Remove ads

Starfleet Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Wootius said:
With two compatibility votes, we can only take one of these next two options and retain refit capabilities.

Vertical orientation seems like the more forward thinking option, but on the other hand we've had problems with the injectors before.

Did the connies have vertical cores?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Originally no, and iirc in the earlier refits (I.e. prior to the Enterprise A) it was still a horizontal core (or at least mostly so, there's some sort of vertical element but we see the horizontal core when Scotty's nephew goes to try and rescue his fellow engineering cadets as the emergency bulkhead descends), it's only later it became vertical.

-
[X] Vertical Core (Size Reduction) (Compatible -> Refit)

Whilst I'm still a bit shaky on it (not knowing the next option we could go for) the advantages of a vertical core seem to be too great given we know nacelle and secondary hull length is probably gonna balloon up in the future.
 
pedanterrific said:
I don't believe that's what the update is saying.

The options seem to be either a) design the new engine to be able to fit into the space left behind by removing the old one, allowing for easy replacement on existing ships, or b) use new tech to make the new engine take up less total volume than the old one, but in a different orientation, so that replacing the engine on existing ships would require ripping out some deckplates and bulkheads and rearranging everything in the main engineering space.

The 'turn it off and on again' problem being talked about is just the justification for why we can't easily refit with the volume-saving new technology. There is no scenario where we'd actually have that problem in practice, no matter what we choose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alright. IFF we're not going to be giving our whole fleet safety issues, I'm actually going to vote horizontal. Back compatibility is important, and we're already upgrading our warp drives this general. One upgrade at a time is enough for me - jumping our whole fleet up the the next warp factor.

[X] Horizontal Core

edit: Yeah, remember we pushed things out a decade. We've got an increased warp factor, we've got a new reaction chamber, now lets get that cool tech to our entire fleet and, coincidentally, up our wartime readiness in case something comes up
 
Last edited:
[X] Horizontal Core

We've already got one tier of Size Reduction benefit from the previous Reactor vote, so we're still creating some extra useable space even with Horizontal.

By choosing this now it allows us to take whatever benefits the new Injector tech can give us without making the engines completely incompatible with the existing fleet.
 
[X] Vertical Core (Size Reduction) (Compatible -> Refit)

I would rather the Warp 8 fleet be able to refit to Warp 9 then hold back on the Warp 8 drive to have Warp 7 refit to 8
 
This kinda reminds me of a flaw the SR71 had- if the inlet position wasn't correct at different speeds (the nose shockwave position changed and the air needed to be slowed down) the engine could "burp" and flame out - not a good thing when accelerating through Mach 2.7+
I do believe this actually caused at least one of them to experience "a rapid unplanned disassembly" when the sudden thrust imbalance caused it to yaw sideways.

[X] Vertical Core (Size Reduction) (Compatible -> Refit)
 
Last edited:
[X] Horizontal Core

Usable space is worth significantly less than usable hulls. Letting a capability gap remain for the majority of our fleet defeats the point of a better warp drive.
 
The tradeoff is that the horizontal configuration is much more likely to burp. Having a bunch of ships that can behave unexpectedly in critical situations is less desirable to me than making sure the ships we do have can be relied upon. A refit is more expensive and time consuming but being able to have confidence in your equipment is huge for planning and operations.

[X] Vertical Core (Size Reduction) (Compatible -> Refit)
 
KarmaA said:
The tradeoff is that the horizontal configuration is much more likely to burp. Having a bunch of ships that can behave unexpectedly in critical situations is less desirable to me than making sure the ships we do have can be relied upon. A refit is more expensive and time consuming but being able to have confidence in your equipment is huge for planning and operations
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is wrong - The horizontal configuration simply isn't using the new technology that could cause the issue, because it would have too many drawbacks on that configuration. This vote is trading off engine power and size vs refit complexity, not whether or not we deliberately introduce a crippling design flaw into our Warp Cores
 
[X] Vertical Core (Size Reduction) (Compatible -> Refit)

I'd really like to do the horizontal.

However, "rapid unplanned assembly" events aren't worth it..

Edit: I noted the segment says they don't because of that. That makes sense. The only issue therefore is future compatibility. We know the Warp 9 engine does kinda come out by TOS time. I'm super torn, but I'd rather future proof a bit now.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top