Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Nyvis said:
I think one question we need to ask ourselves is what ships we are likely to build next, since they will be the ones using those new nacelles. We've already filled our utility niches due to 3 straight rounds of peacetime building so I feel we are going to need the emergency warp speed in the coming builds.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"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. "

If I had to guess, the immediately following vessel will be the in/near systems patrol ship replacement (and there, you'd either want a high basic cruise or a high sprint speed depending on the exact role it's meant to fulfil - cruise being imo better for near system ships and sprint for in system ships given how long it can be sustained for), and likely a bunch of other ships that could benefit greatly from a generally higher cruise but lower maximum speed.
 
The compressor rings would also be good on a civilian ship, since they aren't nearly as prone to getting into situations where they need to get into warp asap.
 
tenchifew said:
If we were designing a civilian and a military nacelle, this trade off would be wonderful for the civilian one.
This said, in a civilian model compressor rings would be a wonderful idea as well.

But we do not. We are designing the new universal standard for all future nacelles, at least for some time.
Thus, just as the wind up time of compressor rings was in the end not acceptable for the ships liable to end up in combat, so is a loss of about a third of max speed not tactically acceptable as well, at least in my opinion. This is a difference of our ships choosing when to engage or disengage vs the enemy ones doing the same, and we saw in the romulan war just how huge of a difference this can make. So I can't vote for longer nacelles as a universal standard here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the tactical sense, you are mostly correct.

But in the strategic sense, the outcome gets flipped on its head; those with the higher base speed are much more able to concentrate force in less time, better supply and advance their ships, and otherwise control the flow of the overall war.

If I am forced to choose how I go about mitigating the risk to lives and materiel between emergency bug-out (which may or may not get fucked in the opening salvo) and improving the overall ability of help/massed warheads-on-foreheads to arrive in a timely fashion, I'll choose the latter.

Dragonlord7012 said:
[] Standard

Something to bring up, but if you make those fuckers longer, you also make them a larger target, and add mass.
I think its a hidden problem, but something to definitely consider.

I'm a champion of the Cruise speed, but size matters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sounds like an argument for more internal nacelles to me, personally :V

In all seriousness, more mass isn't a huge concern for me either in cost or in weight. Nacelles are individually calibrated to their ship plan so nacelle mass won't substantially change speed, and most of the expense from the ships we've built so far comes in weapons and auxiliary components.

Bigger size is a problem, but given the accuracy of Trek weapons in general I'm not convinced it's more of a concern that the overall size and impulse maneuverability of the ship itself.
 
Last edited:
CanYouMeme said:
In the tactical sense, you are mostly correct.

But in the strategic sense, the outcome gets flipped on its head; those with the higher base speed are much more able to concentrate force in less time, better supply and advance their ships, and otherwise control the flow of the overall war.

If I am forced to choose how I go about mitigating the risk to lives and materiel between emergency bug-out (which may or may not get fucked in the opening salvo) and improving the overall ability of help/massed warheads-on-foreheads to arrive in a timely fashion, I'll choose the latter.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is not quite correct.
The longer nacelles also reduce max cruise speed, this is the strategic speed for most military vessels in a crisis situation.
 
LawsOfRobotics said:
if the baseline Type 3 at 4 cost was slightly more expensive than the Type 2, then 6 cost is probably about double.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would strongly inclined to say "no, 6 cost is not double 4 cost, 6 cost is 1.5x 4 cost, because why else assign a number to it at all?"
I could be wrong!
But that's my assumption.
Fouredged Sword said:
It doesn't need to go far [...] but it goes far enough
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It might even go further, if only needing to power half as many nacelles is a greater efficiency gain than the slower speed is an efficiency loss.
Furthermore, looking at efficiency, have a table:
[old table snipped; see updated one here]

Edit: Aaaargh, missed the QM post while fighting with the table.
 
Last edited:
tenchifew said:
This is not quite correct.
The longer nacelles also reduce max cruise speed, this is the strategic speed for most military vessels in a crisis situation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the most recent numbers given to us by the QM, all known instances of the Sagarmatha + the current proposed extended nacelle plan have improved Max cruise speed.
So if the Sagarmatha had a statline of 5/6/7, it's because going quad-inline got you +0.2 to all stats.

So if you're comparing to the Sagarmatha, Extended would get you 5.6/6.1/6.6 at worst possible or 5.8/6.4/7 at best possible. Standard would be 5.2/6.1/7 at worst, or 5.2/6.3/7.4 at best.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
CanYouMeme said:
In the most recent numbers given to us by the QM, all known instances of the Sagarmatha + the current proposed extended nacelle plan have improved Max cruise speed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that's the QM just making a mistake with the numbers, given we're told that Max Cruise is the midpoint of Max Warp and Efficient Cruise, and that mathematically the average of Max and Efficient will decrease through the extended nacelles as there are more negatives (-.6) than positives (+.4). As presently told to us, there is no functional way that extended mathematically can not cause a fall in Max Cruise.
 
CanYouMeme said:
In the most recent numbers given to us by the QM, all known instances of the Sagarmatha + the current proposed extended nacelle plan have improved Max cruise speed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Estro said:
I think that's the QM just making a mistake with the numbers, given we're told that Max Cruise is the midpoint of Max Warp and Efficient Cruise, and that mathematically the average of Max and Efficient will decrease through the extended nacelles as there are more negatives (-.6) than positives (+.4). As presently told to us, there is no functional way that extended mathematically can not cause a fall in Max Cruise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This.
Sayle said:
I dunno, I was working off the numbers in another post and it's possible I made a mistake. Basically just remember that you're working on a new baseline, and ships get to have their own buffs added to that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Estro said:
I think that's the QM just making a mistake with the numbers, given we're told that Max Cruise is the midpoint of Max Warp and Efficient Cruise, and that mathematically the average of Max and Efficient will decrease through the extended nacelles as there are more negatives (-.6) than positives (+.4). As presently told to us, there is no functional way that extended mathematically can not cause a fall in Max Cruise.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Point. Since high cruise is my priority, until and unless the QM changes the bonuses for extended, I'll vote standard.

[X] Standard Length
 
TheShadowDeamon said:
The sprint pair would be deactivated until needed. In an emergency they would be warmed up, then the ship would drop out of warp, shut-down the cruising pair and activate the sprint pair before resuming warp- only faster
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I suspect you'd have to reconfigure the warp core, which is at bare minimum going to be +Complexity. Worst case, you'd need two separate warp cores, and that would be hecking expensive.
 
Bit of a shame there isn't a parallel development process for military and civilian Warp nacelle design. A lot of the skipped choices that are unsuitable for a military ship would be acceptable tradeoffs on a freighter, like the spooling up process for Warp or the decrease of max Warp speed from elongated nacelles.
 
dhasenan said:
I suspect you'd have to reconfigure the warp core, which is at bare minimum going to be +Complexity. Worst case, you'd need two separate warp cores, and that would be hecking expensive.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also the Nacelles of a ship are something like between 25-50% of the cost, so doubling that to have redundant nacelles would be an absurdity.

Cavalier said:
Bit of a shame there isn't a parallel development process for military and civilian Warp nacelle design. A lot of the skipped choices that are unsuitable for a military ship would be acceptable tradeoffs on a freighter, like the spooling up process for Warp or the decrease of max Warp speed from elongated nacelles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Call it a civilizational trauma response to the third world war. Starfleet refuses to have a military and civilian nacelle track because Starfleet refuses to have a military.
 
Code: 
    TOTAL FLEET EFFECTIVENESS vs current warp nacelles
    For ALL TASKS EXCEPT GARRISON DUTY or PITCHED FLEET BATTLES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Per Hull            ||                              ||
         Per Crew            ||                              ||
     Per Starfleet Ind       ||       Per Civilian Ind       ||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual   |    Annual     ||    Annual   |    Annual      ||
    Time     |    Distance   ||    Time     |    Distance    ||
    On       |    Traveled   ||    On       |    Traveled    ||
    Loca     |    Patrolled  ||    Loca     |    Patrolled   ||
     tion    |    Explored   ||     tion    |    Explored    ||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    +19 %    |    - 3 %      ||    - 2 %    |    -20 %       ||    Curiosity - new nacelles
    -12 %    |    - 1 %      ||    - 2 %    |    +11 %       ||    Curiosity - single new nacelle
             |               ||             |                ||
    +35 %    |    +14 %      ||    +12 %    |    - 5 %       ||    Cygnus - new nacelles
    -42 %    |    -22 %      ||    -36 %    |    -14 %       ||    Cygnus - single new nacelle
             |               ||             |                ||
    +38 %    |    +16 %      ||    +13 %    |    - 5 %       ||    Sagarmatha - quad new short nacelles
    +37 %    |    +15 %      ||    +55 %    |    +30 %       ||    Sagarmatha - twin cruise new short nacelles
    +13 %    |    + 6 %      ||    +20 %    |    +13 %       ||    Sagarmatha - twin sprint new short nacelles
    +96 %    |    +35 %      ||    +60 %    |    +10 %       ||    Sagarmatha - quad extended new nacelles
    +93 %    |    +34 %      ||   +118 %    |    +51 %       ||    Sagarmatha - twin cruise extended new nacelles
    +63 %    |    +24 %      ||    +84 %    |    +40 %       ||    Sagarmatha - twin sprint new nacelles

NOTABLE SHIP RANGES IN LIGHTYEARS
    Opera     |    12-Hr   |    3-Day   ||
     tional   |    Sprint  |    Urgent  ||
    Radius    |    Radius  |    Radius  ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     58       |    0.45    |    1.86    ||    Curiosity - current nacelles
     69       |    0.53    |    2.17    ||    Curiosity - new nacelles
     68       |    0.43    |    1.70    ||    Curiosity - single new nacelle
              |            |            ||
     70       |    0.43    |    1.91    ||    Cygnus - current nacelles
     83       |    0.51    |    2.22    ||    Cygnus - new nacelles
     69       |    0.43    |    1.57    ||    Cygnus - single new nacelle
              |            |            ||
    250       |    0.47    |    1.95    ||    Sagarmatha - current nacelles
    298       |    0.55    |    2.27    ||    Sagarmatha - new short nacelles
    328       |    0.51    |    2.14    ||    Sagarmatha - twin cruise new short nacelles
    292       |    0.55    |    2.19    ||    Sagarmatha - twin sprint new short nacelles
    370       |    0.43    |    2.06    ||    Sagarmatha - new extended nacelles
    407       |    0.39    |    1.95    ||    Sagarmatha - twin cruise new extended nacelles
    366       |    0.43    |    1.99    ||    Sagarmatha - twin sprint new extended nacelles
  • Middle outcomes (rounded down where applicable) for all the presently-selected or currently-leading choices
  • the current Curiosity class spends half of its existence on location doing survey and the other half traveling between points of interest at efficient cruise
  • the current Cygnus class spends approximately 10% of its time on station or making deliveries, 5% at max cruise, and 85% at efficient cruise
  • the current Sagarmatha class spends approximately 5% of its time on location, 10% at max cruise, and 85% at efficient cruise
  • there is no antimatter efficiency gain in going from a twin to a single-nacelle design
  • there is a 10% antimatter efficiency gain in going from a quad to a twin-nacelle design
 
Last edited:
[X] Standard Length
All our choices so far have been to increase the top speed, I'm not prepared to sacrifice it now for a moderate cruise increase that can be achieved with the nacelles placement on the ship during construction
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top