Long string of quote responses (not spaghetti-quote because they're all to different posts):
We don't actually know if that's the case though, not until the component is actually drawn up and put on the LCARS diagram.
We know it has
a neck, singular, rather than struts. (ninja'd by QM post anyway lol)
Where, exactly? Because I've scoured Sayle's recent posts and found absolutely no such statement.
This is the ship that Starfleet will be sending on the five year mission. Full stop.
mmmmmmm plausibly, yeah. Probably, maybe. Full stop? I would very much like to see a definitive QM statement to that effect, if you've got one.
For one thing, Sayle is generally fairly inclined to offer design briefs for things the thread would like to do, and I don't think anybody's arguing that we'd
like to design a proper flagship Explorer post-war.
For another, the in-universe Starfleet Design Bureau has a long and mostly-storied history of giving Starfleet what it thinks they need, not necessarily what they're asked for, dating back to their earliest work on the
Stingray-class. I don't particularly care if our next design brief is
asking for a better-rounded cruiser or a more modern science vessel or a modern diplomatic ship, we can vote it big enough and capable enough (and expensive enough) to
be an Explorer.
Quite, actually.
I don't care about the 5 year mission, I care that this cruiser cannot cruise.
Independent patrol, long range scouting, deep raiding, and commerce protection. These are the "cruising jobs" that I keep hammering on about.
...We're about to be fighting a
defensive war. As in,
being invaded. The main arena of battle will be
inside our own territory.
I'm not saying independent patrol, long range scouting, deep raiding, or commerce protection are
useless, but they come a very, very,
very distant second to "enough force responding quickly enough to win major fleet actions deep inside our interior".
Good. The less ability this... thing... has to do anything but fight, sooner we can get rid of it.
Wow, rude.
Did the cost of the prototype shield go up?
Dramatically =(
two standard and one rapid launcher, which has less Dakka than two rapids, I'm not so sure about that.
always feels dangerous to assume the high roll for a prototype, when it's significantly (if, granted,
not overwhelmingly) more likely that 2 rapid will
equal 2 std + 1 rapid than exceed them. Always safer to judge prototypes by either median or worst-case outcomes, rather than best-case, imo.
Hey, an update!
Of course a fourth redundant thruster could be installed to redistribute the engines back to port and starboard, again preserving the internal space. Your inner designer hurts a little at the waste, but it's still less expensive than upgrading to the Type-3s.
Yup, this is the way to go. It's only a "waste" in a vacuum; in context, it's a savings of tightly-limited module space over the triple Type-2s, while maintaining its maneuverability at very modest cost downside, or a savings of 3.5 Cost over double Type 3s at
no downside.
[ ] Four Type-2 Thrusters (33 -> 42 Cost) [Very High Maneuverability]
