Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Model DC.14F said:
You know, between the reasoning for the Halley's name partly being the comet passing through Sol recently, and the fact that its a high-volume, C H O N K Y ship that will probably be assigned to traveling regular routes between star systems, I kinda want the class name to be the Comet-Class.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And heaven knows there are plenty of celestial bodies we could pull names from. I'm all for it.
 
Hey, are the links in the media threadmarks broken for anyone else? Seems like all the images of the old ships are broke for me.
 
Wouldn't the Long-Range Cruiser project make a slightly better candidate to be named the Archer-class? Thematically it's more about setting out into the unknown, and even if it's only an explorer-lite, the ship will definitely at least be doing a fair bit of scouting and survey work and missions further afield.

Obviously the canonical name for this class is the Radiant-class, but I have a cunning strategy to solve this obstacle! (I.E., make pleading puppy eyes at @Sayle about it.)
 
Skippy said:
Wouldn't the Long-Range Cruiser project make a slightly better candidate to be named the Archer-class? Thematically it's more about setting out into the unknown, and even if it's only an explorer-lite, the ship will definitely at least be doing a fair bit of scouting and survey work and missions further afield.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's also the last ship that will be using the Archer warp engine.
It's only fitting that the name go to the ship that uses the final iteration of the drive, and as a tribute to the men who made the Federation possible.
 
That's a good and fitting point. We can keep cosmic bodies as a name in our back pockets.
 
Ramble said:
It's also the last ship that will be using the Archer warp engine.
It's only fitting that the name go to the ship that uses the final iteration of the drive, and as a tribute to the men who made the Federation possible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what you mean here, apologies for the misunderstanding?

The LRC/Radiant project is currently ongoing and started at roughly the same time as the the Halley project, as well as the Newton design project which is competing directly with ours. Actually given the added complexity of four nacelles, I wouldn't be surprised if the LRC takes a bit longer? So it's more than probable that the LRC and not our project will be the final ship to enter service using the final-final iteration of Henry Archer's drive.
 
Skippy said:
So it's more than probable that the LRC and not our project will be the final ship to enter service using the final-final iteration of Henry Archer's drive
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It will be the final ship class that we, the first designers to use any of Henry Archer's designs, make with it and thus represent the end of a great engine lineage. Hence the Archer name suggestion.

Being an equivalent to a MSC ship it should probably be named the Henry Archer/Dr. Henry Archer-class, though (since they tend to go for full names, like Henry J. Kaiser, instead of just surnames like USN ships tend to), rather than just plain Archer so that name can be preserved for a proper explorer.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
Now that's probably because in TOS for production reasons the only models you saw were basically the same model of the Enterprise/Constitution-class. But it makes you wonder if Starfleet shifted to a very production-line heavy process to try and standardise the fleet doctrinally. Have one model of heavy cruiser, one model of frigate, if there's a light cruiser use basically the same components in a different way, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You're oddly close in that thought. There was a deliberate choice to design the original TOS Enterprise model in a way that suggested a modular design.
 
Last edited:
Something I noticed on a reread.
Sayle said:
In the end, the Kea had the last laugh: even if it does hold the dubious honour of being the last non-frigate launched by Starfleet without torpedoes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're currently building an engineering cruiser not a frigate. That presumably means that when the tactical systems vote comes we'll have a minimum of one photon torpedo tube as a mandatory part of its armament. Either that or this line will be retconned if we vote for a pure phaser loadout.
 
With the way we are talking prototype parts to go in the future, I'm more prepared to take a risk on this one than I was before. I want to see if we get lucky enough to get the technology to standard price before we build our next gen ships.

Still... If we ever get a good roll I hope it's on size.

[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)
 
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)

It's gonna be a ship crammed full of engineers. If ever there was a place to put a prototype....
 
KnightDisciple said:
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)

It's gonna be a ship crammed full of engineers. If ever there was a place to put a prototype....
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That doesn't mean that they will be happy with doing a bunch of more work on a bad thruster instead of actually doing the mission they have been assigned to.
 
NexusEye said:
That presumably means that when the tactical systems vote comes we'll have a minimum of one photon torpedo tube as a mandatory part of its armament.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At least, yeah.

I'm reminded about a Starfleet opinion that came up before, at the end of the Federation-Kzin War:
Sayle said:
The feeling is that the lesson of the Curiosity is that specialised starships should be low-mass and minimally armed (and therefore make up less of the fleet's total tonnage) or higher-mass and more generally capable, but should not straddle the line between the two extremes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're building a cruiser-weight ship, and OOC we know we've got a war coming up soon. We'd better arm it, and not minimally.

... Though I think we can assume Halley-class ships won't be bringing the cargo pod with them if they expect to fight.
 
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)

I feel this is a relatively low risk vessel to attempt to gain some ground on tech with.

Besides, if we get this to work well enough, it'll help survivability.
 
Candesce said:
... Though I think we can assume Halley-class ships won't be bringing the cargo pod with them if they expect to fight.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They might in order to have supplies to patch up other ships after a fight. Spare hull plates, replacement EPS conduits, hell that cargo pod looks big enough that you could fit a whole nacelle in there, if a ship loses one you could use one brought by a Halley and weld it on as a replacement, we wouldn't have to scuttle it because of a lost nacelle like we had to do with the Thunderchild.
 
Just make a cargo pod that's a massive fusion reactor and a station grade phaser :p

Or the many other classics, like dropping dozens of armed satellites, or mines... Or the single use hundred simultaneous torpedo pod.
 
And even if Starfleet doesn't officially make those sorts of pods... well, someone's smart enough to jerry-rig something up. Truly, a shining mark in favor of the Federation's galaxy-class education system!
 
Fabula Amanti said:
Hey, are the links in the media threadmarks broken for anyone else? Seems like all the images of the old ships are broke for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
StriderInCosmos said:
They're mostly made up of @Mechanis 3D renders, and it'll largely be up to them to do the spring cleaning needed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I actually realized this and intended to fix it some time ago, then the hiatus happened and I was rather distracted/never got around to it. I will likely go through and fix the lot sometime this week, possibly as soon as tomorrow.
 
[X] Type-3 Impulse Thruster [Theoretical] (Three Success Rolls: Size -> Thrust -> Prototype Performance)

....I was told to change my vote by a lifelong startrek fan who doesn't have an account here.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top