Starfleet Design Bureau

There's no need to overreact and call Quad Parallel winning a disaster.
We're voting on the warp engines. When they fail, they fail more catastrophically than any ship component other than perhaps the matter-antimatter intermix chamber, potentially ending hundreds of crewmembers' lives. The quad parallel configuration is at the highest risk of suffering a failure, requiring two successful dice rolls. It is also not redundant once built: each nacelle is important to the formation of a warp field and none can be done without in a pinch.

If the risk the thread seems inclined to take *does not* pay off, "disaster" seems an apt description for what's in the offing.
 
Last edited:
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
 
Last edited:
[ x] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

Cruise is good and necessary, but being able to run away from trouble at Warp 7 is gooderer.
 
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

Not super happy about our cost though..
 
Current Ratings
Cost: C-
Infrastructure: C


Just a reminder we are already at a C- rating for cost... And we haven't added the nacelles yet, let alone the auxiliary stuff and weapons. We also know the antimatter tanks are expensive, and we are going to need extras for this thing to actually explore.

Something needs to be compromised on here, and I don't think it's going to be the weapons, thrusters or labs. So let's not double the giant glowing weak spots attached to our ship that cost a fortune.
 
Last edited:
I'm disappointed we dint get a six nacelle pairs option. Imagine trying to get away from the Vulcan warp ring only to horse shoe around back to having one but it's made of nacelles this time XD
 
Last edited:
So an Explorer that is slower than the utility cruiser we designed. Can't say that feels all that good, honestly.
Better than one with less weapons, or only a few months range. (Edit: 1 year range now, as a base. Still not enough) Being slower is a consequence of deciding to go huge.
I have no doubt it's going to turn like a cow as well, which means we can't actually afford to skimp on weapons without massive vulnerabilities.
I could be misunderstanding, but that only leaves nacelles and auxiliary as places to cut - and an experimental expensive nacelle arrangement seems wiser to not go all in on than not having the other options.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt it's going to turn like a cow as well, which means we can't actually afford to skimp on weapons without massive vulnerabilities.
I could be misunderstanding, but that only leaves nacelles and auxiliary as places to cut - and an experimental expensive nacelle arrangement seems wiser to not go all in on than not having the other options.
Actually, because we went Ventral for the secondary hull, it can mount enough impulse engines to get to Medium/Medium-Low maneuverability - which is about the same level as the Thunderchild or the Cygnus-class.
 
Actually, because we went Ventral for the secondary hull, it can mount enough impulse engines to get to Medium/Medium-Low maneuverability - which is about the same level as the Thunderchild or the Cygnus-class.
It can mount that many, but two thrusters are also as expensive as adding a nacelle. And the nacelles add more weight as well... Which would take more thrusters to compensate for.

I'm very hopeful we will have a prototype for them, but at the rate this is going their downside will be cost too :p
 
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
[X] Dual Nacelles Sprint (+0.2 Sprint)

I wouldn't mind the quad-nacelle look, I just feel like the Cost and Infrastructure scores aren't getting any better.
 
Back
Top