Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Honestly, we could probably get by with just the shuttle bay, but our numbers are fucked anyway, so a slight extra increase in expense doesn't change much at that point.
 
Adhoc vote count started by LawsOfRobotics on Dec 2, 2023 at 6:50 PM, finished with 121 posts and 54 votes.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a nail-biter
 
With Sayle having clarified their expected phaser firing arc, I'm thinking that four phaser banks at the forward ventral and dorsal "corners" of the bridge module and navigational sensor (ie., if you drew bounding boxes for those components, place the phaser banks at the corners of the boxes) would provide a decent balance of phaser coverage and concentration. If more forward concentration was desired, you could squeeze the forward phaser banks together slightly to overlap the forward edge of the firing arc, but as proposed (with the phaser banks about 90 degrees apart) they should cover a 270 degree arc centered on the front of the ship, dorsal and ventral. Considering we're expecting medium-at-worst maneuverability, I'm expecting it to be unlikely that any practical opponent could remain exclusively in the aft dead-zone for the ship - and if we're still really concerned about that, going slightly over industry on a fifth or sixth phaser bank mounted on the secondary hull to cover the dorsal/ventral aft blindspot would be entirely possible.
 
[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

I'm 90 percent sure I haven't voted already

Also fun fact both in real life and in star trek ships unlike other things like tanks of fighters have large amounts of space empty for future upgrades I forget if it was a modern us ship or the use enterprise d but one of them had 15-30% empty space for upgrades.
 
[x] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

We only need cargo+shuttlebay+engineering space, but transporters would be hella convenient, and we can still swing three engines in budget. The aft phaser slot is neat, too, though I don't expect we'll have the budget to fill it.
 
Ash19256 said:
[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

I agree with the mathematics for this. As for future options, one question I want to ask @Sayle would be if it would be possible to design the ship "for but not with" extra impulse engines and similar - ie., if we planned for the ship to reach final production with 3 engines as designed, would it be possible to leave space for a 4th if Starfleet felt the extra expense was justified? Or would that require so much extra work as to effectively be just as expensive as installing the fourth impulse engine from the shipyard? I recall you mentioning that the ship could be up-gunned during a refit, if war seemed imminent but was not ongoing, but nothing about secondary systems like impulse engines being altered.

Also, in terms of phaser firing arcs, how wide is the arc covered by a single phaser bank? ie., would phasers spaced port and starboard on a saucer be able to fire forwards, or is their firing arc closer to 45 degrees (or less)?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Where would a hypothetical 4th engine slot even go without upsetting thrust balance? Like if you start with just two engines, you can easily add two more while keeping things balanced, but starting with three? Only reasonable way I can think of to do it would be at the mid point of a triangular arrangement of engines.
 
Jensaarai said:
How are the numbers fucked?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In the sense that "Whether we do a Shuttle or a full Engineering deck, we're dropping below 200 Credits and 2 Industry of flex space".

So since there's not an extreme difference either way, we might as well stick with with the full Engineering Deck anyway. Shuttles are too useful for the ship's mission specifications to pass up a chance to get a slot for them, and with a third aux slot on top, we've got a lot of flex space to make it a good Utility Cruiser. (Workshop + Cargo Bay + either Antimatter Pods for refueling other ships or a Biotransporter for passenger pickup).

And with three Impulse Thrusters pushing about 230 KT, I think that'll put us into High Maneuverability, given how the cap is Very High at double the thrust to the mass they're pushing (Which would be four thrusters in this case). We should be in good stead I think.
 
Last edited:
Having read all the comments I now vote:

[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)

Weapons- I think we need 2 on eeach side of the saucer and a 5th on the engineering hill playing rear gunner.
Engines- the math people say 3 should be a good balance so I'm inclined to agree
Nacelles- I really want to see what happens if we have 3 (Enterprise D refit style)
 
[X] 75-Meter Hull, 4 Decks (+Shuttlebay, +Auxiliary Slot)
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top