Guys, this is not a front line fighter but a more science vessel. So we should focus on science then anything else.
Linked contents
And thus the cycle begins.
Kinda feeling this myself.
Speed is useful for scientific purposes too, Concorde was used to observe the solar eclipse for 74 minutes - a record that is unbroken to this day. Whilst this ship is primarily meant to analyse a planet before a colony touches down, it'll also prove very useful in analysing just what's happening at an existing colony, delivering solutions that even if it can't make the most out of on its own (not being a hospital ship) will undoubtedly save lives.
At the very least, the engineering hull/full sized warp core should provide a decent amount of extra module space, being 41.66% of the mass of the saucer.
darkstarling
Brilliantly Crazed
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I'm torn. I like a good flying saucer but on the other hand I want engineering components. Neither really affects cruise speed.
In the end I'll go for having an engineering section. Hull is still cheap. This will be a proto-intrepid. But if we get a saucer instead i wont be mad
In the end I'll go for having an engineering section. Hull is still cheap. This will be a proto-intrepid. But if we get a saucer instead i wont be mad
But the expensive that we do now we'll limit what we will do later in the other categories. It will not be on the frontier.
Edit: though that does not mean we should pick the cheap options in both categories.
Last edited:
[ ] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[ ] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
Without an engineering hull, we can have a flying saucer that lands. BEEP-BOOP, take us to your leaders!
Honestly, I'm not too worried about maximum warp. This ship is supposed to stay in one places for weeks to months at a time doing complete biological surveys. It's not racing around the galaxy.
[ ] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
Without an engineering hull, we can have a flying saucer that lands. BEEP-BOOP, take us to your leaders!
Honestly, I'm not too worried about maximum warp. This ship is supposed to stay in one places for weeks to months at a time doing complete biological surveys. It's not racing around the galaxy.
Lurking_Badger
Cheese Enjoyer
- Location
- Wisconsin
We should increase the height of the central area to make it look more like a sombrero. The extra space would be a nice side benefit.
That is why I want the engineering hull. There is often space for additional moduls. I hope for extra range as it need to inspect planets before the colonists come.
- Location
- UK
- Pronouns
- He/Him
All the talk about how being as fast as the Kea is good enough because it was fast enough when it was made is kind of assuming no one else is progressing their own technology. I sort of fell into this trap with the shield vote earlier assuming light would be fine. Our neighbours aren't standing still, so building something that would've been good enough 30 years ago isn't really a reliable investment.
Precisely, this ship is going to be on our ever expanding frontier. Not only will it keep having further and further to go between its prospecting sites, but it's going to be running into (and probably away from) ships from the Tholians, Gorn and Orion's to say nothing of any other power we end up discovering.
Speed, or lack thereof, kills.
Understandable but you're rather missing the point. If we take the minus .6 option, have the worst possible nacelle configuration for it sans perhaps single Nacelle, and don't prototype the new nacelle we know Yoyodyne is working on we're at the Kea's top speed. I understand the Kea was 30 years ago. But the D6 is still a standard Klingon design and is left in the dust by the Kea, and the D7 gets dumpstered by the Excalibur. I'm not saying it'll beat a D7 in a race alone but it'll at minimum with the least favorable metrics at least make it work for it and cleanly outrun the more common D6. And that's a conservative estimate if we deliberately choose options to make this thing slower. If we take cruise configuration nacelles we make an even warp 8 or 8.2 which blows the Kea out of the water, easily
Furthermore, this is not a warship. Starfleet Tactical is MORE than happy with their Swords and Sayle is on record of saying this design isn't going to be relevant in the four year war.
What is relevant is going to be cost. How much this thing costs, and if go full ham on all the bits and bobs here and now like the thread has a habit of doing, we'll end up shooting ourselves in the foot for it's intended purpose.
Don't get it wrong, i am 100% against taking both options. That's a terrible idea. But one still leaves us as fast if not faster at warp than the Klingons who out tech most anyone else we'll see in the near and midterm, make us highly mobile at impulse which means we're a lot harder to kill if a fight does break out, and reduces the costliness of our shield and raises how efficient it is.
Please don't mistake some cost consciousness for not wanting to push the envelope. If a new nacelle design drops and it does not break the bank, we are slapping it on this puppy no questions asked, but a warp factor of 8.6 for a science vessel is needless right now.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
If we wanted a slower ship, we could have ordered a Warp 7 engine assembly.
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
If we wanted a slower ship, we could have ordered a Warp 7 engine assembly.
Im thinking inline deflector and full power core, while I want to maintain the general shape, I'm not going to take it's warp performance for that, and the full power core gives extra space to put stuff, while the blister deflector wouldn't.
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Frankly, High/Medium-High Maneuverability on this is going to be fine. 6 cost in exchange for actually getting the most use out of the our new Warp 8 engine where we sacrificed refit capability to drive forward maximum improvements is worth it.
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Frankly, High/Medium-High Maneuverability on this is going to be fine. 6 cost in exchange for actually getting the most use out of the our new Warp 8 engine where we sacrificed refit capability to drive forward maximum improvements is worth it.
Onionjones
The LCAF's best social general
- Location
- Tharkad
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
Except those aren't getting made any more, so we couldn't. It wasn't even an option for a reason.
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
Don't need a massively powerful core. but never know when a full deflector dish could come in handy. After all. You cannot reverse the quantum string anti-photon Traveler stream if your deflector isn't powerful enough.
[X] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
Don't need a massively powerful core. but never know when a full deflector dish could come in handy. After all. You cannot reverse the quantum string anti-photon Traveler stream if your deflector isn't powerful enough.
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
[X] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[X] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)
[X] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)