Starfleet Design Bureau

The ship frame could survive more thrust, but the people and machinery on board would still be pretty much fucked.
Don't start trek ships have inertial dampening tech (hence the lack of seat belts and such)*? Could we double down on those (along with the frame reinforcement )or is that just unviable?

As if not then i guess we are capped by the soft cap... (Which sucks but what can you do)

*Or has that not developed fully yet/ not mature enough for what we would need
 
I think 3 Type 2s is fine. Paying for an extra Type 2 so we have the option to pay for an extra module feels like a mistake. Just take the cost saving so we can afford the nice shields and a Rapid Fire Launcher.
 
Last edited:
[X] Two Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 37.5 Cost) [Medium-High Maneuverability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]

There's space left, but a big chunk of it will go to the shield system, the phaser banks, and three torpedo launchers. We already picked two options to cut module space, and this is a front line fighter that's going to be under heavy use, we really want the space for a cargo bay or +range.

It's worth the cost to get the type 3's into wider production now. We're getting what we pay for there.
 
Last edited:
Was that recently? Quantums and photons are different types of ammunition and can be used by the same launcher, IIRC. But if we really can mix and match then mea culpa I guess.
It was recent. And the reference was the Sovreign/Enterprise-E, which consistently uses photons and quantums from different launchers.
Don't start trek ships have inertial dampening tech (hence the lack of seat belts and such)*? Could we double down on those (along with the frame reinforcement )or is that just unviable?

As if not then i guess we are capped by the soft cap... (Which sucks but what can you do)

*Or has that not developed fully yet/ not mature enough for what we would need
Maybe we can figure out how to develop the inertial dampening tech for Extreme maneuverability. Or maybe someone will in order to avoid plastering their crew all over the aft bulkhead in some sort of space emergency.
 
@Sayle

what are the sort of modules we would be able to mount if we don't take the 3 engine configuration? I'm just trying to get an estimate on the opportunity cost here.
 
I like redundancy. I'm gonna vote 4 type 2s. Sure we can't use all that thrust at once without damaging the space frame, but being able to lose an engine or two and still move is life saving, and the option to override and risk the damage is there on the table for the occasional "we gotta escape a black hole" bullshit Fed flagships always end up in.
 
I think 3 Type 2s is fine. Paying for an extra extra Type 2 so we have the option to pay for an extra module feels like a mistake. Just take the cost saving so we can afford the nice shields and a Rapid Fire Launcher.
Again, modules don't actually cost anything. You can argue that the Type-3s or 4th Type-2 are too expensive on their own merits, but we aren't "paying more to be able to pay for more" here.
 
Don't start trek ships have inertial dampening tech (hence the lack of seat belts and such)*? Could we double down on those (along with the frame reinforcement )or is that just unviable?
My understanding is they do, and the limit is of the "your technology is only capable of making a dampening field X strong" rather than "you can double up on dampeners and dump more power into it, it's just less efficient so no one does".

If I had to guess, it's because synchronizing multiple dampening fields is finicky and the risk of accidentally subjecting a millimetre-thick cross section of your ship to a million G's is too great, so you're capped at "how much can you get out of one dampening field generator"- and the strength of that generator being hardcapped by the physical or magnetic strength per mass of some exotic metamaterial internal component, rather than softcapped by size or power requirements.

But at this point I'm well into making up my own Treknobabble, so please don't take this as gospel.
 
Last edited:
Based on the vertical view of the hull, I think this might be the actuall spot the engines go in (assuming we don't go for the 3 type-2s ofc):

Which would in fact give us quite a bit of space to work with in the rear
Yeah, I was mostly trying to imagine the size of the theoretical third thruster. I think you're correct that where you've marked is where the first two go, but Sayle tends to draw the centerline so I imagine that space on the diagram will end up filled with some kind of crew area.
 
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Either way we get what we need, though I'm hoping for the Type-3 so we can bring it in early enough that all future designs can readily use it.
 
If we really want to go with high-maneuverability, it seems like the only obvious downside of 4 thrusters is that it looks a bit funny. There could be unanticipated downsides, but that's the fun of the quest. For those saying the cost savings is negligible, I think there's a decent chance it makes the difference between having say, 11 instead of 10 ships in the first batch.
Personally I'm fine with medium.
 
Last edited:
Art: Otodus-class Combat Cruiser
@Sayle
Article:
McCreary, remember that Adorian think-tank? They sent us another design. Unlike that hilarious deathtrap, this one actually looks surprisingly viable. Sending you their full writeup this time, I want your opinion before I forward this to San Fransisco.

-Starship Design Bureau, Utopia Planitia, internal memo.





Article:
The Otodus Class Combat Cruiser is intended as a modernization package for existing Selachii production as much as possible for the new era, in order to improve the ship's performance against modern Klingon warships.

Consequently, the design retains as much of the original hull design as is possible, forcing innovative solutions to overall geometry in order to fit the desired weapons load and modern systems.
The primary addition is a large 30 meter diameter, 50 meter long engineering hull in-line with the previous main body to contain the new warp core, a modest shuttlebay, an extended torpedo magazine (see below) and some amount of flex space for other systems. Both Nacelles are moved to a catamaran sprint configuration rather than being directly attached to the trailing tips of the hull; two additional phaser banks have been added in their place to take advantage of existing conduit space.
Both original thrusters are replaced with the new Type Three thruster to maintain high performance despite the increased mass of the ship, hopefully maintaining the majority of the original Selachii class's performance.
Most obviously, however, is the "Torpedo Pod" on the dorsal surface. This consists of six total standard torpedo launchers, four oriented forewards and two to the aft, fed by a large magazine in the main engineering hull. In addition to the two existing torpedo tubes in the main saucer retained from the original Selachii, this is likely to allow these vessels to more effectively engage modern Klingon warships thanks to their heavy torpedo punch. Rapid fire launchers were considered, however the current costs of developing those systems was deemed prohibitive in light of other factors of design.
 
Please find the relevant quotes below:
Please do not die on this hill :p

Edit: whoops, ninja'd. Sorry.
Yeah about this ship specifically. Can't find the quote right now sorry, working.

1729467007530.png

Ah looks like I was wrong there, fair does! Thanks for letting me know.

It feels like it's a foregone conclusion that people will want the RFL + two regular torps in that case, so I guess maybe the actual decision comes rather to include a single aft torp launcher as a sting in the tail for stuff like BoPs, or trust in the SPEED FORCE to obviate the need for an aft armament.
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

If it gets us even one more hull laid down...
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Go Go Gadget "Zoom without breaking the budget!"
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

Three for the maneuverability, four for extra redundancy, and two to get the tech kicked into gear for standardization in this ship's lifetime (fairly early at that, if I've read correctly).
 
[X] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

I'm not paying extra for a fourth Thruster that won't increase Maneuverability, and that we can't even use without damaging the frame. It may not cause a lot, but its still a small amount we can send on something else, or to make more ships, and there will still be enough space for an Auxiliaxy system, albeit smaller.

EDIT: However, the 3 Type-2 option is traveling in 3rd place, so approval-voting for the Fourth Thruster after all, since it's still cheaper than the 2 Type-3s for the same Maneuverability.
[X] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top