Linked contents
Not the QM but the wording seems to suggest an excelsior style neck, after all, the longest dimension always gets referred to as length, but depth implies thickness.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
Ah. Shame, that. With the recent talk of cruise speed making the Large Warp Core tempting to many, it does make the neck commensurately longer (something I've voiced as another potential weak point of many Federation designs).
I'd be fine with the standard-size Warp Core, as it means we get something that, as I recall, is essentially the design of the Exelcisor:
Starting on that design path and curtailing (or potentially eliminating) the second thinnest part of a Federation ship is nothing if not tempting. We could always at least somewhat make up for the loss of Cruise speed associated with not taking the Large core with a Cruise nacelle configuration (or at least a configuration that boosts Cruise speed).
Strunkriidiisk
THE LEGEND
- Location
- Canada
- Pronouns
- He/Him
[ ] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)
BIGGER
BIGGER
TIme to make the Excelsior equivalent a few decades early I guess? Going for the Large Core.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
For clarity, this configuration refers to nacelles placed to port and starboard, effectively making this ship flat? Or is this the over-and-under arrangement, with nacelles extending from the dorsal and ventral aspects of the ship?
To an extent, but it does also mean that when the new nacelles come along it's probably going to be pushing up to the highest efficient cruise that can manage without a fresh redesign.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
We could also, with an integrated hull, be getting a different starship design much, much earlier:
Or at least, the general shape of it.
Or at least, the general shape of it.
[ ] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)
I like this, because we're still (IIRC) limited to Warp 7 for Maximum Cruise, at least with this generation of nacelles - so this would mean we can basically sit at our maximum cruise for efficient operation, especially if we go for a cruise nacelle layout, which pushes us into the territory of being able to match or exceed the "supercruise" performance of an Excalibur, even if it beats the Federation in raw sprint (ie., an Excalibur is faster if it pushes its nacelles to the limits, but a Federation can do that 'Warp 8 all the way' trick just as effectively, and potentially more so).
I like this, because we're still (IIRC) limited to Warp 7 for Maximum Cruise, at least with this generation of nacelles - so this would mean we can basically sit at our maximum cruise for efficient operation, especially if we go for a cruise nacelle layout, which pushes us into the territory of being able to match or exceed the "supercruise" performance of an Excalibur, even if it beats the Federation in raw sprint (ie., an Excalibur is faster if it pushes its nacelles to the limits, but a Federation can do that 'Warp 8 all the way' trick just as effectively, and potentially more so).
Last edited:
- Location
- Canada
Oh yeah thats always been nice ship to look at, I hated the neck of starfleet ships. This the only acceptable ones I liked, like Voyagers.We could also, with an integrated hull, be getting a different starship design much, much earlier:
Or at least, the general shape of it.
Flat ship.
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
[ ] Large Warp Core (11 Deck) [Cost: 39.5] (Efficient Cruise: 6 -> 6.8)
I refer you to the Clarkson school of thought:
POWEEERRRRR!!!!!
I refer you to the Clarkson school of thought:
POWEEERRRRR!!!!!
I agree with your reasoning and vote, but it is a bit early for it.
- Location
- Australia
I know my instinct was to shout "go large!" But those are actually all pretty good.
One only reduces sprint speed, which we don't care about. One changes nothing but gives us bonus hp, and the other improves efficient cruise but not maximum cruise.
All of these are justifiable in a big way.
One only reduces sprint speed, which we don't care about. One changes nothing but gives us bonus hp, and the other improves efficient cruise but not maximum cruise.
All of these are justifiable in a big way.
KlavoHunter
THOU SHALT WORSHIP NO GODS ABOVE ENTERPRISE!
Small Warp Core would be huge cost savings, but would cut back on this ship's lifespan when one day that maximum warp speed will be beaten by the majority of enemy vessels. To say nothing of it interfering with the TMP-era engine refits...
The large core, paired with cruise configured nacelles, push this baby up to efficient cruise being maximum cruise. That means the ship is going to get places moving around. It may not be the fastest ship at sprint (but it's likely close), but over time it will cross more light-years.
That's a huge bonus when our ships are stretched thin. That means the ship does a longer patrol in less time. It moves more cargo in less time. It gets to planet ABC in less time. It's efficient cruise is about twice as fast.
And we are logistically strapped for ships. We need to get as much out of each hull as we can and getting the hulls around faster is one way to do that.
I can also only envision that a bigger warp core maybe just allows for more options for phasers and shields, with presumably more and more pure power available.
Yeah it adds cost with needing a big neck and secondary hull, but zero chance Starfleet complains about that mass with the value of the large core. One ship does the work of two logistically.
That's a huge bonus when our ships are stretched thin. That means the ship does a longer patrol in less time. It moves more cargo in less time. It gets to planet ABC in less time. It's efficient cruise is about twice as fast.
And we are logistically strapped for ships. We need to get as much out of each hull as we can and getting the hulls around faster is one way to do that.
Yeah it adds cost with needing a big neck and secondary hull, but zero chance Starfleet complains about that mass with the value of the large core. One ship does the work of two logistically.
Last edited:
TheShadowDeamon
Mighty Dragon
And if we consider that the Nacelle geometry adds about +0.2 depending on the position, (ignoring having more than 2).
Combined with the large core we could potentially get an efficient cruise of 7, or keep it at 6.8 and get the top speed to 8.2.
Of course if we did get 4 nacelles then based on last time we could get +0.4 for 7.2/8.0, 7.0/8.2, or 6.8/8.4.
Actually @Sayle please clarify- you previously mentioned that due to current material limits max cruise is limited to 7.0. Is this still in effect, how would efficient cruise being at or potentially above that work? - or would we have to accept that until the next generation of nacelles is designed that the ship won't reach it's full potential?
Combined with the large core we could potentially get an efficient cruise of 7, or keep it at 6.8 and get the top speed to 8.2.
Of course if we did get 4 nacelles then based on last time we could get +0.4 for 7.2/8.0, 7.0/8.2, or 6.8/8.4.
Actually @Sayle please clarify- you previously mentioned that due to current material limits max cruise is limited to 7.0. Is this still in effect, how would efficient cruise being at or potentially above that work? - or would we have to accept that until the next generation of nacelles is designed that the ship won't reach it's full potential?