Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
LunaMoth said:
Buzzword time... the scope creep is starting... :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not sure why we don't just design a diet-explorer when they ask for a non-explorer class. Space is dark and full of plot tokens

BungieONI said:
Multi-purpose does eventually exist, as TNG has been cited, but do they exist now in this era around the time of Archer? I haven't seen enough of the show to know.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In every startrek show, the ship is either a multi-purpose swiss-army knife or bait for the latest plot-based lifeform to nibble on.
 
Last edited:
Xon said:
I'm not sure why we don't just design a diet-explorer when they ask for a non-explorer class. Space is dark and full of plot tokens


In every startrek show, the ship is either a multi-purpose swiss-army knife or bait for the latest plot-based lifeform to nibble on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a touch of audience-centric bias there that isn't practical for us to rely on. Every protagonist ship is going to be multi-role so they can handle the widest variety of episodes, and every ship that they encounter has to have had a reason to be saved. But if we expand that out into a game setting it doesn't hold.
 
[X] Engineering Section (200,000 -> 260,000 Tons, +Internal Space)
[X] Blister Forward Deflector (200,000 -> 220,000 Tons)

CeBrudras said:
Specialists thus represent a vital part of the narrative ecosystem. Without their ablative role the expensive allrounders will be what gets 'turned into an episode' for the protagonists.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
All spaceships the Federation can build at this point are eye-wateringly expensive. The "allrounder" is because even the smaller ships the Federation can build are frankly quite large ships carrying hundreds of highly skilled crew.

Space is just too damn big for specialist science ships to rapidly respond to the explorer class ships stumbling on random plot-based life-forms which require solving a jenga tower to avoid the ship being turned into a modern art work composed of trash.

A "dedicated" science ship is really just an Explorer-class ship with a mission that isn't going quite as far into the unknown.

OneirosTheWriter said:
There's a touch of audience-centric bias there that isn't practical for us to rely on
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

'Star Trek: Voyager' Gothic

You've been on this tiny ship in the Delta Quadrant beyond any hope of recrew or resupply for over a year, but you keep seeing ensigns you don't recognise. Everyone tells you that they've always been…
www.tumblr.com www.tumblr.com
:V
 
Last edited:
It's also worth remembering that the biggest expense of making spaceships is getting them up there. Adding a little tonnage to give a ship a secondary role is often going to be a lot less costly than making a whole other ship with all the systems needed to support life and travel in space.
 
Nyvis said:
It's also worth remembering that the biggest expense of making spaceships is getting them up there. Adding a little tonnage to give a ship a secondary role is often going to be a lot less costly than making a whole other ship with all the systems needed to support life and travel in space.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Starfleet builds most of its ships in orbit though? Probably using materials from the asteroids.

And that's not considering just how CHEAP spaceflight is in Trek. With surface to orbit shuttle pods getting mass produced.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
Starfleet builds most of its ships in orbit though? Probably using materials from the asteroids.

And that's not considering just how CHEAP spaceflight is in Trek. With surface to orbit shuttle pods getting mass produced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The various essential components though, along with the nacelles, are probably the most expensive parts of the ship, so building dedicated vessels probably wouldn't be cheaper than a generalist multi-role that's decent at most everything.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
Starfleet builds most of its ships in orbit though? Probably using materials from the asteroids.

And that's not considering just how CHEAP spaceflight is in Trek. With surface to orbit shuttle pods getting mass produced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

By "getting them up there" I meant into the galaxy. You need a deflector, a warp core, nacelles, conventional engines, a space worthy hull, life support, crew quarters, etc etc... If you have a need that isn't very large scale, throwing it as a secondary role of a bigger ship is going to be a lot easier than making a dedicated ship class.
 
Skippy said:


We're still voting on the deflector, right?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
yeah it got a bit heated, a lot can happen while your asleep. anyways the two main arguments seem to be:

Pro Inline: We voted for the saucer with loads of internal space lets use some of it for the deflector.

Pro Blister: We voted for the saucer with its loads of internal space to use on 2-3 science labs. or something to that effect

then there was a tangent about weapons and once again the idea of using the skate to escort this ship around was brought up.

however it seems blister is solidly in the lead and will likely win unless team Inline can sway more voters with a more compelling argument. so I don't see this vote lasting much longer.
 
Militarizing the ship isn't adding a torpedo launcher. It's taking the Engineering Section for the biggest deflector we can fit. You want your Science ship to be casting spells, not firing missiles. :V
 
Derpmind said:
Militarizing the ship isn't adding a torpedo launcher. It's taking the Engineering Section for the biggest deflector we can fit. You want your Science ship to be casting spells, not firing missiles. :V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
STO-friendly science vessel. Weaponized exotic particles and spatial shenanigans galore! :V
 
It feels like if we want to argue about torpedo launchers, maybe that could wait until the bit of the vote where we pick Tactical options?

Like broadly, I think versatility is a good thing, Starfleet clearly gets a lot of mileage out of "survey" ships which can serve as second-tier warships in a pinch. Given the realities of space and travel times, a ship surveying stellar nurseries may be the closest one at hand to respond to a crisis, piracy, or so on. It's useful to retain some capacity to deal with crises. In the past I've pushed for science facilities on our escort back when we were designing Project Saber, and I will probably push for some weapons on this vessel if we can fit them without compromising the core mission profile.

But let's have that discussion when it's actually time for it, perhaps?
 
Skippy said:
It feels like if we want to argue about torpedo launchers, maybe that could wait until the bit of the vote where we pick Tactical options?

Like broadly, I think versatility is a good thing, Starfleet clearly gets a lot of mileage out of "survey" ships which can serve as second-tier warships in a pinch. Given the realities of space and travel times, a ship surveying stellar nurseries may be the closest one at hand to respond to a crisis, piracy, or so on. It's useful to retain some capacity to deal with crises. In the past I've pushed for science facilities on our escort back when we designed the Saber-class, and I will probably push for some weapons on this vessel if we can fit them without compromising the core mission profile.

But let's have that discussion when it's actually time for it, perhaps?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I agree with your intention here, and I know you mean well. But saying "let's talk about this later" while at the same time getting your 2₵ in on that topic generally isn't as helpful as refraining from commenting on said topic entirely. Practice what you preach, basically.
 
Derpmind said:
I agree with your intention here, and I know you mean well. But saying "let's talk about this later" while at the same time getting your 2₵ in on that topic generally isn't as helpful as refraining from commenting on said topic entirely. Practice what you preach, basically.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's only wrong when it's not me who's doing it! :lol:

1701174747063.png

More seriously, I think there's a meaningful distinction between talking about general mission profile versus getting very invested in the specifics of like, the number and location of torpedo launchers, which really we can't even know yet. But honestly yeah, you make a fair point.
 
Roaming_Guardian said:
Starfleet builds most of its ships in orbit though? Probably using materials from the asteroids.

And that's not considering just how CHEAP spaceflight is in Trek. With surface to orbit shuttle pods getting mass produced.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fairly sure we have planetside facilities that build components for the ships. Specifically, the ones in Iowa come to mind.

Granted, this is Trek, and getting to orbit is insultingly simple with shuttlecraft, so perhaps the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation doesn't apply to us anymore.
 
Generally, the reason Science ships should be armed is because sometimes the subspace anomaly is hungry and wants to have Antimatter for lunch.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top