Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Alternatively - if shuttlebay wins here I think we may get an option for a cargobay in the saucer witch would let those synergize
 
Onionjones said:
Alternatively - if shuttlebay wins here I think we may get an option for a cargobay in the saucer witch would let those synergize
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the case of a Shuttlebay win, I'd still rather have the cargo area in the secondary hull (in that empty space beneath the shuttlebay) than in the saucer.

That saucer space would be better used for an expanded teleporter room/system.
 
[X] Expanded Cargo Bay
Seems more likely to be significant, all up.

Edit: Both of these options are so far down my priority list that near on any third option that wasn't complete nonsense would have beaten them, but we did not get such an option.
 
Last edited:
Chargone said:
[X] Expanded Cargo Bay
Seems more likely to be significant, all up.

Edit: Both of these options are so far down my priority list that near on any third option that wasn't complete nonsense would have beaten them, but we did not get such an option.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Its still part of the ship so will have uses beyond it being just there. So taking it seriously makes it interesting once its finally done, because you can look back at it and go "I was here when the entire bureau was basically in a heated debate to either install the extended cargobay or the shuttlebay."
 
zac1 said:
Its still part of the ship so will have uses beyond it being just there. So taking it seriously makes it interesting once its finally done, because you can look back at it and go "I was here when the entire bureau was basically in a heated debate to either install the extended cargobay or the shuttlebay."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
At least this debate is significantly less heated than on the saucer vote
 
It depends on what our module options are, but I have no particular objection to spending a slot on a secondary cargo bay or shuttlebay for whichever option doesn't win this vote. It won't be as good as the dedicated option, but cargo and shuttles are both useful capabilities for this ship, regardless of which direction we take it.
 
Sayle said:
Finally, an expansion to a thickness of three decks would open up the possibility of an inline deflector or extra-large cargo bays.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just a reminder that we still have an option for extra large cargo later. Though admittedly it will be competing with other things again.

(Unless going type 4 torpedoes changed that)
 
Last edited:
zac1 said:
Its still part of the ship so will have uses beyond it being just there. So taking it seriously makes it interesting once its finally done, because you can look back at it and go "I was here when the entire bureau was basically in a heated debate to either install the extended cargobay or the shuttlebay."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Heated?...... Naaah - This is still a fairly polite if passionate debate. The Constitution however? Now THAT! was a heated debate.
 
Lohjak said:
Don't see why we would? There's no where with as much uninterrupted space, and it would make this vote meaningless.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know it's deceptive, but volume wise that saucer has a lot more space than the engineering section, and it's no more meaningless a vote than having multiple science module choices.
And, well, historically this exact same thing has happened before and we got the cargo option in the saucer offered then too.
As someone else pointed out, we will have the option for more cargo, but not the option for massive ventral doors for carrying premade infrastructure. So this is a meaningful choice between repair and infrastructure, just not the only chance for cargo space.
 
Golgotha said:
I know it's deceptive, but volume wise that saucer has a lot more space than the engineering section, and it's no more meaningless a vote than having multiple science module choices.
And, well, historically this exact same thing has happened before and we got the cargo option in the saucer offered then too.
As someone else pointed out, we will have the option for more cargo, but not the option for massive ventral doors for carrying premade infrastructure. So this is a meaningful choice between repair and infrastructure, just not the only chance for cargo space.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm just saying, we could have the upper part be infrastructure that can be carried and released through ventral doors, and have a ramp that can raise/lower to the three decks-heights below, where we store the shuttles that exit/enter the same ventral door.

Upside: everyone wins

Downside: no other large module for secondary hull, a handful of enlisted might die tripping over/into the ramp mechanisms per decade
 
Golgotha said:
I know it's deceptive, but volume wise that saucer has a lot more space than the engineering section, and it's no more meaningless a vote than having multiple science module choices.
And, well, historically this exact same thing has happened before and we got the cargo option in the saucer offered then too.
As someone else pointed out, we will have the option for more cargo, but not the option for massive ventral doors for carrying premade infrastructure. So this is a meaningful choice between repair and infrastructure, just not the only chance for cargo space.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's absolutely no reason to believe that we'll be given basically the same choice? The QM has pretty repeatedly expressed no desire to mitigate the effects of our choices. Whatever we take in the saucer will almost certainly be a lower tier of module, not just the same thing but without the door.
 
Lohjak said:
There's absolutely no reason to believe that we'll be given basically the same choice? The QM has pretty repeatedly expressed no desire to mitigate the effects of our choices. Whatever we take in the saucer will almost certainly be a lower tier of module, not just the same thing but without the door.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Without the door and probably without the cargo handling worker bees, which is already a pretty substantial downgrade from "big cargo bay with interesting features that actually justify taking it". It's also unlikely to be able to hold items that are as large individually (if only because the lack of exterior doors and limitations of transporter operation leave no way to get something that takes up most of the bay by itself into or out of it).
So it could easily be as big, or even Bigger, depending on the specifics, but it certainly won't be anywhere near as Useful.

Which is ultimately the most signiicant argument in favour of taking this cargo bay over the shuttles: other cargo bay options will be less good than this one.
 
Last edited:
Onionjones said:
Alternatively - if shuttlebay wins here I think we may get an option for a cargobay in the saucer witch would let those synergize
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It wouldn't even really be an engineering challenge to have cargo containers in the saucer hull. It's a big mostly flat shape. You essentially just design a structural hole in it the shape of your cargo container and then shape the top and bottom of the cargo container to match the profile of the saucer. The two pieces just fit together like a rectangular puzzle piece into a puzzle. Just bog standard clamps could hold it in place.

The entire container then slides up and out of the saucer.

The entire nose section where the inline deflector could have gone could be one big detachable cargo container.
 
Sayle said:
Generally speaking I feel like the consistent flaw the voterbase has is the feeling that if they skimp on something, the ship will die if very rare X happens. In military procurement I think the answer is often "then they die, because it's too expensive to add for such a niche case" which doesn't really happen here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Federation will definitely be asked to fix something, but far more often it'll be asked to move something, and it is the fastest ship, and short of a squadron of D7s there's not much that can stop it going somewhere in safety and doing whatever the hell it likes. The only real debate is the relative merits of the 2 options, both are genuinely valuable.

Onionjones said:
At least this debate is significantly less heated than on the saucer vote
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is spirited and robust, but pleasantly and refreshingly respectful.
 
Tank man said:
If things tie again I'd like to petition Sayle to make a mass/bulk increasing decision. We can get both, both it adds another 20k to the ship and bulges out the engineering hull in such a way that refits are going to be more difficult (to accommodate both parts).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would take another 30/40K of cost if they just merge the options into the Loading Deck combo.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top