Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Kinda hope we pick all the science options first, and then do tactical at the very end so we can get science stuff onto the ship before anything else then build around that. Though the order is up to Sayle.
 
Nyvis said:
For a little while this is going to be Earth's only warp 7 capable ship so I expect it'll do a lot of responding to calls in addition to the science. And it kinda is our problem if it fails at that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Earth's only warp 7 ship, sure, but we have allies now in the UFP. And with Earth taking up the task of surveying and science soon, that means everyone else's ships will be freed up more for distress call response and other responsibilities.
 
LunaMoth said:
Kinda hope we pick all the science options first, and then do tactical at the very end so we can get science stuff onto the ship before anything else then build around that. Though the order is up to Sayle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that'd be very logical, since that's the main role of the ship. Makes sense to fill out the main role before moving to secondary capabilities.
 
More theoreticals with a rear dorsal superstructure & the vertical mounts:


Weird generalist version with the shuttlebay in front. Three phasers (one aft and one at the midline rim of the saucer), two torpedo launchers, etc.



All the Science version, would not bet on this against a B'Rel (which I have been basically using as a measure of "how comfortable am I with the weapons array") but packs all the science, and we mean ALL THE SCIENCE.




Then there's this, which I am calling the Tactical Science Frigate. Which should be self explanatory. (Yes that lab is a BEEG 3-decks not a normal 2 deck lab.)
Anyway, at this point I'm actually basically ambivalent about what wins other than "not the sprint config" but still prefer inline for space reasons.

Edit:
Raw90 said:
I think that'd be very logical, since that's the main role of the ship. Makes sense to fill out the main role before moving to secondary capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Weapons have pretty consistently been before the other stuff, presumably because you want to establish firing arcs without anything other than the hull getting in the way, and because in universe that pretty heavily dictates what the EPS grid looks like.
 
Last edited:
Raw90 said:
I think that'd be very logical, since that's the main role of the ship. Makes sense to fill out the main role before moving to secondary capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the other hand, it makes sense to pick internals last because external components determine how much internal space we have to work with.
 
[x] Vertical Configuration (+0.4 Cruise) [Experimental] [2 Success Checks]
 
Mechanis said:
More theoreticals with a rear dorsal superstructure & the vertical mounts:


Weird generalist version with the shuttlebay in front. Three phasers (one aft and one at the midline rim of the saucer), two torpedo launchers, etc.



All the Science version, would not bet on this against a B'Rel (which I have been basically using as a measure of "how comfortable am I with the weapons array") but packs all the science, and we mean ALL THE SCIENCE.




Then there's this, which I am calling the Tactical Science Frigate. Which should be self explanatory. (Yes that lab is a BEEG 3-decks not a normal 2 deck lab.)
Anyway, at this point I'm actually basically ambivalent about what wins other than "not the sprint config" but still prefer inline for space reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gonna be real here, if we could put in extra volume right in next to the nacelle pylons for the dorsal/ventral vert arrangement it probably would have been accounted for in the design presented. That it isn't is clearly intentional - Doylistically it's clearly to add to the cost-benefit analysis (this is an extremely experimental setup and we're giving up known benefits for a mystery box), while Watsonianly the reason is probably that the area we're mounting the nacelles in is going to be housing extra engineering that needs direct access to the nacelles for monitoring/maintenance, or adding yet more superstructure is going to fuck up the warp geometry and negate any benefit from the different nacelle pattern, or [insert treknobabble here].
 
[X] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

Hopefully we can do Vertical for the workhorse cruiser.
 
Strunkriidiisk said:
Gonna be real here, if we could put in extra volume right in next to the nacelle pylons for the dorsal/ventral vert arrangement it probably would have been accounted for in the design presented. That it isn't is clearly intentional - Doylistically it's clearly to add to the cost-benefit analysis (this is an extremely experimental setup and we're giving up known benefits for a mystery box), while Watsonianly the reason is probably that the area we're mounting the nacelles in is going to be housing extra engineering that needs direct access to the nacelles for monitoring/maintenance, or adding yet more superstructure is going to fuck up the warp geometry and negate any benefit from the different nacelle pattern, or [insert treknobabble here].
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, there's really no difference structurally between putting the pylon on the saucer directly and putting it on a superstructure; a hull is a hull and a deck is a deck. The reason the design doesn't include that is presumably so there's at least one option to not increase the ship mass but I am not especially put out. If the vertical design wins we'll just have to cut secondary capabilities like engineering or fancy medbays, oh darn. We'll get there when we get there.
Edit: and looking at the vote counts it seems unlikely at this juncture that we're going to have that happen. Anyway imma go play with the hull extension more because I have some IDEAS.I
 
Last edited:
[X] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

Needing a two success check of option three is a but too risky for me. I'll vote for option two.
 
@Sayle are the dice for the vertical nascelles rolling for different things like "having a hull in the way" and "vertical orientation" or are they just general dice that you write around?
 
@Sayle , for your perusal, a half dozen potential hullforms for the extension:








Exact length obviously subject to will/need, but hopefully this provides decent inspiration.
 
Much as I'm sure that it probably matters little in Sayle's final design, Mechanis, I'm quite partial to design 5 in your lineup. It's a nice set of lines that makes a fair amount of sense, and it feels like a shuttle bay would slot in quite nicely in that rear part of the vessel.
 
StriderInCosmos said:
Much as I'm sure that it probably matters little in Sayle's final design, Mechanis, I'm quite partial to design 5 in your lineup. It's a nice set of lines that makes a fair amount of sense, and it feels like a shuttle bay would slot in quite nicely in that rear part of the vessel.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
2 and 5 are definitely the cleanest lines and my favorites, with 3 and 6 as the main runner-ups.
 
[X] Parallel Configuration (+0.2 Cruise/Maximum) (Prototype) [1 Success Check]

One thing that makes this a bit tough is that I have a bit of trouble visualizing this, and while the Numbers do matter, so does the Look.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top