Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

Best place to prototype. My highest priority is getting good ratings in scince and endurance.
 
MJ12 Commando said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's possible the author didn't consider the redundancy side of things when writing that. And in the future Starfleet did have at least one design in Voyager with a quad layout in the Prometheus, so apparently it's not an entirely unheard of setup. Interestingly enough in that case it was in a parallel like configuration as well.


It's also worth noting that while nacelles are expensive, by the old cost numbers given, it was about the same as an impulse engine. Which either makes impulse engines surprisingly expensive, or nacelles surprisingly cheap I guess. Though on the other hand, in the option it is now marked as a clear cost increase to the design, so there is that side of it as well.


Still, in the end for each person they'd have to decide themselves if they think losing a nacelle is a common enough failure mode to be worth the extra cost, when combined with getting a bit more speed out of it... and I guess some more theoretical work on quad nacelle warp field dynamics. I wouldn't be surprised if various people see the value of that differently.
 
I do really like the idea we could strap on two more normal nacelles so our existing Cygnus nacelle assembly line would be outputting 4 for each of this new ship instead of having to re-tool to make new massive nacelles. As indicated by the choice though retooling would actually end up cheaper.

I'd also believe in universe if one nacelle got damaged they could disable the mirrored unit and fly home on two at a reduced speed. I'm not sure whether I'm remembering Star Trek or airplanes but something about three nacelles feels more unstable and harder to control. Maybe 2 + a mini "stabilizer" nacelle could be an option in the future.
 
KarmaA said:
I do really like the idea we could strap on two more normal nacelles so our existing Cygnus nacelle assembly line would be outputting 4 for each of this new ship instead of having to re-tool to make new massive nacelles. As indicated by the choice though retooling would actually end up cheaper.

I'd also believe in universe if one nacelle got damaged they could disable the mirrored unit and fly home on two at a reduced speed. I'm not sure whether I'm remembering Star Trek or airplanes but something about three nacelles feels more unstable and harder to control. Maybe 2 + a mini "stabilizer" nacelle could be an option in the future.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Generally speaking the third nacelle in designs like the Federation-class and Galaxy-X are explained away (in fanon) as being effectively 2 nacelles in one as far as warp coils/field generation capacity goes. I imagine it'd be the same for single nacelles designs (assuming of course that you don't just cheap out and out a single regular one in there).
 
Quickshot0 said:
It's possible the author didn't consider the redundancy side of things when writing that. And in the future Starfleet did have at least one design in Voyager with a quad layout in the Prometheus, so apparently it's not an entirely unheard of setup. Interestingly enough in that case it was in a parallel like configuration as well.


It's also worth noting that while nacelles are expensive, by the old cost numbers given, it was about the same as an impulse engine. Which either makes impulse engines surprisingly expensive, or nacelles surprisingly cheap I guess. Though on the other hand, in the option it is now marked as a clear cost increase to the design, so there is that side of it as well.


Still, in the end for each person they'd have to decide themselves if they think losing a nacelle is a common enough failure mode to be worth the extra cost, when combined with getting a bit more speed out of it... and I guess some more theoretical work on quad nacelle warp field dynamics. I wouldn't be surprised if various people see the value of that differently.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yes, it's also possible that a quad nacelle design is not more durable, like what's said in the actual post.

It could be no more durable, because a four-nacelle warp field is less stable and warp field generation isn't something where you can simply turn a nacelle off and make a new, slightly worse warp field if you have 3 out of 4 nacelles remaining but mutual interference or something else makes that difficult. Or it could be even less durable, because the nacelles themselves have to be made more fragile and your defensive systems are spread thinner.

I'm acting in good faith and not assuming that a quad nacelle design has a myriad of hidden secret flaws which make it utter dogshit, I would prefer the gold plate mafia not be disingenuous and pretend that the more expensive option always has secret advantages that only they can suss out that make it the only obvious choice.
 
Last edited:
MJ12 Commando said:
I'm acting in good faith and not assuming that a quad nacelle design has a myriad of hidden secret flaws which make it utter dogshit, I would prefer the gold plate mafia not be disingenuous and pretend that the more expensive option always has secret advantages that only they can suss out that make it the only obvious choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

With Yoyodyne the only guarantee you have from more expensive is that it'll put more money in Yoyodyne's pocket (Possibly also aesthetics).
 
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
 
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Dual Nacelles Sprint (+0.2 Sprint)

Guess I have to approval vote to avoid disaster, even if I think the sprint dual nacelles is better and it's annoying to miss warp 7 again.
 
[x] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)

4 nacelles are more expensive and offer an even bigger target to a spot already described as vulnerable in the update.

"which trade off field stability for greater performance and vulnerability to damage at a cheaper cost."

If this ship is a year away from help, the last thing I want it to have is more vulnerabilities.
 
Last edited:
VOTE
[] Quad Nacelles Sprint (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Sprint) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)


Capability is a greater priority than budget in the Starfleet CONOPS for this design.
As a secondary consideration, there's a need to push the state of the art forward so that technological advancements can be derisked, and trickle down to cheaper, mass produced ship designs

Im voting for Quad Nacelles Parallel instead of Cruise or Sprint because it gives Starfleet and Yoyodyne a balanced experience in advancing warp engineering optimizations for both operational profiles, Cruise AND Sprint.

Sprint especially. Since given some of the places explorers are likely to roam without backup, being able to sprint a little faster might be the difference between survival and being caught by some space wedgie.
Or destruction by a hostile squadron.
 
MJ12 Commando said:
Yes, it's also possible that a quad nacelle design is not more durable, like what's said in the actual post.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's no need to think I'm arguing more expensive is better, after all in a few of my responses I said that one can debate if it was worth the cost.

Aside of that, while what you say are options. From what I can garner from the updates themselves, they don't seem like the most likely one. For instance the Thunderchild was still attempted to be recovered and was noted to fail over the singular setup. Now as you say it is possible they'd some how implement quads in such a way that no inherent redundancy exists... but it also kind of feels like a stretch. There isn't even any indication the nacelles between the two and four setup are different, just that you added more. In which case they're all equally tough and capable, you just now have twice as many.

If one was to ask me to make a naive assessment based on the information given, that would be basically my conclusion, that all the nacelle seem to be more or less the same. And so it's hard to conceive of a particularly realistic scenario where you can't turn a nacelle off if one was lost and you'd be able to form a stable configuration with that then. If any of those assumptions were mistaken, then maybe the conclusions would be different though, yes.


Still even if we assume the naive point of view is correct, as I said before, one can ponder how often a nacelle failure would actually happen and if it is actually worth the additional cost.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top