Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[ ] Vertical Configuration (+0.4 Cruise) [Experimental] [2 Success Checks]
[ ] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

Either option would be good for me, but I must admit, losing a shuttlebay does feel like a heavy blow for a ship that can use those shuttles in many different ways. It simply feels a little trite to be confined to proven designs due to not wanting to rock the boat too hard. If there were experimental 'test boats' meant to prove concepts that we could build out one bare-bones ship for, I'd feel a little better.
 
I'm a little hesitant to go for Vertical for a couple reasons- first being it doesn't appeal to me aesthetically, the second being that I am staring at the dice with suspicion and doubting we'll get good rolls twice which likely leads to subpar performance and/or outright failure of the configuration. Haven't really settled on one of the other two configs yet.
 
Sayle said:
I'm not a big fan of the design in general. At minimum symmetry is one of the key rules of starship design, although I can get behind a third nacelle for an extra wheel. But not a unicycle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Raw90 said:
I think either of the two options with an integrated shuttlebay is ok, though I would prefer the one without a prototype. We're going to be prototyping a lot of new equipment on this ship, so I don't see much reason to also experiment with the warp field arrangement when we're prototyping the core.

I suspect we're not there yet. The Hermes and Saladin designs are pretty unique to their time period.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh well it's a fun design so I hope we get the chance later
 
So question, what about a "some of column A, some of column B" solution? I'm favorable for an over-under design, but would like to add a small superstructure the the aft dorsal hull to simplify fitting a rear shuttlebay; perhaps one or two decks out to the edge of the saucer. I favor this for two reasons, really, the first is that a higher sprint is attractive, and secondly because this would drastically simplify the phaser arrangement; mounting four total at the saucer's midline, port and starboard, mirrored dorsal and ventrally: this would both allow one mount to cover each major quadrant of the ship, and for all four to be fired into the aft and fore arcs.
A small superstructure on the aft dorsal surface would then simplify getting a shuttlebay and the impulse Thrusters all in the rear without the dorsal nacelle strut getting in the way (though I suppose we could theoretically stick the latter on the struts too, it would just make it a pain in the neck to maintain.)
I suppose we could do something similar with the edge type nacelles, but I think that would look less cool/be somewhat visually awkward with the circular saucer (ovoids and arrowheads are better for that style IMHO)
 
Last edited:
StriderInCosmos said:
[ ] Vertical Configuration (+0.4 Cruise) [Experimental] [2 Success Checks]
[ ] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

Either option would be good for me, but I must admit, losing a shuttlebay does feel like a heavy blow for a ship that can use those shuttles in many different ways. It simply feels a little trite to be confined to proven designs due to not wanting to rock the boat too hard. If there were experimental 'test boats' meant to prove concepts that we could build out one bare-bones ship for, I'd feel a little better.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We'll probably get shuttlebay options when we get to the interior if we don't get one here.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
[ ] Vertical Configuration (+0.4 Cruise) [Experimental] [2 Success Checks]
[ ] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

Either option would be good for me, but I must admit, losing a shuttlebay does feel like a heavy blow for a ship that can use those shuttles in many different ways. It simply feels a little trite to be confined to proven designs due to not wanting to rock the boat too hard. If there were experimental 'test boats' meant to prove concepts that we could build out one bare-bones ship for, I'd feel a little better.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think that's why I'm on parallel as a good compromise between prototyping things and keeping the included shuttlebay.

Derpmind said:
We'll probably get shuttlebay options when we get to the interior if we don't get one here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah but we'll have to sacrifice Science! or utility for it.
 
It felt to me like we'd get a shuttlebay as "free" with the first two options (since we paid in weight) but that we'd have to build it into the saucer for the last option. Since the blister saved space maybe there's enough room to throw it in there, OTOH maybe it'll eat a science option we could have had access to.

In this timeline are transporters good enough they can be relied upon for resupply or moving sensitive equipment?
 
On a re-read of the Birth of the Federation page, are the Type-2 Warp Coils listed there the new prototype option with the nacelles here @Sayle ? Or is this just about placement, and the coils are a different prototype?

If it's the coils prototype, then we should go for the middle option, since that was one of the things we wanted to prototype. If it's just placement, then I think the first option. In either case, gotta have the integrated shuttlebay.
 
Derpmind said:
We'll probably get shuttlebay options when we get to the interior if we don't get one here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True, though that will be space you can't use to for instance store more cargo or extra antimatter to increase the ships endurance. Something that might help it improve survey efficiency, as the long trips in and out from the core worlds will be a constant time sink.
 
[ ] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

Shuttlebay and better speeds for both cruise and sprint seems good
 
landcollector said:
I don't think we have transporter tech yet, do we?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We do, they do by the time of Enterprise, and it might even be good enough for people now. Shuttlepods buy us a lot of other capability even with transporters though, especially for a surveyor. Lets the ship do big area surveys with shuttlepods that are better in-atmo than the ship. Especially with the looks of this ship so far lol.
 
Just eyeballing things we should have plenty of space for a shuttlebay in the aft even if my proposal for some an extra deck to the aft dorsal side doesn't pan out, they take up two decks, generally. We might only get one or two shuttles actually in there, but it will probably have the physical space even without adding more mass. Figure then a lab, secondary computer core, then a modest workshop and cargo bay, and we get a nice interior workhorse regardless of how the testbed tech turns out.
 
Derpmind said:
@Sayle May I please have clarification on this? I honestly read the description as the parallel option not having a shuttlebay.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think they've already answered this. Parallel and Sprint have had Shuttlebay added to their advantages in the table, and they talked about only the two with the secondary hull getting one.

Sayle said:
Only the two with a secondary hull attached.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


As for my vote, I'm thinking
[ ] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]
Sure we might not need the cruise speed if we're going to be sticking around one system for extended periods of time, but part of what I was hoping to do with this ship was prototype a bunch of the important general use technologies for the other ships, so that's something we can do here with this. I'm sure the explorer and other ships would enjoy the slightly better cruise speed and sprint speed, and this one lets us keep a shuttle bay.
 
Mmkay, so it seems to be the case that vertical mounts prevent the placement of a shuttlebay, so as much as they appeal to me I'm going to have to go with the parallel nacelles; this gets us something useful for everything (a small speed increase) but would,I think, still allow for the four phaser arrangement I currently favor to work.
 
Much as it pains me to pass on the vertical mounts, since that was my first choice, the lack of shuttles is a dealbreaker given the design role.
[X] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype)
 
[X] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]
[X] Vertical Configuration (+0.4 Cruise) [Experimental] [2 Success Checks]

Yeah, much as it pains me, as Mechanis said, the integrated shuttlebay is just too good to lose over a radically experimental design. Hopefully, someday we can do some more tinkering with nacelle profiles.

Edit: Adding my vote for Vertical config in the small hope that it might make it.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top