Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
CuriousRaptor said:
I have no doubt that the ship is impressive. I still view it(the initial design) as a failure because it was too good to risk and too hard to recreate to risk. It falls into the same problem the IJN had with the Yamato. Amazing ship that could do wonderful things, but we can't make more, at least not without great difficulty and it has some serious design flaws, some of which were never and could never be fixed. It's still an impressive ship. But i always feel as if we could have done better, you know?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It literally got risked and used more than the canon Sovvy did.
 
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)
 
LazyLayabout said:
So...what's on the drawing board for nacelle placement? Vertical? Ventral? Ring...?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Personally, I favor one of four configurations: a ventral single nacelle design, a dorsal/ventral two nacelle design like the previous thread's Reniessance, a three nacelle design with two dorsal and one ventral, or a conventional Miranda type arrangement if we don't feel like playing with the nacelles.
 
I suspect differences in people's planned scope is where some arguments are coming from.

The listed mission is local region science.

When attempting to sway people I used the argument it'd be relatively small batch and we'd shove prototypes into it so the tech was more mature (and less costly) for when we made our utility workhorse. If it worked out well they'd crank out a bunch of them (over time) but if it ran into issues it wouldn't put a huge dent in our industry so our spare industry would grow in the background.

To me part of the selling point was that it is a (small and affordable) science ship with limited range and small first batch size. The affordable comes mainly because the prototypes would be smaller scale than on a larger ship and trying to avoid the costs of a large secondary hull. If it ends up being a large expensive science ship then the design has creeped away from the goals I was personally interested in. (Edit: and lobbied for)

Since other people had other visions for local region science ("all the science") a larger platform with more room for science isn't creeping at all. Welcome to committee work.
 
Last edited:
KarmaA said:
I suspect differences in people's planned scope is where some arguments are coming from.

The listed mission is local region science.

When attempting to sway people I used the argument it'd be relatively small batch and we'd shove prototypes into it so the tech was more mature (and less costly) for when we made our utility workhorse. If it worked out well they'd crank out a bunch of them (over time) but if it ran into issues it wouldn't put a huge dent in our industry so our spare industry would grow in the background.

To me part of the selling point was that it is a (small and affordable) science ship with limited range and small first batch size. The affordable comes mainly because the prototypes would be smaller scale than on a larger ship and trying to avoid the costs of a large secondary hull. If it ends up being a large expensive science ship then the design has creeped away from the goals I was personally interested in. (Edit: and lobbied for)

Since other people had other visions for local region science ("all the science") a larger platform with more room for science isn't creeping at all. Welcome to committee work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Keep in mind, it's still not actually a particularly large ship, especially, as looks likely, without a secondary hull. Just, you know, not as small as it could be.
 
I mean, I'm in a similar position, note my preference for doing something interesting with the nacelles, but as we have a fairly decently sized platform I'm inclined to shoot for a nice interior workhorse akin to a canon Miranda, just sooner.
 
[X] Inline Deflector (-Internal Space)

We have the biggest option, we can afford to give up a bit of space to save some cost here.
 
KarmaA said:
I suspect differences in people's planned scope is where some arguments are coming from.

The listed mission is local region science.

When attempting to sway people I used the argument it'd be relatively small batch and we'd shove prototypes into it so the tech was more mature (and less costly) for when we made our utility workhorse. If it worked out well they'd crank out a bunch of them (over time) but if it ran into issues it wouldn't put a huge dent in our industry so our spare industry would grow in the background.

To me part of the selling point was that it is a (small and affordable) science ship with limited range and small first batch size. The affordable comes mainly because the prototypes would be smaller scale than on a larger ship and trying to avoid the costs of a large secondary hull. If it ends up being a large expensive science ship then the design has creeped away from the goals I was personally interested in. (Edit: and lobbied for)

Since other people had other visions for local region science ("all the science") a larger platform with more room for science isn't creeping at all. Welcome to committee work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Funny thing is, I voted for the explorer to be first for some similar reasons. I figured even if it became an industrial boondoggle due to crappy returns on prototypes that we could limit the run while pumping out survey and utility craft by the dozen with more proven systems. Things didn't work out like that, obviously.
 
Moist Bread said:
Is the ship on the right a miranda with three nacelles 😲 ?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would assume "Miranda with added engineering hull" myself, judging by the light reflections suggesting there's a deflector on the front of the middle one; we never actually get a look at that particular ship from an angle where we can see the front.
 
[X] Engineering Section (200,000 -> 260,000 Tons, +Internal Space)
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)
 
Anyway, it definitely looks like the deflector blister is a done deal, so I'm inclined to do some workshopping in advance regarding weapons. Torpedo launchers seem to pretty much take two decks, so assuming something like the configuration pitched here:

I think we can manage a fore torpedo launcher directly above the deflector, plus one of the new phasers fore and aft, dorsal and ventral, for good all-around cover. Put the warp core in line with the deflector but aft of the nav array, that should let us stick a small engineering widget between them; then a science lab above that; and a modest shuttlebay in the aft, with cargo in whatever space we've got left after that.
 
I'm thinking it should be 2 phasers fore, and one aft. Sorta like a Stingray. One torpedo tube fore. That's all though. Everything else besides maybe one shuttle bay should be science.
 
I'd argue that if we're putting any torpedoes on this design it should be a sternward launcher. If this ship ever fires torpedoes in anger it should only be while running like hell, and for any other applications (torpedo-tube-compatible probes or whatever) there shouldn't be any reason the ship can't just turn around to do it.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top