Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
JamesShazbond said:
The weight numbers are with 2 nacelles already included, right? Do we know how much 4 nacelles would weigh?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We probably aren't allowed to use 4 nacelles since the goal is to get a cheap and solid combatant and 4 nacelles is pretty counterproductive to lowering costs as we saw with the recent Radiant class:
Sayle said:
…of the three ships entering service in the second half of the 2220s, the Radiant deserves a small mention for its production run of only four ships and for being the first ship to be built with an additional set of nacelles for cruise-cycling. The Radiant-class was able to cruise at a maximum of warp 6.7 by alternating the nacelles generating the warp field, allowing one set to cool while the other took up the load. The 25% increase in raw speed proved useful when time was short, but ultimately did not justify the extra expense. Faced with a classical dilemma where the ship could not showcase its advantages unless it was one of the closest ships to an emergency but could not be the closest ship to an emergency without a much larger production run skewing probability in its favour, Starfleet opted to scrap the idea entirely.

The Radiant finally got its day in the sun during the Four Years War, during which three of the four commissioned vessels were destroyed while undertaking vital relief and emergency efforts during the opening stages of the conflict. It is estimated that prompt delivery of supplies and medical assistance prevented the deaths of thousands to preventable illness and resource scarcity before the increasingly dangerous forays into Klingon-overrun territory eventually caught up with the ships and their crews.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That said, since this ship's going to have Warp 8 engines it might be able to achieve a similar or better cruiser speed on 2 nacelles.

Personally I'm going to push for extra cargo, antimatter if possible, and a Medbay for ship modules since the Warp 8 engines will make this an excellent first responder.

We know that the Tarsus IV Massacre still happens in this timeline and if a faster first responder could get there sooner it could potentially prevent the Governor from being able to implement his plans.
Sayle said:
The Archer-class UFS Stephenson was the first responder to the Tarsus IV Massacre, having transported over forty kilotons of grain to relieve the famine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can work on a dedicated science ship and/or Explorer after this for Science stuff especially since the Kea at 19 Science should still be an incredibly solid ship (it only retired in 2290) even it'll need an escort when working on the frontier.
 
[X] Integrated Secondary Hull (200,000 Tons) [2 Forward Launcher Max]
[X] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class] [3 Forward Launchers Max]

The half-saucer lets us put on four engines more efficiently. It's objectively more efficient for tonnages above 180kT, and we chose it for that reason.

As others have ably stated; to perform well at its intended role this ship needs to be able to range over cast volumes of space quickly, hunting Klingons. The scarcity of other Warp 8 ships makes this only more imperative. Hence, bigger secondary hull.

We need this ship to be draggin' a mighty wagon, a lot of junk in her proverbial trunk, so she can spend six months at a time out in the deep black giving Klingon captains PTSD without stopping to refuel or resupply, travelling a distance twice the diameter of the Federation.

Or to put it another way:


View: https://youtu.be/7nprhxc2Lxc?si=om7p0r9kPAXIr4U0
 
[X] Integrated Secondary Hull (200,000 Tons) [2 Forward Launcher Max]

Rapid Launchers are expensive, but the extra internal space is going to be a big deal for its longevity as a design. We're saving no small amount of money by using a set of 4 Type-2 Impulse Engines after all, even if prototype launchers are going to devour those savings and then some.
 
[X] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]

Gonna have to vote for speed and firepower here. This is going to be our fire brigade ship and it needs to get there the firstest with the mostest (combat power). We can do a different ship for the Five Year Mission™ after the war, assuming we're even in a position to do those.
 
[X] Underslung Secondary Hull (180,000 Tons) [3 Forward Launchers Max] [+0.2 Sprint]
[X] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class] [3 Forward Launchers Max]
 
Mechanis said:
We can do a different ship for the Five Year Mission™
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Please stop saying this.

Like it's fine if you prioritise immediate term defence here - I think the underslung is broadly worse at being the kind of warship we need but obviously feel free to disagree.

But this repeated meme that after the war we will build our "real explorer" is categorically wrong and debunked by the GM. It is not going to happen.

This is the ship we're getting, so let's own our choices.
 
Alectai said:
Rapid Launchers are expensive, but the extra internal space is going to be a big deal for its longevity as a design.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I am not really concerned about the longevity of the design. because if we compromise on offense power and combat ability, there might not be a Federation to care about that. We're staring down the barrel of losing an existential war, longevity concerns, aren't.
 
[X] Integrated Secondary Hull (200,000 Tons) [2 Forward Launcher Max]
[X] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class] [3 Forward Launchers Max]

I've been convinced that we want the internal space more than the +0.2 Sprint.
 
Mechanis said:
I am not really concerned about the longevity of the design. because if we compromise on offense power and combat ability, there might not be a Federation to care about that. We're staring down the barrel of losing an existential war, longevity concerns, aren't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If we build this ship out properly, we can afford to think about the long term. We can have our disastrously powerful warship now, and when the war is over, take out some of the parts we needed to win the war and replace them with the things that we need to do five-year missions with. We can rebuild and refit after the war, and not have to waste time mothballing some ships and designing an entirely new one.

I feel I've belabored the point enough that I'm going to just let it stand. I understand wanting to just focus on the now, but if we don't have some sort of plan for afterward, we're just going to waste time arguing over the next ship.
 
Mechanis said:
I am not really concerned about the longevity of the design. because if we compromise on offense power and combat ability, there might not be a Federation to care about that. We're staring down the barrel of losing an existential war, longevity concerns, aren't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not convinced it's quite That bad, but it does seem to be a situation where the immediate issues far outweigh longevity concerns regardless.
 
Mechanis said:
We can do a different ship for the Five Year Mission™ after the war, assuming we're even in a position to do those.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope. This is the ship that Starfleet will be sending on the five year mission. Full stop.

We need to build this ship to do long range, independent patrolling, raiding, scouting, and commerce protection, the "cruising" jobs of 19th century sailing navies which star trek apes a lot from.

It's just that the modules that make it good at cruising also make it good at exploring.
 
Skippy said:
Please stop saying this.

Like it's fine if you prioritise immediate term defence here - I think the underslung is broadly worse at being the kind of warship we need but obviously feel free to disagree.

But this repeated meme that after the war we will build our "real explorer" is categorically wrong and debunked by the GM. It is not going to happen.

This is the ship we're getting, so let's own our choices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ramble said:
Nope. This is the ship that Starfleet will be sending on the five year mission. Full stop.

We need to build this ship to do long range, independent patrolling, raiding, scouting, and commerce protection, the "cruising" jobs of 19th century sailing navies which star trek apes a lot from.

It's just that the modules that make it good at cruising also make it good at exploring.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sayle has outright stated that the project choices are in large part influenced by what the thread wants to do, and has discussed doing. I may be the most vocal of the "build real explorer later" crowd but I am not the only one, so dismissing that desire as a "meme" and saying that we aren't going to do one is disingenuous.

Furthermore, I would bring in the precident of the Stingray---the very first ship we designed---as an example of doing something we believe is needed more than whatever the design brief is. We might well make a "Science Vessel" that happens to be functionally an explorer in design to replace the Kea, for example.
 
Skippy said:
But this repeated meme that after the war we will build our "real explorer" is categorically wrong and debunked by the GM. It is not going to happen.

This is the ship we're getting, so let's own our choices.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We absolutely are going to make another explorer class at some point. It might not be the next one after this, but so long as the quest continues we'll get around to it eventually (and we can always just take a design brief from Starfleet saying 'Please make a swanky diplomatic ship for impressing people' and YOLO it into a do-everything behemoth if we all combine our powers).

We might never have our classic Constitution class, but we can still build the mother of all Excelsior classes.
 
Well, withthe vote how it is, looks like we're only getting 2 maybe 2.5 module slots.

I hope ya'll are happy.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
If we build this ship out properly, we can afford to think about the long term. We can have our disastrously powerful warship now, and when the war is over, take out some of the parts we needed to win the war and replace them with the things that we need to do five-year missions with. We can rebuild and refit after the war, and not have to waste time mothballing some ships and designing an entirely new one.

I feel I've belabored the point enough that I'm going to just let it stand. I understand wanting to just focus on the now, but if we don't have some sort of plan for afterward, we're just going to waste time arguing over the next ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hear me out, we could "Do" as you suggest or this war and the fact that the core worlds are under thread for the second time since the founding finally triggers a defensive doctrine that makes sure we build and maintain a core of pure warships whose only purpose is it to glare at everyone over the border. Extra points if the only people allowed on exploration duty have done a 4+year tour on such a warship.
 
[X] Integrated Secondary Hull (200,000 Tons) [2 Forward Launcher Max]
[X] Large Secondary Hull (190,000 Tons) [Canon: Constitution-class] [3 Forward Launchers Max]

I've been convinced. We need more space for functionality than we do an extra bit of sprint speed. (Remember, the hull at the full 200kt is only 6 cost, so more hull is much cheaper than any of the other components.)
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top