Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
TeaMug said:
Quote selected as representative of a lot of what I'm seeing.

So I'm seeing a lot of discussion about how we're going to need a ship that's fast and tough, but also cheap enough to build many to be in multiple places, but also with good (science & med?) capacity to handle peacetime work.

I'm also seeing (/remembering) talk about how we're approaching when the Constitution class was made in canon, but how we'd inevitably make it much bigger and Kelvinier than the original.

But ya know, a pocket explorer sounds right about right, right now.

So what if we just... designed Connies? Ones closer the OTL size and capability? Made them not as big as possible, but otherwise top-quality explorers?

Because that seems to be exactly what we're going to need.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think our technical choices will result in a ship that's bigger than the OTL Constitution. We have a more capable warp core that increases impulse output and pushed hull and thruster design. We can build a bigger ship at similar costs and that's one of our major routes to increased tactical capability, which we want.
 
Tank man said:
Civilian cargo ships likely have facilities comparable to those we're going to put in (or better, going off of the modern cargo ships I have seen) or are too short ranged for it to be a concern.

The facilities required for a crew that spends the majority of its time in the middle of nowhere, or going to it, and doing tedious long term work there, are quite different from a ship that is regularly going to starbases or can have the Captain out the crew down on a random planet for R&R as they see fit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For a ship we've designed to build the federation up, it's going places where people are or we want them to be. Those people were delivered somehow. Either significantly slower (civilian shipping) or on starfleet ships (tossup on speed, facilities assumed to be standard). This ship isn't going to have 100% uptime, ditto with the crew, starfleet has experience and the only platforms I remember being real concerns were our stripped down knife fighter and our long range middle of nowhere explorers. This isn't crash built no frills and it's intended for most of its use in regions they can plan for leave. In some cases they'll drop a pod and have it reloaded with stuff going onto their final destination if going directly from point A to point B would be too stressful.

Between existing ports for shore leave, scheduling that isn't always an emergency, and captain's awareness I'd expect they could manage similar conditions as what Starfleet has experience with.
 
Regarding our future Connie, I'm actually inclined to just have it be a normal Heavy Cruiser.

Some science, some engineering, decent range, ENOUGH GUNS TO KILL GOD, decent recreational spaces, all around mass producible. We'll need a lot of them for the upcoming klingon war.
 
The one good thing about the delay is our impulse engines are gonna have a nice free boost from the W8 core, so larger doesn't necessarily mean slower than canon.
 
If we don't have the party room it won't be torture for the crew. They'll manage. But it can be significantly nicer for them, and since they'll be doing hard work they deserve it. And that comfort will improve the efficiency all over.
 
Last edited:
DeltaV11.2 said:
We can build a bigger ship at similar costs and that's one of our major routes to increased tactical capability,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not sure I agree.

We can only fire two phasers at once. Once we have enough coverage that we can have two firing in any direction, we're maxed out on phasers. That's maybe six-ish phasers, depending on hull geometry.

After that, firepower scales with your ability to put photon torpedoes on target. A smaller ship will be more maneuverable (per given number of thrusters), which helps with that.

There's definitely a lower bound, below which a ship can't carry enough useful non-combat utility to justify its existence. But I don't believe that means bigger is always better.

And a more affordable ship gets more hulls, which can be in more places, which has its own strategic and tactical value.
 
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)

Overspecializing is bad. We've been told as much before. Without this, Halley's Science score will be too low to handle missions where she might face even minor Science-related difficulties. Sometimes you need to do engineering in the face of a space anomaly, or help deal with a medical emergency, or who knows what. Taking the Science Labs is the difference between the Halley being competent or being helpless in the face of Science related challenges - things that will occur more frequently the further outside of Federation core space the ship operates.

If we're going to rely on the Halley to build so much infrastructure, it's often going to be the only ship in range to respond to emergencies of all kinds, not just Engineering ones. A Science score of only +2 just isn't good enough.
 
[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

Antimatter storage to give these ships the range to fulfil their role, a secondary computer core to aid her in engineering and fabrication tasks, and recreational spaces to ensure our crews can function at their maximum even with the long and tedious nature of their missions!
 
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

I decided decent science facilities trumped the extra antimatter if only to give it more of an even spread on ability and increase its useable lifespan.
 
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

I do think that the range-extending antimatter tanks are a mistake. We already made the choice that this would be a backline ship, and it's already reflected in the design. Trying to push it out again at this point is folly. Instead we want science just in case - GOOD science - because there's always some exploration to do while you're there.
 
[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

Either of the two or three options could work honestly.

Antimatter however extends the range we can build out infrastructure, has numerous logistical uses both civilian and for fleets, and tactically lets us engage Max Warp more often while still we're tasking with warp 7 ships. When warp 8 hits it also lets the ship operate at distances that will be more standard in the W8 era and have the range to at least operate with them.

A lathe is a lathe, it's not going to get old. Shipping containers are standardized. What will hold the ship back in 50 years is the fact it doesn't have the legs to do the project starfleet wants it to do.
 
Last edited:
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

I think antimatter isn't worth it, I think this ship is about bulking up defenses, being within borders, maybe even deep within federation space.

Crew comfort is probably very important, I feel like the crew would be asked to do a lot of taxing things, they might need it more than a normal Starfleet crew. Thanks to the entire deck full of fabricators.
 
[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)
 
Ugh, I wanted a Just In Case generic science lab, but I'm not sure it's worth the Antimatter loss when we're trying to make this ship last longer into the Warp 8 age. Even the Kea got a refit that pulled some capabilities to extend it's range beyond the 70ly mark.

I do not care much for specializing into science enough to grab any of the fancy labs for this ship, it's a builder.

[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)
 
Last edited:
[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)
 
Sayle said:
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...
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)
Generally capable while being nice to live on.
 
[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 2: Geology (+2 Science)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

Minimal science but with a focused scope.
 
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)

Time to see bored Engineering crew build impractical doomsday gadgets while off shift.
 
Remember, the extra range isn't just useful for now it's also insurance to the longevity of this class as the Federation grows and it has longer to go between it's infrastructure missions.
 
Last edited:
[X] 1: Science Labs (+4 Science)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)
 
[X] 1: Antimatter Storage (+70ly Operating Range)
[X] 2: Secondary Computer Core (+2 Science, Advanced Computing)
[X] 3: Recreational Spaces (Crew Comfort)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top