Starfleet Design Bureau

[X] 180 Meter, 3 Decks (Mass: 114kt) [Cost: 22.5]

Sorry that I'm late to the party I just feel that this option would allow us to fit more modules idk.
Mo' Modules Mo' Problems!

[X] 180 Meter, 3 Decks (Mass: 114kt) [Cost: 22.5]

And buddy, this ship's gonna be a real Problem... solver.

Whoever said that this should have a nice even spread of cargo, science, and engineering to solve frontier colony problems hit it on the head.
 
Last edited:
[ ]140 Meter, 2 Decks (Mass: 46kt) [Cost: 9]


I don't see enough mass increase to be worth 3 times as much using a bigger saucer.

[X] 180 Meter, 2 Decks (Mass: 76kt) [Cost: 15]

is actual the best efficiency, mass to cost.
 
Last edited:
2246: Project Federation (Saucer: Part Two) New
[X] 180 Meter, 3 Decks (Mass: 114kt) [Cost: 22.5]

You begin with the largest configuration available to you, although this is a trap you should be careful not to fall into - this will hurt you when it comes to engines (and the space they take up), not to mention making it less likely that the design will have a large production run. Given the need for raw hulls in the near future, Starfleet is unlikely to look kindly on a ship bloated by mass just for the improved defensive functionality if that's all it brings to the table.

The first option is a novel idea that's being called a command configuration. Rather than creating slopes or rises from the periphery of the main saucer, the upper deck will be extruded more abruptly from the center of the saucer and elongated with a spinal ridge that then runs back to the stern. By devoting the area purely to crew quarters and specialising the area as such, the flat dorsal surface of the main saucer is preserved as much as possible, providing ideal phaser mounts and minimising the ship's forward profile towards incoming fire. It would certainly be a distinctive looking design, conjuring a sense of sleek utility.

The second option is already familiar to you and any starship aficionado. The inverse slope uses a curve that begins flattened to the dorsal hull and then rises upwards, and can be seen in the saucer of the Excalibur-class. This stacks more space above the main decks but will still largely be taken up by crew quarters, but does provide some wiggle room for extra transporters and the like.

Finally there is the rising slope configuration, where almost the entire upper surface of the saucer is occupied by a bulge that begins rapidly and then slowly curves to a flat surface where it meets the bridge section. Similar designs have been seen in a more limited fashion on the Kea and Attenborough classes. The disadvantage of such a sharp increase in mass is that the ventral hull becomes much flatter and any forward torpedoes will have to be placed along the neck of the ship rather than being launched from the primary hull.

[ ] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
[ ] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
[ ] Rising Slope Configuration (Mass: 190kt) [Cost: 37.5]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please
 
[ ] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5] sounds like the best for a warship

And we can still hit weight targets with the engineering hull
 
Last edited:
I don't think neck only torpedoes are acceptable. I am tempted by the command configuration due to the wording about ideal phaser mounts. We plan on this being a phaser heavy build.
 
Hmm. I think I'm needing to choose between "ideal phaser mounts" and "wiggle room for extra transporters and the like."

"Forward torpedoes will have to be placed on the neck of the ship" sounds like it'd commit us to a single rapid launcher forward.
 
i have no idea how any of these would look but i like the sound of command it it helps keep the price economical
 
Hmm. I think I'm needing to choose between "ideal phaser mounts" and "wiggle room for extra transporters and the like."

"Forward torpedoes will have to be placed on the neck of the ship" sounds like it'd commit us to a single rapid launcher forward.
Okay, that makes sense.

On that note... well, with my own ramblings about how to fight off cloaked BoP attack wings in battle, ideal phaser mounts are what we want. But I don't know if Sayle actually agrees with me on that, and it was all armchair speculation. And I do like flexibility with more transporters.

But right now I'm leaning 'command configuration' very slightly, willing to have my mind changed.
 
Hmm. I think I'm needing to choose between "ideal phaser mounts" and "wiggle room for extra transporters and the like."

"Forward torpedoes will have to be placed on the neck of the ship" sounds like it'd commit us to a single rapid launcher forward.
It also commits us to a offset secondary hull, and that makes the ship's profile even worse.

With the command layout we could go inline secondary hull and make a ship that the leading edge of the saucer is the only edge visible to direct forward fire. Give it enough thrust to spin like a top and it could likely dodge really well without actually changing positions by making the only sure hit location the central axis.
 
Last edited:
On the one hand, I like nonstandard or non-existant secondary hulls, which would require more space in the saucer (edit: except, yeah, good point, the largest one requires that the torpedos be mounted in the neck, forcing standard configuration unless we start getting into roll-bar designs, or other weirdness, which we have no indication of the possibility of yet), on the other hand the advantages of the command configuration are very tempting...
 
Last edited:
Given the need for raw hulls in the near future, Starfleet is unlikely to look kindly on a ship bloated by mass just for the improved defensive functionality if that's all it brings to the table.
The bigger it is, the more additional functionality we can fit inside and outside the ship. Also, we know OOC that the Miranda class will be beating us on pricepoint efficiency anyways.
 
On the one hand, I like nonstandard or non-existant secondary hulls, which would require more space in the saucer, on the other hand the advantages of the command configuration are very tempting...
We can make up the space with an inline secondary hull. We put in enough thickness for the deflector to mount to the saucer midline. We can extend the saucer directly back in an inline secondary hull to make the volume back.

Merge the concepts of CHONK and FLAT.
 
Last edited:
We can make up the space with an inline secondary hull. We put in enough thickness for the deflector to mount to the saucer midline. We can extend the saucer directly back in an inline secondary hull to make the volume back.

Merge the concepts of CHONK and FLAT.
"...Why do humans like stingrays so much, yet insist their aquatic battle totem is the shark?"
"Man, I don't know."
 
Okay, Im not getting the difference between the options here.

The things that catch my eye are
1)Command : Ideal line of sight for phasers, +dodge bonus against attack because form factor
2)Inverse slope: Additional space, + mass for phaser strength and defense, + modules
3)Rising slops: Problems with torpedo launchers, ++ mass for phaser strength and defense

The torpedo launcher issue rules out option 3 for me.
Im leaning towards [] Option 2: Inverse Slope
 
Back
Top