Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
I think just having the shuttlebay would be fine, and then for the existing 2 slots one would be a cargo bay and the other probably some sort of workshop or transporters or something. I'd honestly rather save the cost and mass on the extra slot in the secondary hull because I don't think having that third bay would meaningfully add more to the primary goal capabilities. Would it help? Sure. But I don't think it'd be cost effective for the primary request, and as a reminder the only two things specified in the brief are combat and cargo (by my reading).
If we do end up with a third slot I'd honestly push for an expanded marine complement or similar, to help fend of pirate attacks boarding other ships or colonies.

Edit:
Another way of reading it is that a shuttlebay is a locked 3rd aux slot and the labeled +aux slot option is a fourth slot. Which I don't think is necessary.
 
Last edited:
Maneuverability is directly correlated to engine power related to overall mass. Each engine is assumed to be able to move 100kt at "medium" effectiveness. Asking the same engine to move 200kt will get you "slow". It's a scaling modifier to your sustained damage output (ie, keeping the target in your best arc), capping out at having double the engine power needed. So having 600kt of engine thrust for a 300kt ship, for example. Which is hard. Easier on smaller ships.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Huh, just realized with the 4 engines and smallest secondary hull on a half saucer base we get that perfect maneuverability. Full sustained damage even with even small and therefore cheap phaser coverage.
I don't think that's where we should go on this build, but it's worth being aware of.
 
Last edited:
CuriousRaptor said:
This isn't an explorer which would serve as a scout. This is the utility cruiser.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Explorers will be capital ships in a warfitting and not the things we would be using to scout.

In peacetime, explorers will be out in unknown space, not available for scouting out for pirates and patrolling the borders of the neutral zone. Giving this thing the ability to do so when internal peacekeeping is a stated goal and It is intended to be a combatant in any war that pops up just gives it extra utility.
 
CuriousRaptor said:
This isn't an explorer which would serve as a scout. This is the utility cruiser.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Explorers tend to be more ship-of-the-line when we're in a war; as a side effect of how Going Boldly years away from help means they generally need to be able to get themselves out of trouble, and thus tend to be fairly well armed.
Lavaflow said:
I think just having the shuttlebay would be fine, and then for the existing 2 slots one would be a cargo bay and the other probably some sort of workshop or transporters or something. I'd honestly rather save the cost and mass on the extra slot in the secondary hull because I don't think having that third bay would meaningfully add more to the primary goal capabilities. Would it help? Sure. But I don't think it'd be cost effective for the primary request, and as a reminder the only two things specified in the brief are combat and cargo (by my reading).

If we do end up with a third slot I'd honestly push for an expanded marine complement or similar, to help fend of pirate attacks boarding other ships or colonies.



Edit:

Another way of reading it is that a shuttlebay is a locked 3rd aux slot and the labeled +aux slot option is a fourth slot. Which I don't think is necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The thing is that going up to the full size engineering hull is only 20 ktons more than the shuttlebay by itself, and makes the ship effectively mathematically equivalent to a full saucer, blister and no secondary hull in terms of overall cost for the hull. Which is still well in budget.
Since the stuff that goes in the aux slots is largely free/rolled into the cost of having them to start with, there's really not a lot of incentive to skimp here.
 
Last edited:
So are there any potential prototypes to test that might have extra cost
Maybe a Mark 2 impulse we have been using them forever or perhaps new warp coils like when we got the 1B
 
Last edited:
Captainwolf said:
Ok, so with 3 engines,
Ventral: 190k mass, 300k thrust (high agility?)
Ventral shuttle: 210k to 300 thrust, so still good
Ventral engineering: 230k to 300, so either high end of medium or low end of high agility
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think there's going to be one more round of mass increases, since we've still got nacelle configuration to vote on, and I don't think it's likely that the 4 nacelles and the associated connections is going to mass the same as just two.

On the other hand I think we've still got a bit more wiggle room for agility than what you're describing with the Ventral Engineering and 3 engines. The Curiosity managed to reach Medium maneuverability with only 2 engines on a 270k ton hull, so 3 engines on 230k would likely be solidly High IMO.

Which makes me wonder now: If we'd be willing to accept the same maneuverability the Curiosity's have to get their single phaser pair in arc, and compensated for any short fall in tactical ability with the second pair covering a different arc so it doesn't need to maneuver as much, would that tradeoff be worth it to do something with an extra nacelle to improve the FTL characteristics without going over budget on credits?
 
manamyst said:
So are there any potential prototypes to test that might have extra cost
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Don't think there will be; we prototyped a whole slew of stuff on the Curiosities specifically so it'd be ready for this and the Explorer and I don't think cramming loads of prototype tech in this would be wise unless it's something really really juciey we're going to absolutely want for the new Explorer.
7th Hex said:
I think there's going to be one more round of mass increases, since we've still got nacelle configuration to vote on, and I don't think it's likely that the 4 nacelles and the associated connections is going to mass the same as just tw



On the other hand I think we've still got a bit more wiggle room for agility than what you're describing with the Ventral Engineering and 3 engines. The Curiosity managed to reach Medium maneuverability with only 2 engines on a 270k ton hull, so 3 engines on 230k would likely be solidly High



Which makes me wonder now: If we'd be willing to accept the same maneuverability the Curiosity's have to get their single phaser pair in arc, and compensated for any short fall in tactical ability with the second pair covering a different arc so it doesn't need to maneuver as much, would that tradeoff be worth it to do something with an extra nacelle to improve the FTL characteristics without going over budget on cred
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, frankly, I don't think we want to do much more fiddling with nacelles this generation - if we'd gone for a full saucer I might have suggested a vertical configuration for better cruise, but as it is I think we're just going to be arguing over standard cruise or sprint configurations when we get to that point.
 
Last edited:
7th Hex said:
I think there's going to be one more round of mass increases, since we've still got nacelle configuration to vote on, and I don't think it's likely that the 4 nacelles and the associated connections is going to mass the same as just two.

On the other hand I think we've still got a bit more wiggle room for agility than what you're describing with the Ventral Engineering and 3 engines. The Curiosity managed to reach Medium maneuverability with only 2 engines on a 270k ton hull, so 3 engines on 230k would likely be solidly High IMO.

Which makes me wonder now: If we'd be willing to accept the same maneuverability the Curiosity's have to get their single phaser pair in arc, and compensated for any short fall in tactical ability with the second pair covering a different arc so it doesn't need to maneuver as much, would that tradeoff be worth it to do something with an extra nacelle to improve the FTL characteristics without going over budget on credits?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sayle said:
Tritanium Hull: 100 Federation Credits per 100,000 Tons.
Avidyne Type-1 Impulse Thruster: 200 Federation Credits
Type-2 Warp Coils: 200 Federation Credits per Standard Nacelle
Antimatter Pod: 100 Federation Credits

Type-1 Jameson-Korolev Shield Emitters: 1 Industry per 50,000 Tons.
Type-1 Phaser Emitter: 3 Industry per Weapon
Photonic Torpedo Launcher: 3 Industry per Weapon
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While going overbudget on the civilian side is excuseable if you produce a ship worth the extra expense, going overbudget on the allowed budget from Starfleet will likely see substantially fewer ships of your design produced and a reputational hit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I think given that we were told that going over on credits was acceptable, but not good, yet going over on industry was very very bad we would be much better off going maximum thrusters at 200 credits per than extra phasers at 3 industry per.
 
Last edited:
I really like the new dashed lines to indicate the potential options, thats a really nice change. Anyways, I think we should go with the shuttlebay+3rd aux slot. We still have plenty of room to get 3 engines to keep us at medium or high maneuverability, and it'll let us distribute our phasers really well for coverage, while also having plenty of industry for torpedoes.
 
Definitely feeling the shuttlebay and auxiliary slot might be the best here.
It's supposed to be a utility ship, after all.
At the very least, the shuttlebay is needed for general use.
Search and rescue, transport, cargo delivery, etc.
 
Raw90 said:
I really like the new dashed lines to indicate the potential options, thats a really nice change. Anyways, I think we should go with the shuttlebay+3rd aux slot. We still have plenty of room to get 3 engines to keep us at medium or high maneuverability, and it'll let us distribute our phasers really well for coverage, while also having plenty of industry for torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think if we have high maneuverability we don't want high coverage, we want more phasers on a concentrated arc.
More coverage is better with lower maneuverability.
 
Golgotha said:
I think if we have high maneuverability we don't want high coverage, we want more phasers on a concentrated arc.
More coverage is better with lower maneuverability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a bit of a trap, since it assumes a 1-vs-1 combat. Having good coverage is vital for dealing with multiple combatants.
 
[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

Maybe this can be the Swan- or Goose-class with that kinda neck.
 
[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

Number-crunchers saying the math maths, and after pondering that this is, ultimately, a small multi-role ship, I agree with going all-in on this segment of the ship.
 
One extra deck doubles credit cost and almost doubles industry cost of the basic design. Doesn't seem efficient?
 
Aule said:
One extra deck doubles credit cost and almost doubles industry cost of the basic design. Doesn't seem efficient?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Only if you don't care about the shuttles at all. After all, it's not one extra deck over the basic design, it's one over the mid-level design.

Speaking of the middle design,

[X] 75-Meter Hull (+Shuttlebay)

I don't think we need the extra aux slot. It may technically be in budget, but there's an advantage to keeping these ships slim and mean.
 
[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

We're building an all-purpose workhorse here, not a warhorse, not a racehorse, a workhorse. Let's give her the tools to fill the role.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top