I'm being drawn towards the aesthetics of the Command Configuration.
Linked contents
Secondary hull has never been more than 50% of the saucer mass since the QM started specifying them.
The only one that has gotten big was the Archer, and that was the option with the 13,000 ton Engineering hull + 100,000 ton Large Cargo Pod.
If you go Command with the 140,000 ton saucer, you are not likely to have a final weight above 210,000 tons after the secondary hull is added. Thats still smaller than a Kea, and you start having compromises about internal space.
VOTE
[] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
Made up my mind.
This appears to make the best compromise with the space we voted for while listening to the QM's warnings about getting too big.
And leaves us with space for modules and weapons, while leaving us with enough mass to make the heavy shields and phasers.
Worth remembering:
Both phaser strength and shields scale to ship weight.
[] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
Made up my mind.
This appears to make the best compromise with the space we voted for while listening to the QM's warnings about getting too big.
And leaves us with space for modules and weapons, while leaving us with enough mass to make the heavy shields and phasers.
Worth remembering:
Both phaser strength and shields scale to ship weight.
The current mass doesn't account for nacelles because we don't know how many you're going to end up taking.
NSMS
Probably evil, unfortunately.
- Location
- A rapidly widening tear in the fabric of reality
What sort of mass should we expect per nacelle?
Vote usually included the nacelles mass at that point, so with the central surface of the saucer still to go AND another 20-30 ktons of nacelle we are really looking at pushing 200-210 Ktons before the secondary hull. Said secondary hull being limited to 50% still lets us build a 320kton ship.
I fail to see the point of voting for the biggest saucer option and then going back on it.
The Excalibur's primary hull is 140,000 tons too, and its only 140m half-saucer.
Take another look at the vote for the Excalibur.
Or the vote for the Attenborough. Or the Archer.
Unless we start adding additional nacelles than the standard two, nacelles do not add weight.
The QM is free to change their mind of course.
Last edited:
Onionjones
とある 科学 の 大学生
- Location
- a swing state
We're already at 114kt for the outer saucer so if command is picked wouldn't the whole saucer be 254kt?
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
[ ] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]
[ ] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
I'd be happy with either.
[ ] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
I'd be happy with either.
The QM just confirmed that the mass of the nacelles is NOT included in the current number. Most of the time, when we only have the option to mount 2, it's already added in. This time it is not.
And we are not even done with the saucer fully, pretty sure. I still think we have an undersurface vote where we can vote for volume and mass.
Let's build a weird pelican bill ship saucer. Round on the bottom, flat up top. The Mullet of starships. Excalibur up to, Halley on the bottom.
- Location
- Outside the Box
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The warning is "if that's all it brings to the table." Meaning if we pick the biggest size, we'll have to arm and equip it enough to make the size worth it.
The largest size wouldn't even be an option we can vote for if we couldn't make it work.
This! Size only matters (as a negative) if you can't justify it, but we can justify it between the sheer module capability and fighting power it can bring.
Downsizing here will only leave the ship in a poor halfway house.
-
@Sayle will we have a vote for the configuration of the bottom of the saucer too or will it mirror what we pick here/is it's mass in such a scenario accounted for?
-
Edit:
Not particularly.
The Constitution refit, with its much smaller saucer had a neck thick enough to allow for this twin torpedo launcher to be mounted. And given we've got an Excelsior sized one we might even have the neck for a triple.
Last edited:
I dont know what to tell you.
I went back and looked through, and while we have selected nacelles, we never got to vote on their weight.
There is certainly no precedent for determining what their separate weight would be:
====
Archer: 150,000 tons
===
Excalibur: 180,000 tons
===
Attenborough: 105,000 tons
There's a missing 20,000 tons that I cant find.
But since the Attenborough didnt come with a secondary hull, I cant say.
[ ] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
This here is where I'm voting. Shoving all torpedoes to the neck forces expensive RFLs and limits the amount we can put on the ship. As long as we stuff this thing full of more modules than the Excalibur or close to a match with the Kea we should be fine.
This here is where I'm voting. Shoving all torpedoes to the neck forces expensive RFLs and limits the amount we can put on the ship. As long as we stuff this thing full of more modules than the Excalibur or close to a match with the Kea we should be fine.
We'll be bringing a lot of science, engineering, or cargo so this isn't a concern. When they see just how tanky this is and the phaser strength they'll know we designed a great anchor. Anchors are solid units and that's what this ship will be.
Ok, but we just got WOG.
Most of the time the Nacelles weight was added to the initial saucer weight. This time it is not.
No, it'll just be in the same style but not exactly identical.
The context, where they simultaneously talk about the need for raw hulls, cautions about engine costs, and talks about procurement numbers being limited if we dont avoid the trap of going too big, suggests thats not what the QM was warning us about at all.
But thats my assessment.
Making it work technically doesnt make it a procurement success.
The QM is willing to let us, and our colleagues in the other bureaus, make suboptimal choices if we insist. The Radiant was a 4-ship class that doesnt even show up on the list.
Im very much in favor of a big ship. I voted for it.
But Im willing to course-correct when the QM checks me.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
No, thats what the entire saucer will weigh with the various style choices
- Location
- USA
I am in camp inline secondary hull, so that precludes the heavy option for me.
I could go either way on the other two, good arguments for both.
I could go either way on the other two, good arguments for both.
As long as we don't fill it with Antimatter starfleet will cope when they see the firepower and level of tankiness this ship will have.
Since this is last chance to add saucer mass though going for the middle option still leaves the option to cut costs and get more module space. The modules are where we can add free value.
Something interesting to note, the canon Connie style secondary hull is ~35.714% of the mass of the saucer and the integrated hull is ~42.571% (though admittedly these do factor in 2x nacelles, so we could end up greater).
Assuming we can mirror these mass choices for a third saucer stage/they get mirrored anyways (to simplify things I'm just going to assume pure command:command and the like, rounded to the nearest hundred)
Command: 166,000 tonnes, Connie style secondary hull is 225,300 tonnes, an integrated secondary hull is 236,700 tonnes
Inverse: 226,000 tonnes, Connie style secondary hull is 306,700 tonnes, an integrated secondary hull is 322,200 tonnes
Rising: 266,000 tonnes, Connie style secondary hull is 361,000 tonnes, an integrated secondary hull is 379,200 tonnes
I don't think any of us can in good conciseness vote for the command option when it'll likely leave the ship with less mass than the Kea-class.
Last edited:
Archduke
Don't Take Geology Puns For Granite
- Location
- Texas
Looks to me like Starfleet favors more hulls over outright tonnage. Personally torn between Command and Inverse
I am not parsing this.
No (we will not have a vote on the bottom of the saucer) it (the saucer) will be in the same style
Or
No (the saucer will not be in the same. It (the next vote) will be like the last but not exactly.
I think you mean the first, but you answered an A or B question with a Yes/No answer.