Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
WCSII said:
{Edit} Ah, I see. You were complaining about the secondary Hull, and not the main. Okay, so... some things. One, we don't currently know how much space would be required width, nor length wise. We only know that the minimum deckage is 4 for the reactor. Which would be rounded up to a 30 meter hull height, at a minimum... if not 35 to 40 for extra. Cargo would likely pad out the width and length by a good deal. Though I'm at a loss as to why sticking a large cargo pod engineering section straight out the back would lose us a warp factor... Since without the deflector on/in it, there's no reason to drop engineering below the Orb. And even if there were a reason for the performance drop; there's no reason we couldn't stick a third nacelle on top of the engine hull and drop the other two below (for emergency core ejection if needed) to recoup. Or am I reaching for something I don't understand @Sayle?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Each deck is 3.5 meters. As for the huge cargo pod, warp dynamics. Huge is huge.

 
StriderInCosmos said:
I applaud your decision, but it's the entire Engineering section that's going to add 43,000 tons, not the cargo space itself. We'll still be able to haul a respectable amount of cargo, but we'll also have plenty of space for other modules and all that good jazz. The rest of your points still stand though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's worse than your assumptions. This is cargo hauled extremely efficiently from a dry to wet weight. We are adding 30k tons of storage for 13k tons of hull AND moving engineering out of the main hull. Replicating that in the main hull would take more than 43k tons of mass. The cargo pods likely double or triple the carry capacity of the ship even if we went heavy on internal storage.
 
Sayle said:
Each deck is 3.5 meters. As for the huge cargo pod, warp dynamics. Huge is huge
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, I was right! It is (related to) one of the cargo pods associated with the Ptolemy (and to think it can carry two or more of these things). They really are quite versatile things.

Also, congratulations on this thread reaching 1,000 pages! May it reach 1,000 more!
 
Sayle said:
Each deck is 3.5 meters. As for the huge cargo pod, warp dynamics. Huge is huge.

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
. . . . Okay. Yes. But, again. Why is it slowing us down if it's trailing behind, or built around, Engineering? Without having to mount the deflector to a secondary hull, there's no reason to position anything below The ORB thus throwing off the warp profile via total volume (Since the Warp bubble ignores mass) The Nacelle configuration should still cover the pod without being finicky. And even if large is even bigger than the picture, would not a third nacelle correct the warp profile to handle it?


... As for decking; I would say that a deck being just 3.5 would mean Jefferies tubes would be between/below each habitable deck, and I would assume of same size (I.E. be it's own "deck" ) So... we'd still only get 14 livable decks (and 14 utility "decks") or 13/13 going by stated deck numbers in primary hull update leaving for rather thick hull plating, in the ORB; and Engineering would still be 30-40 meters high.
 
Last edited:
WCSII said:
. . . . Okay. Yes. But, again. Why is it slowing us down if it's trailing behind, or built around, Engineering? Without having to mount the deflector to a secondary hull, there's no reason to position anything below The ORB thus throwing off the warp profile via total volume (Since the Warp bubble ignores mass) The Nacelle configuration should still cover the pod without being finicky. And even if large is even bigger than the picture, would not a third nacelle correct the warp profile to handle it?


... As for decking; I would say that a deck being just 3.5 would mean Jefferies tubes would be between/below each habitable deck, and I would assume of same size (I.E. be it's own "deck" ) So... we'd still only get 14 livable decks (and 14 utility "decks") or 13/13 going by stated deck numbers in primary hull update leaving for rather thick hull plating, in the ORB; and Engineering would still be 30-40 meters high.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bigger ships need bigger warp fields. Ellipsoids are best, with power requirements increasing as the shape projects further. The simple reality is that at a certain point it's not worth feeding in the extra power to get the same performance as you would with a more efficient warp field.

Jeffries tubes seem to just go into the bulk sections of the ship that don't have corridors/rooms in them - in TOS they go from wall hatches into 45 degree slopes, in VOY you can outright get out of a jeffries tube at waist-level on a deck (Relativity), and in TNG again you have tube access from a sidedoor off main engineering. On the Sovereign you can literally pull up a hatch on the corridor floor and simply drop from deck 15 to deck 16 (First Contact) so there isn't a big chunky part sandwiched between decks. So they're not some sort of parallel network on interlevels, it's just going into normally inaccessible spaces.

Roaming_Guardian said:
So we CAN fly without the pod if needs demand it, and get back some of our warp factor?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, but that's probably not going to often be the case.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
Yes, but that's probably not going to often be the case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Often no, but it does make the large pod much more viable. Letting you get a ship somewhere MUCH faster if you dont have an immediate need for whatever happens to be in the cargo pod.

Hell, if shit gets REALLY bad and you need to escape danger or render assistance capital N Now, you can jetison the trailer and come back for it later.
 
[X] Engineering With Large Cargo Pod (+130,000 Tons Total) [-1 All Warp Factors]
[X] Engineering With Small Cargo Pod (+43,000 Tons Total) [-0.2 All Warp Factors]
 
Last edited:
[X] Engineering With Large Cargo Pod (+130,000 Tons Total) [-1 All Warp Factors]
Maximum space possible

Honestly dont get what the issue is on space internally as a orb means our space is squared we could put so many rooms side by side our blueprint would be just every single deck slice by slice that we may need a metro line in a central track with stairs up and down to make travel more effichent.

But yeah we i say going large is better then small can have that as our main storage but also some smaller internal stores for more standard missions its more effichent for mass and material cost to go with a large sphere

But i do love having more cargo space that's not to large of a difference that we can snitch and if we are going for the unhitch and run away strat should we put photon torpedo or antimatter based self destruct system to deny klingons the resources perhaps backwards facing turrets or strips as rings?
 
Last edited:
[X] Engineering With Small Cargo Pod (+43,000 Tons Total) [-0.2 All Warp Factors]
[X] Engineering Without Cargo Pod (+13,000 Tons) [100 Meters, 4 Decks]

Either of those is fine with me, I want something to attach nacelles to without it ruining the cost effectiveness.
 
[X] Engineering Without Cargo Pod (+13,000 Tons) [100 Meters, 4 Decks]
[X] Engineering With Small Cargo Pod (+43,000 Tons Total) [-0.2 All Warp Factors]
 
WCSII said:
*Blinks* ... uh... no? Even if we didn't count the support skeleton of each deck they'd be 6 meters per deck. 3 for the corridors, 1 top for electrics, 2 bottom for utilities. The support skeleton for each deck would have roughly a meter of deck plate between decks. So a 100 meter sphere from top to bottom would only have 14 decks.

{Edit} Ah, I see. You were complaining about the secondary Hull, and not the main. Okay, so... some things. One, we don't currently know how much space would be required width, nor length wise. We only know that the minimum deckage is 4 for the reactor. Which would be rounded up to a 30 meter hull height, at a minimum... if not 35 to 40 for extra. Cargo would likely pad out the width and length by a good deal. Though I'm at a loss as to why sticking a large cargo pod engineering section straight out the back would lose us a warp factor... Since without the deflector on/in it, there's no reason to drop engineering below the Orb. And even if there were a reason for the performance drop; there's no reason we couldn't stick a third nacelle on top of the engine hull and drop the other two below (for emergency core ejection if needed) to recoup. Or am I reaching for something I don't understand @Sayle?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For reference, 3 meters is one story in a modern building, and humans average under 2m in height. Deck images in Star Trek also pretty consistently show about the same value... And more importantly, if this was true, we would have only 16.5 decks in the main sphere, rather than 28. 3 meter decks give a maximum possible deck count of 33 and a bit- considering that the top and bottom of the sphere are occupied with machine space (sensor housings etc) that, eyeballing it, are about 2-ish normal decks tall, and you probably loose some space for internal supports or other such things, 28 decks is about right.

edit: also, normal crew spaces are probably making up less than a third of a given deck's total area; with hull members, machine spaces, maintenance accessways (Jeffries tubes), and even empty space for future refits filling out the rest.
 
Last edited:
Eh, generally speaking I dont think any kind of space ship is going to intentionally leave useful space empty so it can be used later. Not without a specific anticipation of some new technology that just wasnt ready in time.
 
I think I have to agree with the 'no leaving space' bit. That basically taxes parts from future, more superior ships while reducing the functionality of the current ship. It's just not very good.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top