- Location
- California
If you think you can handle the increased art load, I don't imagine anyone here would have an issue with that.
Linked contents
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
[X] 120 Meter Flat-Bottom Saucer (Mass: 60,000 Tons) (Cost: 36)
- Location
- USA
- Pronouns
- He/They
Skeptical it adds enough value to ask you to commit to the extra effort for every future ship. Feel free to give us such a view as a bonus whenever inspiration strikes, however; I'm never going to say no to more cool art.
Last edited:
This.
Do it if you want 100%, but don't feel obligated if it means a notable increase in work.
avatar11792
Et Sic Incipit
- Location
- Planet Earth, North America
But... But the Event Horizon doesn't have a saucer section... 😎
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The Event Horizon was a few universes over in Warhammer 40k...
Will you enjoy doing the extra work? That all that matters imo.
I kind of like having all the views at the same scale. Makes it feel more blueprint-y.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Where we're going, we won't need blueprints. 💀The Event Horizon was a few universes over in Warhammer 40k...
- Location
- National Capital Region, USA
[X] 120 Meter Flat-Bottom Saucer (Mass: 60,000 Tons) (Cost: 36)
MortusPrime27
Turtles are Fabulous and I'm undead skeleton
- Location
- Science class room
How big is this Star ship going to be?
- Pronouns
- He/Him
An excellent question! One we shall answer once we get to choose what (if any) secondary hull we add to the saucer.
Honestly, I'm cool regardless of what wins between 80 meters and 120 meters - the former might not mean we get to do the landing system or vertical nacelles, but it still means plenty of room for the systems we want. Meanwhile, the latter opens up landing capability or vertical nacelles (which we'll probably get a vote choice for next, along with deciding how we want to add enough room for the main deflector and warp core), either of which could be interesting - although I'm actually inclined more towards Vertical Nacelles, as that allows for the ship to cruise really damn fast - which in and of itself could be an evasion technique, staying just far ahead enough to not die until they have to slow down from their sprint speed and then using your superior cruising speeds to leave them in the dust.
We are somewhat limited in that regard by nacelle technology, however it should still give it quite a long range, if I recall correctly.
- Location
- Moncton New Brunswick
[x]120 Meter Flat-Bottom Saucer (Mass: 60,000 Tons) (Cost: 36)
2236: Project Darwin (Critical Systems)
New
[X] 120 Meter Flat-Bottom Saucer (Mass: 60,000 Tons) (Cost: 36)
The new saucer is a style you haven't tried since the Selachii and have more in common with purely tactical vessels, though you have never attempted to apply the principles outside the arrowhead hull configuration. It leaves the primary hull of the Darwin looking a little peculiar but not in an unpleasant way, and the thick rim of the primary saucer will provide plenty of space for critical systems. But that brings you to the navigational deflector and the issue of size.
The deflector fitted on the Excalibur and most ships for the past decades will not be a comfortable fit, but advances have been made in the underlying sciences that will allow some adjustments to be made without completely compromising the Darwin's ability to travel at high warp. With that in mind a new miniaturised deflector could be installed along the bow that would provide reduced power overall but still remain sufficient to sustain a maximum velocity of Warp 7.6 - a reduction of 15% in its top speed.
If that is an unacceptable loss there is the option to build out a blister beneath the bow to house a full-sized deflector with all its attendant equipment and graviton emitters. The Darwin would be able to reach the normal maximum speed of Warp 8 provided by the new reactor core model. By maintaining the bulk of the deflector in the main hull the vertical space should be kept manageable for the landing system, but the additional mass will be a cost factor.
[ ] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
That brings you to the warp core, which is suffering from a similar space issue. The standard model covers eight decks, and even situating the engineering spaces directly in the heart of the main saucer will only provide five. To fit the new Warp 8 Engine would be impossible as it stands, so a plan has been drawn up that will substantially reduce the length of the matter and antimatter injectors with a corresponding reduction in maximum flow. The power reduction will be substantial, but it can be done.
Alternatively if performance is something you are unwilling to compromise on then an engineering hull can be added. Much like the blister deflector this would primarily constitute a substantial mass addition, but it would also provide some extra interior space for engineering modules and a shuttlebay. Cost, as ever, is the spectre that looms threateningly over such an expansion, as you are confident you can maintain the capabilities you picked the flat-bottomed saucer for regardless of your decision.
[ ] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
The new saucer is a style you haven't tried since the Selachii and have more in common with purely tactical vessels, though you have never attempted to apply the principles outside the arrowhead hull configuration. It leaves the primary hull of the Darwin looking a little peculiar but not in an unpleasant way, and the thick rim of the primary saucer will provide plenty of space for critical systems. But that brings you to the navigational deflector and the issue of size.
The deflector fitted on the Excalibur and most ships for the past decades will not be a comfortable fit, but advances have been made in the underlying sciences that will allow some adjustments to be made without completely compromising the Darwin's ability to travel at high warp. With that in mind a new miniaturised deflector could be installed along the bow that would provide reduced power overall but still remain sufficient to sustain a maximum velocity of Warp 7.6 - a reduction of 15% in its top speed.
If that is an unacceptable loss there is the option to build out a blister beneath the bow to house a full-sized deflector with all its attendant equipment and graviton emitters. The Darwin would be able to reach the normal maximum speed of Warp 8 provided by the new reactor core model. By maintaining the bulk of the deflector in the main hull the vertical space should be kept manageable for the landing system, but the additional mass will be a cost factor.
[ ] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[ ] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
That brings you to the warp core, which is suffering from a similar space issue. The standard model covers eight decks, and even situating the engineering spaces directly in the heart of the main saucer will only provide five. To fit the new Warp 8 Engine would be impossible as it stands, so a plan has been drawn up that will substantially reduce the length of the matter and antimatter injectors with a corresponding reduction in maximum flow. The power reduction will be substantial, but it can be done.
Alternatively if performance is something you are unwilling to compromise on then an engineering hull can be added. Much like the blister deflector this would primarily constitute a substantial mass addition, but it would also provide some extra interior space for engineering modules and a shuttlebay. Cost, as ever, is the spectre that looms threateningly over such an expansion, as you are confident you can maintain the capabilities you picked the flat-bottomed saucer for regardless of your decision.
[ ] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
[ ] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
oh man it looks like a UFO.
I am sorely tempted to do mini-dish and mini-reactor, damned that it won't get over warp 7ish. Make a flying saucer that's capable of landing on planets and abducting wildlife.
Give this thing a phaser and a single rapid launcher, and keep the costs otherwise down, and we have a reasonable patrol vessel too. At 60k tons with type 3 thrusters this will have very high maneuverability by default.
They can easily 2 on 1 D7s and potentially win larger encounters with even a mild numbers advantage due to the burst damage of triple launchers.
Give this thing a phaser and a single rapid launcher, and keep the costs otherwise down, and we have a reasonable patrol vessel too. At 60k tons with type 3 thrusters this will have very high maneuverability by default.
They can easily 2 on 1 D7s and potentially win larger encounters with even a mild numbers advantage due to the burst damage of triple launchers.
Last edited:
- Location
- UK
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm happy eating the cost on getting the engineering hill and blister, it gives us more room to play with and we're still gonna be below 100k tons.
I'm a little curious if the inline deflector might advance tech in some ways via miniaturisation, but not enough to see this thing stuck below warp 8 max.
I'm a little curious if the inline deflector might advance tech in some ways via miniaturisation, but not enough to see this thing stuck below warp 8 max.
Unless I'm mistaken, the reduction in max sprint affects our Cruise too? If so, I'm willing to eat the mass increases as what was the damned point of crippling our overall fleet strength if the second of two hulls can't really use the advances in tech?
- Location
- his hidden lair
It looks like Max warp is eating into the Max Sprint- I'd be perfectly fine with taking at least one of them if we can largely protect max cruise from being affected. And even then I'd probably be okay eating the -.4, cost wouldn't be so heavily mentioned as a factor if it wasn't going to be important to this design.
Goldenlima
Statistical Anomaly
So what exactly is stopping us mounting the engineering hull and deflector above the saucer rather than below?