Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Nice, we've got a shuttle bay and a bit of cargo capacity with the loading bay!

@Sayle, out of curiosity, what are the nacelles going to weigh?

It'd be interesting to know as there's been a bit of a discussion in the thread, but also it does have some bearing on the engine choice. If we're only slightly below the M:VH threshold then I think we'd be incline to live with it, but if the tonnage is significantly north of 100kT then the case for two engines becomes more compelling.
 
I like that the reason we can't fit the standard deflector on the secondary hull is that we have a front facing loading bay under the ship to open on the landing pad. This is a neat upside of the secondary hull in landing configuration I didn't anticipate.

Anyone remember what the nacelle configurations look like? If we're still on the landing plan I think we want them over the hull rather than under so our fancy new ground loading bay isn't way up in the air. For me that matters more than the exact warp parameters.
 
I don't know if we'll have room for antimatter pods or not, and even if we do I don't want to take them. And since I want more range, that leaves me voting for efficient cruise.

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

I'm picking style over substance, although it doesn't feel like too much of a loss in this case.

Gimmie Dat Pancake.
Take us to your leader.
 
Last edited:
Nyvis said:
I like that the reason we can't fit the standard deflector on the secondary hull is that we have a front facing loading bay under the ship to open on the landing pad. This is a neat upside of the secondary hull in landing configuration I didn't anticipate.

Anyone remember what the nacelle configurations look like? If we're still on the landing plan I think we want them over the hull rather than under so our fancy new ground loading bay isn't way up in the air. For me that matters more than the exact warp parameters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ha ha - what if they're slung underneath the saucer and have landing feet built along the bottom surface of them. That way if we stick a large foot on the back of the secondary hull we've got our landing legs - without trying to arrange telescopic legs like Voyager had.

But yes, I think this is the ship to go for a max cruise speed, and the extra 20% range is very nice too.
[ ] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
 
Last edited:
I'm still very skeptical about actually landing this hull on planets for multiple reasons. Anyway, the decision was made to sacrifice max Sprint capability so this thing can't outrun any modern threats that may spring up, so nothing for it but to double down and give it the best efficient cruise possible. Just have to hope there's an Excalibur around that can swoop in to save this hull from anything it can't outfight by itself.

[ ] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
Ha ha - what if they're slung underneath the saucer and have landing feet built along the bottom surface of them. That way if we stick a large foot on the back of the secondary hull we've got our landing legs - without trying to arrange telescopic legs like Voyager had.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This still adds a lot of vertical distance between the loading bay and the ground, which isn't great. I also don't think the nacelles are the best part of the ship to absorb landing shock on.

Looking at past ships, it looks like sprint is above the hull? So that should be my vote.

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

I don't mind linear in a pinch either.
 
Last edited:
How much range is actually needed?
How often is this ship heading way off out into the black and then moving around constantly there, rather than going from a station near-ish the border, to not far outside the border, then just... Sitting there, until it's time to come home?

Arguably, Especially if the ship is not intended to be combat focused, the emphasis should be on Sprint, to allow it to escape the inevitable hostile encounters that come from hanging about in potentially contested border regions and poking things.

Nothing about this ship's job actually requires particularly long range.
 
Last edited:
landcollector said:
I'm still very skeptical about actually landing this hull on planets for multiple reasons. Anyway, the decision was made to sacrifice max Sprint capability so this thing can't outrun any modern threats that may spring up, so nothing for it but to double down and give it the best efficient cruise possible. Just have to hope there's an Excalibur around that can swoop in to save this hull from anything it can't outfight by itself.

[ ] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This has got me thinking ,what kind of statistics do Starfleet vessels have for service life for noncombatants.?

We kind of approach it on a lot of supposition, that certain things are critical features for non-combatants. Granted, its Star Trek. Science ships need teeth because they're gonna be poking exotic space things, that sometimes poke back.

In any case I think 'needing to outrun a thing' is going to be very niche case. A science ship has low strategic value, cases where people are incentivized to actually chase them down feel kinda niche now that I think about it. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it feels like something that would be outside of the default functions expectations.
 
This isn't necessarily a non-combatant and we should stop ourselves falling into this kind of thinking based on an overly narrow interpretation of the brief. As one of the only two classes of ship we have with a Warp 8 engine, entering service a period of constant border tension and cold war for Starfleet, it would be a greatly missed opportunity to not make this thing an able combatant for her weight class. It in no way prevents us from studying algae in peacetime.

The Kea is a science ship and post-refit will be literally the #2 combatant in Starfleet.
 
Dragonlord7012 said:
This has got me thinking ,what kind of statistics do Starfleet vessels have for service life for noncombatants.?

We kind of approach it on a lot of supposition, that certain things are critical features for non-combatants. Granted, its Star Trek. Science ships need teeth because they're gonna be poking exotic space things, that sometimes poke back.

In any case I think 'needing to outrun a thing' is going to be very niche case. A science ship has low strategic value, cases where people are incentivized to actually chase them down feel kinda niche now that I think about it. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it feels like something that would be outside of the default functions expectations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm just frustrated that we damn near crippled the Federation by making a Warp 8 engine incompatible with the existing fleet, and now we're willfully reducing the engine's current top end performance on this hull for modest mass savings at best. I don't understand.
 
[ ] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]

The base warp 8 engine has a range advantage over the old engine of ~1.7142x for a given volume (120 Excalibur base vs 70 Kea), so having a massive increase in range from configuration isn't the most important. Sprint speed is still an important factor here (being a ship on our periphery that's going to run into all sorts of weird shit, and then need to either run away or run faster towards), so I'm going to go for an option that gives us a bit more range on top of extra sprint speed.

Plus, it'll look like the Intrepid-class the most, from my reading, and I do like that spoon ship.
 
Last edited:
Mechanis said:

DTI threat Report: Conqueror class Battleship

​
snip
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So, thought on this after our development of the Excalibur-class - the Conqueror and its systems are essentially an attempt to develop something in the 2200s-2230s of the Mirror Universe to try and match the tactical performance of the UFS Hauteclere, now ISS Hauteclere, despite the Terran Empire's distinctly inferior technology base in a lot of areas. Their Warp Cores are individually inferior, so they need the multiplex array to get comparable power output. Even then, their best disruptor prototypes are also inferior in beam power to a phaser bank, so they need to spend ruinous amounts of fuel and hull volume using fusion reactors to let as many disruptor banks as possible fire - compounded by the fact that their impulse engine technology is still vastly inferior, so they can't make the ship anywhere near as maneuverable as the Excalibur-class, which in turn means a greater number of disruptor banks to provide adequate coverage.

Defensively, their hull materials are likely inferior, so they need to retain hull polarization to get similar durability, their shields are inferior, so they need the secondary shielding grid to try and achieve some level of parity, and the aforementioned impulse engine problem means they basically can't juke torpedoes, so they're reliant on point defense cannons to try and destroy torpedoes before impact.

Under this logic, I'd actually expect the fighters and troop complement to be part of an effort to make the Conqueror's useful for more than just fighting peer opponents - the fighters enable a greater degree of "punch down" capability against lighter targets, as well as more precise engagement of surface targets in support of ground troops, and the troop complement enables the Conqueror to have some role in both boarding disabled ships and also supporting invasions of hostile planets. The ship is still vastly inferior to the Excalibur-class in a lot of ways, but that'd make sense eve if we were trying to design an Excalibur in the equivalent time period without things like the Warp 8 Engine.
 
Skippy said:
This isn't necessarily a non-combatant and we should stop ourselves falling into this kind of thinking based on an overly narrow interpretation of the brief. As one of the only two classes of ship we have with a Warp 8 engine, entering service a period of constant border tension and cold war for Starfleet, it would be a greatly missed opportunity to not make this thing an able combatant for her weight class. It in no way prevents us from studying algae in peacetime.

The Kea is a science ship and post-refit will be literally the #2 combatant in Starfleet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ehh, i was kind of baffled by the "this isn't a combat ship so we should make it suck at escaping" logic in the previous vote, but it was producing results I liked so...
Meanwhile for actal combat/war ships, sprint is Still relevant (escaping fights you can't win is still mportant, but so is running down fleeing enemies), as is max cruise, while efficient cruise only really matters when spending long periods away from supply, which explorers and raiders certainly do, but light ships like this aren't actually suited for either role and would instead either be part of large fleets as escorts, or defending points of interest, or patrolling between/near bases, where supply is less of an issue.
 
With the range advantage the warp 8 engine has over the archer style engine (1.7142x) this ship is probably going to outrange everything but the Archer and Excalibur as a baseline, so taking the linear configuration means probably exceeding the Archer whilst also maintaining an efficient cruise only equaled by the Excalibur, a greater max warp than anything in the fleet bar the Excalibur and if @TheShadowDeamon post is correct a maximum cruise faster than anything else in the fleet (again bar the Excalibur) and faster than most ships top speed.
 
landcollector said:
I'm still very skeptical about actually landing this hull on planets for multiple reasons. Anyway, the decision was made to sacrifice max Sprint capability so this thing can't outrun any modern threats that may spring up, so nothing for it but to double down and give it the best efficient cruise possible. Just have to hope there's an Excalibur around that can swoop in to save this hull from anything it can't outfight by itself.

[ ] Cruise Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.4) [Range: +20%]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly I was skeptical myself, but the logic of 'If you're not confident in landing the ship on the planet, you're not confident in planting a colony there' was actually fairly persuasive. For me, anyway.
 
landcollector said:
I'm just frustrated that we damn near crippled the Federation by making a Warp 8 engine incompatible with the existing fleet, and now we're willfully reducing the engine's current top end performance on this hull for modest mass savings at best. I don't understand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are going to be other Warp 8 ships, and the Excalibur-class has already given us a very powerful Warp 8 fleet.

People are focusing too much on the "second Warp 8 ship" part of this design too much.
 
Horologer said:
There are going to be other Warp 8 ships, and the Excalibur-class has already given us a very powerful Warp 8 fleet.

People are focusing too much on the "second Warp 8 ship" part of this design too much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It hasn't given us a warp 8 fleet, it has given us a warp 8 class. A class of ships, 18 out of a total fleet of some 100-200 total (warships, because that's what we design), does not make a fleet.

This will be the only other class of warp 8/that neighbourhood ships for nearly a decade after the end of the Klingon War. Two classes of ships don't make a fleet, but they will make a decent part of it.
 
I think there's something that needs to be cleared up.

Half the mass of a cruiser is still a big ship, especially if we're not producing anything larger than said cruisers. It's really important to note that mass is exponential not linear. A true small ship compared to our 180,000 ton ship would probably be about 18,000-30,000 tons. For example, at the end of the Second World War, the United States was making heavy cruisers about 17,000 tons (200m long by 21m wide, Baltimore Class), while also making destroyers less than 3,500 tons (119m long by 12m wide, Gearing Class), and the US was making ships both larger and smaller than each.

I certainly feel that building a ship in the destroyer range is about right for this design, a specialized ship that might do limited patrols. In any event being half the mass of our cruiser would effectively make it absolutely huge for what we want it to be.

In any case, it's quite clear we have a case of Sci-Fi Writers Have No Sense of Scale.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top