Nacelle Numbers

[Lighthawk]

I'm curious if there is an actual canon explination for why almost all UFP, and indeed most alien ships with visible nacelles, have just the pair of nacelles. Has it ever been stated offically why this seems to be the best configuration? And, offically or unoffically, just what benefits/penalties are there for just having one, or having more with three, or four? Has there ever been more than four on a ship?

[Mikey]

Non-canon, but Gene Roddeneberry's rules of starship design dictated that nacelles must always occur in pairs. This was obviously contradicted later on, but set the tone for the way starships were depicted. Of course, "pairs" could mean six or eight nacelles, but that would be a nightmare for model-building/filming.

The reason for that rule, as well as the rest of his rules, was awful, though. Franz Joseph, who had helped with a lot of TOS design, stood to make some money from the TOS TM - Roddenberry didn't want anybody but himself to make any money from Star Trek, so invented the idea of canon - and declared Joseph's designs (inlcuding the Hermes/Saladin and Federation) to be non-canon, inventing his rules of starship design (nacelles must be visible from the front, bridge must be on top, et. al.) to explain his decision.

[Bryan Moore]

No canon explaination, but a lot of the tech sites put it down to needing to create an efficient warp bubble geometry or something. Even Josef suggests that the 3 pairs of nacelles would only use 2 at a time, allowing the other to rest. I could be wrong on that part, though.

[Lazar]

He did also have 1-nacelle ships though.

[Sionnach Glic]

And we now have one in canon, too.

[Tyyr]

It's not official but my rationale for it had always been that the number of nacelles wasn't terribly important. The reason most starfleet ships have two is that it blends efficiency and maneuverability in the best proportions. You get good X/Y maneuverability but not much in the Z. Quad nacelle ships can either run off just two or use all four, with better maneuverability in the Z axis. A single nacelle ship like the Kelvin isn't terribly maneuverable.

[Mikey]

Also, camera-friendly symmetry.

It;s very possible that the number of nacelles has to do with the mystery religion known in 'Trek as "warp field dynamics." For us to talk about details of warp field dynamics, though, would be similar to having a discussion about the internal anatomy of unicorns and gargoyles.

[thelordharry]

The first ever Earth warp ship had two nacelles. Guess the rest followed on from there!

[Aaron]

I put it down to redundancy, it would be pretty crappy to have a nacelle break in deep space and have to wait for a tow. Two allows you to at least limp home.

[stitch626]

And Voyager showed that one nacelle travel on a two nacelled ship is possible, just not efficient.

[Teaos]

Lets not forget that symetry looks pretty, which is something the Federation apparently cares about.

[thelordharry]

Out of an old nuclear missile.

[Lighthawk]

Cool, thanks guys.

I guess I just found it odd there were so very few ships that didn't obey the rule of two. I rather like the quad nacelle designs really.

[Reliant121]

I like the Prometheus in design and purpose, just not the added feature of...-whispers- MVAM thats added.

[Teaos]

OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!! Someone said MVAM!!!! KILL THEM!!!!!!!!!!