Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Ash19256 said:
I'm dubious that trying to push for anything past Medium maneuverability is worthwhile compared to having more capability in other areas - I've already expressed my desire to make this a Thunderchild replacement, and it's also worth noting that we're not done with options that increase mass, so going minimalist here to try and keep below 400kt overall may be a fools errand - and even if we can go past four impulse engines, I honestly don't think we should, considering what other capabilities can be spent on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is an NX cass replacment not a thunderchild one. It will operate alone so it needs full weapon coverage(To double as Point defense) Long range, and a good cruise speed. Then we need to add science, engineering and utillity stuff(Preferable as much as we can manage).

The Thunderchild in Comparison is fleet vessel intended to operate with the fleet as anchor point, break enemy lines and work as siege breaker. That means a whole lot of different requirements.


[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)
 
Given we went for the big saucer already, and the layout of the LCARS wireframe, we are probably getting 4 aux slots with the saucer by itself.

Meaning we can reasonably expect 5 aux slots total REGARDLESS of what we pick. And it takes a lot of mass, before we even pick nacelles to get that sixth slot.

I expect that engines wise, we can have either two thrusters with inline or three with the ventral hull, so she is never going to be nimble.

The goal of this ship type is exploration, and given how mind bendingly massive Space is, we need a decent number of them to expand our maps.

All the above counted together, I think the long inline hull is the best bang for our buck here. Maximum capability while keeping it affordable enough to not be Starfleets white elephants.

And yeah, to admit my own bias, I just dont wanna build two ships with the same shape as the constitution class back to back.

[X] Inline Secondary Hull
[X] Inline Secondary Hull (Long)
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull

Putting in the smallest ventral if only to keep this thing from ballooning too much.
 
Last edited:
Bedpotato said:
This is an NX cass replacment not a thunderchild one. It will operate alone so it needs full weapon coverage(To double as Point defense) Long range, and a good cruise speed. Then we need to add science, engineering and utillity stuff(Preferable as much as we can manage).

The Thunderchild in Comparison is fleet vessel intended to operte with the fleet as anchor point, break enemy lines and work as siege breaker. That means a whole lot of different requirements.


[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, if this girl outfights Thunderchild it'll be because of her better technological base - It'll hopefully be a very long time before we have to make something as insanely powerful as Warspite and her lost sisters.
 
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Long)

While the engineering section is tempting, I'm not sure if the extra Aux slot is worth the extra mass, especially with the saucer already being the large option. Prefer to keep it down, so more ships are hopefully produced.
 
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)

I see I've missed out on the pre-vote debate. As much as granular cost has been a concern for us before, we're also in a time of unprecedented general peace. We can afford, at the moment at least, for these ships to take their time being built as the Cygnus-class keeps things largely locked down in the interior in case of any flare-ups. As well, Project Copernicus is expected To Boldly Go out alone, for the most part. That, to me at least, means giving the ship the most space to do the most stuff.

I do hope, however, that Sayle gives us a design that isn't just a Constitution lookalike. Perhaps something a little slimmer that would make the hopeful tri-nacelle design I'd like to see on this one stand out a little more.
 
Actually if the materials vote affects the secondary hull? The Ventral engineering makes the ship an even 400k. Which means the 3 engines would be 300/400 for .75 thrust. Which is probably either low medium or high low.

The normal Inline would make total mass 344 so 200/344= .58 thrust.


Inlines costing us a thruster makes it a nonstarter basically, unless our only concern was to cut cost.

Our most efficient maneuverability ship would be ventral normal at 368 for a total thrust of .82~ ish which isn't that much better than the Ventral engineering section.


So mathematically unless .8 is a break point for maneuverability there is zero reason to not get the biggest option.
 
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)

Even aside from CuriousRaptor's point about maneuverability, I've stated my position and intend to stick with it.
 
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)
I've been talking about "will probably be way larger than a Thunderchild" for a little while, so l should put my money where my mouth is. We also seem to be on track to easily out-gun the Thunderchild, with 6 phaser slots on the primary hull alone. I quite like the phasers being visible from the top-down view also.
 
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)

It's time for Starfleet to make a grand spectacle ship that pushes limits, tests new concepts, and can survive by itself for years on end, and be a beast in a war if needed.

Also, needing a lot of room for workstations, science labs, and other goodies.
 
In favor of the engineering section, I'd like to point out that the ship will currently have a one year-range with antimatter pods, with longer ranges requiring more space invested. I'm almost certain we'll want more range on this ship, so having two auxiliary slots and a shuttlebay in the engineering section means we'll still have a slot free after range increases, for a workshop or other engineering-section type thing.
 
Current mass after electro-ceramic reduction: 304,000 tons

Corrected table, assuming that we need a damn shuttlebay and that the deflector blister will cost a saucer aux slot (it may not, in which case the table is too pessimistic about the inlines,
Corrected again- deflector blister doesn't cost an aux slot, though it definitely interferes with forward phaser fields of fire and probably reduces forward torpedo mounting options​
-but the inlines are so bad anyway at everything except pennypinching that I don't think it makes a difference:

Secondary HullLengthDecksMassAux
Slots		Phaser
Slots		Max
Thrust		AdvantagesDisadvantages
Inline40 Meters440,000020.657Low Mass-1 Aux Slot shuttlebay
-forward firepower (deflector blister)
Inline Long60 Meters460,000120.549Inbuilt Shuttlebay-forward firepower (deflector blister)
Ventral50 Meters464,000120.824Inbuilt Shuttlebay
Ventral Long70 Meters480,000130.781Inbuilt ShuttlebayI'm sorry sixteen kilotons for one phaser slot
are you actually nuts
Ventral Engineering70 Meters596,000240.750Inbuilt Shuttlebay


And now to vote:
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)

Happy enough with either of these for now, tho I'm leaning slightly toward the Engineering variant.

Inlines are unfortunately worthless for everything except cost-reduction; their mass advantage is always, always going to be worse than their thrust disadvantage.

Ventral-Long is extremely silly, adding just one phaser slot for its sixteen kilotons and twenty meters. Going from Ventral-Long to Ventral-Engineering adds a further sixteen kilotons and zero meters, and gets a phaser slot and an aux slot out of them.
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
Current mass after electro-ceramic reduction: 304,000 tons
Corrected table, assuming that we need a damn shuttlebay and that the deflector blister will cost a saucer aux slot (it may not, in which case the table is too pessimistic about the inlines, but they're so bad anyway at everything except pennypinching that I don't think it makes a difference):
Secondary HullLengthDecksMassAux
Slots		Phaser
Slots		Max
Thrust		AdvantagesDisadvantages
Inline40 Meters440,000-120.657Low Mass-1 Aux Slot shuttlebay
-1 Aux Slot deflector blister
-phaser field of fire deflector blister
Inline Long60 Meters460,000020.549Inbuilt Shuttlebay-1 Aux Slot deflector blister
-phaser field of fire deflector blister
Ventral50 Meters464,000120.824Inbuilt Shuttlebay
Ventral Long70 Meters480,000130.781Inbuilt ShuttlebayI'm sorry sixteen kilotons for one phaser slot
are you actually nuts
Ventral Engineering70 Meters596,000240.750Inbuilt Shuttlebay


And now to vote:
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull
[X] Ventral Secondary Hull (Engineering Section)

Happy enough with either of these for now, tho I'm leaning slightly toward the Engineering variant.

Inlines are unfortunately worthless for everything except cost-reduction; their mass advantage is always, always going to be worse than their thrust disadvantage.

Ventral long is extremely silly, adding just one phaser slot for its sixteen kilotons and twenty meters. Going from Ventral-Long to Ventral-Engineering adds a further sixteen kilotons and zero meters, and gets a phaser slot and an aux slot out of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Blisters don't cost rooms, they add a little mass and may lower forward firepower concentration.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top