Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
WCSII said:
@Sayle, just out of curiosity. How much room would be left if those voting for small core, and inline blister, somehow, won (together) After Impulse, Nacelles, and at least one Forward Torp (not rapid) and two phasors? Would we even be able to add anything other than crew quarters and basic amenities to get a science rating? What since many people voting for UFO's main argument is that those of us voting for a full body are trying to build a combat vessel.

Also, still waiting on an answer to an earlier question about my assumption that if the Secondary Hull, and blister won, that the Deflector would just be moved to the Secondary Hull.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I can't tell you how much space would be left because you're basically asking me to trial build a ship that you aren't making. I don't know where you're going to put the impulse engines, for example.

And no, the blister deflector would be mounting a full five-deck deflector. There isn't room in the secondary hull for that.
 
Coinflip, and the Inlines have it. I couldn't think of a compromise as shifting the deflector to the secondary hull would just have been the inline to a different place. As it happens not relevant, since Inline won anyhow.
 
*Raises a finger, and opens mouth... Can't think of anything that isn't... restricted. Other than* If you had mentioned that shifting the deflector to mingle with the secondary hull was still inline... I would have switched my vote on the deflector.

. . . . ....

{Edit} And if it already had been mentioned. After voting, I largely ignored discussion so as not to get worked up by heavy debates... so I wouldn't have known, and no one brought it up in this late stage.
 
Last edited:
And 2 shield points (to say nothing of volume).

Still, glad that the standard core won, having nearly half of the saucer mass again in an engineering hull will be quite the boon module wise.
 
landcollector said:
Not very happy that Inline won the coin flip. There goes 0.4 Warp down the drain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
:(

I mean, if we had another warp 8 ship in the works I'd stick with small and cheap, but this ship's gonna be both supplementing the Kea-class and flying around for years in a cold war environment with an enemy that has tons of raiders. Higher speeds would be very valuable, whether or not we give it strong armaments.

Without, it needs them to escape serious enemies. With, it needs them to respond to emergencies and have our bio-survey corps scare off Klingon warships.

Losing that 0.4 warp factors is really gonna sting. Stay strong though.
 
Last edited:
Inserting the vote count as of this post for posterity.

Deflector votes tied at 56 each for inline and blister.
Adhoc vote count started by AntiSanity on Nov 8, 2024 at 9:26 AM, finished with 291 posts and 112 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Remove ads
2237: Project Darwin (Nacelles) New
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Inline Deflector (Maximum Warp: -0.4)
    [X] Standard Warp Core (Mass: +25,000 Tons) (Cost: +4)

    The inline deflector is fitted to the front edge of the saucer and the small model dish successfully powers up when connected to the shipyard power systems. While the graviton emitters lose cohesion at longer ranges compared to its larger cousin it is still capable of nudging debris out of the ship's course at high warp factors. While technically speaking the primary warp core is capable of providing the energy needed for greater speeds a standard warp field will collapse when struck by spaceborne particles over a certain mass-flow index. Even the tradelanes that have been charted through the lowest-density interstellar medium are not entirely devoid of material.

    The secondary hull may have increased the ship's mass but it has allowed you to fit both a small aft bay with a pair of Type F shuttles, a standard Warp 8 Engine, and a forward loading bay with direct access to the exterior where most other vessels would traditionally mount their deflector systems. But the ability to do that is useless without the ability to actually get anywhere, so that brings you to the nacelles.

    You have three options. The first is a sprint configuration which would claw back the maximum warp losses from the inline deflector, the shape of the resulting warp field providing the spatial curvatures necessary to passively deflect some more incoming material. Alternatively a cruise configuration would create a stronger but less elongated warp field, allowing the ship to more efficiently contract space in front of the bow. Finally the nacelles could be made to straddle the secondary hull with a compromise between the two warp regimes, providing a lesser improvement to both sprint and cruise than a more specialised system.

    [ ] Sprint Configuration (Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 8)
    [ ] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
    [ ] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]

    Two Hour Moratorium, Please


     
  • New
  • Threadmarks
    • Hmm, interesting. Well, this isn't a warship, and should spend the majority of its time cruising around. Having an emergency speed of warp 8 would be nice for tactical uses, in evasion or attack, but we can't have that without compromising utility, and science utility is our primary directive.

    [X] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
     
    Last edited:
    [ ] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]

    In this case it might be better to split the difference for a more generalist spread of speed and cruise range. There isn't a specific need either way for a dedicated science ship like this.
     
    The Newton's Sprint was 7.4 and its Cruise was 5.6; we'll be doing better at both no matter the option chosen.

    ... It's a bit late to be making the argument that a higher base Sprint would make it easier to choose Cruise here. Wish I'd thought of that earlier.
     
    Last edited:
    I am tempted to go linear simply for the flat form factor. Make her look like someone crushed a regular ship in a giant ship sized press.

    Cruise is, I feel, the correct choice, but come on... Flat boi.
     
    Last edited:
    Our in universe inability to have materials that can handle the sheer warp speed has certainly generated some interesting out of universe decision making processes. I do hope we can get that issue sorted out soon though.
     
    [ ] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]

    Going to vote linear here once the moratorium ends, because this lets us reclaim some of the lost sprint performance without loosing out on improved range. I'm not super pleased we lost out on the deflector blister, because frankly that would have made Cruise a no brainer for me, but as it stands we'd be dealing with a ship that's fitting the Warp 8 engine which can just barely make it to half of the Warp Factor the engine is named after.
     
    [ ] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
    [ ] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]

    Both are interesting, I am curious if this class can get a later warp 9 core refit if they stick around and what that would mean for speeds and range
     
    So if I've got my maths right, the key points should be:
    Nacelle LayoutEfficient CruiseMax CruiseTop Speed
    Sprint6.07.08.0
    Cruise6.47.07.6
    Linear6.27.07.8

    However, @Sayle previously mentioned that the Max Cruise would be 7.0 as long as the Top Speeed was greater than that. As our top speed is limited due to the deflector, the Max cruise should be effected by the Nacelle Layout speed boosts. If this is true, then the actual speeds are:
    Nacelle LayoutEfficient CruiseMax CruiseTop Speed
    Sprint6.07.08.0
    Cruise6.47.27.6
    Linear6.27.17.8
     
    Yeah, as it stands we're not going to get a Max Cruise past Warp 7 until at least the Type 4 Nacelle in the 2260s (at the earliest).
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top