Starfleet Design Bureau

... That's an excellent point, and if we pick rapid launchers they probably standardize sooner than their current 2240 date.

I'm pretty sure refits will only use standard equipment.

Still probably not an outcome to bet on; if we need to go double rapid on the Constitution, I suspect there won't be enough of the things to go 'round, because every one Starfleet can afford to build will be going into a Constitution rather than being available for refit.

Yeah even if the standardisation date is 2240 and we push that earlier... I mean for very obvious reasons I'd love the mental image of a Kea with a rapid fire launcher, I'm conscious of engaging in wishful thinking. Even if there's a general shift to the Rapid Launcher, there will be some depreciated production lines, tooling and parts and so on for the old launchers, and as this nears obsolescence it becomes almost "free" in the short term. The point about standardisation is a good one though, that does feel very Starfleet.

It would admittedly have a sort of poetic rhythm to it if we were initially considering the torpedo launchers due to a postwar production glut meaning we had a lot of them hanging around, and then instead we end up refitting them when there's essentially another temporary surplus because the production lines are all winding down. But I am quite happy to clutch any shred of a justification for a Kea leaping out of a nebula and obliterating a D6 attacking a Newton with a salvo or six torpedoes.

I also detest the fact we're being told this is the Enterprise and in the same breath being told we have to make it a monorole warship that will be completely incapable of being the Enterprise. Frankly I'm wondering if I should just drop the quest until we're done with this, because I'm becoming more and more bitter over how things have been going since the Phaser nerf.

This is a very weird deja-vu feeling for me, because I started by arguing against this very idea, and then went around to the Half-Saucer based the cost/benefit seeming more compelling - whilst still wanting to cram loads of Engineering into a big secondary hull, and (god willing) a medical option and at least one other Science-raising thing into the saucer.

Very much agreed entirely with you that trying to turn the Enterprise into a "pure warship" would be a mistake; partly because it will make it an objectively worse warship if we can't fit in enough Engineering or medical facilities! But I don't see the Half-Saucer as being like, the crucial determinant there? It has the same internal space and will fit as many or more Internals in; the only thing we need to be sure of is going for a big secondary hull.
 
Yeah, which means we need defenses to compensate for that by dragging out the fights long enough that those weapons can accumulate damage in situations where thats feasible.
You're saying we need to make a very tough brick that the D7 raiders can ignore and go around to kill what's actually vulnerable, and then leave to hunt down more easy targets.

Defenses do not a warship make.
 
But defensive systems are not a major cost driver for the ship. Our more expensive hull plating is only "you get part of one extra phaser". And bigger hull = more defense. It's an explicit thing that each generation of tech is less cost-effective. So within the limits of the design, we should greed it up for tonnage.

We're having a revote because things were changed so 4 engines is not excessive. If we want to use the cheap, non-prototype engines and not have a small ship, we need 4.
The problem with going big is that there is a hidden cost to size. Starfleet wants to build a 200kt ship because it wants to build the ship in shipyards that can only build up to 200kt ships. If we go bigger Starfleet will face bottlenecks and it won't matter if Starfleet can afford them, they cannot be built any faster. The smaller shipyards will build something else.

A 250kt ship is probably acceptable, but Starfleet won't be happy. They want to put every shipyard that can building this hull.
 
I get the feeling that if this wasn't the Constitution Project, the call for a dedicated warship, and the design choices we need to make for such, would probably be much more palatable. There's just too much expectation and history hanging on the name, really.
 
You're saying we need to make a very tough brick that the D7 raiders can ignore and go around to kill what's actually vulnerable, and then leave to hunt down more easy targets.

Defenses do not a warship make.
...What on earth are you talking about? Our impulse engines are good enough to not make such a scenario a concern in the first place even if we don't hard spec into Maximum Maneuverability for that. Along with the improved weapons suite that has really great coverage, even if less damaging than the canonical equivalent.

Besides, I never said I wanted an unbreakable brick. I want something that can survive a fight, get field repaired by an Archer-class, and then be back in action while the Klingon equivalent has to limp back to their interior in order to get repaired in spacedock. Ultimately, my disagreement with the half saucer approach is because of the offered savings for getting the same shield coverage because I'm harping on about logistics.
 
Last edited:
I get the feeling that if this wasn't the Constitution Project, the call for a dedicated warship, and the design choices we need to make for such, would probably be much more palatable. There's just too much expectation and history hanging on the name, really.
Then let's all agree that it's the Articles of Confederation Project and if it doesn't last more than half a generation it will have done it's job.
 
Yeah, which means we need defenses to compensate for that by dragging out the fights long enough that those weapons can accumulate damage in situations where thats feasible. Maneuverability helps with that - somewhat. It also assumes that a hypothetical D7 doesn't have an improved weapons suite that changes said calculus. We are, to some degree, flying blind. Didn't the Romulans unexpectedly develop a better Warp Drive earlier than in canon in this AU?
I mean maybe but like Klingons have pretty consistently favored a forward disruptor armament.
No, I'm not? I'm addressing a weakness beyond the white room scenario that Starfleet already loses because its capable of being addressed. Even beyond the statline, there's other considerations.
I don't think trying to outthink what Starfleet Tactical wants is a good idea. They want a ship that can take punches but also deliver them. Retrospectives have complained of not being able to match the D7 in a straight fight. There is not a "we are taking too many losses to cloaked alpha strikes" anywhere AFAIK.
The problem with going big is that there is a hidden cost to size. Starfleet wants to build a 200kt ship because it wants to build the ship in shipyards that can only build up to 200kt ships. If we go bigger Starfleet will face bottlenecks and it won't matter if Starfleet can afford them, they cannot be built any faster. The smaller shipyards will build something else.

A 250kt ship is probably acceptable, but Starfleet won't be happy. They want to put every shipyard that can building this hull.
Yes but like we can go over 180kt. The baseline is 200kt. 25% more than 180kt is only 225kt. I'm not pushing to go for some 280-300kt ship, even though I wish I could.
 
I don't think trying to outthink what Starfleet Tactical wants is a good idea. They want a ship that can take punches but also deliver them.
I mean, by that consideration where have I disagreed?

I don't think that the thread is going to vote to cheap out on shield coverage when it comes up, which is the only other defensive system we're getting a choice on for this build.
 
Besides, I never said I wanted an unbreakable brick. I want something that can survive a fight, get field repaired by an Archer-class, and then be back in action while the Klingon equivalent has to limp back to their interior in order to get repaired in spacedock.
Congratulations, the only thing the Constitution currently lacks from that is the ability to kick a Klingon hard enough to give them a limp.
 
I said, Conflicting; At odds, not Confusing; What is.
The information isn't conflicting at all.

We're about to be at war. Tensions are rising. Our ships get abused in combat. Starfleet requested a warship with all other concerns being secondary at best.

Like, are people just getting tripped up by the project name? We can just name the class something else.
 
But defensive systems are not a major cost driver for the ship. Our more expensive hull plating is only "you get part of one extra phaser". And bigger hull = more defense. It's an explicit thing that each generation of tech is less cost-effective. So within the limits of the design, we should greed it up for tonnage.
The update says this:

While the raw material cost of the hull is certainly a benefit to building lighter and cheaper, the main advantage will be the less powerful and consequently less expensive shield systems needed to protect it to the standard expected of a Starfleet vessel.
In other words, it's not about hull plating, it's about shields. Roughly speaking, the more mass you have, the more surface area you have to shield and the more expensive your shields are. And shields aren't cheap, especially if we're choosing prototypes, which we need to do for this ship.
 
Quick reminder that the thin saucer doesn't actually get better or cheaper shields then the half saucer.
That was a comment about the fact that 140kt is easier to shield than 200kt and applies to both.

Search for Sayles comments to confirm this, can't do it myself right now sorry
 
[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons)
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons)

If we go light, the half saucer gives us more room than the thin one, but Skippy made an interesting argument for a full size saucer a while back. Half with two engines or whole with two or three both feel like they'd give us a nice zoomy ship.
 
I mean, by that consideration where have I disagreed?

I don't think that the thread is going to vote to cheap out on shield coverage when it comes up, which is the only other defensive system we're getting a choice on for this build.
Your take is that we should favor defenses over offense, because the Klingons are going to alpha strike us with cloaks. The latter is I'm pretty certain not true, and the former doesn't make sense if it isn't. If our offense is the problem, there's more to be gained trying to patch that up than committing more resources to make our strength even strengthier.
The update says this:

In other words, it's not about hull plating, it's about shields. Roughly speaking, the more mass you have, the more surface area you have to shield and the more expensive your shields are. And shields aren't cheap, especially if we're choosing prototypes, which we need to do for this ship.
Shields are actually cheap relative to like, advanced photon launchers or even warp cores and nacelles. The Newton's shield options were 3 and 8 cost. It's not a big portion of the total cost of the ship. And even to the degree it is, it's one that is best minimized with a bigger ship, which offers us the same toughness at lower cost.

EDIT: In terms of major cost drivers, it's Armament>Warp Engine>Impulse Thrusters>Shields>Hull, roughly. Slow ships might have impulse power drop below shields. This has been pretty consistent, the big cost impacts on our designs are when we add firepower and when we add thrust.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately, my disagreement with the half saucer approach is because of the offered savings for getting the same shield coverage because I'm harping on about logistics.
There is no such savings. It's purely a fluff statement about the thin saucer being cheaper than the thick saucer. Explicit word of QM here:
Just a general statement that lower mass ships have to spend less on defensive systems.
Edit: And even if it were true, shields are cheap compared to any number of other things, and thrusters are cheap compared to damn near everything.
 
Last edited:
We were informed that there were cost savings to be had in applying the same shield coverage to the thin saucer over the half saucer. That bleeds into advantages of either more systems that can be put in, or more hulls that can be built in the period leading up to the conflict. Price is absolutely mechanically meaningful when it and tonnage are one of the factors in play for the terms of the initial request. If we can get hulls of sufficient survivability, and our weapons systems would be largely the same barring the what other space is left after the torpedo tubes are installed or how they're arranged, then the critical issue is how many of said ships we can get out to cover Federation territory to meet the Klingon's own numbers where needed.

The QM has confirmed this does not directly alter the Cost score of the ship, beyond lower tonnages being cheaper to an extent which exists, but is not useful to explictly mathematically model. The cost difference between a 180kT ship with three Type-2 engines and a 200-220kT ship with four Type 2s is 2.25 Cost, plus some marginal qualitative cost of extra hull which is not worth attaching numbers to. (And may be compensated with an extra Internal slot.) It's kind of silly to act as if this is some massive difference to the ship's economics when it's not?

Like, realistically, we could actually get the Thin Saucer and still put Four Type-2s in it, and functionally it would still be absolutely fine - we maybe lose half a Internal slot's worth of space, but realistically probably not. The quest does not actually operate on this kind of level of granularity, and almost all the ship's cost is going to be the weapons options we pick, which are functionally independent of this vote.

Really I wish everyone could calm down and stop trying to convince themselves that other options are the Great Stan based on mechanically quite small differences, or committing themselves to things on future votes purely to justify their choice in this one. It's all unnecessary.
 
The Constable is the only single-nacelle ship that I will accept. It's... reasonable.
Excuse you

No Maligning the Kelvin! (Fun Fact: it's technically a modified Saladin)


Frankly I have no strong opinion on what the saucer is at this point. I do not believe people voting for the half saucer are correct in their assumption that it will be able to carry more torpedo launchers, based on previous ships of that design and just the overall limits we've been seeing for tube count. I've been slightly disappointed that Sayle decided not to let us solve the phaser power problem despite multiple entirely plausible solutions being proposed; several of which required no actual new technology and merely altering how ships are designed, Especially as this is an entirely imaginary problem caused by the animation budget, but it is what it is. If a full saucer wins I will continue to shill for the Flat design I proposed upthread, if half saucer wins I'll work with that. Either way, I am frankly reserving the name Constitution for a proper explorer later down the line, possibly postwar. At this point, we're not reall building a proper connie-equivalent in the previous SDB context, we're building, well, the Miranda.
 
@Sayle Does the half saucer actually have more space than the thin-full saucer?
Like, if we mount the impulse engines, in the full saucer, do we lose the entire back half anyway or is there still space above and below the impulse engines to put stuff?
 
Last edited:
Our main question should be if we are aiming for 180k or 200k with max maneuver.

If we go 180k we can go max tac + max shields sensors engineering and medical and probably nothing else. All that while going under budget.

If we go 200k we have a couple more aux options to play with while probably sacking part of the tactical to stay on budget.
 
Excuse you

No Maligning the Kelvin! (Fun Fact: it's technically a modified Saladin)
Okay fine, the Kelvin's mega-nacelle works. It's the unbalance between the hull and non-hull structures that make the Saladin and most single-nacelle ships weird. Having normal sized nacelles from a conventional design on a ship without the bulk of the engineering hull is weird.
 
@Sayle Does the half saucer actually have more space than the thin-full saucer?
Like, if we mount the impulse engines, in the full saucer, do we lose the entire back half anyway or is there still space above and below the impulse engines to put stuff?
Actually, I think it'd have roughly the same amount of space... maybe slightly (very slightly if so) more. {Edit} It's literally the Full four [midline] deck saucer cut in half. Whereas the thin full saucer is a tapered ORB ringed with two weapons decks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top