Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Bedpotato said:
Also once the type 4 nacelles become avaible, a refit will increase that even more 7,6 or even 7,8 max cruise are absolutly possible!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Based on the sprint-config's cruise and cruise-config's sprint in the voting options for the Excalibur, the "base" for the current warp core is 6.2 cruise / 8.0 max. (Remember, 0.2 of the Excalibur's Sprint was from its underslung secondary hull configuration.)

Based on the same vote, nacelle configuration gives +0.4/+0, +0.2/+0.2, or +0/+0.4.

One of the choices we made back when we designed the warp core will synergize with the Type 4 nacelles for a Sprint increase- how much isn't specified, but I'm going to assume +0.2 because it's the smallest increase that doesn't need rounding or +0.05 increments when averaging cruise and sprint to determine max-cruise.

Based on the Sagarmatha vote, pre-cycling quad nacelles grant an extra +0.2 to either cruise or sprint. (Presumably, it could also give +0.1 to both?) This wouldn't benefit max cruise on a nacelle-cycling quad, because cycling quads only use two nacelles during max-cruise travel.

Based on Sayle's recent comment and the Radiant's precedent, we'll assume that optimally-configured nacelle-cycling quads get up to +0.4 max cruise currently. (For reference, the Radiant max-cruised at Warp 6.7, or about +0.3 over our other ships on that warp core and nacelle pairing.)

I don't know yet whether optimal configuration for nacelle-cyclers with Type 4s will be Sprint or Cruise or not matter. I very strongly suspect Cruise for Type 3 cyclers due to efficient geometry pushing back the overheating wall slightly further, so I'm guessing +0.4/0.3/0.2 after-averaging Max Cruise to cruise/parallel/sprint configurations.

Since the Type 4 nacelles won't have the overheating issue, I don't think the efficiency advantage of a cruise-optimized warp geometry will impact how hard they can be pushed when cycling. On the other hand, without the overheating issue holding back "normal" max cruise, the advantage of nacelle-cycling quads will be smaller. I'm very tentatively assuming that without the overheating, cycling quads will give +0.3 max cruise to all configurations rather than 0.4/0.3/0.2 (although probably with drastic differences in antimatter consumption rates). It could go the other way- something like +0.3/0.4/0.5 for cruise/parallel/sprint configurations would be at the wild end of what I'd consider plausible- but I wouldn't count on it.
Thus, assuming:
  • Type 4 nacelles are a "generic" design, with no inherent performance advantage or disadvantage over the Type 3s.
    • They remove the Warp 7 cap on Max Cruise
    • They enable the Sprint synergy bonus we voted for back in the warp core design, which is assumed to be +0.2
  • Speeds given are for a "generic" ship design, with no bonuses or penalties to warp performance from hull geometry, deflector configuration, experimental roll outcomes, etc.
This gives us the following expected performance:
Cruise ConfigParallel ConfigSprint Config
Dual T3 Nacelles6.6 / 7.0 / 8.06.4 / 7.0 / 8.26.2 / 7.0 / 8.4
Quad T3 Nacelles6.8 / 7.4 / 8.06.5 / 7.3 / 8.36.2 / 7.2 / 8.6
Dual T4 Nacelles6.6 / 7.4 / 8.26.4 / 7.4 / 8.46.2 / 7.4 / 8.6
Quad T4 Nacelles6.8 / 7.7 / 8.26.5 / 7.7 / 8.56.2 / 7.7 / 8.8
This table assumes that
  1. the Type 4 nacelle grants a +0.1 bonus to all speeds over the Type 3
  2. vertical ("supercruise") nacelle configurations grant +0.2 efficient cruise, +0.1 max cruise, -0.3 sprint versus a conventional cruise config. They can only be dual-nacelle designs.
    • While not part of this table, I'd also expect them to have slightly better antimatter efficiency, compounding the cruise-speed boost to significantly increase their range.
  3. triple nacelles grant +0.1 cruise and max cruise, +0.2 sprint versus conventional twin configurations.
    • While not part of this table, I'd also expect them to have worse inherent antimatter efficiency, enough to outweigh the speed increase and slightly-to-moderately reduce their range.
  4. as before, no bonuses or penalties to warp performance from hull geometry or deflector configuration or what have you
VerticalCruiseParallelSprint
Dual T36.8/7.0/7.76.6/7.0/8.06.4/7.0/8.26.2/7.0/8.4
Triple T36.7/7.0/8.26.5/7.0/8.46.3/7.0/8.6
Quad T36.8/7.4/8.06.5/7.3/8.36.2/7.2/8.6
Dual T46.9/7.6/8.06.7/7.5/8.36.5/7.5/8.56.3/7.5/8.7
Triple T46.8/7.6/8.56.6/7.6/8.66.4/7.6/8.9
Quad T46.9/7.8/8.36.6/7.8/8.66.3/7.8/8.9
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
Based on the sprint-config's cruise and cruise-config's sprint in the voting options for the Excalibur, the "base" for the current warp core is 6.2 cruise / 8.0 max. (Remember, 0.2 of the Excalibur's Sprint was from its underslung secondary hull configuration.)

Based on the same vote, nacelle configuration gives +0.4/+0, +0.2/+0.2, or +0/+0.4.

One of the choices we made back when we designed the warp core will synergize with the Type 4 nacelles for a Sprint increase- how much isn't specified, but I'm going to assume +0.2 because it's the smallest increase that doesn't need rounding or +0.05 increments when averaging cruise and sprint to determine max-cruise.

Based on the Sagarmatha vote, pre-cycling quad nacelles grant an extra +0.2 to either cruise or sprint. (Presumably, it could also give +0.1 to both?) This wouldn't benefit max cruise on a nacelle-cycling quad, because cycling quads only use two nacelles during max-cruise travel.

Based on Sayle's recent comment and the Radiant's precedent, we'll assume that optimally-configured nacelle-cycling quads get up to +0.4 max cruise currently. (For reference, the Radiant max-cruised at Warp 6.7, or about +0.3 over our other ships on that warp core and nacelle pairing.)

I don't know yet whether optimal configuration for nacelle-cyclers with Type 4s will be Sprint or Cruise or not matter. I very strongly suspect Cruise for Type 3 cyclers due to efficient geometry pushing back the overheating wall slightly further, so I'm guessing +0.4/0.3/0.2 after-averaging Max Cruise to cruise/parallel/sprint configurations.

Since the Type 4 nacelles won't have the overheating issue, I don't think the efficiency advantage of a cruise-optimized warp geometry will impact how hard they can be pushed when cycling. On the other hand, without the overheating issue holding back "normal" max cruise, the advantage of nacelle-cycling quads will be smaller. I'm very tentatively assuming that without the overheating, cycling quads will give +0.3 max cruise to all configurations rather than 0.4/0.3/0.2 (although probably with drastic differences in antimatter consumption rates). It could go the other way- something like +0.3/0.4/0.5 for cruise/parallel/sprint configurations would be at the wild end of what I'd consider plausible- but I wouldn't count on it.
Thus, assuming:
  • Type 4 nacelles are a "generic" design, with no inherent performance advantage or disadvantage over the Type 3s.
    • They remove the Warp 7 cap on Max Cruise
    • They enable the Sprint synergy bonus we voted for back in the warp core design, which is assumed to be +0.2
  • Speeds given are for a "generic" ship design, with no bonuses or penalties to warp performance from hull geometry, deflector configuration, experimental roll outcomes, etc.
This gives us the following expected performance:
Cruise ConfigParallel ConfigSprint Config
Dual T3 Nacelles6.6 / 7.0 / 8.06.4 / 7.0 / 8.26.2 / 7.0 / 8.4
Quad T3 Nacelles6.8 / 7.4 / 8.06.5 / 7.3 / 8.36.2 / 7.2 / 8.6
Dual T4 Nacelles6.6 / 7.4 / 8.26.4 / 7.4 / 8.46.2 / 7.4 / 8.6
Quad T4 Nacelles6.8 / 7.7 / 8.26.5 / 7.7 / 8.56.2 / 7.7 / 8.8
This table assumes that
  1. the Type 4 nacelle grants a +0.1 bonus to all speeds over the Type 3
  2. vertical ("supercruise") nacelle configurations grant +0.2 efficient cruise, +0.1 max cruise, -0.3 sprint versus a conventional cruise config. They can only be dual-nacelle designs.
    • While not part of this table, I'd also expect them to have slightly better antimatter efficiency, compounding the cruise-speed boost to significantly increase their range.
  3. triple nacelles grant +0.1 cruise and max cruise, +0.2 sprint versus conventional twin configurations.
    • While not part of this table, I'd also expect them to have worse inherent antimatter efficiency, enough to outweigh the speed increase and slightly-to-moderately reduce their range.
  4. as before, no bonuses or penalties to warp performance from hull geometry or deflector configuration or what have you
VerticalCruiseParallelSprint
Dual T36.8/7.0/7.76.6/7.0/8.06.4/7.0/8.26.2/7.0/8.4
Triple T36.7/7.0/8.26.5/7.0/8.46.3/7.0/8.6
Quad T36.8/7.4/8.06.5/7.3/8.36.2/7.2/8.6
Dual T46.9/7.6/8.06.7/7.5/8.36.5/7.5/8.56.3/7.5/8.7
Triple T46.8/7.6/8.56.6/7.6/8.66.4/7.6/8.9
Quad T46.9/7.8/8.36.6/7.8/8.66.3/7.8/8.9
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You qualified your speculation, great respect for your intellectual integrity.

One further factor you've probably considered, last time we got to choose to make nacelles higher performing in exchange for more expense or quirks. We might be able to do the same again.
 
Cold Dust said:
One further factor you've probably considered, last time we got to choose to make nacelles higher performing in exchange for more expense or quirks. We might be able to do the same again.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, absolutely; there's just no way to know what options we'll have offered, which will be worth it, and how the roll-based ones will turn out. The Type-3 nacelles turned out evenly balanced, giving +0.4/+0.4, meaning the Warp Eight Engine actually has a "base" speed of 5.8/7.6. However, I can't imagine Starfleet adopting a nacelle that was an outright downgrade in either aspect, so I'm assuming the Type-3's performance as a baseline minimum.

(It's very likely that we'll be offered, and not entirely inconceivable that we accept, an option giving -X Cruise/Sprint for +Y Sprint/Cruise, but I'm disregarding both possibilities because a -Cruise possibility is too deeply depressing and a -Sprint option seems too unlikely to ever win.)

So, yeah, treat those Type 4 Nacelle numbers as minimums, and assume they'll be at least somewhat better at at least something, but I've no way of knowing (or reasonably guessing) what.

The Type-3 design process offered us (winning options are emphasized):
+??-?? Sprint, +Complexity <--> No Change
-Complexity <--> +0.1-0.6 Cruise, +DogshitDownsides
+0.1-0.4 Sprint, +Cost <--> No Change
No Change <--> +0.1-0.2 Cruise, +Complexity <--> +0.2-0.4 Cruise, +Complexity, +Cost
No Change <--> -0.6 Sprint, +0.4 Cruise
+0.1 Cruise <--> +0.2 Sprint, +Complexity
(I think that first Sprint choice was 0.1-0.3, and that both of the Sprint rolls came out 0.2, while the Cruise roll came in at 0.3, giving us the net +0.4/+0.4, but I couldn't swear to any of that except the final total.)

Anyway, the total range of offered options and roll ranges were from -0.6–+0.8 Sprint, +0–1.5 Cruise; without the -0.6/+0.4 option and the option with totally unacceptable functional behavior, the remaining options and roll ranges were from +0-0.8 Sprint, +0-0.5 Cruise.

I don't think you can actually draw any conclusions about the Type-4 Nacelles from this, but...there you have it.
 
Another thought that occurs, nacelles meant to operate in 4s not 2s, offering the advantage of a quad but offsetting the costs a wee bit, but forcing all current gen Starfleet ships to use quads or suffer a major malus.

Edit only an interesting thought, not suggesting we actually do it.
 
Last edited:
Cold Dust said:
Another thought that occurs, nacelles meant to operate in 4s not 2s, offering the advantage of a quad but offsetting the costs a wee bit, but forcing all current gen Starfleet ships to use quads or suffer a major malus.

Edit only an interesting thought, not suggesting we actually do it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sounds like a plan for when we welcome the Krogans into the Federation! 😈
 
In regards to the next timeframe (TMP) I'm thinking of scrapping the aft view: it tends to add more work without really adding much more than the front view does. I'm mulling over having a top, side, and front view configuration. I vacillated a bit on the front view, but I do think that adds quite a lot in regards to the forward profile and deflector. I suppose the question is if people would prefer to have another sideview (of the exterior) or keep the aft view. I'm welcome to input.

Update is in progress, though I'm not totally happy with how the secondary hull has come out.
 
Honestly I'd rather an exterior sideview than the aft view.

I guess the aft view is kind of nice for seeing the impulse engine placement, but it's just not as visually interesting.
 
Remove ads
2249: Project Federation (Nacelles)
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Conventional Secondary Hull (Mass: 220kt) [Cost: 55.5)

    The secondary hull takes several redesigns to finally come around to something that will accommodate the massive warp core, but you get there eventually. In addition to a full-sized shuttlebay and deflector you have made sure to leave plenty of space that can be used to enhance the ship's engineering capabilities.

    This brings you to the nacelles, which have always been a pain point for the budget. Fortunately new production techniques have come into practice thanks to the metallurgical analysis of Klingon debris that has provided insight into their more refined processes. The actual work involved in producing the warp coils may have proven more complicated as a result, but the changes and additions to the workflow substantially reduce waste from failed quality checks. The warp coils are still expensive, of course, but rather less than they have been in the last decades. The cost going up per component is still a win when you only have to produce half as many.

    The first option is to use a cruise configuration, which will further boost the design's already impressive efficiency rating to Warp 7. Being able to efficiently travel at maximum cruise would be a substantial boon, providing a 44% increase in normal speed compared to other vessels like the Excalibur or Attenborough-class starships. This is the cruising speed the ship will spend most of its lifetime travelling at, so it's definitely a choice to consider if you want the ship to excel at internal duties, though it already boasts a 32% advantage to efficient cruise thanks to the larger warp core and the usefulness of another 12% is a decision to weigh against the alternatives.

    On the other hand, an extra set of nacelles in a linear arrangement would allow you to cycle the higher plasma temperatures between more warp coils, effectively pushing the maximum cruise threshold to a higher level. This would be specifically used during urgent missions or wartime deployments, pushing the design's strategic speed up an extra 20% compared to normal. The extra cost isn't something to be sneered at even with your new cheaper nacelles, but it might be worth the expenditure.

    Finally there is a sprint configuration. While not able to match the raw speed of the Excalibur-class it would push the ship up to Warp 8.4 and squeeze an extra 15% maximum velocity out of the spaceframe. This would primarily be useful in allowing the ship to decline battle or engage faster targets when acting as a lone vessel. It would open up the potential for an extra wartime role as a solo combatant over its current niche as a task force anchor.

    [ ] Cruise Nacelles (Efficient Cruise: Warp 6.8 -> 7) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]
    [ ] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]
    [ ] Sprint Nacelles (Maximum Warp: Warp 8 -> 8.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]

    Two Hour Moratorium, Please

     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • [ ] Cruise Nacelles (Efficient Cruise: Warp 6.8 -> 7) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]

    For me, this is pretty straightforward. It's cheaper, so more ships, and its baseline is faster, so those ships cover more space each.

    Max Warp reaches 8 as a minimum, so I don't want to hear any complaining about that.
     
    Well, she's shaping up to be elegant as a dodo.

    Thinking Quad Nacelles for the cruise boost, thought admittedly the price is hefty

    [ ] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]
     
    Candesce said:
    [ ] Cruise Nacelles (Efficient Cruise: Warp 6.8 -> 7) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]

    For me, this is pretty straightforward. It's cheaper, so more ships, and its baseline is faster, so those ships cover more space each.

    Max Warp reaches 8 as a minimum, so I don't want to hear any complaining about that.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I'm weighing the trade-offs between increasing the cap on efficient cruise or max cruise. I'm usually a sprint fan, but there's no real point to making this hull almost as zippy at max Warp as an Excalibur imo.
     
    does choosing cruise nacelles mean the efficient cruise is equal to the maximum cruise?

    Edit: nevermind it answers in the update, problem with skimming first instead of reading through all the way.
     
    Last edited:
    landcollector said:
    I'm usually a sprint fan, but there's no real point to making this hull almost as zippy at max Warp as an Excalibur imo.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yeah, we've got the Excalibur for that.

    For me, Efficient Cruise versus Max Cruise would lean towards Efficient Cruise for this ship's role even if it didn't cost an entire Rapid Launcher more.

    jjffjhjf said:
    does choosing cruise nacelles mean the efficient cruise is equal to the maximum cruise?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yep.
     
    Quad is really tempting, but it's the most expensive and upon further examination it's the most situational. It's not the "accept or refuse engagements and potentially operate solo like the Excalibur did" and it's not the "maximum cruise IS efficient cruise" of the other options.
     
    I like the Quad but I have to go for the Cruise one. The cost is what ultimately made me decide against it and like what previous posters said, we have the Excalibur for the Sprint.
     
    Last edited:
    Cruise nacelles is probably the best here for what we want this ship to be, but quad nacelles are just so tempting to me. There are never enough ships that have more than the base two nacelles.
     
    [ ] Cruise Nacelles (Efficient Cruise: Warp 6.8 -> 7) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]
    [ ] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]

    Daamn, those are some nice cruise speeds, but I think I'm trending towards the cruise nacelles:

    Warp FactorCDays/LyLy/DayLy/Hr
    7343.001.060.940.0391
    7.4405.220.901.110.0462
     
    [ ] Sprint Nacelles (Maximum Warp: Warp 8 -> 8.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]

    All you people obsessing over cost have learnt nothing. It's very distressing.
     
    I think Sprint Nacelles makes the most sense. In wartime, sprint is king. That means that these ships will be effective for that much longer in a war scenario throughout the Federation's lifespan. The boost to efficient cruise in the Cruise Nacelles is...nice but not necessary.

    Maximum Cruise is an odd ducking of sorts in that it's for urgent situations but not tactical situations. But we are in need of more coverage for urgent situations after our fleet has been so gutted, so it has importance.

    Maximum Warp is for urgent strategic situations, which would have most utility in war time, but the cost...Quad Nacelles is quite expensive, so catering to this factor seems the least practical of the three.

    We're already gaining a lot for Efficient Cruise; we could gain a lot for Sprint and have a very well-rounded ship.

    [ ] Sprint Nacelles (Maximum Warp: Warp 8 -> 8.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 260kt) [Cost: 67]

    @Sayle : This is really confusing. The Sprint Nacelles don't actually affect Sprint speeds, only Maximum Warp.
     
    Last edited:
    We had active warships in the Four Years War with a SPRINT speed of about Warp 7. I like the idea of making that our new standard cruise speed. Cruise configuration for the win.
     
    Sayle said:
    On the other hand, an extra set of nacelles in a linear arrangement would allow you to cycle the higher plasma temperatures between more warp coils, effectively pushing the maximum cruise threshold to a higher level. This would be specifically used during urgent missions or wartime deployments, pushing the design's strategic speed up an extra 20% compared to normal. The extra cost isn't something to be sneered at even with your new cheaper nacelles, but it might be worth the expenditure.

    [ ] Quad Nacelles (Maximum Cruise: Warp 7 -> 7.4) (Mass: 220kt -> 300kt) [Cost: 79]
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    @Sayle If I'm reading this right, does this mean the Quad Nacelles also have an Efficient Cruise of Warp 6.8? Only the Cruise Nacelles improve our Efficient Cruise speed?
     
    My understanding of warp values is that cruise is logistically useful, max cruise is strategically useful and max warp is tactically useful. This ship having a main role of mass produced strategic deployment makes me think it might be worth it to spend on max cruise. It's the speed we'll get to use to respond to emergency threats and counter enemy fleet movement.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top