-
Going forward, links to content from Twitter (now X) will no longer be embedded. Pre-existing links should not be affected.
Department of Starship Design (Trek-ish)
- Thread starter Mechanis
- Start date
- Sci-Fi
- Location
- his hidden lair
The runtime is actually tight enough that small lab spam is problematic- I've been looking at a 1 Large, 4 Small lab variant (it loses a single small cargo bay over the earlier outline) and a 1 Med, 6 Small lab variant (which also loses the small cargo bay). The 1M 6S makes about ~70 Sci, the 1L 4S makes ~66 Sci.
I assume there are going to be some experiments that are easier to run in a single, larger, and more capable lab so the trade off for ~4 Sci for that intangible benefit is worth it to me personally- but obviously that may not be the case for anyone else.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The version I've been looking at is 1 medium, 4 small science for ~51 science. Then 2 medium +1 small cargobays for endurance. I eyeballed it and it should fit on the grid. With a CI of ~45 and MI of ~19 I'm pretty sure we won't have budget issues at least.
Of course it all depends on what exactly are the options we have going forward.
Of course it all depends on what exactly are the options we have going forward.
Yeah, runtime is gonna hurt on this ship. We can get ~40 from a dual core computer, and then everything past that costs basically half a space per runtime.
Edit: wait, no, I misremembered the Aux Sensor multiplier. It takes 40 for them to be the most efficient per space, and 30 for them to win on runtime.
Interesting numbers. The large lab design costs 2 more space than the medium lab design, but unless we desperately need those two spaces, I'd agree that we're probably getting more benefit from a large lab than more labs plus a medium.
Thank you for doing the work.
Last edited:
Project Rapids, Vote 1 results
Turn 3: Project Rapids | Secondary Hulls
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
> Vertical Configuration, military grade hull
The next matter of configuration is that of any additional hulls, which will greatly affect the potential positions of the ship's deflector and shuttlebay(s). For the first, either two or four very small hulls—barely large enough for sensors or a light weapon emplacement—could be mounted radially. Alternatively, up to two larger hulls could be mounted radially; a single example could also be combined with a pair of the smallest size. Lastly, a larger hull could be mounted inline, though this would preclude other hull options.
Notably, a single midsized radial hull would allow the ship to displace its Deflector from the midline of the ship, allowing it to carry a Type 3b heavy disruptor if desired. The inline hull, meanwhile, would restrict the ship to a port and starboard shuttlebay (or a through-hull example) if space for more than a single shuttle or pair of shuttlepods is desired.
[ ] Add two Tiny secondary hulls [+4.05 CI & +0.3 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 116]
[ ] Add four Tiny secondary hulls [ +10.7 CI & +0.7 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 142]
[ ] Add one Small secondary hull [+4.75 CI & +0.3 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 120]
Potentially allows for spinal Type 3b beam emitter
[ ] Add two Small secondary hulls [+12..CI & +0.8 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 150]
[ ] Add a Medium secondary hull [ +10.7 CI & +0.7 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 142]
Will restrict shuttlebay options somewhat.
[ ] Add one Small and two Tiny secondary hulls [+11.5 CI & +0.8 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 146]
Potentially allows for spinal Type 3b beam emitter
[ ] Do not add secondary hulls [No Cost | Total Mass: 100]
The next matter of configuration is that of any additional hulls, which will greatly affect the potential positions of the ship's deflector and shuttlebay(s). For the first, either two or four very small hulls—barely large enough for sensors or a light weapon emplacement—could be mounted radially. Alternatively, up to two larger hulls could be mounted radially; a single example could also be combined with a pair of the smallest size. Lastly, a larger hull could be mounted inline, though this would preclude other hull options.
Notably, a single midsized radial hull would allow the ship to displace its Deflector from the midline of the ship, allowing it to carry a Type 3b heavy disruptor if desired. The inline hull, meanwhile, would restrict the ship to a port and starboard shuttlebay (or a through-hull example) if space for more than a single shuttle or pair of shuttlepods is desired.
[ ] Add two Tiny secondary hulls [+4.05 CI & +0.3 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 116]
[ ] Add four Tiny secondary hulls [ +10.7 CI & +0.7 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 142]
[ ] Add one Small secondary hull [+4.75 CI & +0.3 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 120]
Potentially allows for spinal Type 3b beam emitter
[ ] Add two Small secondary hulls [+12..CI & +0.8 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 150]
[ ] Add a Medium secondary hull [ +10.7 CI & +0.7 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 142]
Will restrict shuttlebay options somewhat.
[ ] Add one Small and two Tiny secondary hulls [+11.5 CI & +0.8 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 146]
Potentially allows for spinal Type 3b beam emitter
[ ] Do not add secondary hulls [No Cost | Total Mass: 100]
Six Hour Moratorium
- Location
- Seattle, Washington
Would any of the additional hulls remove the ability to build two ships per slip?> Vertical Configuration, military grade hull
The next matter of configuration is that of any additional hulls, which will greatly affect the potential positions of the ship's deflector and shuttlebay(s). For the first, either two or four very small hulls—barely large enough for sensors or a light weapon emplacement—could be mounted radially. Alternatively, up to two larger hulls could be mounted radially; a single example could also be combined with a pair of the smallest size. Lastly, a larger hull could be mounted inline, though this would preclude other hull options.
Notably, a single midsized radial hull would allow the ship to displace its Deflector from the midline of the ship, allowing it to carry a Type 3b heavy disruptor if desired. The inline hull, meanwhile, would restrict the ship to a port and starboard shuttlebay (or a through-hull example) if space for more than a single shuttle or pair of shuttlepods is desired.
[ ] Add two Tiny secondary hulls [+4.05 CI & +0.3 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 116]
[ ] Add four Tiny secondary hulls [ +10.7 CI & +0.7 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 142]
[ ] Add one Small secondary hull [+4.75 CI & +0.3 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 120]
Potentially allows for spinal Type 3b beam emitter
[ ] Add two Small secondary hulls [+12..CI & +0.8 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 150]
[ ] Add a Medium secondary hull [ +10.7 CI & +0.7 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 142]
Will restrict shuttlebay options somewhat.
[ ] Add one Small and two Tiny secondary hulls [+11.5 CI & +0.8 MI | Total Mass: 100 → 146]
Potentially allows for spinal Type 3b beam emitter
[ ] Do not add secondary hulls [No Cost | Total Mass: 100]
Six Hour Moratorium
Interesting.
Any of the 140kt+ options would allow 4a disruptors to be batteries of 2, if we decided to do that anyway, but I think we've decided on trying to do a survey ship.
A medium secondary hull would probably be what, a bonus [3x3] grid, the smalls [2x2], the tinies [1x1]? More importantly, the extra mass would get us more runtime and power out of our warp and computer cores. 150kt would be the most efficient breakpoint for that, though it's costing us a fair bit of CI. A pair of [2x2] pods for outboard engines would probably make the ship pretty nimble, but I'd worry what would happen if we lost one.
Any of the 140kt+ options would allow 4a disruptors to be batteries of 2, if we decided to do that anyway, but I think we've decided on trying to do a survey ship.
A medium secondary hull would probably be what, a bonus [3x3] grid, the smalls [2x2], the tinies [1x1]? More importantly, the extra mass would get us more runtime and power out of our warp and computer cores. 150kt would be the most efficient breakpoint for that, though it's costing us a fair bit of CI. A pair of [2x2] pods for outboard engines would probably make the ship pretty nimble, but I'd worry what would happen if we lost one.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Airman's Odyssey
My problem with adding a bunch of secondary hulls is that defeats the purpose of selecting the 80kt base hull. If we wanted 150kt ship, we should have just taken the 120kt hull and had even more space to work with. Secondary hulls are TERRIBLE at adding space. They offer positioning and looks, but not space.
If we can be assured that it won't hurt the ability to double build them I am okay with a pair of tiny hulls to put sensors or something in. There are some power and END advantages that makes something to consider.
I'm going to fight hard against anything more. The demon "Wouldn't it be nice if?" is one that we need to fight. The thread voted for a small hull. They voted for a survey scout ship. By god I'm going to make the best small and cheap scout I can, no matter how I campaigned against it. The QM directly said that in order to make a ship this small practical for the purpose is that we will have to focus on it hard.
We still have gotten no guidelines how to achieve this or on how big we can go before the 2 in 1 slot construction doesn't work. I am BEGGING you Mechanis to provide us with information. If you want to keep the exact performance numbers for the weapons secret fine. But knowing if the ship is able to do the job it's intended to do is very key. You've only been asked a dozen times or more. You've got some very enthusiastic people who are tearing their hair out because they are needing to guess.
At the very least tell us that you won't answer the question instead of ignoring the repeated requests and then I can stop caring and go on with my life.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
No. Even a double-hull (which you don't have the structural tech for yet) wouldn't, these things are small. The Furious Winds are almost small enough to double up and the Rapids project is going to be like a third their size at most. These things are small, by your standards. (I will say there's smaller out there... but those people all have fairly substantially better tech that's more capable and expensive per mass-volume.)
In fact;
That's the current base hull shape, for reference. These things are SMALL.
- Location
- his hidden lair
The survey ship doesn't really need space that desperately. If we do do secondary hulls it's to increase shields and power from reactors. With a single protium reactor it isn't really worth it, and the survey ship doesn't really need shields that desperately.
Two tinies would give a whopping 1 space effectively (because the crew lounge would get bigger). That's not worth a 16% increase in mass and increased cost.
Two tinies would give a whopping 1 space effectively (because the crew lounge would get bigger). That's not worth a 16% increase in mass and increased cost.
I'd kind of like to do dual protium for the extra warp speed, but in that case we really don't need the extra power.
Extra runtime is possibly more interesting; we get something like ten more runtime on a dual computer core if we go up 25 ktons in mass. Though yes, it costs an extra slot on the crew lounge (really not optional given what we want this ship for).
Kolar
Is Not A Robot
A type 1 emitter or two wouldn't be bad, but I don't think it can spare anything (space, power or runtime) for more.
We probably want point defense, and the T1 batteries are actually kind of mean for everything else, too. But I wouldn't call the end result a combatant even if we end up with four pairs of T1s.
(8 T1s actually gives us almost as much burst damage as the obsolete Silent Hammer class. Plus an equal amount of sustain, that the Silent Hammer didn't have. But again, obsolete, tiny, warship armed with basic torpedoes.)
(8 T1s actually gives us almost as much burst damage as the obsolete Silent Hammer class. Plus an equal amount of sustain, that the Silent Hammer didn't have. But again, obsolete, tiny, warship armed with basic torpedoes.)
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
Disruptors are probably thee worst thing to try and use as a mining laser.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I didn't think it was either, but I wasn't going to go as strongly against it as against making the ship ~150kt.
It's not impossible, but (say it with me!) we will have to see what options we are given. I am content with the theory ships I've done to give me some guidance. It's all what the options are for the votes and what additional information we get.
You've got the ship listed as having 17 END. That math works if you apply the EFF to the base hull, but apply the Polarized hull plating's 2 END after. The way it's described in the tech post wouldn't the EFF improve the strength of the polarized hull plate? So 12*1.5=18?
I need to know so that I can correct my sheet if needed.
- Location
- his hidden lair
The space really isn't there for a dual protium core unless we heavily curtail science or cargo (and thus range).
And I strongly suggest that if we do want to go above 100kt we go for a gunship/corvette anyways. It benefits from those gains far more than a survey ship. Secondary hulls barely give space, and that's the constraint limiting a survey ship.
That's one of the places where the space constraint really hurts, yeah.
But a lot of this ship's operating time is going to be in traveling from one system to another, so a faster cruise speed could make up for a lower endurance in less time spent in transit.
I think I'll probably go for no secondary hulls, though. It looks like 10 CI would be a significant increase to the final price of the ship.
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
So for my 4x1 T1 armed version, a single core needs 2x aux reactors. A dual core takes up the space of 6x aux reactors and provides ~10% more power. It would allow us to use 4x2 T1 mounts at the cost of probably a small cargo hold. Now there may be some reason for it to not work, and a two cores reactor will be much harder to make actually fit then 1 core and a couple 1 square aux reactors. I am leaning away from the dual core, but I will be at least willing to consider it when the time comes.
It all depends on what options we have.
I am going to push for 2 thrusters. This gives us redundancy and the same thrust/mass ratio of the Furious Winds. Being able to get the hell out of dodge and then cloak is what is going to preserve these ships. The weapons are just to give it the time to get away.
It all depends on what options we have.
I am going to push for 2 thrusters. This gives us redundancy and the same thrust/mass ratio of the Furious Winds. Being able to get the hell out of dodge and then cloak is what is going to preserve these ships. The weapons are just to give it the time to get away.
The vote was for a survey ship. The gunboat lost. Mounting a big gun on a survey ship is really a no go. I had 2x 3b planned for the gunboat. Maybe next turn there will be a need for a gunboat. Maybe not. WAY to early to determine that.
I kinda want a single tiny secondary hull, halfway-ish up the nose, to hold the bridge and/or an observation dome for the crew lounge.
[ ] Add one Tiny secondary hull [+¿1.9? CI & +¿0.1? MI | Total Mass: 100 → ¿106?]
This is a purely aesthetic joke vote. Don't vote for this.
I suspect it can't be justified on a cost basis, tho. Probably best to stay small.
[ ] Do not add secondary hulls [No Cost | Total Mass: 100]
[ ] Add one Tiny secondary hull [+¿1.9? CI & +¿0.1? MI | Total Mass: 100 → ¿106?]
This is a purely aesthetic joke vote. Don't vote for this.
I suspect it can't be justified on a cost basis, tho. Probably best to stay small.
[ ] Do not add secondary hulls [No Cost | Total Mass: 100]