Starfleet Design Bureau

[X] Dual Engines (Cost: 40 -> 50) [Manoeuvrability: Very High]

Captains will demand full power, while engineers will scream about the ship not being able to take it.
 
Per Sayle the base Connie had 3x phasers (2x ventral side, 1x dorsal front) and 2x forward standard launchers (ventral), with some having 1x rear standard launcher and 1x phaser.

The baseline Connie can be equaled with 2-3x phasers and 1x forward RFL (which will give it an alpha only 6 short of the prime time Connie, and also allow an at least 8 ship batch assuming we get 2nd tranche Excalibur funding dedicated towards it).
No? The Canon Connie had a Rapid Fire Launcher rather than 2 regular launchers.

The regular launchers were the were only a thing on the aft for some variants.
The canon Constitution mounted three ventral phaser banks, a rapid-fire launcher, and nothing else. Some models had an aft torpedo launcher and aft phaser, but it's not a lot. It was not an expansively armed ship at all until the 2270 refit.
 
I must argue for very high Maneuverability in order to give the science ship the best possible chance of escaping from spoopy space bullshit.

Also, advocating for two Phasers front, one back, and one RFL up front.
 
[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

Save on costs where you can, and splurging on engines that you can't even use a third of the power of because the hull can't handle it, on a ship that's not even supposed to see combat (and is supposed to flee from enemies if it does encounter hostiles) is incredibly wasteful.

A central engine still gives us high maneuverability regardless, so unless you're trying to dogfight birds of prey, two engines is wasteful overkill.
 
No apologies, but this decided to take up residence in my head and now it's all your problem.

[...]

1F-36 (V Refit)

The publication of the paper "Subspace chromodynamism for anisotropic modulation of entangled-transfinite Reynolds turbulent plasma flow" has demonstrated the possibility and indeed the practicality of compact warp turbocavitation bubbles for sub-kilotonne masses. This white paper shall show how the venerable 1F-36 spaceframe can be refit for continued service via application of these principles.

Current calculations show that for masses less than approximately 250 tonnes a warp turbocavitation bubble can be maintained with some effort, allowing for abnormally fast and efficient travel for a given energy input. The required nacelle configuration is that of four short nacelles mounted in a staggered linear configuration on two extended spars to a high aspect ration tubular hull, an extremely unusual and complex arrangement that can however be maintained via use of modern duotronic interociter controlled quantum encabulation systems. The deflector arrangement required is also peculiar, requiring not just a compact in-line forward deflector but also a trio of perpendicular rear-deflectors to manage aft warp wake. These rear deflectors mean that impulse engines cannot be mounted to the main hull, but the peculiar nacelle spars and deflector configuration means that the impulse engines can be mounted in particularly close proximity to the warp nacelles without interference.

While expensive in terms of engineering expertise required to build and maintain the systems, the result is a 120 tonne package capable of a carrying an additional 130 tonnes of cargo at a Warp 6 cruise from one side of the Federation to the other without a need for stopping to refuel, all while making use of existing spaceframes and attendant tooling and docking systems. While this is something of a niche capability at the moment, the utility of moving high value materials relatively quickly without having to task a cruiser is self-evident. Additionally, within the context of potential future conflicts, the necessity of the design to make use of antimatter reactors to achieve sufficient plasma temperature means that it will be capable of being fit with a single photon torpedo launcher and a few dozen torpedoes. While obviously woefully vulnerable in most space combat situations, the capability for a squadron of these ships to launch torpedoes at range from multiple vectors against static targets would provide considerable firepower for far less cost than the same number of full warships.

[...]

If you are able to picture what I just described, you may now laugh and/or swear at me.
Space 747?
 
[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

High maneuverability is easily good enough for this ship. Honestly I think high maneuverability is good enough for most ships, even combat focused ones.
 
I must argue for very high Maneuverability in order to give the science ship the best possible chance of escaping from spoopy space bullshit.

Also, advocating for two Phasers front, one back, and one RFL up front.
If we want to drive up costs and spare no expense, choosing the option that we can only make 60% use of because the hull itself can't handle the strain is the kind of contradictory choice to go for.

But given we were asked to keep costs down, this is the biggest no-brainer option for the project so far. We're giving up "maximum possible maneuverability that the hull can possibly take before breaking itself apart, using more engine power than the ship can handle by a huge margin" in exchange for a substantial reduction in cost.

Again, not even the Selachii and Skate designs went for "a third more engine power than the hull can actually handle, costs be damned" and those were dedicated low-cost warships.

This ship isn't going to be heavily armed enough to make maximum maneuverability that useful anyway.
 
[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

No apologies, but this decided to take up residence in my head and now it's all your problem.

[...]

1F-36 (V Refit)

The publication of the paper "Subspace chromodynamism for anisotropic modulation of entangled-transfinite Reynolds turbulent plasma flow" has demonstrated the possibility and indeed the practicality of compact warp turbocavitation bubbles for sub-kilotonne masses. This white paper shall show how the venerable 1F-36 spaceframe can be refit for continued service via application of these principles.

Current calculations show that for masses less than approximately 250 tonnes a warp turbocavitation bubble can be maintained with some effort, allowing for abnormally fast and efficient travel for a given energy input. The required nacelle configuration is that of four short nacelles mounted in a staggered linear configuration on two extended spars to a high aspect ration tubular hull, an extremely unusual and complex arrangement that can however be maintained via use of modern duotronic interociter controlled quantum encabulation systems. The deflector arrangement required is also peculiar, requiring not just a compact in-line forward deflector but also a trio of perpendicular rear-deflectors to manage aft warp wake. These rear deflectors mean that impulse engines cannot be mounted to the main hull, but the peculiar nacelle spars and deflector configuration means that the impulse engines can be mounted in particularly close proximity to the warp nacelles without interference.

While expensive in terms of engineering expertise required to build and maintain the systems, the result is a 120 tonne package capable of a carrying an additional 130 tonnes of cargo at a Warp 6 cruise from one side of the Federation to the other without a need for stopping to refuel, all while making use of existing spaceframes and attendant tooling and docking systems. While this is something of a niche capability at the moment, the utility of moving high value materials relatively quickly without having to task a cruiser is self-evident. Additionally, within the context of potential future conflicts, the necessity of the design to make use of antimatter reactors to achieve sufficient plasma temperature means that it will be capable of being fit with a single photon torpedo launcher and a few dozen torpedoes. While obviously woefully vulnerable in most space combat situations, the capability for a squadron of these ships to launch torpedoes at range from multiple vectors against static targets would provide considerable firepower for far less cost than the same number of full warships.

[...]

If you are able to picture what I just described, you may now laugh and/or swear at me.
Damnit man, let the poor B-52 airframe die. Also, replacing the B-52 double engine pods with pods that have one nacelle and one impulse engine each is impressively scuffed.
 
No apologies, but this decided to take up residence in my head and now it's all your problem.

[...]

1F-36 (V Refit)

If you are able to picture what I just described, you may now laugh and/or swear at me.

like this?

View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18E4wZGXO9jtkCav7af_NGOb8qaUc1KfC/view?usp=sharing


View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R_agb52Mf-pDb0Hus7vFOZ_x35WqIPkX/view?usp=sharing

Which brings up the obvious joke:

View: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DdbSO_dwspjyDYwAjp_MzKWtDN0QIbyY/view?usp=sharing
 
[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

You would think this vote a waste of time because the answers obvious, but no, it does seem like some of the choices we have made before.

I think getting high maneuverability here really justifies going for the inline deflector not the blister pod. I think a lot of people would have wanted the second thruster if this has said anything other than high.

So between the two that's a saving of 7 right there.
We have finally done it! We picked a cheaper combo that's synergistic!
 
[X] Central Engine (Cost: 40 -> 45) [Maneuverability: High]

And this is close enough to what i was hoping for that i am more than happy with this.

We did it! We made a ship without spending everything!
 
Back
Top