Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Ash19256 said:
The problem being that, for all we know, the nacelles on the Constitution are standard length by these standards. Which could mean that going extended length is how we wind up with nacelles closer to those of Discovery's ships (even if they have much more TOS styling).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TOS nacelles are the extended variant, but I also kept in mind that a lot of the design elements promptly disappeared and never showed up again. So the plasma vents reappeared, the intercooler handles vanished, etc. My explanation is that they were incredibly complex (reproducing them here would be a D- on complexity), and Starfleet was chasing strategic performance over all other considerations because the Federation was expanding to cover more and more space. This also aligns with how the Constitution was capable of a cruise quite close to its maximum warp, relatively speaking.
 
Kartr_Kana said:
66 to 30, standard length it is.

Adhoc vote count started by Kartr_Kana on Jan 3, 2024 at 5:53 PM, finished with 236 posts and 96 votes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Please stop "calling the vote" as if you're the QM. This is the second time today, and you're no less right, but it's still obnoxious.
 
Remove ads
2181: Type-3 Nacelle (Final)
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Standard Length

    The nacelles are coming out…not exactly sleek, by any means. As the necessary technologies are refined it may be possible to reduce the forward assembly before the warp coils, but that will be for the next generation once more advancements have been made. While the increased strategic range provided the extended configuration would no doubt be helpful, the looming spectre of the Klingons in particular causes some worry. Given their generally more advanced weapons and abundance of warships, the ability to potentially outrun an attacker or at least decide the terms of an engagement might be the difference between salvation and destruction. With that in mind the shorter nacelles are eventually favoured, and the teams get to work on including the intercooler fins and pipes along the dorsal surfaces.

    Which leaves only one internal element: the warp stabiliser. In the Sagarmatha this took the form of a centrally placed modulator assembly, but smaller variants have been installed at the rear of nacelles for some time now. The difference is the technology has now miniaturised enough to do more than simply manage warp field fluctuations. The standard application has always been to smooth out the warp field, reducing spatial turbulence and increasing efficiency. But it is possible to concentrate those efforts at the bow, essentially creating an artificial imbalance that will push the ship forward at greater speeds.

    The technical tolerances for this would be much more demanding, as the stabilisers will need to project their effect to the front of the ship specifically, focusing almost entirely on that area. But the increases in maximum velocity might be worth it. Whatever decision is made, the Type-3 will be entering production shortly, and you'll have to make the decision as to what kind of ship you want to create to carry it.

    [ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)
    [ ] Asymmetric Stabiliser (+0.2 Maximum Warp) (+Complexity [B+ -> C])

    Yoyodyne Type-3 Nacelle Assembly
    Bussard Collectors     -> Injector Assembly -> Warp Coils -> Intercoolers -> Nacelle Length -> Field Stabilizer

    Cost: 6
    Complexity: B+

    Current Base Cruise: Warp 4.8 (+0.2 - 0.4)
    Current Base Maximum: Warp 6.8 (+0.2 - +0.6)



    Two Hour Moratorium, Please
     
  • Threadmarks
    • Ok, NOW we should pick cruise. No added complexity and it balances us out to be a general improvement to both cruise and max warp fairly evenly.

    +.3 to +.5 cruise speed and +.2 to +.6 max warp is a pretty solid generational gain.
     
    Last edited:
    I say go simple. I'd rather keep complexity for a such a key part in the B range.


    Edit: I mean seriously that's a 4 level whack to our complexity rating!
     
    I came to change my vote (not that it would have mattered) and found a just dropped update instead. neat.
    I think I could be persuaded by an argument for asymmetric... if it wasn't also more complex. Cruise speed up for me.
     
    Oof, that's an enormous complexity boost, even if we'd get a fair amount of Maximum Warp out of it.

    I think I'm pretty happy with the Reinforcing Stabilizer here, gets us to .3 to .5 Cruise while the Nacelles aren't completely breaking the bank to get there in Complexity. It's not a generational change, but it does mean our ships will start having broken the Warp 5 barrier Cruise and Warp 7 barrier of Sprint, which means we don't need to do any real shenanigans like we had to do with the Sagarmatha to get there.
     
    Last edited:
    Ellipses in the description mean Sayle approves of our choice, right? And definitely not the opposite?
     
    I want to keep that complexity in the B area. We are going to see a great leap forward with what we have and have keep to the KISS principles. (Keep It Simple Stupid)
     
    [ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)

    Oof, that's a huge complexity hit.

    Hope we roll big on our overall gains. 👀
     
    [ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)

    With our other choices this gives a nice balance of improvements to Cruise and and Max Warp, and the complexity of the Asymmetric Stabiliser isn't worth it.

    edit: I like the additional side view and rear view of the nacelle. Sayle your art continues to impress.
     
    Last edited:
    Still, on the whole, I'm happy with this, it's a solid evolutionary step from the Type-2 Nacelles, able to consistently reach Warp 5 and Warp 7 before any placement shenanigans are brought into play, without being too much more expensive or hard to build than the old ones.
     
    [X] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)

    I would have been much happier with a Warp 5.6/6.25/6.9 (perfect rolls), but 5.3/6.35/7.4 will have to do.
     
    Last edited:
    Yeah lets not reduce complexity, I like the grade we have right now, plus 0.01 'free' cruise speed.

    [ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)
     
    [ ] Asymmetric Stabiliser (+0.2 Maximum Warp) (+Complexity [B+ -> C])
    This feels like the future... That we are not yet prepared to embrace. It's not cost, it's not size, it's literally just be faster with higher technology.

    Sadly that technology is just too high end for what we can comfortably produce. Might have been worth it at B- to push technology forward, but I think dropping all the way down to just "passing grade technically but nobody likes it" isn't good enough.

    We've already made it expensive, let's not make it finicky to produce and maintain as well.

    I'll be going for
    [] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)
    And not just because I love cruise speed.
     
    Last edited:
    And the grand finale of the nacelle is here. Let's consider our options.

    Sayle said:
    [ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)
    [ ] Asymmetric Stabiliser (+0.2 Maximum Warp) (+Complexity [B+ -> C])
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Alright, all told, I'm going to be going with the pack on this one. As nice as pushing the maximum warp envelope just that little bit further might be, the complexity cost just isn't fully worth it. On the other hand, as light as the cruise bump we get from the reinforcing stabilizer is, it's still a nice little cap on what's going to be a real envelope-pusher in all departments anyways.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top