tandem mounted engines half of the Maximum Size allowed, the ship gains a +1 benefit to all warp factors.
EXAMPLE: Lets say you want to build a ship that is Size 3 and you mount Tandem PB-32 mod 3 warp engines. Your Standard/Sustainable/Maximum speeds would be 7/8/9 instead of 6/7/8.

Look up Doppleganger Warp Drive on the Star trek Expanded
Also, take into account that that the USS Kelvin is canon. I have modified the date in which single engines become available __________________________________________________ _____________________________

THREE WARP ENGINES
THEORY: A three nacelle configuration gives a 1/3 more power to the warp drive, thereby giving greater acceleration and faster maneuverbility.

NOTE: However, in the first experiments*, the third nacelle accentuated discrepancies in the warp field causing warp vibrations. This creates diffuclties in steering, and would have resulted in the ship shaking itself apart at higher warp speeds. It was however noted that if the design was constructed perfectly it is possible for it to deliver what it promises.

*(Wasp-class 2178, Tritum-class 2200, Siegfried-class 2235, Federation-class 2249)
__________________________________________________ ____________________________
Side Note: With the operational failure of the transwarp drive propulsion system(2284). Federation engineers went back to improving basic warp technology. Conventional wisdom held that warp drive technology had reached its limits and that no major breakthroughs would occur. As has been the case since time immemorial, conventional wisdom was wrong.
A research team headed by Dr Katherine Ballantine created a computer model that postulated; "Using two "mated" pairs of warp engines, with a total of four separate warp field generators, each casting a single warp field ahead of an ongoing craft in a perfectly timed sequence of events. Resulted in a vessel moving continually from one warp field into another with the constant "shifting" acting as a multiplier effect."
The results were astounding. Warp technology had never been able to propel an object faster than Warp 14(2,744c). Using this model, Federation engineers were able to construct vessels using three or four warp engines. As with three warp engines the problem had been resolved by a simple timing of the three warp fields.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________

• Space Cost: Place an additional 1/2 Size(rounded up) to the normal cost.
• +1 to all Warp Factors
• Starships with Three Warp Engines automatically gain Design Defect (Warp System)[Flaw] Next Gen ships drop this Flaw.

SPECIAL NOTE: Three Warp Engines configurations are available by 2284.

FOUR WARP ENGINES

• Space Costs: Double the cost.

NOTE: Four Warp Engines configurations are available by 2284.

[TFVanguard]

The Starships book actually basically lists the 'entire engineering department' for each engine class, regardless of the number/size/type of nacells.

[Sarge]

I've thought about doing something like this for Spacedock. My thoughts ran toward some kinds of trade-offs between speed, efficiency, maneuverability, and reliability/maintainability. That's one of those projects that's always waiting for me to get that blasted round toowit.

[redwood973]

Sarge, I've long thought that was the only problem with the Spacedock system. There should be an SU cost savings only having one nacelle, but the trade off being a reduction on speeds available.

I'm surprised someone hadn't already worked something out for Spacedock. Anyone. . .???

[PGoodman13]

The Starships book actually basically lists the 'entire engineering department' for each engine class, regardless of the number/size/type of nacells.

CODA, while pretty abstract, does appear to assume twin nacelles, since that's what we've always seen on-screen. It wouldn't be at all difficult to create a system that builds on that and makes a differentiation between single-, dual-, and triple-nacelle systems. I know, because I've done it, and so has Skree. I've got a different approach and perspective than Skree does, but I don't see why there couldn't be an expansion of the existing system.

[Sea Tyger]

At this point in my Trek "life," I feel that the number of nacelles a ship has is a representation of a different way to shape the warp field to accommodate the spaceframe or other system/structural requirements.

However, these nacelle requirements still only make up a minor percentage of the total space requirement for a warp drive (we know this because warp nacelles are sized to fit the vessel and rarely take up a large percentage of the total volume of the ship...shuttles and runabouts have proportionately-sized nacelles, as do smaller fleet vessels (Nova-class surveyors, for example)); the majority of the drive's components are housed within the ship's hull.

So, I don't feel the need to quantify the effects of different nacelle configurations; however, I would say it would be appropriate for a ship to have, say, a "Vulnerable" propulsion system if it has only a single nacelle, to reflect the lack of redundancy if the nacelle is lost. "Hardened" propulsion would conversely be appropriate for triple/quad-nacelle configurations.

Those are palpable effects of varied nacelle quantities without having to modify the system and threaten its overall balance.

[TFVanguard]

CODA, while pretty abstract, does appear to assume twin nacelles, since that's what we've always seen on-screen. It wouldn't be at all difficult to create a system that builds on that and makes a differentiation between single-, dual-, and triple-nacelle systems. I know, because I've done it, and so has Skree. I've got a different approach and perspective than Skree does, but I don't see why there couldn't be an expansion of the existing system.

I think my issue is that, when looking at the Starships table, the 'lone nacelle' effects would generally (but not always) be the next step down on the Warp engine table. The PB-31 would become the PB-16, and so on, as far as the statistics generally go. This doesn't always work, unfortunately, due to some tech games (TOS-TMP being the most obvious), but it does seem to alleviate the need for a lot of the tables.

The other issue would be, of course, adding the effects to the table for Lone, Tandem, Triple, and Quad types, and what other effects the non-tandem alignments would have. Too much and you'll wind up becoming FASA.

[PGoodman13]

My idea for this is considerably simpler, I think, and works for what I want/need it to do. Your mileage may vary. Note that this implementation is mainly focused on the 22nd and 23rd centuries and the original Cochrane warp scale. I'm working slowly to bring it up to where it will handle 24th century ships and the modified Cochrane scale, but that's a very low priority of mine; I'm not a huge 24th century fan, so it gets bumped down the list a lot.

So, there you have it, complete with an explanation of my biases. Let me know what you think.

Optional Rules: Warp Drive

Starships rely upon warp drive to travel at the enormous speeds required for interstellar travel. Most warp drives rely on a standard twin-nacelle design. This is not universally the case, however. The Federation has experimented with single- and triple-nacelle designs at various times in their history, though never as famously as during the aggressive expansion and exploration of the mid-23rd century.

The rules for starship design, and specifically the warp drive tables, presented in the Narrator's Guide and Starships are based on standard twin-nacelle designs. These optional rules assume that about 50% of the space used by a warp drive is consumed by the actual engineering compartments, the warp core, the ship's overall power grid, and so on. They assume that the other 50% of that space is consumed by the nacelles themselves, their support pylons, appropriate plasma conduits, and so on. With that being said, it's easy to figure that a single-nacelle system would be roughly 75% of the space of a dual-nacelle system, and a triple-nacelle system would be roughly 125% of the space of a dual-nacelle system.

To simulate single- or triple-nacelle designs, the following optional rules can be used.

Single-nacelle Warp Drive

• Costs 75% of the space for a standard twin-nacelle system.
• Additionally, one of the following:

• Reliability reduced by one full letter code (D to C, CC to BB, and so on).
• Speed reduced by 1 warp factor per category (WF 6/7/8 would go down to WF 5/6/7).

Triple-nacelle Warp Drive

• Costs 125% of the space for a standard twin-nacelle system.
• Additionally, one of the following:

• Reliability increased by one full letter code (C to D, BB to CC, and so on)
• Speed increased by 1 warp factor per category (WF 6/7/8 would go up to WF 7/8/9).

EXAMPLES: A twin-nacelle PB-32 Mod 3 system costs 4 + half Size. For a Size 6 vessel (the drive’s Maximum Size), that’s 7 Space. A single-nacelle PB-32 Mod 3 would only take up 5 Space on a Size 6 ship. A triple-nacelle PB-32 Mod 3 on a Size 6 ship would cost 9 Space.
The single-nacelle system could propel a ship at the drive's rated speed of warp 6/7/8 with Reliability reduced to C, or at a reduced speed of warp 5/6/7 with its rated Reliability of D.
The triple-nacelle system could propel a ship at the drive's rated speed of warp 6/7/8 with Reliability increased to E, or at an increased speed of warp 7/8/9 with its rated Reliability of D.