Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
LOLROFL said:
A chonky ship doesn't guarantee that Starfleet will go for a small order, if we give it solid non-combat capabilities then it's possible Starfleet will begrudgingly order a bunch like how the Archer despite being a terrible combatant during a period of rising tensions with the Klingons still got a lot of orders both before and after the war due to how good it was as a logistics and construction vessel.

The Command Config is the worst for squeezing in non-combat functionality since it has limited space and that space is devoted only to serving as crew quarters.

Since we've already committed to chonk with the previous design choice being the chonkiest option backing out now isn't going to magically unchonk the ship and just leaves us with the worst of both worlds where our ship is too chonky to justify a large order based solely on it's merits as a combatant and doesn't offer enough utility to justify provide other justifications for it's chonkiness.

One area where we could aim for is Dilithium survey capabilities as Starfleet has lost a ton of combat capable Dilithium survey ships due to the Saladin's taking a ton of casualties while being obsolescent and the Kea's dropping their Dilithium survey capabilities for torpedoes.

While the Atwater mentioned in the Attenborough retrospective might be able to perform that role since it's a geophysics oriented ship it got an even more limited production run than the Attenborough at 4 hulls and while the Attenborough is a respectable combatant for it's size it isn't fighting big capital ships or raider wolfpacks anytime soon which limits it's ability to secure contested territory.

Having the Federation-Class be a big stick that can operate in dangerous environments on it's own while having the facilities that let it identify what territory is useful to claim should give it a solid niche that will keep it relevant even after it's no longer the chonkiest ship on Starfleet's roster.

[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
[X] Rising Slope Configuration (Mass: 190kt) [Cost: 37.5]
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MS-21H 'Hawke' said:
I do have a question:

If this thing is only going to be a bit bigger than the Excalibur, what's the point?

I mean, unless we pull insane shit, how does this thing justify itself? Other than the fact that the Federation is oddly allergic to continued production of the Excalibur for some reason(one that I may have missed).

I mean, we can't really putt THAT much more OOMPH onto a frame not even 50Kt bigger than the Excalibur, so what's the point in doing anything other than what we did with the 'Callies' and make 'em VERY FAST? At that point, it's just an Excalibur. Have the Federation build more of THEM.

Yeah but we can put more weapons on it! At the cost of Module Space, and that's going to cause drama and likely cost us a few Torpedo Launchers and Phasers,. Then there's the issue of us maybe skimping on modules, that leads into the issue of this thing loosing out on lifespan and capability, and again: risks this thing just us spinning our wheels on designing a Second Excalibur.

And yes, maybe we can stuff more guns and shields on this thing than the Excalibur had, on a similar Speed Profile. It's not really going to be enough to justify itself against the Excalibur: Who's design is RIGHT THERE, who has a Successful War Record, and who's CHEAPER.

Maybe we can justify it with a different mission profile and loadout? Maybe? *Shrugs* I just worry that this thing won't have the hutzpah to be a real Fleet Anchor if we don't give it a bit more mass.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

^^^
I dont think I can explain things much better than this.
But Im going to try.

The Command Option is a 140,000 ton Primary Hull/Saucer.
The Excalibur has a 140,000 ton Primary Hull/Saucer
We already have an Excalibur at home. There is no point in spending 8 years of design work to duplicate it with the same technologies.

Especially since our design brief is, and I quote, for a much bigger multirole ship:
Project Federation said:
The second proposal is for the other end of the scale. Project Federation envisions a cruiser more along the lines of the Kea-class, using a higher mass than other contemporary starships to produce powerful defense fields and a depth of capability in vital areas of interest. This idea of a line cruiser would then be able to weather any conflict it takes part in, acting as a lynchpin for a small task force or the main force of battle in a larger engagement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In order to do so with a 140,000 ton primary hull, we would have to compromise the tactical ability of this ship to a point where its less attractive than a twenty year old ship design in the combat role.


We spent most of the Four Year War complaining about Starfleet's not doing things right.
We have been given an opportunity to fix that.
Lets not get cold feet now.

You can refit a ship with weapons, with sensors, with better impulse drives and with better nacelles.
You cannot go back to increase a ship's size once thats fixed. And that caps what abilities you can fit inside the hull.
Dont gimp this ship design now by undersizing it.

Please.
 
Last edited:
Lohjak said:
Also iirc the modules are only modeled in 2D, so that makes the inverse slope even less efficient since it doesn't even get to go all the way around, it just gets an extra triangle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sure, but that still works for putting weapon stuff in to. Also you can use some of it as a smaller cargo space I guess. The one thing I don't think particularly believable would be for much of it to not be used at all, that would be rather wasteful of space you could have been say putting EPS lines in for weapons.
 
Current tally:
Adhoc vote count started by uju32 on Dec 19, 2024 at 6:34 AM, finished with 321 posts and 117 votes.
Click to expand...


.......
Command is ahead by either 3 or 5 votes.
If anyone else wants to vote, or to change their votes, or approval vote, now's the time.
 
Last edited:
uju32 said:
In order to do so with a 140,000 ton primary hull, we would have to compromise the tactical ability of this ship to a point where its less attractive than a twenty year old ship design in the combat role.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
How so?

Even if we're offered literally the exact same hull options as the Excalibur, we hit 200kt before nacelles, and if you take into account the fact that we essentially chose the minimum modules options on Excalibur we should end up with a much better module loadout. Inverse slope just doesn't offer much more useful internal volume than the command configuration, so the main benefit is actually just that more mass means better durability. Which is not nothing, but this update began with Starfleet warning us that they didn't want to pay for more mass just to improve the tactical capability.

Quickshot0 said:
Sure, but that still works for putting weapon stuff in to. Also you can use some of it as a smaller cargo space I guess. The one thing I don't think particularly believable would be for much of it to not be used at all, that would be rather wasteful of space you could have been say putting EPS lines in for weapons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can see in the Kea diagram that a phaser is essentially a full deck in height, so it probably won't fit in the slope either.
 
Lohjak said:
We can see in the Kea diagram that a phaser is essentially a full deck in height, so it probably won't fit in the slope either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Maybe, well I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it.

For me I can't really believe that Starfleet designers would just design in pointless empty space that they for a large part make no use of. As a these it's a bit to much on the side of, Starfleet designers just waste materials for no purpose, and not just in this design but also a previous one. After all absolutely all of these points would also apply to the Excalibur after all.


As such, I'm not really willing to believe this point of view on the matter. As it just seems far to wasteful, especially on smaller designs like Excalibur.
 
I really don't think having space for things like transporters counts as minimal use. Those things are absolutely vital in every role I can think of. And a big part of every ship is taken up by crew quarters, if that gets abstracted to the top circles normally, i hate to see how much space and comfort they will lose without it.
 
darkstarling said:
This one is specifically a fleet anchor. Maneuver matters, but not as much as weapons coverage and shields. Sprint matters, but not as much as cruise. And essentially protest voting against what you assume is a foregone conclusion isn't going to get what makes you happy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not protest voting - I'm changing it because Hawke made a good point I hadn't considered. That's why I mentioned it.

Cold Dust said:
It is a dilemma though, if your ship needs to eat up max light-years over lifespan cruise is the way to go. If it's doing attack or defend as a primary and seconds could count, I'd say sprint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of it, but I'm pretty certain that when nacelle time comes around, that bolded and underlined part is going to be used as the excuse to go sprint.
 
Quickshot0 said:
Maybe, well I understand your point of view, but I don't agree with it.

For me I can't really believe that Starfleet designers would just design in pointless empty space that they for a large part make no use of. As a these it's a bit to much on the side of, Starfleet designers just waste materials for no purpose, and not just in this design but also a previous one. After all absolutely all of these points would also apply to the Excalibur after all.


As such, I'm not really willing to believe this point of view on the matter. As it just seems far to wasteful, especially on smaller designs like Excalibur.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Extra mass that doesn't impinge on torpedo mounting space, which is what inclined slope provides, is ideal for a warship like the Excalibur. It's less ideal here, where we've just been told that extra mass should ideally contribute to the peacetime function of the ship.

Golgotha said:
I really don't think having space for things like transporters counts as minimal use. Those things are absolutely vital in every role I can think of. And a big part of every ship is taken up by crew quarters, if that gets abstracted to the top circles normally, i hate to see how much space and comfort they will lose without it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, the diagram is right there. You can see that the Excalibur ends up with a bunch of empty space (or at least space which isn't filled with anything that Sayle models). The command configuration keeps crew space, it just dispenses with the sloped surface that doesn't provide efficient internal volume.

Like, instead of building a cone out the top of the ship and filling it with crew quarters, and then using whatever space you couldn't fit a whole deck in for random stuff, it's slapping the crew quarters directly on top without the extra space to save mass. There's less internal volume, but you keep most of the really useful volume.

If you've ever been in an attic with sloped sides, that's kind of like what the inverse slope adds. The space isn't useless, but it's a lot harder to use.
 
CanYouMeme said:
I'm not protest voting - I'm changing it because Hawke made a good point I hadn't considered. That's why I mentioned it.





I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of it, but I'm pretty certain that when nacelle time comes around, that bolded and underlined part is going to be used as the excuse to go sprint.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
When seconds count, go cruise.

No, seriously. Unless you happen to be within twelve hours of something, max cruise is what gets you there faster.

We had weeks of warning before the Klingons arrived for fleet combat. That's cruise speed response, not sprint.

Sprint is for combat repositioning, fleeing and chasing. When you are defending a planet or a base, you don't sprint.

Lohjak said:
I mean, the diagram is right there. You can see that the Excalibur ends up with a bunch of empty space (or at least space which isn't filled with anything that Sayle models). The command configuration keeps crew space, it just dispenses with the sloped surface that doesn't provide efficient internal volume.

Like, instead of building a cone out the top of the ship and filling it with crew quarters, and then using whatever space you couldn't fit a whole deck in for random stuff, it's slapping the crew quarters directly on top without the extra space to save mass. There's less internal volume, but you keep most of the really useful volume.

If you've ever been in an attic with sloped sides, that's kind of like what the inverse slope adds. The space isn't useless, but it's a lot harder to use.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The argument of what we think the picture shows vs what the qm specifically says it would offer is not much of one. If Sayle directly says it gives room for things like transporters, it gives enough room for things like transporters.
It's also a 140m half saucer vs a 180m full saucer. That's significantly more room for, well, rooms.
 
Last edited:
Golgotha said:
The argument of what we think the picture shows vs what the qm specifically says it would offer is not much of one. If Sayle directly says it gives room for things like transporters, it gives enough room for things like transporters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I never disagreed with that?

But transporters are, at this point, not a module. And the QM has previously said that they do actually use the diagram of the ship to determine how modules are fit, and if the diagram simply cannot fit more modules then I don't think we get modules there. Again, the empty space is right there in the Excalibur diagram.

I'd guess that we'd probably get some slight bonuses to whatever modules we do put in the upper deck to simulate the extra bits of space that additional auxiliary systems can extend into, but unless the way that the modules are drawn in the diagram shifts we're probably not getting more modules out of the inverse slope.
 
Lohjak said:
How so?

Even if we're offered literally the exact same hull options as the Excalibur, we hit 200kt before nacelles, and if you take into account the fact that we essentially chose the minimum modules options on Excalibur we should end up with a much better module loadout. Inverse slope just doesn't offer much more useful internal volume than the command configuration, so the main benefit is actually just that more mass means better durability. Which is not nothing, but this update began with Starfleet warning us that they didn't want to pay for more mass just to improve the tactical capability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Excalibur had a 140,000 ton primary hull.
In that weight budget, it fit a 5 torpedo forward salvo, 6x phasers and very little else. If we cap our primary hull at the same mass budget, the only way we are getting additional utility is stripping out weapons space. At which point its underarmed, and makes a bad argument for itself vs the Miranda OR the Excalibur.


We dont hit 200 kilotons before nacelles, we hit 200kt WITH nacelles.
The Callie was a 140,000 tons Primary Hull + 40,000 ton Secondary Hull + 2x Nacelles, and the entire design could only go up to 200,000 tons maximum cap. That nacelle weight is going to come out of the secondary hull allowance.


Our design brief says that the Federation is supposed to be along the lines of the Kea, a 255,000 ton cruiser.
Specifically because of the extra functionality we can fit into it.
I quote again:
The second proposal is for the other end of the scale.Project Federation envisions a cruiser more along the lines of the Kea-class, using a higher mass than other contemporary starships to produce powerful defense fields and a depth of capability in vital areas of interest. This idea of a line cruiser would then be able to weather any conflict it takes part in, acting as a lynchpin for a small task force or the main force of battle in a larger engagement.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is like our guiding document here.
 
uju32 said:
The Excalibur had a 140,000 ton primary hull.
In that weight budget, it fit a 5 torpedo forward salvo, 6x phasers and very little else. If we cap our primary hull at the same mass budget, the only way we are getting additional utility is stripping out weapons space. At which point its underarmed, and makes a bad argument for itself vs the Miranda OR the Excalibur.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Excalibur specifically took options which limited its module capacity, which we have not done here. This is a 3-deck full saucer, unlike the Excalibur's 3-deck half-saucer, and we have no reason to go with the minimal mass secondary hull.

uju32 said:
We dont hit 200 kilotons before nacelles, we hit 200kt WITH nacelles.
The Callie was a 140,000 tons Primary Hull + 40,000 ton Secondary Hull + 2x Nacelles, and the entire design could only go up to 200,000 tons maximum cap. That nacelle weight is going to come out of the secondary hull allowance.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Excalibur weights 180kt total, unless for some reason the nacelles were never included in the final mass. Which, given their size, would be an odd choice.

uju32 said:
Specifically because of the extra functionality we can fit into it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The inverse slope doesn't offer significantly more functionality. The only argument you could possibly make is that it might let us mount a larger secondary hull that would give us more space, but that's hardly a guarantee. And also the tactical thing, which I personally think might be worth it, but Starfleet was giving us the side-eye.

The command config, as far as I can tell, effectively strips out a lot of the less useful volume created by the slope and turns it into mass savings, which should keep Starfleet happy. If we take a secondary hull on par with the largest option the Excalibur was offered, we can hopefully get something like 7-8 modules to the Excalibur's 6, which should be a pretty solid utility cruiser or whatever else we want to do with it.
 
[X] Inverse Slope Configuration (Mass: 170kt) [Cost: 33.5]
 
Also, like, the extra 30kt from the Inverse Slope can also be put to use for more phasers and torpedo launchers. And we are going to need a decent number of those for this ship.
 
Lohjak said:
The Excalibur specifically took options which limited its module capacity, which we have not done here. This is a 3-deck full saucer, unlike the Excalibur's 3-deck half-saucer, and we have no reason to go with the minimal mass secondary hull.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No it did not.
The plain language is right there.
Lohjak said:
The Excalibur weights 180kt total, unless for some reason the nacelles were never included in the final mass. Which, given their size, would be an odd choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
140 kilotons Primary Hull.
40 kilotons Secondary Hull.

Lohjak said:
The inverse slope doesn't offer significantly more functionality. The only argument you could possibly make is that it might let us mount a larger secondary hull that would give us more space, but that's hardly a guarantee. And also the tactical thing, which I personally think might be worth it, but Starfleet was giving us the side-eye.

The command config, as far as I can tell, effectively strips out a lot of the less useful volume created by the slope and turns it into mass savings, which should keep Starfleet happy. If we take a secondary hull on par with the largest option the Excalibur was offered, we can hopefully get something like 7-8 modules to the Excalibur's 6, which should be a pretty solid utility cruiser or whatever else we want to do with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With respect? That is not true.

Inverse Slope is 21% BIGGER than the Command config; that weight is the equivalent of the entirety of the Archer's Small Cargo Pod, the one thats such a game-changer for Starfleet logistics. It explicitly adds more volume for functionality like transporters; I quote
The second option is already familiar to you and any starship aficionado. The inverse slope uses a curve that begins flattened to the dorsal hull and then rises upwards, and can be seen in the saucer of the Excalibur-class. This stacks more space above the main decks but will still largely be taken up by crew quarters, but does provide some wiggle room for extra transporters and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is explicitly the Extra Module, Extra Functionality option.


I genuinely cant see where you get any talk about less useful volume anywhere in the writeup about the Command config.
It says nothing of that sort anywhere.
I looked.
The first option is a novel idea that's being called a command configuration. Rather than creating slopes or rises from the periphery of the main saucer, the upper deck will be extruded more abruptly from the center of the saucer and elongated with a spinal ridge that then runs back to the stern. By devoting the area purely to crew quarters and specialising the area as such, the flat dorsal surface of the main saucer is preserved as much as possible, providing ideal phaser mounts and minimising the ship's forward profile towards incoming fire. It would certainly be a distinctive looking design, conjuring a sense of sleek utility.
There is no talk of there being some extraenous volume anywhere that it reduces, and I cant see how you got that impression.


TLDR
The Inverse Slope adds 30 kilotons of mass for additional functionality.
The Command one does not, and uses all that for crew quarters.
 
Last edited:
Current tally:
Adhoc vote count started by uju32 on Dec 19, 2024 at 8:00 AM, finished with 338 posts and 122 votes.
Click to expand...


Command leads by 1 or 2.
 
Derpmind said:
Also, like, the extra 30kt from the Inverse Slope can also be put to use for more phasers and torpedo launchers. And we are going to need a decent number of those for this ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That is, as far as I can tell, not how that works?

The inverse slope isn't described as providing more module space than the command config, and if you look at the Excalibur diagram that checks out. The sloped volume just isn't the correct shape to put any deck-height systems in.

uju32 said:
The Inverse Slope adds 30 kilotons of mass for additional functionality.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not what the description says, though:
This stacks more space above the main decks but will still largely be taken up by crew quarters, but does provide some wiggle room for extra transporters and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And this absolutely tracks with the diagram. I can't be arsed to futz around with images now that I'm on my phone, but the inverse slope on the front of the Excalibur is shaped such that it can't fit anything module height.

It's not 30kt worth of extra functionality, because the additional volume is not well-shaped to adding full-size systems. That's presumably why the description specifies that it's useful for wiggle room, not another module. Both the command configuration and inverse slope use the upper hull for crew quarters, the inverse slope just spends 30kt extra due to an inefficient shape that leaves some extra room for bits and bobs.

Which again, is totally fine if you want the extra durability for tactical (if we had ablative armor the extra space would probably be great for that) but it won't do much for the utility.
 
Lohjak said:
Extra mass that doesn't impinge on torpedo mounting space, which is what inclined slope provides, is ideal for a warship like the Excalibur. It's less ideal here, where we've just been told that extra mass should ideally contribute to the peacetime function of the ship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We're still going to arm it. So if the space where armaments come are here, then that means that space elsewhere would be saved. That space could then be used for modules in peace time. So I don't see the issue, one presumes Starship designers are competent and will try to fully utilize all space. If you want to argue they are not competent, you can, but I don't really see why they would propose something they couldn't work with.
 
Last edited:
Quickshot0 said:
We're still going to arm it. So if the space where armaments come are here, then that means that space elsewhere would be saved. That space could then be used for modules in peace time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Did I spend thirty minutes dealing with images for nothing? What's the point if nobody looked at them?

The extra volume on the Excalibur is empty. It is not large enough to actually put anything we care about in. Maybe it can fit a phaser if Sayle is generous with the space.
 
On a related matter, I would argue strongly for a Cruise configuration for this ship. Starfleet presently has a need for Raw Hulls, and if this ship is capable of a good strategic speed, it would go a long way to justifying large numbers of it. Additionally, in the previous war, slower strategic speed was specifically called out as a substantial factor that hampered us during the war. A good cruise speed would also offset that issue
 
Lohjak said:
It's not 30kt worth of extra functionality, because the additional volume is not well-shaped to adding full-size systems. That's presumably why the description specifies that it's useful for wiggle room, not another module. Both the command configuration and inverse slope use the upper hull for crew quarters, the inverse slope just spends 30kt extra due to an inefficient shape that leaves some extra room for bits and bobs.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Literally right there:
The second option is already familiar to you and any starship aficionado. The inverse slope uses a curve that begins flattened to the dorsal hull and then rises upwards, and can be seen in the saucer of the Excalibur-class. This stacks more space above the main decks but will still largely be taken up by crew quarters, but does provide some wiggle room for extra transporters and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are factually incorrect.
No offense meant, but the plain reading is the plain reading.

Nevermind that you are suggesting that we would be adding an extra fifth in weight to the design with no benefit.
Which would be mindbogglingly stupid.
On our part
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top