Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)

Let's stick with what we know works, we've already pushed the boundaries in other areas and if it gets too complicated we may have difficulties making enough of them for all our future needs. We can save the asymmetric stabiliser for the next generation- by that point advances in tech should have reduced the complexity to make it viable for mass production.
 
The asymmetric stabiliser isn't even a prototype, so we can't even hope the complexity will come down as it becomes better understood technology. Really not worth it.
 
[X] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)

Assym is super cool but yikes the complexity.
 
Reinforcing Stabilizer is going to be my pick - and with that, I'm honestly going to be happy regardless of the outcome, because it gives us a nacelle that at a minimum is going to be a decent bump to all categories of performance, and at best could be very good indeed.

Reinforcing Stabilizer, Best Case BaselineReinforcing Stabilizer, Worst Case BaselineAsymmetric Stabilizer, Best Case BaselineAsymmetric Stabilizer, Worst Case Baseline
Efficient Cruise: 5.3Efficient Cruise: 5.1Efficient Cruise: 5.2Efficient Cruise: 5
Maximum Cruise: 6.05 (6 - 6.1 depending on rounding)Maximum Cruise: 5.95 (5.9 - 6 depending on rounding)Maximum Cruise: 6.4Maximum Cruise: 6.1
Maximum Warp: 7.4Maximum Warp: 7Maximum Warp: 7.6Maximum Warp: 7.2

Admittedly, based on the above I can see a potential argument for the Asymmetric Stab., in that it increases maximum cruise over the Reinforcing Stab. - but a 0.2 - 0.1 increase doesn't feel worth trying to overcomplicate things at this point (nor does it feel worth a fight with the folks arguing to maximize efficient cruise). That, and the above stats are just the baseline figures - they don't take into account nacelle configurations or the effects thereof.

Reinforcing Stab., Nacelle Optimization Best CaseReinforcing Stab., Nacelle Optimization Worst CaseAsymmetric Stab., Nacelle Optimization Best CaseAsymmetric Stab., Nacelle Optimization Worst Case
Efficient Cruise: 5.3 - 5.7 (Up to +0.4 from cruise optimization)Efficient Cruise: 5.1 - 5.5 (Up to +0.4 from cruise optimization)Efficient Cruise: 5.2 - 5.6 (Up to +0.4 from cruise optimization)Efficient Cruise: 5 - 5.4 (Up to +0.4 from cruise optimization)
Maximum Cruise: 6.55 (Up to +0.2 from optimization, 6.5 - 6.6 when rounded)Maximum Cruise: 6.25 (Up to +0.2 from optimization, 6.2 - 6.3 when rounded)Maximum Cruise: 6.6 (Up to +0.2 from optimization)Maximum Cruise: 6.3 (Up to +0.2 from optimization)
Maximum Warp: 7.4 - 7.8 (Up to +0.4 from sprint optimization)Maximum Warp: 7 - 7.4 (Up to +0.4 from sprint optimization)Maximum Warp: 7.6 - 8 (Up to +0.4 from sprint optimization)Maximum Warp: 7.2 - 7.6 (Up to +0.4 from sprint optimization)

Looking at the table, I'm honestly still inclined to go for the reinforcing stabilizer - it provides a nice balance between strategic mobility and sprint speed, regardless of nacelle configuration - and depending on how Sayle handles rounding, is at worst negligibly slower at Maximum Cruise than the Asymmetric option.

[X] Reinforcing Stabilizer (+0.1 Cruise)
 
Last edited:
Definitely not feeling the complexity hit here. Again, the asymmetric approach is something that might be worth testing on a specific class purpose-built for fast response, but as a piece of standard equipment, it's better to be simple than sorry.
 
Its something to ponder when our tech and manufacturing gets to the next step but for now.
[ ] Reinforcing Stabiliser (+0.1 Cruise)
 
Just for fun, here's what could have been if we'd picked all of the prototype options, and went "to hell with the complexity/budget" (with variations for both standard and extended nacelles, because that wasn't a prototype option, and Reinforcing/Asymmetric Stabilizer, because that hasn't been decided yet). Remember, baseline for the Type 2 Nacelles is 4.8/5.8/6.8.

And, just so I remember while writing this, here's a list of the best of the upgrades (chosen by thread are in bold):

Field-Focused Bussard Injectors: +0.1 - +0.2 Sprint
Compressor Rings: +0.1 - +0.6 ??? (listed as Speed Increase, presumably All Speeds) - noted in text as causing a delay in warp drive activation and potentially causing hazardous speed surges if damaged/interfered with.
Polyferride Alloy: +0.1 - +0.4 Sprint
External Intercoolers: +0.2 - +0.4 Cruise

Maximum Prototype Baseline, Standard Nacelles, Reinf. Stab.Maximum Prototype Baseline, Extended Nacelles, Reinf. Stab.Maximum Prototype Baseline, Standard Nacelles, Asymm. Stab.Maximum Prototype Baseline, Extended Nacelles, Asymm. Stab.
Efficient Cruise: 5.4 - 5.9Efficient Cruise: 5.8 - 6.3Efficient Cruise: 5.3 - 5.8Efficient Cruise: 5.7 - 6.2
Maximum Cruise: 6.25 - 6.95Maximum Cruise: 6.15 - 6.85Maximum Cruise: 6.3 - 7Maximum Cruise: 6.3 - 7
Maximum Warp: 7.1 - 8Maximum Warp: 6.5 - 7.4Maximum Warp: 7.3 - 8.2Maximum Warp: 6.9 - 7.8

It's entirely plausible my math is wrong - in particular, I'm not actually sure what sort of increase the Compressor Rings would have provided, given their wording - but it does seem that if we'd gone full "Fuck the Complexity" we could genuinely have gotten some damn impressive stats. That said, I also don't think we stepped wrong in avoiding the one prototype/added piece of cost/complexity that we did avoid - especially because of the noted risks of "can't go to warp in time to get the hell out of dodge/uncontrollable speed surges because you ran over a negative space wedgie".
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top