Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Fouredged Sword said:
We can make up the space with an inline secondary hull. We put in enough thickness for the deflector to mount to the saucer midline. We can extend the saucer directly back in an inline secondary hull to make the volume back.

Merge the concepts of CHONK and FLAT.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That does have the advantage, potentially at least, of allowing for better ventral phasor mounts too.

Small issue though: our warp core takes up around 7 decks (can't remember if that wascore or core plus necessary surrounding... Stuff.)

Though that does allow for inline secondary with 3 decks each above and bellow the saucer, fuse the two together rather than having a "neck" and it works.
Otherwise the secondary hull ends up offset regardless as the resulting neck is the only space tall enough for the core.
 
Last edited:
Sayle said:
You begin with the largest configuration available to you, although this is a trap you should be careful not to fall into - this will hurt you when it comes to engines (and the space they take up), not to mention making it less likely that the design will have a large production run. Given the need for raw hulls in the near future, Starfleet is unlikely to look kindly on a ship bloated by mass just for the improved defensive functionality if that's all it brings to the table.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its looking like we wont be allowed to break 300 kilotons.
240-290 is my current guess.
 
Imma say inverse slope. It's a good middle ground, giving us more space but not just adding mass for the sake of it. Also only neck torpedos is not acceptable for a heavy cruiser who's entire job is giving Excaliburs and such something to fight around.
 
Chargone said:
That does have the advantage, potentially at least, of allowing for better ventral phasor mounts too.

Small issue though: our warp core takes up around 7 decks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think we still have a "bottom saucer" vote, and the warp core could extend 3.5 decks up and down from the saucer midline. That means it needs 2 decks "up" and "down" from the top and bottom of the middle section. That sounds doable.

I don't read any of the options here as being less than 2 decks tall. The choice is how narrow to make them compared to the profile.

We paid for that extra short warp core. Lets use it.
 
Last edited:
uju32 said:
The things that catch my eye are
1)Command : Ideal line of sight for phasers, +dodge bonus against attack because form factor
2)Inverse slope: Additional space, + mass for phaser strength and defense, + modules
3)Rising slops: Problems with torpedo launchers, ++ mass for phaser strength and defense
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Don't forget, the larger the saucer is, the more internals it can fit too. Also, we don't need full 360° torpedo launcher coverage. This ship is supposed to provide lots of phaser coverage, not torpedo coverage.
 
We're literally already being warned about slamming the mass button too high, and since the Federation's job is to anchor a fleet with wide phaser coverage, the ideal phaser mountings offered by the command configuration seems valuable.

[X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
 
Last edited:
Derpmind said:
Don't forget, the larger the saucer is, the more internals it can fit too. Also, we don't need full 360° torpedo launcher coverage. This ship is supposed to provide lots of phaser coverage, not torpedo coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Th3Saints said:
Command configuration for a command ship makes sense it also allows us alot of wiggle room for the secondary hull.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No it doesnt.
Looking back at the Excalibur, secondary hulls dont go above 50% of the primary hull.

Command is 140 kilotons, so you'd max it out around 210 kilotons. 20% larger than an Excalibur
Inverse Slope is 170 kilotons, so you'd max it out around 255 kilotons, which is around Kea size
Reverse Slope is 190kilons, so you'd max it out around 285 kilotons, which is around Sagmartha size.

Given the QM's warnings about engines, Im thinking we might want to settle for Kea instead of going full Sagmartha.
 
I would also put forward the argument that there will be a vote for a secondary hull and it's size (and I think the underside of the saucer). Said vote will present the option to add mass and add room for modules in said secondary hull.

IE this isn't the last time we will be offered the option to add mass and module space.

It IS, on the other hand, likely the last time we will be offered "ideal phaser mounts". No secondary hull will offer that.
 
Last edited:
uju32 said:
No it doesnt.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...yes it does.
uju32 said:
Command is 140 kilotons, so you'd max it out around 210 kilotons. 20% larger than an Excalibur
Inverse Slope is 170 kilotons, so you'd max it out around 255 kilotons, which is around Kea size
Reverse Slope is 190kilons, so you'd max it out around 285 kilotons, which is around Sagmartha size.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If you're right, I really don't want to settle for only being Kea-sized.
 
uju32 said:
No it doesnt.
Looking back at the Excalibur, secondary hulls dont go above 50% of the primary hull.

Command is 140 kilotons, so you'd max it out around 210 kilotons. 20% larger than an Excalibur
Inverse Slope is 170 kilotons, so you'd max it out around 255 kilotons, which is around Kea size
Reverse Slope is 190kilons, so you'd max it out around 285 kilotons, which is around Sagmartha size.

Given the QM's warnings about engines, Im thinking we might want to settle for Kea instead of going full Sagmartha.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Does the current mass include the nacelles? I'm not certain it does, because we've generally been explicitly told that in the past and I don't think we were this time.
 
CanYouMeme said:
No, it means we can go as high as we want as long as we justify the price. We could hit 500ktons and we'd be golden as long as it was either a mobile fleet battery or a small town in its own right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No.
I quote:
You begin with the largest configuration available to you, although this is a trap you should be careful not to fall into - this will hurt you when it comes to engines (and the space they take up), not to mention making it less likely that the design will have a large production run. Given the need for raw hulls in the near future, Starfleet is unlikely to look kindly on a ship bloated by mass just for the improved defensive functionality if that's all it brings to the table.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Furthermore, like I pointed out, secondary hulls are a fraction of the main saucer mass.
Usually less than 50%.
We arent getting above 300 kiloton on this design.

Its probably not a coincidence that if you add a 50% mass ventral hull to the middle option, you get a ship around the size of the Kea cruiser.
While if you do so for the largest option, you get a Sagmartha. And we arent ready to build new explorers.
 
Derpmind said:
Don't forget, the larger the saucer is, the more internals it can fit too. Also, we don't need full 360° torpedo launcher coverage. This ship is supposed to provide lots of phaser coverage, not torpedo coverage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've never been Allowed full torpedo coverage, they're fore and aft facing only (for resons that make sense at warp but are kind of nonsensical at sublight, though there are reasons why you would only start mounting broadside torpedos after you ran out of Space for fore and aft facing torpedoes, if you could somehow spare the mass and budget for that many to begin with)

The problem with only putting torpedoes in the neck is number, not coverage.
 
uju32 said:
The nacelles arent estimated separately; Im guessing they are part of the ventral hull.
The Excalibur was a 140,000 ton saucer + 40,000 ton secondary hull.
180 kilotons
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If I remember correctly, they have been done seperately in the past... When there were different variants or the option of including different numbers of nacelles (rather than just different possitioning) available.
 
Derpmind said:
...yes it does.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Not it doesnt.
Secondary hulls are always a fraction of the mass of the primary hull, usually less than 50%.

Excalibur had a 140,000 ton primary hull and a 40,000 ton secondary hull.
The Archer had a 113,000 ton primary hull, 13,000 tons secondary hull and 30,000 ton cargo pod
Kea ended up with 255,000 tons, but this was before the mass was given.
Derpmind said:
If you're right, I really don't want to settle for only being Kea-sized.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The only other reasonable option is even smaller.
We're not getting a Sagmartha-size cruiser if the QM is taking the time to explicitly warn against excessive mass budgets.
 
Last edited:
Chargone said:
If I remember correctly, they have been done seperately in the past... When there were different variants or the option of including different numbers of nacelles (rather than just different possitioning) available.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We get to choose the configuration of the nacelles, whether they are Sprint or Cruise-optimized, but not their weight.
The weight appears to be part of the normal ship budget.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top