Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Thruster Numbers have been updated, Type 2's are now Average Thrust for 100kt while Type 3's cap out at 150kt Average Thrust.
Sayle said:
ComponentImplementationCostReal CostEffectivenessUnknownsIf TakenImplementation Schedule
Type-2 Impulse ThrusterMature (-25% Cost)32.25100,000 Tons Standard ThrustTech Matured
Type-3 Impulse ThrusterPrototype (+25% Cost)56.25150,000 Tons Standard Thrust+Tech ImplementationStandard: 2235
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This makes the Half Saucer a lot more appealing since "Very High" on a 200kt ship would require 4 Type 2's to attain 400kt even with the Warp 8 Engine's 20% Impulse Bonus.

Also means that 4 Type 2's after the bonus cap out at being able to provide "Maneuverability: Very High" to a 240kt ship since 4 would give Average Thrust to a 480kt ship.

Still not a fan of the Type 3's for this ship as you'd still need 3 to get more than 400kt.
 
Last edited:
I don't really care between the thick saucer and half saucer, but with our tech we want a large front in order to mount more of the more cost effective older torpedo tubes.

Let's fire torpedo salvoes so large that the enemy sensors can no longer detect our ship behind all the sensor returns.
 
Tank man said:
Explicitly less capable, at least as far as the impulse shunt in concerned (they took expanded main energiser). I think that the engines are also slightly above canon thanks to some rolls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Are you basing this argument just off of that particular warp engine difference? As I'm thinking there is a chance we could have an engine generation that is some what better then the Connie at least. But I'm really not good enough in Star Trek to know if that is actually the case or not. But we've been taking thrusters a bit early, which presumably would have allowed design teams to start moving on to the next better idea early. And in this case we pulled the type 3 forward so far that it wouldn't have become standard before when the original Constitution would have launched originally I think...

So my thinking was basically, aren't we potentially a generation ahead on the impulse engine.
Fouredged Sword said:
My understanding is that the limit is not thrust, but inertial dampening. You can add arbitrary thrust, but the ship, and more critically the people IN said ship, can only survive so much acceleration as determined by your maximum inertial dampening.

"Very high" means you have hit said limit.

This happened in the Romulan war where OUR "Very high" maneuverability was lower than the Romulans.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess one can but hope that between being able to look at Kzin tech and some Spacecraft liking to push the envelope, that inertial dampener technology has improved. Well either that or perhaps one has to consider giving everyone places to strap in for high-g maneuvers if one really wants to push the limits here. :wink2:
 
AlexScribler said:
Which of the two 140k designs allows more forward facing torpedo launchers? That's very nearly the only thing I care about and can't tell from the descriptions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think Half-Saucer is a better bet for launchers. It explicitly doesn't take engineering or neck space for engines. Does that translate into more launchers? Maybe? At least it definitely doesn't translate into less.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
We fundamentally do not know. I am not sure there is a difference.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd bet on the half-saucer. Each deck is smaller, but it has more midline decks and as a half-saucer the surface area on them will be forwards-biased.

inirlan said:
I don't really care between the thick saucer and half saucer, but with our tech we want a large front in order to mount more of the more cost effective older torpedo tubes.

Let's fire torpedo salvoes so large that the enemy sensors can no longer detect our ship behind all the sensor returns.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, but imagine if we took all those standard tubes and then doubled or tripled the torpedoes they could launch?

My dream is 4 launchers firing 12 torpedoes per salvo.
 
Quickshot0 said:
Are you basing this argument just off of that particular warp engine difference? As I'm thinking there is a chance we could have an engine generation that is some what better then the Connie at least. But I'm really not good enough in Star Trek to know if that is actually the case or not. But we've been taking thrusters a bit early, which presumably would have allowed design teams to start moving on to the next better idea early. And in this case we pulled the type 3 forward so far that it wouldn't have become standard before when the original Constitution would have launched originally I think...

So my thinking was basically, aren't we potentially a generation ahead on the impulse engine.

I guess one can but hope that between being able to look at Kzin tech and some Spacecraft liking to push the envelope, that inertial dampener technology has improved. Well either that or perhaps one has to consider giving everyone places to strap in for high-g maneuvers if one really wants to push the limits here. :wink2:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seatbelts? On a starship?

Now we would REALLY be diverging from canon.
 
Lohjak said:
Okay, but imagine if we took all those standard tubes and then doubled or tripled the torpedoes they could launch?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm really looking forward to the rapid launcher!

But. Right now, a single rapid launcher with a low roll on the prototype gives the same firepower as two torpedo tubes, which we can be pretty confident won't be enough for the D7s. We'd need to mount two.

Two rapid launchers cost very nearly as much as the entire rest of the ship combined.

If we can mount sufficient standard tubes (three might be sufficient, but this is high risk enough everyone's planning on four), we get to build more ships in total. Significant numbers of more ships, like 40%-50% more.
 
Is it weird despite this being our Constitution that I'm really not that invested? I guess the design brief being so restrictive really killed my enthusiasm.
 
[x] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]

Overcharged engines could mean more maneuverability...

...or we could use it to get good enough flight characteristics while having significantly more internal space for weapons, ammunition, electronics, and redundancy.

This quest loves to build everything fast, so making the generalist heavy cruiser an anvil which more maneuverable ships can be anchored around is probably a decent idea.
 
@Sayle

Parts changing mid vote kinda kicks the wind out of our sails.

Can we get a table with the number of impulse engines each hull(saucer and engineering if possible) part is gonna support and the thrust values of engines after the warp 8 core boost if it isn't already applied.
 
At this point, the primary cost limitation is going to be the phasers and torpedo launchers, which is probably going to several standard ones, or one rapid fire one.

If I'm going to be honest, I imagine we're gonna have 3 phaser banks, two forward left/right, and one chase phaser, and then one rapid photon torpedo launcher.

Starfleet tactical wants a cruiser class that is light, cheap, and can slug it out with a D7.

I kinda also want a next-generation heavy cruiser that can actually do "cruising" jobs like independent patrols, long range scouting, deep raiding, and convoy escort.

Parts change now means 3 Type-2s to get to Above Average maneuverability, or 3 Type-3s to get to "high"

Which means a hull that can mount an odd number of impulse thrusters anyway, which half saucers can't do.
 
Last edited:
Aged_Urbanist said:
Not arguing in the slightest against the Connies being as fast as we can, nor the escort that will likely be our next design; I'm arguing that the fleet train is always a bit slower, we're already doing well there, and there's no reason to fit the Connies to be able to serve as a logistics support for other fleet elements at the expense of weapons, EW, or passive defenses.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ah, fair enough!

Basically given how the votes are structured, there isn't really an explicit tradeoff between a higher Engineering score and weapons/EW/passive defences, because they're picked in separate stages and for most large part don't impinge on one another.* (With the slight exception of torpedoes which can occasionally cost a module, but not always, and we will definitely not be choosing to reduce torpedoes to save space here.) Realistically even with a half-saucer and modest secondary hull we should be able to pick a few Engineering modules, but you can't have too much of a good thing.

In terms of acting as a flagship for future Warp 8 classes, I think being able to form attack groups of entirely Warp 8 vessels opens up offensive options that would change the war, and increases the value of the ship as an offensive weapon. (You're completely correct that a fleet of Warp 8 ships probably won't be always cruising at max speed in practice due to staging etc., but a fleet of Warp 8 ships will still on average move faster than one where the slowest ship is at Warp 7.) This capability is certainly not needed for the Minimum Viable Product, but I wouldn't say it's entirely secondary to the primary role as a heavy fleet unit either. I would certainly agree that if there were more trade-offs like those you mention, then the value proposition would be very different and I would not be nearly so enthusiastic about it.

But honestly the whole "flagship" thing is strictly hypothetical because it's premised on some hypothetical Warp 8 escort we bring into service either five minutes before or during the war like the Skate. Which I still expect might happen, but it's sort of a sideshow to the main point that endurance/range is generally a good thing if we can afford, where I think we broadly agree?


*(EW is definitely present in-universe, but sadly there are no modules/mechanical representation for it. Honestly I think an EW Rating that our sensors/computers/deflector can alter would be really awesome, and if @Sayle wanted to add it...)
 
Candesce said:
I'm really looking forward to the rapid launcher!

But. Right now, a single rapid launcher with a low roll on the prototype gives the same firepower as two torpedo tubes, which we can be pretty confident won't be enough for the D7s. We'd need to mount two.

Two rapid launchers cost very nearly as much as the entire rest of the ship combined.

If we can mount sufficient standard tubes (three might be sufficient, but this is high risk enough everyone's planning on four), we get to build more ships in total. Significant numbers of more ships, like 40%-50% more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure it's expensive, but don't you want to see a 3-digit alpha strike?

The most cost-effective way to win a battle is to kill your opponent so hard and so fast that they don't have time to shoot back. In terms of cost efficiency, if we can roll a 3 torpedo salvo nothing else comes close. It's not as good with 2, but up-front damage is still disproportionately good.
 
[X] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]

Approval voting the 200kt saucer as well even though it isn't my preferred option I can see it working out in a different way. Like maybe we can mount aft photons on it or have four impulse engines in two rows of two.
 
Lohjak said:
Sure it's expensive, but don't you want to see a 3-digit alpha strike?

The most cost-effective way to win a battle is to kill your opponent so hard and so fast that they don't have time to shoot back. In terms of cost efficiency, if we can roll a 3 torpedo salvo nothing else comes close. It's not as good with 2, but up-front damage is still disproportionately good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It would be better to mount 4 standard tubes than 1 rapid, and 6 standard over 2 rapid. I want a triple digit salvo, but I am not opposed to to turning the front of the ship into a shotgun of explosives to get it to happen.
 
Considering the 250k limit, I wouldn't be surprised if the 200k saucer would come with options to stick the warp engine in an outgrowth just to the back of the saucer then as a way to greatly limit further mass growth. A bit like some of those more inline designs that Starfleet some times make, though obviously as drawback that you'd lose some of the space you gained from the larger saucer. Though I guess you'd continue to keep the thick rim that could be put full of all kinds of things then.
 
Fouredged Sword said:
It would be better to mount 4 standard tubes than 1 rapid, and 6 standard over 2 rapid. I want a triple digit salvo, but I am not opposed to to turning the front of the ship into a shotgun of explosives to get it to happen.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Somehow I don't think there is going to be enough space for 4 or 6 standard launchers. If we want a death shotgun, it's going to be through 1 or 2 Rapid Launchers imo.
 
Skippy said:
it seems oddly easy for us to get the best possible agility here for an explicitly quite heavy ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
it may be objectively heavy, but relative to our capabilities it's quite reasonable, given the desire to keep it low enough for affordable and rapid building rather than being limited to a handful of the largest slips our shipyards have to offer. We could go way bigger- a 200-meter thick-saucer would be trivial, and a 225- or even 250-meter thick-saucer and chonky engineering hull would break absolutely no new ground, technically or structurally. (Hell, we could probably even pull off a 300-meter thin saucer if there were any reason to do such a thing.) We just don't have that many place to build them and would struggle to justify the expense. And building a reasonably-uppermidweight vessel with peak agility should be pretty straightforward after having taken every possible opportunity to increase the power of our sublight drives.
 
Last edited:
LOLROFL said:
Thruster Numbers have been updated, Type 2's are now Average Thrust for 100kt while Type 3's cap out at 150kt Average Thrust.

This makes the Half Saucer a lot more appealing since "Very High" on a 200kt ship would require 4 Type 2's to attain 400kt even with the Warp 8 Engine's 20% Impulse Bonus.

Also means that 4 Type 2's after the bonus cap out at being able to provide "Maneuverability: Very High" to a 240kt ship since 4 would give Average Thrust to a 480kt ship.

Still not a fan of the Type 3's for this ship as you'd still need 3 to get more than 400kt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just a heads up, that chart you are referencing is out of date. The most recent one is on Page 1116 and needs threadmarked by @Sayle .
Each type 2 Impulse engine gives us 150kT thrust.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top