Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Strunkriidiisk said:
This is the Warp 7 engine. Meeting or passing Warp 7 is what it's intended to do.

The Warp 5 engine was supposed to hit or beat Warp 5, and it never did outside of a mention of the Enterprise-class Challenger passing Warp 5 in a sprint due to 'improved injectors' with no indication whether that innovation was retrofit to any other ships in the fleet. I don't want to repeat that, because it would be just too ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That seems like it's the engine designer's lookout, not the ship designer's.

If they aren't hitting their advertised target, they need to do better. Us compensating for their insufficient design isn't going to encourage the production of a better design.
 
uju32 said:
Assuming (BIG if) we can use that as a baseline, a 20% increase in all metrics would put Copernicus at Warp 5.76 normal cruise, Warp 7.2 maximum cruise and Warp 8.16 sprint
I can live with that just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"+0.2" isn't a percentage thing, i.e. it's not a 20-percent increase. It's an additive notation, theoretically bringing Copernicus to Warp 5.0 (from 4.8) cruise and 7.0 sprint (from 6.8). +0.2 to each factor. If we're extremely lucky and the prototyping returns better than expected we might get +0.3 or +0.4 instead.



re: tactical systems, if we skimp on thrusters but still want torpedoes we might as well put a launcher in the aft arc as a nasty surprise for opponents tasking advantage of the lower mobility. 3 tubes total, one in a reverse/stern mount, to be clear.
 
Last edited:
Strunkriidiisk said:
"+0.2" isn't a percentage thing, i.e. it's not a 20-percent increase. It's an additive notation, theoretically bringing Copernicus to Warp 5.0 (from 4.8) cruise and 7.0 sprint (from 6.8). +0.2 to each factor. If we're extremely lucky and the prototyping returns better than expected we might get +0.3 or +0.4 instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's an additive on a non-linear scale. Speed goes up exponentially with warp factor. The math is WF^3 = Speed in light years. You are going from X^3 to (X+.2)^3

A bonus twice as big is worth more than twice the bonus.
 
Silvis said:
Kind of topic right now. But what's everybody thinking in terms of tactical systems?

I'm personally for maximum everything and yes I'm including thrusters in that since they directly affect the ships tactical score.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Max impulse engines, max phasers, max torps (though i'd vote for the Photon prototype over more Photonics in a second)! :D
 
Fouredged Sword said:
It's an additive on a non-linear scale. Speed goes up exponentially with warp factor. The math is WF^3 = Speed in light years. You are going from X^3 to (X+.2)^3

A bonus twice as big is worth more than twice the bonus.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well yes, but that was more granular than I needed to get when the point was we're not getting Warp 8+ on this beast so don't multiply the Warp factor number by +20 percent.
 
You know, after thinking about it a bit, I think the quad setup might actually have quite a bit of impact on the tactical rating. With the Thunderchild when one of its nacelles got taken out, it was basically stuck in system and could even get scuttled as a loss. But as we can see in this design, this ship should still be able to form a warp field with just two and thus be able to leave for a shipyard.

This would mean that combined with the pretty strong hull material, a quad setup would make for a spacecraft that can take substantially more battering and still be able to leave the system. Though at the drawback of the mass of two extra nacelle weakening its maneuverability a bit further yet, though admittedly it is no star at that anyway and might really just need to be able to fire in all directions.


Aside of that it's mostly a question of moderate increase in speed and some warp field theory advancement being worth the extra cost it would incur on this ship.
 
Last edited:
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)

The quad-nacelle configuration gives us the choice to make the ship more expensive in exchange for the opportunity to roll the dice on maybe getting a very small benefit. It's not like this prototype will lead to more advanced technology down the line, it's the equivalent of doubling the cost of the tactical systems and taking a prototype roll just to add one more phaser.
 
Last edited:
[X] Quad Nacelles Sprint (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
 
While the generalist quad is my preferred, the 0.4 increase of the other two quad arrangements is very tempting as well.

[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Sprint (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Sprint (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)

The votes are in descending order of priority to me.
 
[ ] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance]

So I'm an idiot because I had this whole post written up about how this should be a guaranteed pass because it doesn't have the specific problem that our last parallel-nacelle ship had-
This should be a guaranteed pass. When we did parallel nacelles on the Curiosity-class, the field geometry worked as expected, we just lost too much field strength to the mass of the inline secondary hull and nacelle struts in between the nacelles, because they were all laid out in a flat plane.
Sayle said:
As the Brahe engages warp it quickly becomes clear that the warp field is not responding optimally, and the ship is underperforming compared to expectations. The problem is traced to the coils themselves, with the polyceramics unable to effectively overcome the intervening mass. The problem is unlikely to be solved without a generational improvement in material sciences.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Compared to the Curiosity-class, the current project
  • had a generational improvement in material sciences, going from tritanium alloy to an excellent electro-ceramic that is significantly lower-mass and noted to play nicely with structural integrity fields; this may or may not have any relevance to how it interacts with warp fields, but...

  • that shouldn't even matter because there won't be any mass in between them
  • even in parallel configuration, they're not going to be have the secondary hull sitting between them- not between any pair, and not even in the space between them diagonally like the Constellations' inline secondary hull, because we didn't choose an inline secondary hull.

    To be parallel with the primary (saucer) hull, both pairs are going to be elevated above the secondary hull, probably like uh...this:

  • Code: 
    ⊙              ⊙
|               |
⊙              ⊙
\______nnn______/
    \ AHHHA /
     AHHHHHA
     VHHHHHV
      VHHHV
    - where the HHH bit is the secondary hull that the nacelle struts are mounted off of.
-but duh, that's why it's only one roll, the other prototype is for quad nacelle, just like all the other quad options have a single prototype roll.

The math remains pretty definite that 12 hours of 0.4WF faster sprint doesn't actually cover enough distance to matter unless already in-system. Non-cruise configuration is just always going to be objectively wrong for interstellar vessels for the entire current generation of warp drive tech.

Probably the next one too; I could see parallel starting to be worth considering for Cygnet-equivalents next gen, and sprint the one after, but so much of an Explorer's job involves "go as far as your supplies will take you and see what's there" that higher cruise speed is just really, really hard to pass up.
 
Last edited:
[X] Quad Nacelles Sprint (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Sprint (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

Its going to be expensive non the less lets not skimp on the literal warp nacelles
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

This is basically the ship of the line. Which at least in my mind translates to a budget of yes.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top