Linked contents
LunaMoth
Wings of Kynareth is my comfort song...
- Pronouns
- He/They
To do that we need a really really cheap ship with good enough functions, I think when translated to quest mechanics that means a small size with few to no prototypes and roughly the same scores in every category somehow.
The Miranda was (out of universe at least) developed from the Constitution's saucer, as was the later Centaur to the Excelsior.
Perhaps we get a Sagarmatha, cut her engineering section off, use the new nacelles in a 2 underslung configuration and plant a roll bar with a deflector on top of her? Or put one in a blister like the Centaur.
Perhaps we get a Sagarmatha, cut her engineering section off, use the new nacelles in a 2 underslung configuration and plant a roll bar with a deflector on top of her? Or put one in a blister like the Centaur.
StriderInCosmos
Wanderer in the Worldsea
- Location
- Somewhere in... Terminal Dogma? I think?
Or we could be real crazy and put the deflector on the ventral hull like the Shi'Kahr I posted several pages back.
NexusEye
Aspiring God
- Pronouns
- She/Her
That would get rid of the secondary computer core and the engineering workshop but would leave the science sections intact. If you were to replace the cargo bay with dedicated science labs like we had the option to when designing the Copernicus you might actually get a higher science score out of it than the Sagarmatha. We'd have to get rid of most of its armament for budget reasons so It'd be crap at combat, engineering, and long range exploration but it could be a legitimate route for a replacement for the Curiosity. It'd be much bigger then the Curiosity but as the update noted ship masses have tripled recently so it wouldn't be out of place.
Last edited:
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
My thought was basically a modest saucer, with ~4-6 phasers in a wide coverage arrangement, a Torpedo tube or two, and then some modest engineering and Science capacity, aiming for a "good enough" light generalist; given the tactical role will be less important considering the Sharks. Something in the same mass range; maybe 200ish ktons; with a full saucer.
]
Since tatical is covered why not a mid weight Sci/Eng build?
NexusEye
Aspiring God
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Science and engineering compete for aux slots while tactical capabilities don't, cutting tactical helps with budget but won't allow for us to fit both science and engineering on the same ship unless that ship is enormous like an Explorer type.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
Essentially my thought is we want something that's going to be between the Shark and our next explorer, even if that's just a block II Saga, so ~200 ktons starting size plus Nacelles, extra hull, et cetera seems like the logical option. Should be big enough as a full saucer to get a decent enough score in all three main categories, while still being modest enough in size to produce in numbers.
- Location
- USA
Had a thought for an experimental nacelle arangement.
Perpendicular. Four nacelles, one port, one starboard, one ventral, one dorsal.
Not sure what the benefit would be, but it would be hideous and I vibe with that.
Perpendicular. Four nacelles, one port, one starboard, one ventral, one dorsal.
Not sure what the benefit would be, but it would be hideous and I vibe with that.
Mechanis
Confirmed Extremely Screwed
- Location
- Absconding with Alacrity
I mean, at that point just use a ring, it's probably cheaper and less technically complex. I'd be down for a symmetrical array of three nacelles though, simply because we've not done any three nacelle designs (not even in the old thread).
It is also rather on brand with the TOS era, with one of only two three nacelles designs that have ever shown up (in a display on the enterprise in TMP; the other being the Enterprise in All Good Things) in it, and the only one that wasn't from an explicitly alternate future.
LunaMoth
Wings of Kynareth is my comfort song...
- Pronouns
- He/They
A doodle that I posted in the other Star Trek thread. I was kind of imagining it as a Miranda class replacement when I drew it. Starfleet does use spherical hulls, and when they do they seem to be used in cheaper craft like civilian vessels.
Medusan Transport, presumably provided by Starfleet to the Medusans since the Medusans are energy beings (also one of my favorite star trek ships).
I was thinking that we are approaching the point where we could make something like a Miranda myself. I think a key element of it would be us needing to stick with a smaller number of generalist labs rather than a scattershot of multiple specialized ones to save on internal slots to make sure we can fit cargo/shuttle bays or whatever to get a usable engineering score. With that assumption though I think it's very likely that whatever we build to replace the Cygnus is going to be larger than it, so I'm confident that we'll be able to fit all it in unless we pick a hull shape that specifically reduces usable internal space or something.
NexusEye
Aspiring God
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The big question is whether we decide to use that extra hull space to make a hybrid engineering/science ship or decided to design two different ships specializing in science and engineering respectively. Explorers may be omnicompetent generalists but the rest of Starfleet is less so. Miranda-type Jack-of-all-Trades may be useful but two distinct specialists classes may be more efficient and provide more utility for their cost. We'll have to wait until the options are presented to see which path is more advantageous.
LunaMoth
Wings of Kynareth is my comfort song...
- Pronouns
- He/They
I think when people are saying design a Miranda replacement, they mean a ship that wont ever go out of production and is also cheap, then it becomes even more useful if the mass producible ship is a generalist since it means its available for any job that needs doing. Then since its cheap it would also be easy to retrofit a production run to have like better science stations on-board or some sort of experimental tech.
Utility cruiser wish list would be something like this for me:
We want the medium maneuverability to not be sitting ducks and decent but not bank breaking amount of weapons.
Cargo to taste.
Honestly a chance to bring back capacitors with type 2 phasers would be pretty cool. Technological divergence from working towards phaser arrays but phaser cannon banks instead with the ability to be charged. Engage with aft side, charge the port side, flip around.
- Medium maneuverability
- Biolab then astronomics
- Computer core
- Half armament at 75 to 100% coverage ( so 4 out of eight phasers if given that many options)
- Then stuff it with cargo
We want the medium maneuverability to not be sitting ducks and decent but not bank breaking amount of weapons.
Cargo to taste.
Honestly a chance to bring back capacitors with type 2 phasers would be pretty cool. Technological divergence from working towards phaser arrays but phaser cannon banks instead with the ability to be charged. Engage with aft side, charge the port side, flip around.
Last edited:
You know, other than the phaser armament (since a rollbar Miranda should have about 8/10 - depending on how you count the weird cannons since they have both a forward facing and a rear one) that basically sounds like a Miranda-class, just a few decades early.
The first time we saw one it was carrying out biological survey duties, a decent/secondary computer core lends itself to this and other similar duties, and even though we've never really seen them in any decent definition the rear of the saucer where the shuttle bays are is decently thick - which suggests that there could be substantial cargo holds (especially since it has two shuttlebays, good to service incoming and outgoing traffic at a decent rate).
2192: The Type-2 Phaser
With the Federation-Kzinti War heating up and entire task groups assembling on the border, pressure has increased on Starfleet Tactical to accelerate development of the Type-2 phaser. While the Type-1 is a refined and versatile design, it has had a performance shortfall against the hypercooled Andorian phaser for decades and it is clear that high-power disruptors can deliver an unacceptably high damage-on-target in comparison. The design teams have made great strides in minaturising cooling technology and improving particle density, but they are reaching a point of bifurcation in their efforts.
Simply put, the Type-2 can be finalised into two separate designs, each requiring different EPS conduit feeds and power densities. This effectively means that no starship will be able to mount both variants of the weapon, and Starfleet is very resistant to producing both simultaneously rather than focusing on a single variant. So the Type-2 phaser has two fates ahead, and they are asking for the input of the design bureau as to which type you believe will be most useful on the next generation of starships.
The first is the gimballed emitter cannon. Taking inspiration from the phase cannon, these deployable phasers like the phase cannon can swivel to engage any target in a wide field of view. It provides a modest improvement in damage output and will allow a starship to cover more firing arcs with fewer weapon emplacements.
The second is the focused emitter, a further development of the Type-1. By obviating the need for movable components a more durable assembly is able to handle higher energy loads and output a denser particle stream. The disadvantage is the emitter lenses in their spherical housing can only swivel so far, resulting in a firing arc almost half that of the gimballed variant.
Since power grids can only handle firing two phasers simultaneously, the focused emitter represents a real damage gain against the gimballed cannon. But the additional expense required to mount additional phasers to match the all-round protection of the cannon is likely beyond the budget of anything but an explorer, if even that. Is the future of Starfleet a phaser armament with lower firepower but more expansive coverage, or more blind spots but a heavier punch?
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
Simply put, the Type-2 can be finalised into two separate designs, each requiring different EPS conduit feeds and power densities. This effectively means that no starship will be able to mount both variants of the weapon, and Starfleet is very resistant to producing both simultaneously rather than focusing on a single variant. So the Type-2 phaser has two fates ahead, and they are asking for the input of the design bureau as to which type you believe will be most useful on the next generation of starships.
The first is the gimballed emitter cannon. Taking inspiration from the phase cannon, these deployable phasers like the phase cannon can swivel to engage any target in a wide field of view. It provides a modest improvement in damage output and will allow a starship to cover more firing arcs with fewer weapon emplacements.
The second is the focused emitter, a further development of the Type-1. By obviating the need for movable components a more durable assembly is able to handle higher energy loads and output a denser particle stream. The disadvantage is the emitter lenses in their spherical housing can only swivel so far, resulting in a firing arc almost half that of the gimballed variant.
Since power grids can only handle firing two phasers simultaneously, the focused emitter represents a real damage gain against the gimballed cannon. But the additional expense required to mount additional phasers to match the all-round protection of the cannon is likely beyond the budget of anything but an explorer, if even that. Is the future of Starfleet a phaser armament with lower firepower but more expansive coverage, or more blind spots but a heavier punch?
| Type-2 Phaser | Type-1 Phaser | Type-2 Gimballed Cannon | Type-2 Focused Emitter |
| Firing Arc (Degrees) | 105 | 135 | 75 |
| Damage | 4 | 6 | 9 |
Two Hour Moratorium, Please
Last edited:
Alectai
Speaks Words of Wisdom... On occasion
Oh wow, that's an enormous boost in firepower with either option.
I think the Type-1s did 2 damage per shot?
That being said, are the Focused Emitters still carrying the same firing arcs as the Type-1s? Or is it attenuated? I'm leaning towards the Gimballed mounts because they're good for anything that isn't an Explorer.
I think the Type-1s did 2 damage per shot?
That being said, are the Focused Emitters still carrying the same firing arcs as the Type-1s? Or is it attenuated? I'm leaning towards the Gimballed mounts because they're good for anything that isn't an Explorer.
Last edited:
Focused emitter seems a clearly superior option.
Field of fire per individual phaser is a decidedly secondary consideration relative to damage on target. And, speaking frankly, it'll be much harder to damage an embedded emplacement enough to knock it out of action.
Field of fire per individual phaser is a decidedly secondary consideration relative to damage on target. And, speaking frankly, it'll be much harder to damage an embedded emplacement enough to knock it out of action.
UbeOne
Daydreaming CPU
- Location
- Philippines
- Pronouns
- She/Her
My gut says to go for the gimballed cannons, partly for the better coverage which benefits more of our ships, and partly to diverge from the more canon-ish focused emitters.
Not all our ships are like the Selachii which easily turns on a dime, relatively speaking.
Not all our ships are like the Selachii which easily turns on a dime, relatively speaking.
Last edited:
- Location
- New York
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You think so? I would've thought gimbals were closer to what I'd expect from canon Starfleet. Focused is very aggressive.
- Location
- being near locations is my passion.
Tricky.
Ya know, if we go all in on manuverability builds, that would mitigate the downsides of the Focused Emitters.
As such, if we pick Focused here we'll be more likely to go for high manuverablity ships in the future, and I want that.
Ya know, if we go all in on manuverability builds, that would mitigate the downsides of the Focused Emitters.
As such, if we pick Focused here we'll be more likely to go for high manuverablity ships in the future, and I want that.
fishsicles
ate a calculator to gain its power
- Location
- Alexander Horned Earth
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Focused emitter seems to be the better fit with our current small ships doctrine, but the gimballed version is both cheaper and has more time on target - with high maneuverability, more than double the field of fire could mean extra shots during a turn. Almost doubling the arc isn't something to sneeze at, but when it also comes with a 33% discount, it's hard to turn up my nose.