Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
I'll be surprised if we squeak out better than a D. Tactical seems to maul industrial costing. With the number of slots we have I think a less is more approach might be needed so we don't end up straight doubling our cost.

Something like
a) 100% coverage with 75% able to be hit with 2 phasers using 14 phasers
a2) 100% coverage with 50% able to be hit with 2 phasers using 10 phasers
a3) 88% coverage 38% hittable by 2 phasers using 8 phasers

b) forward facing torps: 2 dorsal + 2 ventral
b2) 3-1 split: 3 forward (2 dorsal) + 1 ventral aft
b3) 2-1 Top split: 2 forward, 1 aft all dorsal.
 
If there was a way to do something that didn't look overly like the Constitution and was commensurately inexpensive, I'd take it. Unfortunately, we've left a quad nacelle design to the last moment, it seems. And now, it looks like we're going to prototype the design ethos on something remarkably expensive. And, all told, we knew this was going to be our capital ship going into the next several decades, at least. It was going to be fairly expensive, either way. Now, as to whether we've made it too expensive is up to the sensibilities of those taking part.
 
[X] Dual Nacelles Cruise (+0.2 Cruise)
Yeah, I've been convinced on costs. We need those resources for other things.
 
Derek58 said:
There's no need to overreact and call Quad Parallel winning a disaster.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Any nacelle prototype roll is a disaster. Haven't you followed the quest and its predecessor? They always blow up!

Design wise it's a fine choice, I just don't think it's worth risking our ship's reliability on a roll for an edge it doesn't really need.

StriderInCosmos said:
If there was a way to do something that didn't look overly like the Constitution and was commensurately inexpensive, I'd take it. Unfortunately, we've left a quad nacelle design to the last moment, it seems. And now, it looks like we're going to prototype the design ethos on something remarkably expensive. And, all told, we knew this was going to be our capital ship going into the next several decades, at least. It was going to be fairly expensive, either way. Now, as to whether we've made it too expensive is up to the sensibilities of those taking part.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Expensive and reliable is fine. What I'm really hoping we avoid is expensive and unreliable due to faulty prototypes.
 
Last edited:
*sighs*
Dropped the quad options from my vote. I've been convinced the costs will adversely affect our hull design scores. It's starting to feel like, for me at least, we should've just built a tranche of modified Cygnus-class hulls, with a greater focus of Science related Aux slot choices and the 6 full coverage Phasers weapons array.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
This is the era of all the weird nacelle designs. I say go for it.
 
[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)

Cost is relative, this ship is an investment for decades to come, i want it to be the best it can be.
 
[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)

YOLOdyne take the wheel - because Jesus has too much sense.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Parallel (+0.2 All) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)
Zimmerwald1915 said:
If the risk the thread seems inclined to take *does not* pay off, "disaster" seems an apt description for what's in the offing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The prototype roll is for performance. That's it. Worst case scenario, they underperform and give a +0.1 increase instead of +0.2. We're not rolling for stability or cost or anything else. Just performance.
 
[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)
 
Golgotha said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Cost is relative to the current stage, not a completed ship.
 
You're not rolling for stability or cost, that's true, but the cost is already banked in, and considered high enough to be listed as a down side.

But there is also the weight. Assuming these nacelles are as light as the ones on our utility ship (they won't, they will be big) the extra two is 40k more right there.

That's the same as going from the basic Ventral to the Ventral Engineering secondary hull.

Edit: ninja'd by the QM themselves.
I withdraw at least a chunk of my reservations based on the cost, but not on the weight.
Thank you for the clarification.
 
Last edited:
The present tally of votes. First time doing this so there might be some error.

Adhoc vote count started by AeonIlluminate on Dec 13, 2023 at 5:05 PM, finished with 226 posts and 105 votes.
Click to expand...


At 61 (total) quad nacelles parallel have the lead, 22 points over the next highest vote.
 
Last edited:
landcollector said:
*sighs*
Dropped the quad options from my vote. I've been convinced the costs will adversely affect our hull design scores. It's starting to feel like, for me at least, we should've just built a tranche of modified Cygnus-class hulls, with a greater focus of Science related Aux slot choices and the 6 full coverage Phasers weapons array.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nah this needs a lot more autonomy than the last 2 designs we did.
 
Alectai said:
That's actually not bad given this chonker's mass, huh.

That nice roll on the composite doing Work, huh?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly feeling like if we hadn't gone weight reduction we would have been stuffed with how big this thing is getting.

My hopes and dreams still rest on prototype thrusters to hit medium though. I'm not sure it's possible to get to it otherwise, though I think we can manage medium-low.

I'm going to spend all my time complaining about cost and weight then vote for all the thrusters and sound like a massive hypocrite :(
 
We shouldn't be looking at this ship in isolation.

While we're in the process of designing the next generation deep space Explorer, which are our top of the line 'Prestige' type ships, we've just brought the NCC-800 Cygnus into service under budget, with the Retrospective showing that the type was extremely successful, long lived and built in numbers.

That cost saving (along with a long successful service history) is what is going to allow us to 'go big' on the Explorer.
 
That, and the Cygnus-class lasted into 2252, despite the first of the class being launched in 2167 - so it's entirely reasonable that a larger and more capable explorer could very well stay in service, at least as a science vessel/utility cruiser, into the early 2260s or longer.

In other words, what we're designing now might start setting the tradition that last generation's explorer sticks around much longer than most other ships of its era, unless you catch lightning in a bottle the way the Miranda-class apparently did when it was designed.
 
[X] Quad Nacelles Cruise (+0.4 Cruise) [Prototype] [One Success Roll: Performance] (+Cost)

Cruise speed is more important to an Explorer than Sprint speed, and additionally, will help to keep it in service longer.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top