Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
MJ12 Commando said:
Look, if we're so worried about cloaking ships and/or think it's a huge force multiplier, I will note that the Federation in this timeline has not signed any treaty limiting its use of cloaking devices.

So instead of putting anti-cloak sensors on an engineering vessel, maybe just build our own cloaked battlecruiser or something. Probably a better way of both understanding the limitations and benefits of cloaking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Cloaked Cargo ships, AKA 'Commerce Raiding? LOOOOOOL'.
 
I'd be surprised if there isn't a demilitarized version of this ship entering the Federation Merchant Marine within 5 years of project completion. Having a Warp 7 bulk cargo hauler when everything else is Warp 4 is going to get a lot of positive attention.
 
We should deginitly add a second shuttle bay with enough on ship manufactoring that the Harley could act as a carrier. We could even have enough space left to do it!
 
Endorfinator said:
I'd be surprised if there isn't a demilitarized version of this ship entering the Federation Merchant Marine within 5 years of project completion. Having a Warp 7 bulk cargo hauler when everything else is Warp 4 is going to get a lot of positive attention.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At a guess the cost of building and running a warp 7 engine kinda stops that kind of thing from being commonplace, but it makes sense for Starfleet because the need for speed is so great. After all, we're seeing civilian warp drives top out at warp 4 (64c) when warp 7 drive (343c) is a mature technology. We're transporting critical materials, maybe even weapons or troops. I could see this culturally encouraging us to push up our warp speeds, though.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, if we want to refit the Halley to a more modern standard of engine, the way to do it is to lop off the whole engineering hull and replace that.
 
Vehrec said:
Honestly, if we want to refit the Halley to a more modern standard of engine, the way to do it is to lop off the whole engineering hull and replace that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's probably enough to count as a full new design, but it could likely be designed and done pretty fast since using the same manufacturing for the Orb and fittings to attach the ship to the cargopod should be doable.

Like the way Starfleet tends to reuse saucer designs.
 
Last edited:
Cold Dust said:
At a guess the cost of building and running a warp 7 engine kinda stops that kind of thing from being commonplace, but it makes sense for Starfleet because the need for speed is so great. After all, we're seeing civilian warp drives top out at warp 4 (64c) when warp 7 drive (343c) is a mature technology. We're transporting critical materials, maybe even weapons or troops. I could see this culturally encouraging us to push up our warp speeds, though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's always people who will be willing to pay a premium for rapid, secure delivery. Either for their cargo, or a passenger liner variant.
 
Even with the warp speed becoming outdated, it would still probably be faster than civilian cargoships and most ships capable of dealing with engineering problems like it is. I could see it lasting a very long time in service even if it falls out of frontline use.
 
NavySeel said:
Even with the warp speed becoming outdated, it would still probably be faster than civilian cargoships and most ships capable of dealing with engineering problems like it is. I could see it lasting a very long time in service even if it falls out of frontline use.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah. Warp 7 might be obsolete for Starfleet in a few decades, but it's going to be a long time before that's standard for civilians.

That said, I also love the image of settling down these factory ships as the cores of new colonies when they retire. Also, while I truly hope it's not common, I do like the image of a pirate going for an undefended colony only for them to fire up the ship-to-ship phasers one last time and see them off.
 
[X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
[X] Type-1 Covariant Shield System [Prototype] [+25% Cost] [Cost: 8]
 
It'd be kinda cool to have one of these ships in a fleet museum, not only serving as an example of her class/explaining the role of engineering ships in Starfleet but also helping to provide engineering support to her fellow museum ships when required (assuming the facilities aren't mostly taken out).
 
Remove ads
2222: Project Halley (Midships)
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] +2 Phaser Banks (1 Fore, 1 Aft) [4 Phaser Banks, 2 Launchers] [Cost: 14]
    [X] Type-1 Shield System [Mature] [-25% Cost] [Cost: 3]

    Installing the phasers is something of a novelty, as no current designs were structured in such a way to fire directly 'upwards' of the main hull rather than parallel to it. Fortunately that was mostly just a reorganisation of the pivots and translation mechanics than an actual redesign. Aside from some grumpiness about how Halley-modified phaser emitters are useless on any other design it was a reasonably straightforward task to get them produced. Your costs might still be higher than the smaller Newton, but your decision to exercise restraint has kept the overall budget near its contemporary and hopefully competitive.

    But with the critical systems done now you have to deal with the internals. You have a lot of space to work with, and the first decision is what will take up the bulk of the middle decks where open space is most abundant. There are two main proposals to choose between. The first is to install a quartet of extra-large shuttle bays. These would provide a useful auxiliary function for shipping, deployment, and transport. The second proposal is that normal-sized shuttlebays should be installed, with the other space allocated to internal cargo areas for materiel that is valuable enough to warrant being stored in the main hull rather than the more vulnerable cargo pod. That it would be in close proximity to the shuttlebays would be a nice bonus.

    [ ] Shuttledeck [8 Engineering, 32 Type-F Shuttlecraft]
    [ ] Loading Deck (4 Engineering, 16 Type-F Shuttlecraft, 6 Cargo]

    Midship (Shuttles/Cargo) -> Lower Decks (Engineering/Medical) -> Subsystems (Antimatter/Auxiliary)

    Two Hour Moratorium, Please

     
  • Threadmarks
    • This is an engineering cruiser, so the obvious choice is the Shuttle deck. However, one has to weigh if +6 Cargo is worth 4 less Engineering for the Loading Deck.
     
    The shuttlebay means this can do carrier work, and when we aren't at war (gods grant most of the time) it gives us what we need to do our real job of engineering.

    landcollector said:
    This is an engineering cruiser, so the obvious choice is the Shuttle deck. However, one has to weigh if +6 Cargo is worth 4 less Engineering for the Loading Deck.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I think our cargo is mostly the cargo pod, any extra space for high value cargo is an add on bonus.
     
    [] Loading Deck (4 Engineering, 16 Type-F Shuttlecraft, 6 Cargo]

    Some non-container storage, inside the loading area as well to simply logistics, would be good for high value goods and fleet supplies.

    @Sayle Is this the only cargo hold option we'll be getting?

    Wootius said:
    Ditching the container is a viable tactic. So the highest value stuff goes in the ship's hold.

    The entire container is needed for a project, so you slip extra fleet supplies in the ship's hold.

    Fabrication needs extra supplies for a project but the container's space is earmarked for something else.

    Lots of reason why the ball should have a hold in it, unless the OP combines the two like they do sometimes.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
     
    I know I've advocated for a small amount of internal cargo, but do we really need six points of cargo? And for it to take up the same space as sixteen shuttles? This option costs way more than I'm comfortable with.
     
    [ ] Loading Deck (4 Engineering, 16 Type-F Shuttlecraft, 6 Cargo]
    There have been several mentions about how it would be sendible to carry extremely valuable/critical items in the Orb in case it's forced to drop the cargo pod, so I'm sticking with that.
     
    [ ] Loading Deck (4 Engineering, 16 Type-F Shuttlecraft, 6 Cargo]

    Going with the Loading Deck myself.
    In an era with working transporters, shuttles are a valuable but secondary tool.
    Im not seeing why we'd want the ability to spam 32x shuttles, while cargo capacity always finds a use.

    And like someone pointed out up-thread, you keep your wallet on your person, not in your suitcase.
    Having space to keep some stuff onboard seems useful.
     
    [ ] Shuttledeck [8 Engineering, 32 Type-F Shuttlecraft]

    What's that sound? Oh, that sound is us duplicating the Newton's only unique feature and being able to do lots of other stuff as well.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top