Our weapons have always taken up some internal space, even if they usually don't explicitly take up a module slot. You can see it in the diagrams.
Think of it three dimensionally: Curve that area around the saucer, and it's actually quite a bit of volume.
By virtue of not being a ridge filled with just crew quarters (which will probably only be one deck, if it's more then that'd mess up the phaser firing lines) it will provide usable volume, of the overall volume it adds only a comparatively small portion will be not usable for module purposes.
Yes, and as depicted on the diagrams, our weapons take up full deck height, which the slope does not provide.
And that's the problem. It's a ton of volume that's suboptimally shaped, so we're paying for a bunch of mass that contributes a proportionally much less useful amount of volume.
Our phaser firing lines are basically irrelevant since we can't fire more than one or two at a time, and the command saucer should have an equal amount of crew as the incline, which is described as using most of its space for crew.
I'm not sure the mass savings from cutting out all the inefficiencies from the incline and consolidating the useful deck space into a ridge down the center of the saucer would actually be a whole 30kt, but it doesn't sound like the inclined saucer will have major module benefits either way. I'd bet on saucer modules being half a tier better or something like that.
Agreed, I was also saying that to an extent after all. I was replying to a poster worried about the design focus shift, with a note that it was a bit to early to give hope up on the design. We will have to see how things progress.
You kinda highlighted my problem with this: It's a ____ ____ Excalibur.
The Excalibur is a great ship... But it's not a ship to build a line of battle around. It relies on speed and mobility to defend itself and put the large number of photon torpedoes on target.
We also need a vessel Starfleet won't just abandon production of once the 'worst passes', like they're doing with the Excalibur. For that, we need room for modules while allowing us to keep a respectable armament. Now, we might get a good Secondary Hull that gives us the Mass we need, it happened with the Kei...but I can't help but be worried.
If phaser firing lines are basically irrelevant then why did so many people justify voting for the command style deck with the logic that as a Kea successor we needed the best we could get!?
…
Wouldn't one normally in real world designs just cut the roof out to get more height clearance for the floor below for the particular narrow parts? Then one could install taller facilities in the deck below after all. I'll grant you that isn't in the depicted picture, but still if we assumed a sane designer you'd think they'd not just leave empty space if they could find a use for it, be it machinery or modification of the deck layout. As such I'm not entirely sure we should take the pic as the final gospel truth of everything and that if nothing is displayed in it for a section that means there is nothing, that might be expecting the QM to do put more detail in to things then they may really want to.
It actually was also built with heavy shields though. So if the tonnage range doesn't differ much then in pure toughness at least there wouldn't be a big difference. Thus why some people can wonder if there is a point to the other class if they're to close, because you could just create a spin-off class like they did with the Attenbourough instead. In which case you'd gain some more efficiency in having more of the same designs where parts are easy to supply of.
Nothing we build here won't have a short run. Starfleet is about to update shields and nacelles again and anything we design is more or less a stopgap until those two new systems come online.
Maybe, but it can't be like the Warp Cores where we can't refit the new stuff onto older designs.
The Kea had the volume to allow for a refit, and even then it had to have things ripped out.
This is not true.
Incorrect, as the fact that SanFran is designing what we know is explicitly the TOS version of the Miranda shows if a ship has enough utility (which the inverse slopes volume and future mass allowances will provide) or is cheap enough (Miranda is a minimalist design) or some mix of both it will continue to be produced for decades.
The update just described a flat surface as ideal for phaser placement. I assume the firing lines thing was what some people assuming that meant?
We are very explicitly told that we are not getting anything significant with the slope:
There's no way that "wiggle room for extra transporters" becomes four whole modules.
I believe the last time Sayle commented on it it was all WiP, but I'm pretty sure it's a mix of what can be physically drawn in the diagram and how big different sections are?
We're already quite a lot larger than the Excalibur, since that had a 140kt primary saucer with the nacelles included. The Kea has a 140kt saucer without nacelles, so I suspect that we're going to be equal to or larger than the Kea regardless of which option we take. I don't think most people have figured that out yet though.
Thinking about it a bit, I realized Starfleet can probably recover a fair few resources from the wreckage around Andoria. Now obviously a fair bit will just be lost or non-recoverable, but there should still have been a fair chunk of resources to be had there. So in that sense Starfleet might have a bit more in the bank in strategic reserves then normally, especially as normal resource gathering should continue apace as well.
*checks*
Ok, but there is something wonky going on with the tonnage. The Excalibur having a 140 meter two deck half saucer that weighs 140 Ktons while the Federation has a 180 meter three deck full saucer that also weighs 140 kton just doesn't make sense.
Yeah, it will help with strategic material availability, hopefully.
