Remove ads

Starship Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Adhoc vote count started by Vehrec on Oct 17, 2023 at 2:15 PM, finished with 51 posts and 28 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] Stick to the standards
-[X] Type-5 Avidyne Dual Impulse Thrusters
-[X] Recessed Navigational Deflector

[X] Relevant Innovation
 
If we are going for some innovation here whilst clinging to the dwindling hope that this ship will not be plagued with issues, it feels like the newer Type-7 impulse engines are probably a safer bet than the enhanced deflector?

For one thing, greater speed at impulse likely contributes more towards the design objectives, which is producing a capable combatant, not cruise speed. For another, impulse thrusters are an extremely well-understood technology which are probably less likely to produce catastrophic issues, just regular issues. Anything involving the words "warp" and "novel design" on the other hand, has a commensurately higher risk of the ship exploding, due to the sheer energies involved and the chance of potentially discovering novel subspace physics when operating in new parameters.

So I would rank the options as:
Slow but Steady - Highest chance of not having a major unforeseen issue scuppering the project.
Prep for the Ambassadors - Allows us to test the most new technologies for our flagship explorer.
Relevant Innovation - Attempts to balance project-relevant innovation and producing a working ship at the end.
 
[X] Stick to the standards
-[X] Type-5 Avidyne Dual Impulse Thrusters
-[X] Recessed Navigational Deflector
 
Remove ads
2338: Project Ferdinand (Warp Core/Nacelles)
  • Threadmarks
    • Order -> Spaceframe -> Warp Core/Nacelles -> Tactical -> Internals -> Prototyping -> Certification -> Final Review​
    -[X] Type-5 Avidyne Dual Impulse Thrusters
    -[X] Recessed Navigational Deflector

    You eventually decide that trying to reinvent the wheel one such a small chassis with limited options for remediation can be saved for another day, especially when there are choices in future where pushing a new system could be more impactful to the mission profile.

    As a result engines are stock standard, though lacking the space to install both you elect to centralise the thruster with only a small build-back to help focus the drive emissions. You ease your worries about potential performance shortfalls by running the numbers and confirming that even with the expanded secondary hull the ship is projected to mass around 400,000 tons to the Renaissance's 600,000. Her saucer measures 173 meters across to your last work's 219 meters, after all. Given the Renaissance was overpowered for her mass, the Ferdinand won't be seen as underperforming with half the thrust.

    With the most urgent ship-altering decisions out of the way, the only business that remains now is deciding on the placement of the nacelles. With the latest designs unavailable until the new warp core design comes down from Yoyodyne or another research group, that leaves the same fundamental arrangement as the Excelsior-class. Might be fewer or smaller warp coils, but call a spade a spade. The first option is to pull the nacelles close to the primary hull and keep the ship compact in much the same way as the Miranda-class. The tighter warp field would let you fit a smaller warp core, preserving some internal space for other systems.

    The other option is to do the opposite, and mount a pair of trailing nacelles that elongate the warp field into a distended oval. While you can't do anything about the cruising speed at this point, introducing a natural imbalance to the field gradient like that will allow greater compression of normal space at high power loads, and with it a substantially faster sprint. Could be handy for distress calls or emergency situations.

    [ ] Underslung catamaran nacelles. (More Internal Space)
    [ ] Underslung trailing nacelles. (Faster Warp Sprint)




    Project Ferdinand
    The ship should have sufficient tactical armament for convoy duty and responding to distress, as well as sufficient cargo space to act as a bulk hauler. It must have a crew of 100 or less.

    Minimum Tactical Rating: C
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • To be honest I'm not entirely sure the vote count was accurate? I can always switch it around if not, it just got a bit confusing reading the tally.
     
    By a glance, stick to the standards won. Tally is fucked but Stick got 15, Steady got 11, Innovation got 7, and Prep got 6 by my quick count
     
    Last edited:
    Here's the final vote tally sorted out. (The last one was picked up from the threadmark.) In the future, it would vastly help things if people used the word "Plan" at the beginning of their plan votes, as the vote tally automatically groups plans together only if they start with that word.
    Adhoc vote count started by Derpmind on Oct 17, 2023 at 3:58 PM, finished with 62 posts and 37 votes.
    Click to expand...
     
    Anyone have any suggestions for vote formats that won't mess it up?

    Edit: Nevermind. That's fine and easily fixed. The current vote can continue in the interim. It's a fairly clear binary choice that gives a minor benefit in either direction.
     
    Last edited:
    Derpmind said:
    In the future, it would vastly help things if people used the word "Plan" at the beginning of their plan votes, as the vote tally automatically groups plans together only if they start with that word.
    Adhoc vote count started by Derpmind on Oct 17, 2023 at 8:58 PM, finished with 62 posts and 37 votes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    This is another reason why I went for a different title on my vote, yeah.

    Sayle said:
    Anyone have any suggestions for vote formats that won't mess it up?

    Edit: Nevermind. That's fine and easily fixed. The current vote can continue in the interim. It's a fairly clear binary choice that gives a minor benefit in either direction.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I edited this in to my last post, but if you look at it, plans Slow but Steady and Prep both included the enhanced deflector, and collectively outweigh Stick to the Standards. So this result actually seems like fine compromise?

    I wouldn't go back and edit anything, waste of time.
     
    Derpmind said:
    Here's the final vote tally sorted out. (The last one was picked up from the threadmark.) In the future, it would vastly help things if people used the word "Plan" at the beginning of their plan votes
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Does Plan: still work or would you have to put a space in.
     
    Skippy said:
    I edited this in to my last post, but if you look at it, plans Slow but Steady and Prep both included the enhanced deflector, and collectively outweigh Stick to the Standards. So this result actually seems like fine compromise?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Um, I don't want to get too pedantic, but I think I might have voted differently had this been by line instead of by plan.
    LunaMoth said:
    Does Plan: still work or would you have to put a space in.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The following all work IIRC:

    [] Plan X
    [] Plan: X
    []Plan X
    []Plan: X
     
    [X] Underslung catamaran nacelles. (More Internal Space)

    I want this ship to be smol.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top