Pre warp maybe, but magical enough that I could see a star trek episode happening about it, supernatural stuff happens in star trek fairly often as Psychic powers are just straight up cannon.
I mean MLP is probably a bit too magical, but TAS(dubiously cannon) has kirk and crew travel to an alternate magical dimension though a portal in the center of the galaxy where they meet wizards, and the Devil so there is some precedent I guess.
I'm hoping one of the next options is a triple warp nacelle layout. I'd imagine it would only get a +0.1 boost to warp speeds instead of the +0.2 we got with 4 nacelles, however it has been mentioned several times that they are the most expensive single thing added to the ship and I wonder how much it would improve the cost rating?
Perhaps our mountain ships cost rating would've been D+, or even C-. Instead of the D- it was (the lowest possible pass score).
Plus we could get some really interesting layouts with 3.
Yeah, seeing new nacelle layouts could be interesting.
I forget, what was the reasoning for going with pylon nacelles rather than the ring design in use by the Vulcans?
Because I honestly can't recall the pros and cons for that type, but thought it was at least visually interesting.
The new year is a time for celebration, but once the festivities are over life resumes much as it always has. The success of the Sagarmatha is gratifying, although with the benefit of hindsight you always see things you could have done differently and wonder about the paths not taken. Starfleet now has the holy trinity of tactical, engineering, and scientific roles covered and in full production, and will soon be looking to fill out more niche or intra-Federation roles to free up the more capable cruisers. Which is why you are surprised to find no such requests waiting for you.
Some investigation shows that much of what you were expecting is not quite ready for your consideration. There are murmurs that there is going to be a design contest held by Tellar, Benzar, and Denobula for a replacement for their native in-system patrol vessels, but nothing has yet materialised on that front. In much the same way, Starfleet is currently assessing its current needs regarding a more militarised design but has yet to make any formal requests to the Steering Committee. Which has left you time to consider the contents of your inbox.
One message immediately catches your eye. Yoyodyne is apparently interested in your input. The idea is that it may be possible to cooperatively construct the next generation of warp nacelle, aiming to dovetail with the primary considerations of Starfleet's design ethos. The main drive of any starship is always a delicate interplay between durability, capability, and expense. Why not get in on the ground floor?
This is also an opportunity for Yoyodyne, since as a branch of Starfleet the Design Bureau has access to the latest advances in material sciences and can request they be diverted to the project. While the experts will be doing the heavy lifting on this one you will be able to guide their efforts in a direction you consider most useful to the Starships of Tomorrow.
The first decision to be made is the bussard collectors. Ever since the first warp ships they have been used not only to protect the nacelles from incoming particles, but also to passively intake interstellar hydrogen and deuterium for fuel replenishment. Most starships use impeller-equipped collectors for this purpose, but a new theory is that by removing the impellers and instead using advanced electromagnetic fields the incoming interstellar hydrogen and deuterium could be used to enrich the warp plasma. Hypothetically speaking this could provide a further boost to maximum speeds at the point where incoming particle density is at its highest. The added complexity of diverging from accepted design theory, however, may be something to consider carefully.
Not seeing a meaningful downside to taking the prototype option here? More complexity is more expense and more chances for things to go wrong, but that's going to be true of anything new Anyway, with reducing complexity and increasing reliability being the Next step in the development process (a step which we're rarely involved in, though sometimes benefit from the results of).
Think of it this way: we can (hopefully) chart a course where Yoyodyne aren't chronically underachieving in the 24th Century! Imagine the Glory if we succeed!
Looks like we will have six total opportunities to increase increase costs, complexity, and chance to explode. Oh and maybe even improve performance, but meh.
Still hard to say what will be the more interesting picks in the coming categories if we want to actually prioritize. Personally I want to save rolls for Intercoolers and Field Stabilizers. Those sound like they could lead to more interesting things than straight forward improvements.
Before folks continue weighing in, I'd like to request a pause for more information
I didn't mind the sequential format when it was an entire ship; they were singular decisions where the consequences of failure were isolated to that specific category. In other words, a bad failure in one area could not mean total failure in the final product; you had to badly fuck up multiple times.
At first glance, that's not what this is.
This is a unified project where, as previously demonstrated, the temperamental nature of warp engines means any one thing going wrong can and will blow up the entire project.
Is that a correct interpretation? If it is, I would like this story arc to be rearranged into a single large plan vote where we can weigh and measure all the elements against each other.
If it isn't - which is to say, the QM is going to fiat enforce the same compartmentalized failure mechanics - then the correct course is relatively clear; we don't get cool shit if we don't innovate.
So as long as failure is compartmentalized and the particular choice doesn't have a +Cost modifier...
Before folks continue weighing in, I'd like to request a pause for more information
I didn't mind the sequential format when it was an entire ship; they were singular decisions where the consequences of failure were isolated to that specific category. In other words, a bad failure in one area could not mean total failure in the final product; you had to badly fuck up multiple times.
At first glance, that's not what this is.
This is a unified project where, as previously demonstrated, the temperamental nature of warp engines means any one thing going wrong can and will blow up the entire project.
Is that a correct interpretation? If it is, I would like this story arc to be rearranged into a single large plan vote where we can weigh and measure all the elements against each other.
If it isn't - which is to say, the QM is going to fiat enforce the same compartmentalized failure mechanics - then the correct course is relatively clear; we don't get cool shit if we don't innovate.
So as long as failure is compartmentalized and the particular choice doesn't have a +Cost modifier...
At least this way we can get the prototype testing done BEFORE we start designing a ship to stick them on. Do you really want to be putting untested tech on our next ship and praying that the GOD of dice rolls is feeling merciful?
I think the biggest concern has yet to be addressed. This is not a question of complexity and cost, of risk and reward...
The REAL question is if we want future nacelles to have the red Busard collectors on them or if we want to try to jump straight to bussardless nacelles we see on later treks.
Yeah, seeing new nacelle layouts could be interesting.
I forget, what was the reasoning for going with pylon nacelles rather than the ring design in use by the Vulcans?
Because I honestly can't recall the pros and cons for that type, but thought it was at least visually interesting.
I think I read somewhere that nacelles are less complex and easier to get higher speeds from. The warp ring can go REALLY fast, however it needs incredibly demanding tolerances and software calculations to achieve.
Hmm, interesting. We go from whole starships to a rather important piece of their construction going forward. Let's hope that Mosi Sukuda gives us a little bit of help here, because we might need it with Yoyodyne being at the fore of the design process.
So, with both these designs comes some interesting choices. On the one hand, we can go with old reliable and ensure that there is one less potential point of failure and, as noted above by @Fouredged Sword, we retain the classic TOS red domes.
On the other hand, even with the added mechanical and technical complexity, the higher warp ceiling presents some great potential for the field-focused injectors, not only in sprint times for rapid responses, but also in higher cruise speeds for longer legs in general.
At the moment, though I'm a little addled by sickness, I'm leaning towards the prototype roll here, pending any further argument.
Side note: It's a lovely TOS design display that Sayle's cooked up for us.
