Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
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...

If a ship this large and powerful is "cannon fodder" because...

checks notes

It flies 0.2 Warp slower...

your entire fleet is "cannon fodder," we should surrender and all hail our benevolent alien overlords.
 
Quad nacelles are a must for means of simple redundancy, if these ships loose a nacelle outside of federation space they'll be stranded and will require significant investments in resources to retrieve or have to be scuttled. No sufficient warp coils will likely be able to be sourced outside of federation territory for decades.

The parallel nacelles are a further necessity, whilst cruise speed is important so to is her maximum speed. Responding to emergencies or running from foes too great to face alone are both things that are likely to come up as these ships venture further and further into the unknown.

[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
 
Tank man said:
Quad nacelles are a must for means of simple redundancy, if these ships loose a nacelle outside of federation space they'll be stranded and will require significant investments in resources to retrieve or have to be scuttled. No sufficient warp coils will likely be able to be sourced outside of federation territory for decades.

The parallel nacelles are a further necessity, whilst cruise speed is important so to is her maximum speed. Responding to emergencies or running from foes too great to face alone are both things that are likely to come up as these ships venture further and further into the unknown.

[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am pretty sure ships can warp with one nacelle.
 
Cavalier said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think it was said that you'd have more than one warp core. So I think it's mostly the power being spread over 4 nacelles rather then 2.

MJ12 Commando said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Agreed in war time the speed wouldn't make that much of a difference. Having redundant nacelles would though, one of the Thunderchilds got scuttled because it lost one after all and couldn't be moved to friendly territory anymore.

How much one values that redundancy depends on ones point of view of course, but as a failure mode that quads would help counter, it is at least an actual real one.
MJ12 Commando said:
I am pretty sure ships can warp with one nacelle.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Kind of depends on the size of the ship, this is the biggest one yet dwarfing even the Thunderchild I think, so if one nacelle could manage it then would be a bit of a question. Especially with the Thunderchild class not being able to do it.
 
Last edited:
[x] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Dual Nacelles Sprint (+0.2 Sprint)
 
MJ12 Commando said:
If a ship this large and powerful is "cannon fodder" because...

checks notes

It flies 0.2 Warp slower...

your entire fleet is "cannon fodder," we should surrender and all hail our benevolent alien overlords.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ok sorry let me clarify that. I was talking more in general about explorer ships. Yes 0.2 warp speed does not make it cannon fodder. It's just a bad idea to cheapskate on explorer ships in general. I was referring to your comment about the budget mattering so much in regards to this ship. Not your vote choice.
 
[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]
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance]
 
To create a 2 nacelle design that is capable of making warp with just 1 working nacelle you'd have to have them set up so there's one dorsal mount and one ventral mount and even then it would be pretty touch and go.
 
Tank man said:
Those ships you're thinking of were designed with one in mind and they were centrally located, with a default 2 nacelle setup they are off set. The ship would not be able to form a stable warp field and would likely be capped at warp 1 at best.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And a four nacelle design would after losing one?

Notice that the comparison says that the quad nacelle design is faster. Not tougher. Faster. Frankly, if the problem is warp field stability, there is no inherent reason that having 3/4 nacelles is going to make a more stable warp field than 1/2 nacelles. And this assumption you're making is just that, an assumption, because Starfleet has no 4-nacelle designs.

For all you actually know, the four-nacelle design is more fragile and taking out one of its four nacelles will cause the entire ship to blow up instead of merely crippling it.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

I am confident that we will roll well, and we will get the prototype without error.

In Yoyodyne we trust!
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[x] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)

The quad parallel configuration is something of a compromise because I would like us to break the Warp 7 barrier on this choice, but can't stomach the idea of a lower cruising speed on an explorer whose main reason for existing is all about being able to cruise around and explore things. Not crazy about the cost, but I doubt it will sink the design.

The dual cruise configuration is probably the most utilitarian choice, given it lets the ship cruise faster (its main job) without pushing up costs.
 
MJ12 Commando said:
And a four nacelle design would after losing one?

Notice that the comparison says that the quad nacelle design is faster. Not tougher. Faster. Frankly, if the problem is warp field stability, there is no inherent reason that having 3/4 nacelles is going to make a more stable warp field than 1/2 nacelles. And this assumption you're making is just that, an assumption, because Starfleet has no 4-nacelle designs.

For all you actually know, the four-nacelle design is more fragile and taking out one of its four nacelles will cause the entire ship to blow up instead of merely crippling it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes.

Logic dictates that when 1 nacelle is lost in a 4 nacelle design the parallel nacelle may be shut down and the 2 remaining complementary nacelles can function as 2. Even if it's not necessarily as powerful as when all 4 are active it's still capable of forming a warp field.
Much like how a ship with 4 shafts can still manoeuvre/sail when 1/2 are out verses a 2 shafted ship with 1 of its shafts disabled.

I'll take "what is the Constellation-class for $100 Alex" - and the Sagan-class, and the Prometheus-class
 
Last edited:
Look, I'm all for smaller, easily replaceable ships, but that doesn't mean that we should shudder in fear of every large expenditure and prototype roll. Some ships are just going to be big and expensive because of what we want them to do, regardless of twin or quad-nacelle designs. If we don't hammer out the kinks for some of these designs somewhere, then there's no going forward in design ethos until the QM says we do, and we end up with a fleet of different-sized Constitution cousins for ages to come. At that point, we're just determining size and loadout, cutting out a good chunk of the ship design in the process. And that, to me at least, is boring as all get out. I don't want to be beholden to the whims of a Starship Mafia where design, tactical, and strategic considerations are held onto until they are well past the point of obsolescence.

And that's my two cents on the matter.
 
Last edited:
[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)

I like the look of Parallel more, okay?
 
[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)

Damn the budget, full speed ahead!
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top