Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Sayle said:
Yeah but the same canon thinks the Constitution is a million tons so, you know. Take it with a grain of salt. The Galaxy-class massing only 2.5 times as much an Excelsior is unlikely.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gross tonnage is a measure of volume, not mass, it simply means the Constitution class has an internal volume of 100,000,000 cubic feet or about 2,831,684.66 m3 (which gets into Discovery tier ship interiors, given st-v-sw.net estimates the Galaxy-class at having a volume of 5,820,983 m3 and the baseline Excelsior as being 873,287 m3*).

The million gross ton quote was also given in an episode, whereas the Excelsior mass (and my mistake, it was 3.35 million tonnes) was given in the DS9 technical manual, which is not canon (or is beta canon, if you prefer). Furthermore the DS9 technical manual is rather infamous for getting ship sizes wildly wrong, whereas the 4,960,000 tonne Galaxy value is given in the TNG technical manual, which unfortunately only really focuses on the Galaxy-class.

You are correct, though, the masses are rather out of whack.

*and the TOS Connie (which it annoyingly refers to as the Constitution A, with the refit being the B) is 211,248 m3.
 
Last edited:
[X] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]
Without the blister i cant pick for practical reasons cruise
 
Remove ads
2238: Project Darwin (Impulse Engines) New
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Linear Configuration (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.2, Maximum Warp: 7.6 -> 7.8) [Range: +10%]

    The nacelles prove to be more of an engineering challenge than usual: while current materials and spaceframe construction techniques do provide incredibly durable and robust structural elements the addition of planetary gravities do add another axis of stress to the usual thrust vectors. In addition to reinforcing the nacelle struts you also include a pair of supports anchored to the secondary hull, a small addition that will help stability and more naturally diffuse the stresses involved in even a gentle touch-down.

    All told the resulting ship is quite sleek with a minimal vertical profile, even including the reinforced ventral surfaces on the secondary hull that required truncating the usual elegant cylinders and curves that Starfleet builds in. The linear nacelles also claw back half of what you lost to the deflector downgrade, and the additional cruise speed and range will help with the Darwin being able to venture out that little bit further from the border.

    Having resolved the ship's warp systems you move onto the impulse drives. The Type-3 thruster is now standard and the requisite power systems are now full integrated with the Warp 8 EPS network. Given the Darwin's light mass a single central engine will be sufficient to bring the ship up to standard and then some, providing a solid thrust and manoeuvring profile for her size. Adding a second engine would push the spaceframe to its limit and require both of their maximum thrusts to be dialled down to around 60% of standard, but if you insist on a maximal tactical performance then it can be done.

    [ ] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]
    [ ] Dual Engines (Cost: 40 -> 50) [Manoeuvrability: Very High]


    Two Hour Moratorium, Please

     
  • New
  • Threadmarks
    • I think a single Impulse Engine is sufficient here. If the ship is landed, it's maneuverability is nil, and if it's in space, it really should be retreating, not fighting.
     
    Flat looking good.

    I'm more than happy with high maneuverability on this thing, and the inefficiencies of two engines producing way more thrust than the frame can actually handle make clear that spending big for multiple isn't a good investment.
     
    Sayle said:
    Two Hour Moratorium, Please
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Heh, from above she kinda looks like the prime universe NX-class.

    Sayle said:
    Given the Darwin's light mass a single central engine will be sufficient to bring the ship up to standard and then some, providing a solid thrust and manoeuvring profile for her size. Adding a second engine would push the spaceframe to its limit and require both of their maximum thrusts to be dialled down to around 60% of standard, but if you insist on a maximal tactical performance then it can be done.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Damn, now this is a bit of a pickle. Shame we can't ask for a 'heavy' impulse engine that's effectively 1.5x the 'standard' type 3.

    For comparison's sake the Excalibur was about 45.5 cost when it came to the engine stage. Edit: that doesn't account for us having shields yet but the Excalibur not, if that was then the Excalibur was 63.5
     
    Last edited:
    Yeah, paying double for only a 20% increase in total thrust over a single engine is just ridiculous.
    Just having High Maneuverability is fine for a ship that isn't meant for Patrol or Front Line duties is fine.
     
    I think, two engines would be best, this thing would either be in space, where it can run away, or its gonna get caught being planet side, so it needs to gtfo as soon as possible, so being fast and can turn quickly to avoid orbital strikes.

    Then again I think because its on the planet, most ships will overlook it, sensors can get blinded by a planets gravity well, and as such being in orbit tends to alert people that there is a starship there and investigate, but being planet side changes that, so where you get enemy starships coming to investigate the signature of a starship, they would instead overlook it.

    But still just in case I prefer a ship to be able to dodge while its in atmosphere then it not being able to and really wishing it could.
     
    zac1 said:
    But still just in case I prefer a ship to be able to dodge while its in atmosphere then it not being able to and really wishing it could.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Manoeuvrability in atmosphere is impacted by the action of gravity upon the hull of the ship. Given that both engines need to be reduced by 40% in space to avoid is fucking the hull they'd be even more limited in atmosphere.

    Whilst Starfleet ships can take quite a pounding when crash landing that's not something directly applicable here.
     
    zac1 said:
    I think, two engines would be best, this thing would either be in space, where it can run away, or its gonna get caught being planet side, so it needs to gtfo as soon as possible, so being fast and can turn quickly to avoid orbital strikes.

    Then again I think because its on the planet, most ships will overlook it, sensors can get blinded by a planets gravity well, and as such being in orbit tends to alert people that there is a starship there and investigate, but being planet side changes that, so where you get enemy starships coming to investigate the signature of a starship, they would instead overlook it.

    But still just in case I prefer a ship to be able to dodge while its in atmosphere then it not being able to and really wishing it could.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    The cost of going up just one grade is not worth it. Save the cost and the space for other internals.
     
    I say single engine. High manueverability is still good, it's just not absolute top of the range, and this ship isn't intended to have combat as one of its primary roles the way a Battleship or Explorer would.
     
    [ ] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]
    much as i would like a super maneuver ship. there really is not a need for it on this one.

    could someone remind we when the vote opens. thanks before hand
     
    Last edited:
    High maneuverability would still be great even if this was intended for front line combat. Don't know where this sudden meme that very high maneuverability is somehow a necessity for combat vessels. It just happened to work well with the design choices we made in the Excalibur.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top