Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Wootius said:
[x] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
[X] Low-Power Warp Core (Maximum Warp: -0.6)

tired of people trying to make this into a combat frigate :sad:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And, pray tell, how are we supposed to make this a science vessel if half (or more of) the saucer section is being consume by the deflector, the Warp Core, the impulse engines, and the Nacelles? Never mind whatever weapons will invariable get added? Just for rooms sake we need the secondary hull. Given Sayle themself stated that they go with the easiest design, I'd assume that the blister and Secondary Hull vote combo would move the deflector to Engineering. Then it's just down to Nacelles, how many Impulse engines, and what armaments will be added. Which again, the Secondary Hull would be suited to put in more than a few systems. (primarily only having to put phasers on the saucer) Literally any other combo consumes space we can use to put labs. And its primary goal is a sufficient Biological Sciences Vessel. Which means we need to aim for as close to S ranked science score as we can. Which means room to put the labs. Which means a Secondary hull and a Deflector that isn't taking up room in the saucer.

Now if this was a combat frigate... we could totally go with a small package, because all it would then need is guns, speed, and maneuver. It's not a combat vessel. That means, big... for room.
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
I just re-read the original post and finally saw this bit, I originally thought it meant that we could have the landing system either way, but that the extra complexity of making it work with the blister would increace the cost. However as I read it properly now and understand that if we want to be able to land then we can't have the blister, I've decided to change my vote. I'm happy that we can still reach warp 7.6 and that max cruise will stay at warp 7.0.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am quite sure it's saying the exact opposite of that? That by keeping most of the deflector's bulk in the saucer and only building out a blister for everything that wouldn't fit the extra verticality from the blister will be small enough that the ship will still be able to land.
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
good point, I need a clarification here: @Sayle
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd say it's rather clear.

"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. 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."

The ship will still be able to land, and combined with the wording of full sized core it will still be able to do so with that too (if more like an Intrepid-class than a flying saucer).

If taking both options would prevent landing as a possibility it would be outright stated.

And whilst not outright stated the volume savings afforded by the blister should give us some extra space of modules inside of the ship compared to the inline deflector.
 
The main reason I'm hesitant to advocate minimum mass and speed is that this is Star Trek: At some point the ship is going to have to run away from something really fast. Even if it's just a science ship. Especially since it's just a science ship.
 
Lavaflow said:
The main reason I'm hesitant to advocate minimum mass and speed is that this is Star Trek: At some point the ship is going to have to run away from something really fast. Even if it's just a science ship. Especially since it's just a science ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also, for a ship that's going to be brushing up against the unknown shield strength is going to be rather important. Without the blister deflector we're going to end up with less shielding than SanFran's poverty cruiser.
 
A reminder to people complaining that this should be a noncombat ship, and thus smaller is better: we've already committed to being notably smaller than the Newton.

I invite you to go review exactly how capable the Newton is as an engineering ship. They only mounted two torpedoes and four phaser banks; they were not a heavily armed ship, sacrificing all interior mass for combat gear.

Is less than what the Newton has for engineering an acceptable amount of science for your dedicated biosciences ship?
 
Candesce said:
A reminder to people complaining that this should be a noncombat ship, and thus smaller is better: we've already committed to being notably smaller than the Newton.

I invite you to go review exactly how capable the Newton is as an engineering ship. They only mounted two torpedoes and four phaser banks; they were not a heavily armed ship, sacrificing all interior mass for combat gear.

Is less than what the Newton has for engineering an acceptable amount of science for your dedicated biosciences ship?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's a fair point, but giving this thing respectable Warp Speed in case of Enemy Action, Space Bullshit, or general shenanigans is my reasoning. That and we can use the extra room for EVEN MORE Science stuff.
 
Tank man said:
I'd say it's rather clear.

"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. 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."

The ship will still be able to land, and combined with the wording of full sized core it will still be able to do so with that too (if more like an Intrepid-class than a flying saucer).

If taking both options would prevent landing as a possibility it would be outright stated.

And whilst not outright stated the volume savings afforded by the blister should give us some extra space of modules inside of the ship compared to the inline deflector.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thanks for that, my brain just isn't working today:
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
 
[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)

I like the idea of a proto intrepid.
 
Golgotha said:
I see your argument, and while I'm not agreeing yet I understand your point.

But I'll also point out that the vote for the blister at least is still fully competitive, so we haven't gone all in on our theoretical light cruiser yet.


(Also this really should have been a plan vote, but I got in too late to try to get that working)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, I think it moved up more into light cruiser territory when we decided to go for the secondary hull to fit in a proper warp core, really. That with some full-sized nacelles is going to push us well north of a hundred thousand tonnes, which is vaguely where I'd say the dividing line is.

Horologer said:
I think a dedicated light cruiser is a good idea, and I want to design one as soon as possible, but this isn't a good project to do that.

We want our light cruisers to be cheap (or at least cost-efficient) and produced in large quantities. Grafting a light cruiser to a dedicated biosciences ship is going to be expensive. And since Starfleet is also asking for a ship to fill a specific niche, it's not going to have a large run of ships anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This makes intuitive sense but sort of falls down to the fact that whether we fill a ship with science labs or cargo/shuttle bays it costs basically the same. If we build this ship to be a capable line combatant for its size, it will cost similarily as if we built an updated version of the Newton. Or actually a bit less, since we're likely to mass a bit less I think.

Also just descriptively speaking, if this has a proper secondary hull and masses somewhere in the range of 100-130kT in the end, then I think it's a light cruiser. That does not imply any kind of a value judgement of what the ship is for or should be doing, it's just a normative statement about the size of ship we're now building.
 
I mean, if we're going to quibble about classifications then I do need to point out that those are determined by role, not size. Size is correlated with classification, but that correlation changes by era as technology advances.

This is a ship intended for mostly independent operations. It's a cruiser. It's smaller than our other cruisers of the same era, and not intended to stand up to the enemy line of battle in a straight fight; thus, it's a light cruiser.

Frigates are escorts. They do cruise, mostly to prey on enemy civilian shipping and perhaps opposing frigates, but their designed function is as part of a fleet, escorting and screening the battleline. The Skate and Selachii were frigates. This—regardless of its ultimate size—is a light cruiser.

The ultimate outcome of the votes merely determines what the norms will be in this era for light cruisers—how big, how tough, and how dangerous they're expected to be relative to the primary combatants of the same era.

But don't kid yourselves that we're designing (or could have designed) a frigate.

(EDIT: Yes, I do also believe the Excalibur ought to be considered a Battlecruiser, not a Heavy Cruiser—although its eventual refit with covarient shields will probably bump it up to Fast Battleship.)
 
Last edited:
So I decided to try and track down mass figures for nacelles (skimming the threadmarked posts, so if Sayle said something elsewhere that's just too damn bad):

Curiosity - 25kt/nacelle (11.6 after recalculation)
Cygnus - 20kt/nacelle (9.3 after recalculation)
Sagarmatha - 12(15)kt/nacelle (7.8 after recalculation)

[Type-2 Nacelles from here]
Constable - no nacelle mass figure, hull+nacelle together are 60 (14.4)kt
Selachii - 10kt/nacelle (2.5 after recalculation)
Kea - no nacelle mass figure, secondary hull+nacelles are 95kt
Archer - mass calcs are ??? as final ship mass is smaller than component parts
Excalibur - no nacelle mass figure, factored in from the start

Unfortunately, not really anything conclusive. Nacelles have been about 10kt, but none of our most recent projects have given a figure for how much the current ones mass, so [shrug]. To take a conservative view (assuming that current nacelles are 10kt each and that they haven't been factored in yet) the maximum possible ship mass is 115kt. Now, the Archer had Medium manoeuvrability with one Type-3 thruster (and last we had concrete numbers before Sayle did away with them, the thruster could push 150kt at Medium that I can recall, so the Archer was basically a perfect 1:1 ratio); 115kt is just over three quarters that figure, which at (slightly less than) a quarter more thrust to weight I think would put it into Medium High with a single thruster? Or we could potentially just put a pair of Type-2s in for cheaper, and while it's less space-efficient (not that I think it would matter, based on the diagram style) it would put us into High territory at somewhere north of 1.5:1 thrust ratio.

Based on this napkining, I don't think it's possible to get the ship to Very High on one Type-3 - even at minimum mass the total is still 80kt, which is something like a 1.88:1 ratio.

Or maybe I'm just talking out of my ass, idk, I'm very tired.
 
Kinda like either the maximal or minimal design more than the middle ground compromise. We either have a big upside in speed or a big upside of compactness for optimal landing, rather than a compromise with neither.

And maximal has a chance of winning.

[X] Blister Deflector (Mass: +10,000 Tons) (Cost: +2)
[X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)
 
How many ships of this design do we expect to be built? It's a specialist for a task that's needed, but it's not a task in high demand like shipping or engineering. It's not going to be a ship design cranked out for warfare or defense - we're using its internal space for Science facilities, not weapons, and this ship is smaller than the Newton. And most shipyards are probably busy cranking our Excaliburs and Newtons for the war and its aftermath.

Put that all together, and I think we can likely expect a single small run of Project Darwin ships, rather than multiple big runs. More in the range of 5-6 ships than 10-12. And if we're only likely to see a small number of these ships built, I don't think saving on Cost should be a high priority for us at all.
 
This has got to be one of, if not THE closest votes, with the constantly changing count. It's nice that we've all managed to remain civil and not end up in the forum equivalent of screaming at each other. I hope that we can continue this trend in future vote arguments, as even though I disagree with the other side I've actually enjoyed the polite argument.
 
Derpmind said:
How many ships of this design do we expect to be built? It's a specialist for a task that's needed, but it's not a task in high demand like shipping or engineering.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd say that at least 12 seems likely, that leaves 3 for each possible quadrant of expansion (well, more like 4 since one of said quadrants is the near Klingon/Romulan border) which combined with the time required for a detailed planetary survey should be enough to see they get done at a decent rate. It'd also allow for the 1-1-1 rule to be adhered to for each 'quadrant'.

High demand is relative, being able to put a flag down safely/knowing that you've covered more reasonable avenues for weird biological shit is going to be in reasonable demand as more and more warp capable civilisations flock to our banner, and as we keep expanding ever outwards.

Being a warp 8 starship, the only other warp 8 design we'll be fielding for around about a decade after its completion, means that in many cases it's going to be the only ship in range, or within range at a decent speed. That'll give it a high demand even outside of its rather important primary role.

Derpmind said:
It's not going to be a ship design cranked out for warfare or defense - we're using its internal space for Science facilities, not weapons, and this ship is smaller than the Newton. And most shipyards are probably busy cranking our Excaliburs and Newtons for the war and its aftermath.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With the engineering hull we should be able to fit at least 1 forward torpedo launcher without it eating too much into the usable volume of the ship. Depending on what one we pick we could have most of the alpha strike of a Newton, or exceed it considerably.

Even if we get all high mass choices (and the nacelles come out to 10k tonnes total) this ship is still going to be much lighter than the Newton, hell given how short the saucer is/the fact it's flat bottomed you could probably build two saucers simultaneously in the same shipyard, one 'right ways' up and the other 'upside down'
 
Well you've got until I finish the final aft view sections to decide which of the two deflector options is going to win. Otherwise it's coinflip time. Or maybe something else if I can think of a compromise.
 
Sayle said:
Or maybe something else if I can think of a compromise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
SanFran, kinda desperate for a warp 8 ship project gets the design we've done up until this point and goes for whichever option didn't win the coin flip, then does their usual and Starfleet gets some generally useful but unfocused small ship design?

It'd also have the added bonus of encouraging us to go for a more focused design than we otherwise probably would (since this wouldn't be the only warp 8 design outside of the Excalibur Starfleet is fielding).
 
@Sayle, just out of curiosity. How much room would be left if those voting for small core, and inline blister, somehow, won (together) After Impulse, Nacelles, and at least one Forward Torp (not rapid) and two phasors? Would we even be able to add anything other than crew quarters and basic amenities to get a science rating? What since many people voting for UFO's main argument is that those of us voting for a full body are trying to build a combat vessel.

Also, still waiting on an answer to an earlier question about my assumption that if the Secondary Hull, and blister won, that the Deflector would just be moved to the Secondary Hull.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
To take a conservative view (assuming that current nacelles are 10kt each and that they haven't been factored in yet) the maximum possible ship mass is 115kt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At 115k, the best comparison is the Newton - which was 130k with two Type 2 thrusters, so 200kt thrust.

A single Type 3 with the new Warp Core provides 180kt thrust, so 90%. 115 kt is a bit less than 90% of 130kt. We'll have basically the Newton's agility.

If we mount two standard torpedoes, that gives us total somewhat better shields, much better phasers, and slightly better agility than the Newton; the question is merely how much better than the Newton we need to be to retain its B Tactical rating in the new environment.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top