Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] 3 Type-2 Thrusters (Maneuverability: Medium) [Experimental] [Two Success Rolls: Cost/Performance] (+Cost)

Yoyodyne did not actually fail us for once, now let's see Avidyne's new propulsion. Hopefully at worse it still gets us to low-medium maneuverability even if the performance isn't as great as advertised.
 
thepsyborg said:
No :p

I will flag it as opinion, however
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You really should. It's pretty much tantamount to insulting at least 51% of the thread every time you do it, and it's long since outlived the humor potential.

So seriously, knock it off. It's not funny, it's annoying, and more than a little ridiculous at this point since it's been consistently wrong.
 
thepsyborg said:
"Redundancy"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Canonically, several Starfleet vessels can make Warp at substantially reduced speeds while missing a nacelle.

A nacelle blowing up, especially while at Warp speed, can royally fuck up a ship, but if the vessel survives it can limp home for repairs.

Frankly, a test for this ship flying with only two nacelles active should be standard practice before it leaves on its maiden voyage.
 
Me: "boondoggle"
Chargone said:
it isn't.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Fireiy said:
Yoyodyne did not actually fail us for once,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Firehawk242 said:
it's been consistently wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Am I...missing something? Is there a secret Discord that the author is rolling success checks in that other people are seeing and I'm not aware of?

The quad-nacelle arrangement, to the best of my knowledge, won't get a roll or a stated outcome until the "Prototyping" post, after the ship is finished and on its test flight. See previous examples. Actually, most new techs don't get their outcomes determined until the design is complete; finding out early about the electro-ceramic hull material was a significant outlier. No idea why everybody's talking like the quad nacelles worked out perfectly; that hasn't- as far as I'm aware- even been determined yet.

(Anyway, the outcome doesn't actually matter; even with the best possible outcome, flawless victory on every roll, the quad configuration adds so little and costs so much that it will still be a boondoggle.)

[X] 3 Type-2 Thrusters (Maneuverability: Medium) [Experimental] [Two Success Rolls: Cost/Performance] (+Cost)

Decided I'm just gonna go for pushing the tech advancement as hard as we can.
 
Last edited:
thepsyborg said:
"boondoggle"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It literally wont be though, we haven't even started on weapons or internals, this ship Isn't going to be a useless brick just because we picked quad nacelles. Every option here brings something to the table, and the option we chose should marginally increase base cruise and sprint speeds. I'm pretty sure prototypes will just give a reduced result if the role fails, so they'll still do something for warp speeds even if the prototype doesn't pan out. Also this is supposed to be an explorer, which is what every notable hero ship sans Defiant in the franchise has been so far, we should be packing on prototypes at least if not experimental tech.
 
Look, man, when you can net us something that doesn't look like the bog-standard 'Federation starship' configuration and doesn't come with some factor or another that doesn't make you and the other budget hawks among us scream 'boondoggle', let me know. I'm tuning this quest out until this little display of bickering is done.
 
thepsyborg said:
This is wishful thinking at best and an outright lie at worst; I have no idea why so much of the thread has cottoned on to this idea when
~~ the QM has made no indication that this is or ever could be possible,
~~ the quad-nacelle configurations did not list "Redundancy" among their advantages, and
~~ there is zero reason to think it could work beyond "hurhurr four nacelles so redundancy", when we're already using the absolute biggest saucer we can possibly fit within the warp field (which is a highly flattened ovoid shape) generated by our current generation of warp coils.

Even if you assume sufficient treknobabble to generate and stabilize a field up and stable on two nacelles that weren't positioned, designed, or configured for the job,

It should be immediately and blatantly obvious that no two nacelles of the four are going to be capable of raising a warp field that is horizontally in line with the ship's saucer (as is required for the width of the saucer to fit within it) and has its widest horizontal extent vertically aligned with the saucer (as is, again, required for the saucer to fit within it). The top two or bottom two are going to generate a field whose widest extent is either above or below the saucer; either diagonal pair are going to generate a diagonally instead of horizontally flattened ovoid field.

Now clearly dual-nacelle was an option for the ship, so given sufficient time you could presumably rewire your two nacelles to generate a field with an off-axis center that did properly fit the saucer- which would probably require disabling the warp field regulator that's currently linking and stabilizing them- but it's absolutely not something that could be done offhand and probably not something that could be done without yard time.

Not unless warp field geometry is purely a matter of software configuration, at least, and that sounds like something many generations down the line tech-wise. Variable coil nacelles like popped up at the very end of the last thread, maybe. If there is a single set of emitters or stabilizers or power linkages or anything in the entire nacelle that has to be physically altered to change the relative orientation and/or center-offset of the warp field, it's not happening.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed the QM has made no indication on it either way, so it is indeed an opinion debated solely in thread. But then it wasn't debated purely on the basis of just because there are four. Instead a look was also taken to an actual story post on when the Thunderchild lost a nacelle, and where they did try to get it to work with just a single nacelle in an extremely asymmetric setup. It didn't work in the case, but that it was tried at all despite the extreme asymmetry in that case indicates engineers in story thought it at least had some kind of chance. Putting a ton of effort in to something that had no chance at all would be pretty foolish after all.

Thus it's pretty obvious that given equal constraints as the Thunderchild case, that if you lost a single nacelle your chances of creating an at least some what functional warp field would be much better. Your asymmetry would be pretty minor compared to the Thunderchild case after all. And while one thus can indeed throw up all kinds of reasons of why maybe not, in my personal opinion it just doesn't sound all that likely to be showstoppers in the face of that.

Now considering a bit further on in your post you actually seem to agree with this, as you also say that given enough time you could perhaps cobble something together. I'm not sure our opinions are really that different, because I was talking of added redundancy in the context of being able to recover the ship at all. Though to be extra clear, I actually had my doubts on if this redundacy was actually economically worthwhile, something I discussed in another post where I concluded it didn't seem to come close to making up the added costs.



PS, Warp geometries in Star Trek are apparently at least in part software defined. As in, there are some episodes where warp geometries have some substantial modification done to it via software input alone. Obviously people tend to simulate such changes first though, as just putting in what ever geometry is ill advised. But this thus does indicate there is some level of malleability available to software. Perhaps these are future tech as you suggest, though I suspect that some level of malleability might also be required to keep the warp field in the correct shape as you move through different environments which would put different stressors on the field.
 
Last edited:
[X] 3 Type-2 Thrusters (Maneuverability: Medium) [Experimental] [Two Success Rolls: Cost/Performance] (+Cost)

One of the purposes of this ship is progress. Quad Nacelles aren't really progress, they're just getting us a leg up. Even if these Type-2 Thrusters were prototypes instead of experiments they'd still be a sign of progress.
 
LunaMoth said:
It literally wont be though, we haven't even started on weapons or internals, this ship Isn't going to be a useless brick just because we picked quad nacelles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What!? No, of course not, the ship as a whole is going to kick ass, I'm not arguing that at all. The warp drive specifically is a boondoggle and I will absolutely die on that hill, but no, it's not remotely bad enough of one to sink the ship as a whole.

God, if that's what I was coming across as thinking then no WONDER I was pissing everybody off. I am so sorry :facepalm:
 
thepsyborg said:
What!? No, of course not, the ship as a whole is going to kick ass, I'm not arguing that at all. The warp drive specifically is a boondoggle and I will absolutely die on that hill, but no, it's not remotely bad enough of one to sink the ship as a whole.

God, if that's what I was coming across as thinking then no WONDER I was pissing everybody off. I am so sorry :facepalm:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My recommendation drop the boondoggle talk entirely. During the votes it's not a constructive arugment and when the vote closes its going to be seen as either gloating or whining about what won.
 
[X] 3 Type-2 Thrusters (Maneuverability: Medium) [Experimental] [Two Success Rolls: Cost/Performance] (+Cost)

If the thread wants expensive, let's do expensive properly!
 
I might have overshot on not boring but hear me out.

Sayle said:
Well the struts are bisecting a line along the aft facing parallel to the saucer, so you can split the thrust on two slightly different angles to pass above and below the strut. That would be impossible for a strut crossing the exhaust stream at an angle. As for the central engine, maybe a single reactor with two ports either side of the regulator.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If we're lobbying for increased chonk I think something like the booms on the NX class could pack ALL the impulse engines.


Imagine that with the third engine under the shuttlebay (possibly requiring a small blister) which could give decent distance from centerline.

For the nebula look connect the warp field regulator into the saucer too and fill in the gap between the booms. If we fail the rolls the extra space could be useful for additional equipment to make it work or be part of the engineering deck since the third impulse engine described above might eat into some of it.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top