Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Um. In case you all forgot this. The cost of the ship only matters in comparison to it's performance. And this isn't meant to be a mass produced ship anyways.
 
[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)
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

As we are now approaching a post scarcity society, the bottleneck isn't money but available resources and whilst having four engines will slow it down somewhat - to hell with it!
Let's go for it, plus hopefully with the improvements in materials, reduced mass and stronger warp field we will not have the problem is that our previous attempt at parallel nacelles had.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

"Post-scarcity" does not mean infinite availability of all resources and certainly not of exotic and finite ones like dilithium crystals, Warp core production facilities, and other resources that go into producing a Warp nacelle.

Silvis said:
Um. In case you all forgot this. The cost of the ship only matters in comparison to it's performance. And this isn't meant to be a mass produced ship anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is just flatly not true. There are still hard limits on how many ships can be produced, like say the availability of Warp cores. And having more ships that can handle a given role is almost always strictly superior to having a smaller number of optimum ships, unless the use case is very narrow.
 
Honestly I just approval voted for all the four nacelle options, because if dual nacelles win, the ship is in danger of looking like generic star trek ship #5.

Also I don't think cost matters here, this is going to be the hero ship basically, and every series has shown that they only make like at max four of them.
 
Last edited:
[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)
 
[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)
 
[X] Dual Nacelles Sprint (+0.2 Sprint)

I want my warp 7 and I want nothing to do with yolodyne shenanigans.

In a pinch I'm willing to approval vote the dual setup in cruise mode.
 
LunaMoth said:
Honestly I just approval voted for all the four nacelle options, because if dual nacelles wins the ship is in danger of looking like generic star trek ship #5.

Also I don't think cost matters here, this is going to be the hero ship basically, and every series has shown that they only make like at max four of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Have you heard the phrase "self-fulfilling prophecy" before, by chance? If the ship is too expensive then only a few will be built, yes.

That said there's clearly a lot of sentiment that is getting tired of the usual ship design choices. Which is a problem because the requirements of generalist Starfleet ships run toward certain conventional configurations because they offer the best compromises.

I'd suggest maybe some requirements for more specialized ships could be submitted which would encourage more diverse designs. Ships which will never be part of the backbone of Starfleet but rather offer unique capabilities or even are just explicitly experimental for testing new technology and design ideas. That would allow for more imagination to be exercised ans just maybe new configurations bleeding over into mainstream designs down the road.
 
Last edited:
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Dual Nacelles Sprint (+0.2 Sprint)

Edit: Took out quad nacelles.
 
Last edited:
Cavalier said:
"Post-scarcity" does not mean infinite availability of all resources and certainly not of exotic and finite ones like dilithium crystals, Warp core production facilities, and other resources that go into producing a Warp nacelle.



That is just flatly not true. There are still hard limits on how many ships can be produced, like say the availability of Warp cores. And having more ships that can handle a given role is almost always strictly superior to having a smaller number of optimum ships, unless the use case is very narrow.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Counter point. I'm pretty sure people would rather have a smaller number of ships that can actually serve exploring the frontier than a bunch of cheap ships that might not even make it back with what they've found. Thus making them a massive waste of time and resources and much worse a waste of Starfleet personnel they will probably die when the ship doesn't make it back.

There is a very good that pretty much any explorer ship we see Starfleet build in Star Trek could probably qualify as a capital ship.

The frontier in Star Trek is extremely dangerous. I would rather spend more on fewer ships and actually get something out of them instead of building a bunch of canon fodder ships.
 
Enthusiast#117 said:
I would like to remind everyone that while we aren't tracking Credits anymore, this is still a good way to get a feel for relative costs.
Nacelles are expensive. Doubling up on them is definitely going to reduce the number of ships that will be built.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think that given our ship will have plenty of endurance and will be fast enough with twin nacelles, this is an overriding concern. There is only moderate marginal benefit from quad nacelles but our ship is so big and fat that the cost of putting four of them on one package is significant and we should avoid it.

Moreover, in wartime, which I know I'm beating a dead horse but I keep bringing this up, there's no point in going with an insanely superfast heavy vessel unless you also plan on making sure every single battlegroup asset will keep up with that speed. And in peacetime, an explorer just needs to be fast enough.

[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Dual Nacelles Sprint (+0.2 Sprint)

I'm voting like this because I don't want people to demonstrate why Pentagon Wars was such a compelling read.

Again.
 
Silvis said:
Counter point. I'm pretty sure people would rather have a smaller number of ships that can actually serve exploring the frontier than a bunch of cheap ships that might not even make it back with what they've found. Thus making them a massive waste of time and resources and much worse a waste of Starfleet personnel they will probably die when the ship doesn't make it back.

There is a very good that pretty much any explorer ship we see Starfleet build in Star Trek could probably qualify as a capital ship.

The frontier in Star Trek is extremely dangerous. I would rather spend more on fewer ships and actually get something out of them instead of building a bunch of canon fodder ships.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A difference of .2 Warp Factor does not make a ship cannon fodder. Doubling the number of Warp cores it needs might make it a white elephant, though.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top