Starfleet Design Bureau

2 failures would be "tritanium cost, ditanium defense" which is the worst case
2 neutrals is "yeah it works as expected"
2 succeses is "Ditanium cost, tritanium defense" which would ofc be nice

though of course, it could be 1 F/N/S and 1 S/F/N for curiously mixed results
2 neutrals 'works as expected' is ditanium cost/tritanium defence.
 
Unfortunately the Current Technology informational post hasn't been updated in a while, so I'm not actually sure if this is the case.
that post was last updated during project NX, the first explorer, literally 20 years ago in-universe, before the War. Yes. Thingsh ave 100% changed

2 neutrals 'works as expected' is ditanium cost/tritanium defence.

I'm fairly sure these rolls have three states, right? failure, as-expected, better-than-expected?
 
I do think it's worth pointing out that the large saucer has twice the mass of the smaller one. Twice the expense for hull and shields.

@Sayle
Do the 2 hull configurations affect the number of auxiliary slots?
 
that post was last updated during project NX, the first explorer, literally 20 years ago in-universe, before the War. Yes. Thingsh ave 100% changed



I'm fairly sure these rolls have three states, right? failure, as-expected, better-than-expected?
The reason experimental things get proposed is because the expected result is better then what exists, so a neutral/neutral roll is in fact a win.

In this case the option explicitly states the expectation is the same mass savings as ditanium without the loss in effectiveness. Though I think we've both been substituting cost for mass, the correct way to say it is the expected result it ditanium mass with tritanium effectiveness, given there's no number for all three I assume all three are expected to cost the same, so a double failure might look something like -15% mass -5% defence +10% cost.
 
Comments:

The large saucer, even with the extra engine slot, still 'loses' when fitted with impulse engines. It would be 380kt/300 kt of thrust, vs the small saucers 200/200. Even if we manage +50% engine thrust, 450/380 = ~1.18 vs 300/200 = 1.5 the small saucer is still going to win the engine race.

Assumed weapons fit is probably 6 phasers and 2 torpedoes, which the small saucer can still fit. Unless people are really wanting all those extra guns. Though with the big saucer, we'd probably have to accept low maneuverability, which probably means needing more guns for coverage.

Assuming the 'bigger secondary hull' ends up being around 150 kt, that means total ship mass would be around 350 kt, so still overall smaller than the hueg saucer by itself. Admittedly, if the huge saucer ends up offering 8 aux slots, or something, then I guess it's worth thinking about. We'll need maybe +2 anti-matter pods for more range, which will end up eating into aux slots. Not sure if it would be 1 for 1, or 1 aux for how many ever we end up using.

But assuming we want
astrometrics
science lab
advanced sensors
transporters
workshop or extra computer core?

Implies that we'd be a little bit squeezed on aux slots on the smaller saucer.
 
I've got a feeling that the experimental hull isn't going to measure up to what it's advertised as with the chance of us failing at least one of the rolls, but with the possibility of saving a full 1/5th of the hull mass in a modern composite we may just have to roll the dice on it anyways and hope we don't get the worst option.

With the experimental hull, probable prototype impulse engines going by the update, and maybe a funky prototype nacelle arrangement going by some expressed thread opinions and just to finally break that warp 7 barrier, I'm thinking we should probably pass on any independent deflector or weapon prototypes this go around.
 
Having looked over the brief once again and taken in and considered this statement:
These proponents advocate instead that most critical functions should be moved entirely to the secondary hull to a greater extent than they were on the Cygnus-class, centralising practically all engineering and utility functions there. Smaller saucer, larger engineering hull.

I'm much less of a hardliner now when it comes to primary hull size. I get the feeling a decent amount of the tactical loadout, which is my primary concern with taking the smaller saucer, might be shifted to the secondary hull instead, from what my reading suggests. So, I think I'm satisfied either way.
 
Last edited:
[X] 0: Large Saucer (380,000 Tons)
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)

I want the most room to stuff things on our new explorer, and I'm willing to gamble on the experimental hull material.
 
[X] 0: Large Saucer (380,000 Tons)
[X] 0: Small Saucer (200,000 Tons)

[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
 
[X] 0: Small Saucer (200,000 Tons)
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
 
[X] 0: Small Saucer (200,000 Tons)
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)

Small saucer, BIG hull, lots of prototypes.
 
[X] 0: Small Saucer (200,000 Tons)
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)

A smaller main saucer lets us get a bigger (and hopefully weirder) secondary hull.
 
[X] 0: Large Saucer (380,000 Tons)
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
 
[X] 0: Large Saucer (380,000 Tons)
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
 
[X] 0: Large Saucer (380,000 Tons)
We get the option of small saucer and large engineering section I have to ask: Why not Big Saucer with big Secondary hull? The best of both worlds?
[X] 1: Electro-Ceramic Hull Composite (-20% Mass) [Experimental] (Two Success Checks: Cost/Defense)
Oh yes to prototype or not to prototype that is the question. My answer? Prototypes goo!
 
Back
Top