Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
The Half-Saucer is mentioned to be better at fitting multiple engines without impinging on other stuff, so I think four Type-2s will be fine.

Although honestly how much multiple impulse engines actually effect internal space on a mechanical level ranges from "nil" to ambiguous? It feels intuitively like they should, but also because they're always parallel in the horizontal plane, fitting N impulse engines into a ship still only takes up the space of one on the LCARs diagram. Internals space is basically worked out by seeing how much internal space is left on the diagram at the end.

Honestly in practice I would imagine Sayle does adjust it slightly for stuff like that, by filling up more space on the diagram with like, space-filling stuff instead. But there's not actually a hard one-to-one link, and I suspect it's not massive. Also to the extent that an effect exists, it's on our Internals. Given previous discussions I doubt the Quest would be willing to pay megabucks in order that we save space for a single extra Engineering module. Even I wouldn't, and I've been stanning Engineering left right and centre.

Then again we may also be able to fit four Type-2s on the Constitution saucer. There may be more of a trade-off but again, based on past projects and the vote structure, I doubt it will actually be really serious.
 
Mechanis said:
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (140,000 Tons) [2 Midline Decks] [9 Decks] [Canon: Constitution-class]

Pushing for Flat Connie is go.
Let's get that inline engineering hull and parallel nacelles kids!
(especially since, with the 140m hull, that would end up even more evocative of the Thunderchild and for in universe reasons I want to evoke that. I'm sure the Klingons at least heard about how Warspite went out, and I think building something that is alarmingly close to a successor design in configuration might make a few individuals over on Qo'nos a little more cautious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm game for that. Get something which looks more like a TOS Era Intrepid.
 
Derpmind said:
@Sayle Could we please have the vote extended? The changes to the thruster power changes a lot of people's reasoning for voting for one choice or another. Also,

You said earlier that the half-saucer has to have an even number of engines. Is that still the case?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is, of course, assuming they look back at the thread after voting and notice that the change is even a thing.
 
@Sayle I guess alternately one could partially resolve it with the idea that this Federation just ended up with some what stronger thrusters and due to that changes what they consider 'average' maneuverability. But what ever works best for you.
 
Skippy said:
The Half-Saucer is mentioned to be better at fitting multiple engines without impinging on other stuff, so I think four Type-2s will be fine.

Although honestly how much multiple impulse engines actually effect internal space on a mechanical level ranges from "nil" to ambiguous? It feels intuitively like they should, but also because they're always parallel in the horizontal plane, fitting N impulse engines into a ship still only takes up the space of one on the LCARs diagram. Internals space is basically worked out by seeing how much internal space is left on the diagram at the end.

Honestly in practice I would imagine Sayle does adjust it slightly for stuff like that, by filling up more space on the diagram with like, space-filling stuff instead. But there's not actually a hard one-to-one link, and I suspect it's not massive. Also to the extent that an effect exists, it's on our Internals. Given previous discussions I doubt the Quest would be willing to pay megabucks in order that we save space for a single extra Engineering module. Even I wouldn't, and I've been stanning Engineering left right and centre.

Then again we may also be able to fit four Type-2s on the Constitution saucer. There may be more of a trade-off but again, based on past projects and the vote structure, I doubt it will actually be really serious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The half saucer and full 200kt saucer are also four decks at the rim while the Constitution saucer is only two decks. That means that they will have rim decks above/below the impulse engines, which are two decks high.
 
@Sayle if we're tweaking the values for the impulse thrusters, I'd like to know whether or not the listed numbers include our +20% bonus from the Warp 8 engine, as that is our new baseline going forward.
 
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (140,000 Tons) [2 Midline Decks] [9 Decks] [Canon: Constitution-class]
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]
 
While I get the desire for a vote extension given the ongoing changes to equipment, practically I'd agree that most people aren't going to revote so it may not matter. Or prove me wrong! I'm game for that.
Candesce said:
Or the impulse engines could be stacked on top of each other, if we went for four.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes also that. Makes me wonder if we could fit six or eight impulse engines on the half saucer. I remain unconvinced that 2x mass gets Very High. It is so far unique to the Selachii.
 
Steven Kodaly said:
@Sayle if we're tweaking the values for the impulse thrusters, I'd like to know whether or not the listed numbers include our +20% bonus from the Warp 8 engine, as that is our new baseline going forward.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It doesn't include your bonus, which is quite substantial. The actual value is an integer from 0 to 1, so going from "Medium" to "High" is at maximum a 1/4th improvement and at minimum some infinitely small number. They're just general labels.

Type 2 Thrusters:
1 - Slow (0.3)
2 - Medium (0.6)
3 - High (0.9)
4 - Very High (1+)

Type 3 Thrusters:
1 - Slow (0.45)
2 - Medium (0.9)
3 - Very High (1+)
 
DeltaV11.2 said:
While I get the desire for a vote extension given the ongoing changes to equipment, practically I'd agree that most people aren't going to revote so it may not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It definitely won't matter, hence the requests for a revote (as in, new threadmark, throw out all the votes before it, and start over
Mechanis said:
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (140,000 Tons) [2 Midline Decks] [9 Decks] [Canon: Constitution-class]

Pushing for Flat Connie is go.
Let's get that inline engineering hull
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
why in gods name would you do this, thin Connie saucer and inline engineering hull are ACTIVELY ANTI-SYNERGISTIC. Thin Connie saucer is the WORST option for inline engineering hull, and inline engineering hull is the WORST option for thin Connie saucer*, because thin saucer can't fit a forward deflector without a massive blister.

*probably tied with no engineering hull

If you want no Engineering hull, you should probably be voting thick full saucer. If you want minimal, inline Engineering hull, you should be voting thick full saucer or half-saucer. If you want minimal, underslung Engineering hull, you should be voting thin full saucer or half-saucer. If you want normal- or large-sized Engineering hull, you should be voting half-saucer.
 
Last edited:
Derpmind said:
@Sayle Could we please have the vote extended? The changes to the thruster power changes a lot of people's reasoning for voting for one choice or another. Also,

You said earlier that the half-saucer has to have an even number of engines. Is that still the case?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

tbh I vacillate between engines in pairs only and thinking "does it really hurt to have a midline engine too if it's 3 engines or more?" and I suspect my answer changes depending on if 3 engines will max it out and a fourth engine would be useless because that makes the choices less meaningful if one is Better with a capital B, but also if one forces you to take a useless engine if you want max performance.

There's no rush on the vote. Also I'm going to kill the table earlier because it's just confusing people. I think this whole thing is probably why I used to not give concrete values to stuff beforehand, because it let me tweak as the process continued. In this case though I'm not going to snatch the information back mid-design.

EDIT: But since people have the info I can't exactly bitch at you for using it. I can bitch at me for giving it to you. I'll repost the update with clarified values and restart the vote from there.
 
Last edited:
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons) [4 Midline Decks] [8 Decks]
[X] 140 Meter Saucer (140,000 Tons) [2 Midline Decks] [9 Decks] [Canon: Constitution-class]
 
This appears at its core to be a debate between:

"A half saucer is mechanically the best and most sober choice for the ship we're trying to design."

and

"I'm not ruining the iconic look of the Enterprise with a half-saucer, as well as non-aesthetically possibly crippling its ability to have Spock do good science in it."

(As for me, I'm not going to vote to ruin the iconic look of the Enterprise with a half-saucer.)
 
Remove ads
2227: Project Constitution (Spaceframe: Part One)
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Duranium Alloy (200kt): 43 Defense. [6 Cost] [Canon: Constitution-class]

    Having decided that the duratanium alloy plating offers too many advantages to be left on the table you now have to actually decide what kind of ship it's going to be covering. Starfleet's requested mass budget limits your options, but you are reasonably confident that anything under 250,000 tons will still be acceptable. The teams have drawn up three major plans for the saucer section that you think would be viable.

    The first saucer design is in the vein of those you have designed before, focusing on a large central radius and thick rim that can accommodate plenty of small modules. The bulk of the saucer would be made up of three to four decks, with curved bulges providing space for smaller ventral and dorsal decks with systems that require less space like the bridge, crew quarters, and navigational systems. You have used much the same designs for the Sagarmatha, although both aesthetic tastes and more practical concerns will inevitably result in a different layout.

    The second option is your old friend the half-saucer. Using the same deck plan but directly bisecting it provides a vertical surface ideal for the installation of additional impulse engines without impinging on the traditional neck or engineering spaces. Core structural elements extend from amidships to give the ship a round-knife aesthetic, with space available for an aft-shuttle bay, the top of the warp core, or whatever else you think might be useful to fill that area. This will commit you to a minimum of two impulse engines, although if you elect to use the Type-3 thruster prototypes you can see the potential in adding a small auxiliary drive along the midline of the ship, though the costs for such a compact version compatible with the same power systems will probably cost as much as a full-sized engine. The Type-2, however, would commit you to either two or four engines with no in-between.

    The third design, while retaining the same diameter as its larger cousin, is a full saucer with a much thinner midline profile with only two decks running the entire saucer from edge to edge. Instead an inward curve followed by a pronounced doming effect towards the center of the saucer concentrates the majority of internal mass and interior space towards the heart of the vessel. This combines the lower mass of the half saucer without the disadvantage of having being restricted by engine count. While the raw material cost of the hull is certainly a benefit to building lighter and cheaper, the main advantage will be the less powerful and consequently less expensive shield systems needed to protect it to the standard expected of a Starfleet vessel.

    To simplify your analysis the mass of two standard nacelles have been added automatically, leaving only the mass of the secondary hull undefined.

    [ ] 140 Meter Saucer (200,000 Tons)
    [ ] 140 Meter Half-Saucer (140,000 Tons)
    [ ] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]

    No Moratorium
     
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] 140 Meter Thin Saucer (140,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class]

    I am still of the opinion this is the best choice, not only is it the size of the TMP Enterprise refit (meaning it gives us more room to play with as far as modules go) if the basic logic still holds true we'll be able to go even bigger in the future with a rebuild.

    It also means we'll be able to mount a decent engineering hull (most likely ~83,500 tonnes assuming the Kea mass logic holds true, so still firmly within the 250,000 tonne leeway we've got), preventing a saucer mounted deflector from compromising the tactical fit of the design.
     
    FWIW I would personally prefer that we do not re-do the vote and just move forward, and I say this while voting for an option that might benefit from it. But also I don't want to like, rain on anyone's parade who feels very strongly about it.

    Mechanis said:
    (especially since, with the 140m hull, that would end up even more evocative of the Thunderchild and for in universe reasons I want to evoke that. I'm sure the Klingons at least heard about how Warspite went out, and I think building something that is alarmingly close to a successor design in configuration might make a few individuals over on Qo'nos a little more cautious.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    ...While I know it will live forever in the hearts of much of the Quest, there is nothing In the world I believe in less than the idea that the Klingons care at all about our emotional support dreadnought.

    It's a ship from almost a century ago, when Earth was a distinctly peripheral power. Furthermore, in terms of is construction the Thunderchild reflects a defensively-focussed design philosophy which the Klingons would view with contempt. The Skate or the Selachii they would probably rate slightly more highly as unambiguously offensive weapons, but still view as somewhat compromised by Federation weakness. But also realistically only the Selachii is going to slightly figure in Klingon imagination as "that old patrol ship we see sometimes".

    Probably their equivalent of naval history nerds or hardcore wargamers might recognise the name, but it's fundamentally a piece of historical trivia from a time when Earth was just not on their radar at all. A Vulcan ship of the same time period might elicit slightly more reaction, but only slightly. It would be like the modern People's Army Liberation Navy having a visceral emotional reaction to the the memory of the Royal Hellenic Navy armoured cruiser Georgios Averof.
     
    KleverKil'Vanya said:
    Quick question @Sayle can we get a 110kton engineering hull or at least a very large one with the Connie saucer?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I don't know. I look at the saucer that's been selected, figure out the limit of 'garishly large' or 'way too small', plug their dimensions into the various shape calculators I've got running in the spreadsheet, and they spit out the corresponding mass. I will say that engineering sections are generally quite a bit lighter than saucer sections because at this point they're mostly just cylinders rather than the integrated secondary hulls seen later.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top