Starfleet Design Bureau

[Sayle]

[X] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]

With the underslung secondary hull complete and configured you can now deal with the remainder of the primary hull that has been previously unallocated. One happy element of aiming for a lower-mass design is that three Type-2 engines will be more than sufficient to maximise the design's manoeuvrability and sublight power.

This beneficial result does present something of a conundrum. Two standard thrusters at the port and starboard sections of the saucer section will be perfectly adequate in meeting your acceleration standards, even exceeding them by a small factor. In addition to being minimally expensive it will allow you to reconfigure the aft spaces to maximise useful systems like cargo, an extra shuttlebay, or whatever you might care to put there.

Alternatively the installation of an extra Type-2 engine directly amidships will give the project as much thrust as the spaceframe can handle. The extra space involved will certainly impinge on the area and sacrifice internal volume you could otherwise have used, but the tactical considerations may be worth the cost. While you may still be able to fit some useful auxiliary modules there, something the size of a shuttlebay will be decidedly off the menu.

Of course a fourth redundant thruster could be installed to redistribute the engines back to port and starboard, again preserving the internal space. Your inner designer hurts a little at the waste, but it's still less expensive than upgrading to the Type-3s.

The final option is to use a pair of Type-3 thrusters. In terms of performance and space-saving this is the best of both worlds, meeting both your maximum possible thrust profiles and preserving the aft of the primary hull for other functions. The downside is cost, as you expect that even putting aside the upfront expenses in the first build order that the final models of the Type-3 will cost an additional 60% of the currently mature and streamlined Type-2s.

[ ] Two Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 37.5 Cost) [Medium-High Maneuverability]
[ ] Three Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 39.75 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]
[ ] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
[ ] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

You are currently under your expected budget.

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 

[Mechanis]

ANYWAY.
@Sayle

Spoiler: The First of the Federation

 

[Mechanis]

@Sayle

Article:

McCreary, remember that Adorian think-tank? They sent us another design. Unlike that hilarious deathtrap, this one actually looks surprisingly viable. Sending you their full writeup this time, I want your opinion before I forward this to San Fransisco.

-Starship Design Bureau, Utopia Planitia, internal memo.

Spoiler: Big Shark

Article:

The Otodus Class Combat Cruiser is intended as a modernization package for existing Selachii production as much as possible for the new era, in order to improve the ship's performance against modern Klingon warships.

Consequently, the design retains as much of the original hull design as is possible, forcing innovative solutions to overall geometry in order to fit the desired weapons load and modern systems.
The primary addition is a large 30 meter diameter, 50 meter long engineering hull in-line with the previous main body to contain the new warp core, a modest shuttlebay, an extended torpedo magazine (see below) and some amount of flex space for other systems. Both Nacelles are moved to a catamaran sprint configuration rather than being directly attached to the trailing tips of the hull; two additional phaser banks have been added in their place to take advantage of existing conduit space.
Both original thrusters are replaced with the new Type Three thruster to maintain high performance despite the increased mass of the ship, hopefully maintaining the majority of the original Selachii class's performance.
Most obviously, however, is the "Torpedo Pod" on the dorsal surface. This consists of six total standard torpedo launchers, four oriented forewards and two to the aft, fed by a large magazine in the main engineering hull. In addition to the two existing torpedo tubes in the main saucer retained from the original Selachii, this is likely to allow these vessels to more effectively engage modern Klingon warships thanks to their heavy torpedo punch. Rapid fire launchers were considered, however the current costs of developing those systems was deemed prohibitive in light of other factors of design.

 

[veteranMortal]

thepsyborg has been removed from the thread temporarily under rule 3
It is unacceptable to talk to other SV users in the way they have in various posts in this argument

please watch your tone in this thread
More generally - please remember to be considerate with one another. Always keep in mind that you are talking to real people, and try to be kind.

 

[Sayle]

[X] Two Type-3 Thrusters (33 -> 45.5 Cost) [Very High Manoeuvrability]

The Type-3 thrusters are allocated to the port and starboard of the main saucer, where the two engines will put out the equivalent thrust of three Type-2 engines without taking up as much space. While the initial run of the project will have to deal with increased costs, the second tranche will have the advantage of a more refined production line and correspondingly lower costs for the technology akin to a quartet of Type-2s.

With the sublight engines done, you turn your attention towards the warp drive. The new Warp 8 engine is still undergoing some final testing and tweaks, but the developers are completely confident that their final specs and overall footprint are reliable, so you're going off their numbers. The drive is innately capable of efficiently producing power up to warp factor six, and the internals of the Type-3 Nacelle are more than capable of doing their job - albeit at a reduced efficiency. Reduced or not, you're still getting an appreciable boost to your cruise speed speed, with the mechanics of the nacelle and warp coils struggling to accommodate the higher levels of plasma energy than they were designed for but still managing to pull out half of their expected performance improvement over standard.

What has been limited is your maximum cruise, which has run up against the hard reality of warp coil metallurgy. Even with reduced plasma turbulence and the multitude of small improvements to the regulation of the warp transfer conduit, there's no way for the materials to perform at levels higher than Warp 7 without beginning to accrue wear and tear. It's still faster than any other ship can cruise, but it does make maximum warp more of a notable leap over maximum cruise.

But until a new breakthrough in materials science gets you better warp coils, it's what you're stuck with. As it stands you have three choices for how to configure the nacelles, each with different benefits. The first is the classical cruise configuration, with the nacelles positioned closer together to improve warp field stability. The improvement to efficient cruise and standard range is not to be underestimated, with Warp 6.6 still exceeding the maximum cruise of any other ship in service.

The second option is a little more unorthodox, with the compact vertical shape of the design for its mass opening up the possibility for a set of linear nacelles located along the center of mass, just below the rim of the saucer section. This would provide both warp field stability and gently stretch the bubble into more of an ovoid. The efficient cruise still matches maximum cruise in the Kea and Newton classes, but it gets a little bit extra sprint.

Finally there is there is the sprint configuration, aiming to squeeze as much performance as possible out of the new warp engines. Warp 8.6 is halfway to Warp 9, compounding the natural improvement to the underslung hull's warp geometry to go as fast as possible. Being able to cover nearly a light year in the twelve hours the nacelles could handle before risking serious damage is not to be sneered at.

[ ] Cruise Configuration (6.6/7/8.2) [287c/343c/551c]
[ ] Linear Configuration (6.4/7/8.4) [268c/343c/592c]
[ ] Sprint Configuration (6.2/7/8.6) [238c/343c/636c]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 

[Sayle]

Emitter Type	Size	Shield Power/100kt	Base Cost	Power per Base Cost	True Cost/100kt	Status	Advancement Date
Type-1	Light	10	5.0	2.00	3.8	Mature	--
Type-1	Standard	15	8.6	1.75	6.4	Mature	--
Type-1	Heavy	20	13.3	1.50	10.0	Mature	--

Emitter Type	Size	Shield Power/100kt	Cost/100kt	Base Cost	Power per Base Cost	Status	Maturity Date
Type-1 Covariant	Light	15	7.5	7.5	2.00	Standard	2260
Type-1 Covariant	Standard	20	11.4	11.4	1.75	Standard	2260
Type-1 Covariant	Heavy	25	16.7	16.7	1.50	Standard	2260

Shield Generators come in three sizes: light, standard, and heavy. The lighter the generator the more efficient it is at producing shield power, but the less output it has. Every generator is equally efficient to a generator of the same size, regardless of technological advancement, but more advanced generators have higher outputs.

Larger ships innately have more powerful shields. The larger the ship, the more overall output the shield system has and the more damage it can weather.

But the shield generator becomes less efficient as a ship becomes increasingly large. After 100kt, every extra ton is less efficient at producing shield power, and this effect compounds. Ships under 100kt are perfectly efficient. But a ship at 500kt is only 95% efficient. By the time any ship reaches 4 million tons its shields are only 50% efficient overall, so it is effectively paying double for each point of shield power compared to a much smaller ship. After 4.1M tons ships gain no more advantage to shield strength by becoming more massive, but do still have to pay the cost of the extra mass in generators.

As technology advances, new shield generators are introduced that have higher outputs. In a new technological generation, medium shields have the same output as a last-generation heavy shield, but retain the better efficiency ratio of their medium size.

The same rules for cost as other technologies apply, with prototype shields costing 25% more and mature shield technology costing 25% less.

Spoiler: Charts

 

[Sayle]

[X] Sprint Configuration (6.2/7/8.6) [238c/343c/636c]

With it's maximum speed increased the ship will be breaking speed records, and you are quite confident that it will able to at least match the speed of any equivalant Klingon ship. Frankly your money is on being able to run any Klingon cruiser down, let alone keep up with it, but for a warlike species with a disdain of the sciences the Empire does still have a lot more experience with advanced technology than you do. But now you have settled on the ship's general performance metrics you have to dial in the tactical systems. The first up for consideration are the forward torpedoes, which will determine how heavy a punch the Constitution will be able to throw out in any one instant. The photon torpedo with its sapphire-blue glow has become synonymous with Starfleet and has always represented the tip of the spear when it comes to combat.

The first option is to fit three standard launchers, two in the saucer section and one in the neck. Having three torpedoes hit home will be a hefty swat for any ship and certainly drive the shields of anything smaller than a mainline combatant well into the red and at high risk of failing entirely to the Constitution's phasers. But there are alternatives.

The rapid launcher is still a prototype and correspondingly expensive, but it has the capability to fire three standard torpedoes in a single sequence. The advantage this represents cannot be overstated, as more firepower on target in the same timeframe gives a hostile starship that much less opportunity to turn the tables. With the Constitution's powerful engines giving it the most agility you've ever seen out of a ship her size, nothing short of the highest performing frigates on par with the Selachii will be able to juke her forward tubes. Combine the new launcher with two standard tubes and you've nearly doubled the number of torpedoes it can put on target. Forget redlining the shields of any unfortunate frigate in her sights, they'll probably have holes in the hull.

The downside is cost, and it really comes down to a single question: are you willing to pay less efficiently for a greater capability? With the state-of-the-art engines fitted to the design you are certainly in a position to enthusiastically justify the expenditure to the review board, so opprobrium regarding your decisionmaking certainly won't be a factor, but it is still a greater expense. The question is if that increase in lethality is notable enough to accept that outlay of resources.

[ ] Three Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 52) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 50.5]
[ ] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 43.5 -> 59.5]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 

[Sayle]

[X] Five Torpedo Salvo (Cost 45.5 -> 65) [Second Tranche: 45.5 -> 62]

In the end the sheer lethality represented by the rapid launcher is a difficult advantage to resist, especially when you have already invested in the ship's manoeuvrability. With it being so much easier to bring the launchers on target leaning into that atypical tactical profile becomes borderline sensible. But torpedoes are only one half of the equation, and a ship without phasers is hardly a ship at all.

As you see it you have two options when it comes to outfitting the bow of the Constitution. The first is to synergize with your existing torpedo alleys by installing a pair of ventral banks. This would enable the ship to fire phasers at any vessel with a valid targeting solution for the photon launchers, leaning further into the idea of the design as being highly lethal but very specialised to a narrow firing arc.

The second option is to accept that you will not always be able to put torpedoes on target, and that a more rounded armament is sometimes needed to supplement the most powerful weapon systems. With that in mind you could double the number of phaser by adding a mirrored set on the dorsal surfaces. While not completely covering the entire forward hemisphere it would go a long way to ensuring the Constitution can always have some weapons firing at anything it is attempting to engage. The decision is yours.

[ ] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 70]
[ ] Full Banks (4 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 81) [Second Tranche: 62 -> 78]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 

[Sayle]

[X] Ventral Banks (2 Phaser Banks) (Cost 65 -> 73) [Second Tranche: 59 -> 67]

With the forward weapons nailed down the last point at issue is the aft weapons. As is stands there is a strong argument for no weapons at all, especially as so much of the Constitution's forward armament is so focused. With the ship's capabilities being primarily in the bow facing adding weapons to aft may just be adding them for the sake of adding them, and a decision you may end up regretting when it comes to the balance sheet.

That said, there are real arguments for making sure there is some capability there. First is that in engagement regimes involving high-energy-passes and fly-bys aft weapons can compound and support the first salvo carried out by the bow armament. The second is that in warp speed that an aft torpedo launcher is capable of bombarding pursuers, though given the Constitution's high top speed that is a somewhat less pressing concern than it was in the Archer. For those purposes an aft launcher will do just fine.

But if you wish to lean into the idea of engagement passes and support that tactic, then adding a phaser would provide even more damage output than the torpedo alone and ensure that the ship can keep up the fight even while its torpedo launcher is undergoing its reload and recharge sequence.

[ ] No Aft Armament (Cost 73) [Second Tranche: 67]
[ ] Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 75.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 69.25]
[ ] Aft Phaser (Cost 73 -> 77) [Second Trance: 67 -> 71]
[ ] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please

 

[Sayle]

[X] Aft Phaser, Aft Torpedo (Cost 73 -> 79.25) [Second Tranche: 67 -> 73.25]

While not the most fiscally conservative decision you could have made the addition of an aft phaser bank and torpedo launcher will hopefully give the Constitution a stronger punch in any one-on-one engagements where manoeuvrability is expected to be a major factor and any stern chases. Although you've given the design teeth the matter of tactical mitigation is not one to be neglected. As it stands you have a number of different choices as to how the shield system should be configured.

The most straightforward and proven technology is the Type-1 shield, and a regular mount would provide the ship with a basic defensive bubble for the lowest cost you can manage. Alternatively if you are willing to be less efficient you could add redundancies and more robust emitter systems to channel more power, producing a 30% improvement in shield integrity for a 15% increase in cost for the starship as a whole.

The more daring option is to switch to covariant shields. A light shield grid would produce the same performance as the standard Type-1 with a more expensive initial construction batch, but then the second tranche with the technology's implementation ironed out would ship with quite a reasonable price. Much the same applies to the standard Covariant generators, which would have a heavier up-front cost and then normalise to only about 2% more expensive than the Type-1 heavy.

For maximum performance a heavy covariant-based emitter system would get you the strongest shields possible, a full 20% stronger than what the standard heavy can provide. The catch, of course, is the added expense. In addition to a major outlay of funds and resources for the prototypes the added complexity of the heavier system will still leave it a financially hefty course of action even after all the kinks are smoothed out.

The choice is yours, but once the shields are in place you will have the final cost of the Constitution Project, for better or for worse.

[ ] Type-1 Standard [27 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 84.75) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 78.75]
[ ] Type-1 Heavy [36 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 97.25) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 91.25]
[ ] Light Covariant [27 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 96) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 86.75]
[ ] Standard Covariant [36 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 104.75) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 93.75]
[ ] Heavy Covariant [44 Shields] --- (Cost 79.25 -> 116.75) --- [Second Tranche: 73.25 -> 103.25]

Two Hour Moratorium, Please