Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
KleverKil'Vanya said:
Ignoring the vote since I am just so done with Schrödinger's Mass votes, what was the Klingon view of the war? How is it remembered and talked about in their halls? Do they sing of the valour of both sides or of the worthiness of their foes?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm sure they sing of the Eighteen Swords and every Excalibur brought down, and the tragedy of Karamhur the Uniter of the House of Duras. The great leader who brought the Federation to their knees, only for his reach to overtake his grasp and perish in the snows of Andoria. A tale of a weak Federation bolstered by valiant heroes staving off the inevitable, until the Chancellor in his arrogance brought doom upon them all.

This also lets the storytellers gloss over how their own houses angling for power made those decisions a political necessity, and how the Klingons were slowly losing an attritional war. And how the Federation's more stable internal politics and diverse culture allowed them to survive the Klingon offensive. That the institution was strong and fighting uphill against a militarized power with a tech advantage, rather than - as Klingons prefer to see it - being a weak philosophy propped up by heroes the Federation didn't deserve.
 
Last edited:
Adhoc vote count started by RedWake on Dec 19, 2024 at 12:35 PM, finished with 422 posts and 131 votes.
Click to expand...
 
All this talk about fleet anchor has me worried that we've forgotten that for the near future, most starships are going to be operating independently. Maneuverability, while less useful in a straight up fleet anchor brick, is useful for one-on-one encounters.

On a separate note, I expect the Federation (or a derivative) to be a popular choice for the member defense fleets with its heavy shields and weaponry.

And while I like the idea of naming these ships after legendary shields, I'd rather name them after member worlds. Fits the project name.
 
Archduke said:
All this talk about fleet anchor has me worried that we've forgotten that for the near future, most starships are going to be operating independently. Maneuverability, while less useful in a straight up fleet anchor brick, is useful for one-on-one encounters.

On a separate note, I expect the Federation (or a derivative) to be a popular choice for the member defense fleets with its heavy shields and weaponry.

And while I like the idea of naming these ships after legendary shields, I'd rather name them after member worlds. Fits the project name.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
With our thrusters I am not overly concerned by this. Average maneuverability is something we should hit almost by default and high is very possible almost regardless of how big we go.

Average is fine for the big high shield ship designed to take hits and keep trucking. High is just gravy. Very high is T posing over other line ships.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, there is no reasonable argument that the Excaliburs 140 meter half saucer has the same mass as a 180 meter full saucer without counting nacelles. Which, let us all not forget, are skyscraper sized pillars of advanced machinery, with none of the large 'empty' spaces, and sometimes have a greater internal volume than the ships they attach too.

I fully believe that by the end of this, once we include a secondary hull and nacelles into tonnage, we will comfortably hit 250kt. But we probably could have gone well past 300kt with the fat saucer option and quad nacelles.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
Yeah, there is no reasonable argument that the Excaliburs 140 meter half saucer has the same mass as a 180 meter full saucer without counting nacelles. Which, let us all not forget, are skyscraper sized pillars of advanced machinery, with none of the large 'empty' spaces, and sometimes have a greater internal volume than the ships they attach too.

I fully believe that by the end of this, once we include a secondary hull and nacelles into tonnage, we will comfortably hit 250kt. But we probably could have gone well past 300kt with the fat saucer option and quad nacelles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just so people are aware I am going to argue hard to stick to two nacelles. They are absolutely guilding the lilly for minimal gains and unless the QM sticks numbers on them out of line compared to past quad nacelle options I don't"t see much value.
 
Last edited:
Fouredged Sword said:
Just so people are aware I am going to argue hard to stick to two nacelles. They are absolutely guilding the lilly for minimal gains and unless the QM sticks numbers on them out of line compared to past quad nacelle options I don't"t see much value.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If it comes with shenanigans that let us get meaningfully past the warp 7 max cruise cap, more nacelles is absolutely worth it.
If it lets efficint cruise Hit the warp 7 cap more nacelles might well be worth it.
If neither of those are the case (and there's no random weirdness that sees it being necessary just to match normal 2 nacelle performance) it's about the worst way to add extra mass by way of achieving nothing else of sufficient use as to justify it, and we really shouldn't do it.
 
I mean, Warp Coasting is IIRC a thing quad-nacelle designs later in the timeline could pull off - alternating pairs of nacelles at power levels beyond maximum cruise for each individual pair to sustain a speed higher than a twin nacelle ship could sustain (without risking melting their nacelles).
 
I'll call the vote there on the basis I've got to the point in the design where I have to know what the rest of the hull looks like. I confess I'm a little concerned at how wide the front and rear views already are - I get the feeling that they can only accomodate 200 meters of beam. Guess we'll find out!

Fortunately the next vote doesn't require any physical changes, so that can go ahead while I work on the schematic.
 
Last edited:
Golgotha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can get behind that.
 
Looks like Command has it.

Adhoc vote count started by Steven Kodaly on Dec 19, 2024 at 3:14 PM, finished with 436 posts and 131 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Remove ads
2247: Project Federation (Warp Core) New
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]

    Before you move on to the rest of the spaceframe, you have an important decision to make regarding the key systems. The days of the old linear cores that just need an open horizontal run are over, and space is much more limited vertically. As a result the size of warp core will affect the possible hull types for the engineering section, and while the 'standard' neck and secondary hull design will always be available, two of your options open up their own associated form factor as an additional choice for you to potentially select.

    The smallest possible warp core sacrifices injector control for a reduced footprint of only four decks. As the antimatter stream is less compressed by the successive magnetic rings found in larger designs, the safe threshold for quantitative throughput is substantially reduced and the corresponding power output is lowered. Absent improvements in base sprint efficiency, the ship will be limited to Warp 7.4, or 80% of the maximum speed of a standard core, though cruise is unaffected. However the reduced footprint means that an inline hull then becomes possible, and with it a linear nacelle configuration that will provide minor boosts to both cruise and maximum speeds.

    Alternatively a standard warp core will avoid any inherent design tradeoffs, although an inline secondary hull becomes impossible as a result. With a minimum of seven decks attached an integrated ventral hull configuration becomes possible, although at a larger scale than any designed before. If chosen an integrated hull would make the spaceframe more compact, providing an increase in hull durability. Small consolation, but it might count when shields fail and the ship is directly exposed.

    Finally there is a large warp core, spanning eleven decks and providing an incredibly fine antimatter stream feed into the main reaction chamber. The increased control will improve efficiency, completely eliminating the 'stray' antimatter problem that requires smaller cores to be saturated with a control gas to prevent any undesired interactions with the internal systems of the reactor. With higher temperatures in reach as a result of not needing continually introduce a cooler moderator, the nacelles could nearly be pushed to the maximum cruise at an efficient level. But this would necessitate a deep neck to accommodate the greater length of the core.

    [ ] Small Warp Core (4 Deck) [Cost: 31.5] (Maximum Warp: 8 -> 7.4)
    [ ] Standard Warp Core (7 Deck) [Cost 35.5]
    [ ] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)

    Two Hour Moratorium, Please
     
    Last edited:
  • New
  • Threadmarks
    • Sayle said:
    [ ] Small Warp Core (4 Deck) [Cost: 31.5] (Maximum Warp: 8 -> 7.4)
    [ ] Standard Warp Core (7 Deck) [Cost 35.5]
    [ ] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Cruise is where this is going to count, so I'm all for the large warp core - especially since the Excelsior core is about 11 decks tall, it'll give us experience for the next generation of bigger ships/explorers.

    -
    [X] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)
     
    Last edited:
    Sayle said:
    [X] Command Configuration (Mass: 140kt) [Cost: 27.5]

    Before you move on to the rest of the spaceframe, you have an important decision to make regarding the key systems. The days of the old linear cores that just need an open horizontal run are over, and space is much more limited vertically. As a result the size of warp core will affect the possible hull types for the engineering section, and while the 'standard' neck and secondary hull design will always be available, two of your options open up their own associated form factor as an additional choice for you to potentially select.

    The smallest possible warp core sacrifices injector control for a reduced footprint of only four decks. As the antimatter stream is less compressed by the successive magnetic rings found in larger designs, the safe threshold for quantitative throughput is substantially reduced and the corresponding power output is lowered. Absent improvements in base sprint efficiency, the ship will be limited to Warp 7.4, or 80% of the maximum speed of a standard core, though cruise is unaffected. However the reduced footprint means that an inline hull then becomes possible, and with it a parallel nacelle configuration that will provide minor boosts to both cruise and maximum speeds.

    Alternatively a standard warp core will avoid any inherent design tradeoffs, although an inline secondary hull becomes impossible as a result. With a minimum of seven decks attached an integrated ventral hull configuration becomes possible, although at a larger scale than any designed before. If chosen an integrated hull would make the spaceframe more compact, providing an increase in hull durability. Small consolation, but it might count when shields fail and the ship is directly exposed.

    Finally there is a large warp core, spanning eleven decks and providing an incredibly fine antimatter stream feed into the main reaction chamber. The increased control will improve efficiency, completely eliminating the 'stray' antimatter problem that requires smaller cores to be saturated with a control gas to prevent any undesired interactions with the internal systems of the reactor. With higher temperatures in reach as a result of not needing continually introduce a cooler moderator, the nacelles could nearly be pushed to the maximum cruise at an efficient level. But this would necessitate a deep neck to accommodate the greater length of the core.

    [ ] Small Warp Core (4 Deck) [Cost: 31.5] (Maximum Warp: 8 -> 7.4)
    [ ] Standard Warp Core (7 Deck) [Cost 35.5]
    [ ] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)

    Two Hour Moratorium, Please
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Will the large warp core get in the way of torpedo placement?
     
    Large warp core sounds promising for pushing the envelope of technology and justifying a larger ship in general for all the benefits that come with that.

    [X] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top