Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)

Deflectors directly in-line with the saucer worked when our deflectors were shallow and vertically compact - as it is now, my understanding is that the standard issue deflector array we'll be bolting to our ships is something like 3 freaking decks tall in normal configuration. The rim of the saucer is only just tall enough that the forward part of the saucer could house the deflector and its associated systems - and I'll note that "forwards" seems to also be a good direction to point more specialized sensor pallets or other scientific equipment, so avoiding filling a significant chunk of the forward saucer section seems like a good idea.

And, of course, there's also my interest in making a proto-Miranda or similar, to go along with the more generalist proto-Constitution that is the NX-class.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
I've been brought around by the arguments for an inline deflector. We've got a solid amount of space, more than half that of an NX-class, and as large as the deflector is, there's no reason at the moment to doubt that the hoped-for scientific equipment and sensors would be otherwise lost or diminished in some capacity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I will notice your use of "at the moment". Suppose the inline is larger than expected and/or the setup somehow interferes with lab and equipment capability or placement? Is that being adequately considered?
 
landcollector said:
I will notice your use of "at the moment". Suppose the inline is larger than expected and/or the setup somehow interferes with lab and equipment capability or placement? Is that being adequately considered?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The rule of thumb ought to be fairly simple: spend internal space on SCIENCE first, and then spend it on SCIENCE exclusively until there is no more SCIENCE left to spend it on, then if there's anything left over spend it on other things. The deflector is not a SCIENCE object, and there are SCIENCE objects left to buy, so internal space shouldn't be spent on it.
 
While I initially supported a blister deflector, arguments on cost given the ship's role brought me around to the centerline version- while the loss of internal capacity might be regrettable, it was reasonably pointed out that the large hull has that capacity to lose, in a way a smaller hullform wouldn't. And given we're not exactly designing the next Big Explorer Cruiser here I think we're fine. At worst we might have to skimp on secondary stuff like engineering capabilities, oh darn.

This ship doesn't have to be Super Excellent, just Good Enough.

Always remember that the greatest enemy of a good design is the dream of a perfect one.


(And the inline deflector explicitly lets us do something new with the nacelles, which I consider a bonus)


That said if the blister deflector wins out I'm not exactly going to do more than shrug and run with it, because I do in fact see the value in both options.
 
The Thunderchild's deflector is about 3 decks tall, as I recall. Project Brahe's deck count is likely taller than that, so we'll really only lose space at the immediate front of the vessel. It would interfere with putting things in front, but this isn't really a vessel overly concerned with directionality.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
The Thunderchild's deflector is about 3 decks tall, as I recall. Project Brahe's deck count is likely taller than that, so we'll really only lose space at the immediate front of the vessel. It would interfere with putting things in front, but this isn't really a vessel overly concerned with directionality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Brahe's saucer rim is three decks tall based on the LCARS in the last update, and based on prior experience with deflectors an inline deflector would take up those three decks until about the point where the rim widens into the bulge.
 
Fair enough. I'm not chuffed whether the blister or the in-line wins at this point. I'm ready to get on to internals or nacelles.
 
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)

Edit: Ah, no chance Engineering's winning, so going for the one that does and doesn't sacrifice internal space.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty much in the same boat. That said,
Adhoc vote count started by Mechanis on Nov 27, 2023 at 7:15 PM, finished with 204 posts and 85 votes.
Click to expand...

Blister is currently ahead, though it's pretty darn close.
Honestly I kinda want to push for a proto-Miranda either way, with the pod-type torpedo launcher included, now.


But I suppose that'll be determined by how experimental we are going to be allowed to go with the nacelle geometry. Three nacelles might be interesting too. (If we do that I would absolutely want us to buck the canon trend of putting it as a dorsal mount "above" the other two nacelles, and go for a ventral arrangement instead. But that's neither here nor there)
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Brahe's saucer rim is three decks tall based on the LCARS in the last update, and based on prior experience with deflectors an inline deflector would take up those three decks until about the point where the rim widens into the bulge.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, in lieu of eyeballing it, here is my best guess at the LCARSes of Project Brahe's saucer with Skate's and Thunderchild's deflectors, top and bottom respectively (done in Paint so no antialiasing, sorry).

 
Last edited:
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)

People seem to be scope creeping the meaning of the phrase "scope creep". Scope creep would be us adding in a lot of non-Science stuff to make this more of a(n undersized) generalist ship. Staying in scope means prioritizing Science and the ship's mission of surveying. Either way, this isn't the vote where we even could commit the dreaded scope creep. It's not about how much internal space we do or don't have. It's about how we use it.
 
Honestly for the skate type I would move it all the way to the edge of the saucer and take up part of the lowest fore deck. That way you only have to add a single extra deck to the fore of the saucer, and retain plenty of clearance for the navigational array.
And, of course, it should allow juuuuust enough room to squeeze a torpedo launcher in above it.
Edit: and obviously the Thunderchild type array would necessitate putting any torpedo launcher just fore of the navigational array, or in a pod Miranda-style if we can swing for that.
 
Last edited:
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)

Don't think we need a full secondary hull, but I don't want to decrease the internal space we already got from the saucer.
 
Derpmind said:
People seem to be scope creeping the meaning of the phrase "scope creep". Scope creep would be us adding in a lot of non-Science stuff to make this more of a(n undersized) generalist ship. Staying in scope means prioritizing Science and the ship's mission of surveying. Either way, this isn't the vote where we even could commit the dreaded scope creep. It's not about how much internal space we do or don't have. It's about how we use it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's more "budget creep" getting rolled into "scope creep" (which is fair, because in this case budget is part of the scope) because further increasing the size of the ship comes with a comeasurate increase in the cost of the ship, and I expect we're going to be building somewhere between "Many" and "ALL" of these things numbers wise to meet their planned mission role.

Especially if we can swing a workhorse proto-Miranda with the things.
 
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)

Internal space is more important for a science ship than some other designs because most options we have to increase the ship's science rating (extra labs, secondary computer cores, etc..) are picked during the Internals phase and require space. It's a good idea to ensure we have sufficient space for this, whilst also meaning we aren't forced into something really unfortunate like not being able to fit a shuttle bay or something.

This option preserves internal space whilst giving only a modest tonnage increase, and seems like a good compromise between affordability and essential functionality.
 
Zimmerwald1915 said:
Like so?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ash19256 said:
Only change I might make is to smooth out the weird hump behind the deflector blister - ie., make the deck just above the navigational sensor go straight forwards to the deflector, so you're not having weirdly shaped corridors/hull plates.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much this, yes. Gives it pretty reasonable geometry, all told.

And at this point the blister seems pretty close to a done deal, barring a sudden cascade of votes for inline.

Anyway I need to go aquire provisions so I'll see where we're at in an hour or so.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top