Starship Design Bureau

[Lonosic]

[x] 5 Type-9 Phaser Arrays (Prototype)

 

[Sayle]

Order -> Spaceframe -> Warp Core/Nacelles -> Tactical -> Internals -> Prototyping -> Certification -> Final Review​

[X] 5 Type-9 Phaser Arrays (Prototype)

The prototype phaser arrays are installed without issue, although their trial by literal fire will come later. With the primary systems complete it's now a matter of managing the internal components. While you have plenty of space for some systems, the unique challenge of factoring in crew count rather than capability has forced you to use a different metric. As it stands, your choice to add a shuttlebay has both increased the mass of the system (necessitating more engineers and technicians) as well as the addition of shuttle pilots, tractor beam operators, etcetera, so you have less to play with than you would like. Fortunately cargo bays do not inherently demand specialist attention and so you can rely on the enlisted personnel to take care of that.

Having judged that you need a minimum of six modules of cargo space to meet your mission mandate, you quickly determine that if anything you are going to exceed it by some degree. You'll have to consider carefully what will help with the mission profile, but the primary factor is at present you need eighty crew to man and maintain all the existing systems. That gives you twenty crew to add with extra systems. Unallocated crew can be added to the engineering roster and make maintaining the ship that much easier while out of dock.

One decision at least is straightforward: you can add communal crew rooms and an extra recreational area or another large cargo bay.

[ ] Better Quarters
[ ] More Cargo


Project Ferdinand Ratings: (Class Rank/Absolute Rank)
Ease of Maintenance: B
Ease of Manufacture: B
Tactical Score: C+/C
Scientific Score: C/D
Comfort Score: C


Crew Available: 20

Science/Technical
Extra Transporter Rooms: -5 Crew
Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew
More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew
Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew
Multidisciplinary Science Labs: -10 Crew



Two Hour Moratorium on Voting, Please.

 

[Skippy]

@Sayle, I'm presuming that more antimatter pods would be helpful for the photon torpedo launchers?

 

[Sayle]

@Sayle, I'm presuming that more antimatter pods would be helpful for the photon torpedo launchers?

Click to shrink...

Better range. You'll run out of torpedo casings before you run out of antimatter.

 

[Void Stalker]

Feel like we really should have tried for a better impulse drive to let us maneuver better as is we are barely over the tactical score

 

[Silversun17]

If we are already past target on cargo we can be nice to the crew

[] plan high endurance
-[ ] Better Quarters
-[]Extra Transporter Rooms: -5 Crew
-[]Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew
-[]More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew
-[]Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew

 

[Skippy]

Better range. You'll run out of torpedo casings before you run out of antimatter.

Click to shrink...

Huh. That's interesting, right now our Tactical score is our worst one except for Science, which is odd given this ship is an escort.

Would the advanced impulse thrusters have contributed to this? I'm thinking of what we could even have done differently to get up to a "B" or "B-".

 

[Random Member]

What extra capabilities do Extra Transporter Rooms and the Underfloor Shuttle Storage give actually?

 

[Duzzit]

Vague thoughts:

[ ] Plan: A comfortable vessel
[ ] Better Quarters
[ ] Extra Transporter Rooms: -5 Crew
[ ]Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew
[ ]Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew
[ ] Five crew spare for extra engineering teams.

 

[Sayle]

Huh. That's interesting, right now our Tactical score is our worst one except for Science, which is odd given this ship is an escort.

Would the advanced impulse thrusters have contributed to this? I'm thinking of what we could even have done differently to get up to a "B" or "B-".

Click to shrink...

Better thrusters would have helped, but you're ultimately creating a small ship. I suppose in future scales can be based on the "expected" performance for a ship of its size instead of a general fleet-wide metric?

 

[Derpmind]

Ease of Manufacture: B is acceptable for our design goals, but not great. But I don't regret going for a new hull design, so. *shrug*

 

[NSMS]

I'm leaning crew comfort and then everything except the science labs. This isn't meant to be a science ship, and the other options all count towards our intended role of a patrol/transport ship. More transporters makes cargo throughput and rescue easier, better sickbay gives us better recovery from combat, extra antimatter pods means more combat stamina, and underfloor shuttle storage means more storage.

Better thrusters would have helped, but you're ultimately creating a small ship. I suppose in future scales can be based on the "expected" performance for a ship of its size instead of a general fleet-wide metric?

Click to shrink...

Could do both? Maybe a 'Class Rank/Absolute Rank' system, or something?

 

[Skippy]

Better thrusters would have helped, but you're ultimately creating a small ship. I suppose in future scales can be based on the "expected" performance for a ship of its size instead of a general fleet-wide metric?

Click to shrink...

That might make a bit more more sense I think?

I mean, ultimately it's whatever makes the most sense for you, but it would be odd to design something like the Sabre class which is a very combat-oriented escort, and then have its Tactics score still be lower than a TNG-era Galaxy class.

EDIT: Or yes, maybe some sort of relative score as we're going through the design, versus an absolute one that we get at the end for comparison purposes, or something. Don't worry if that's too much of a hassle, though.

 

[Sayle]

I'm leaning crew comfort and then everything except the science labs. This isn't meant to be a science ship, and the other options all count towards our intended role of a patrol/transport ship. More transporters makes cargo throughput and rescue easier, better sickbay gives us better recovery from combat, extra antimatter pods means more combat stamina, and underfloor shuttle storage means more storage.

Could do both? Maybe a 'Class Rank/Absolute Rank' system, or something?

Click to shrink...

That might make a bit more more sense I think?

I mean, ultimately it's whatever makes the most sense for you, but it would be odd to design something like the Sabre class which is a very combat-oriented escort, and then have its Tactics score still be lower than a TNG-era Galaxy class.

EDIT: Or yes, maybe some sort of relative score as we're going through the design, versus an absolute one that we get at the end for comparison purposes, or something. Don't worry if that's too much of a hassle, though.

Click to shrink...

Mm. Fair. Can split it so something like the Defiant would be an S (punches insanely above its mass)/B+ for raw firepower. So S/B.

What extra capabilities do Extra Transporter Rooms and the Underfloor Shuttle Storage give actually?

Click to shrink...

In normal operation more transporter rooms aren't helpful, but it will let you rapidly transport people on/off the ship. Could be helpful in evacuations or saving something in imminent danger of destruction. Underfloor shuttle storage will give you more shuttle space, which is always nice.

 

[Lonosic]

I wonder what the score for the Miranda-class is.

 

[NSMS]

I wonder what the score for the Miranda-class is.

Click to shrink...

Sayle posted it a little while back. We're ahead of it in tactical, and behind it in ease of construction, IIRC.

 

[Skippy]

Mm. Fair. Can split it so something like the Defiant would be an S (punches insanely above its mass)/B+ for raw firepower. So S/B.

Click to shrink...

This makes the most sense to me, yeah.

I also think that from our perspective as designers, ship design is mostly about making the correct trade-offs, and sometimes finding neat synergies or tricks which reduce the trade-offs we'd otherwise need to make, so a relative score is a more useful yardstick for how good a job we've done.

 

[Sayle]

This makes the most sense to me, yeah.

I also think that from our perspective as designers, ship design is mostly about making the correct trade-offs, and sometimes finding neat synergies or tricks which reduce the trade-offs we'd otherwise need to make, so a relative score is a more useful yardstick for how good a job we've done.

Click to shrink...

I'll base the relative scores on the idea that if an uninformed Romulan/Klingon/Cardassian saw the ship they'd "expect" a Federation ship of its size to be able to do X. So in this case they'd be surprised that it can't do sciency stuff but get annoyed the shields aren't going down when they should if they tried to jump on it.

 

[LunaMoth]

[X]Plan: Uncomfortable crew
--[] More Cargo
--[] More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew
--[] Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew
--[] nothing else

 

[Random Member]

[] Plan Fight in Comfort
-[] Better Quarters
-[] Extra Transporter Rooms: -5 Crew
-[] Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew
-[] More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew

 

[Skippy]

So, I always think that posting plans with empty brackets is kinda cheating the moratorium a bit, but given everyone is doing it, here's what I propose:

[] Plan Future Proofing
-[] Better Quarters
-[] More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew
-[] Multidisciplinary Science Labs: -10 Crew

This ship meets or exceeds design requirements in every area, so I think it's worth looking towards the future. Whilst the Federation is in a rapid expansion phase now, and this ship meets design specs for supporting that effort, in the end, Starfleet is going to find itself needing to patrol a greatly enlarged Federation.

By improving crew comfort and endurance, we have a ship which can do cruise for longer, whilst adding labs means that it can do some useful scientific work and respond to contingencies when it gets to its destination. This should mean this ship still has a useful and flexible role in the coming decades, whilst remaining a capable escort when needed. Lastly, leaving five crew spare to help out engineering should hopefully make the ship easier to run , which hopefully should get us a B+ on running costs*, important in a workhorse of the fleet like this.

Given we have a dedicated shuttle bay, I think adding more space-lift capacity isn't super necessary; we're very well-equipped in that department for a ship of our size. Likewise, a large sickbay is less necessary given we have a fairly small crew, and even a standard starship's sickbay is fairly state of the art and able to triage effectively in most disasters, like a freighter whose crew get poisoned by strange alien seeds or something.


*(@Sayle, will five extra crew be enough to add a "+" to our Ease of Maintenance score? If it's not, or if another five would move us up by a whole letter grade, then I'd be willing to take out the Antimatter Pods.)

 

[DecaffeinatedOwl]

Quick impressions:

-[ ] Better Quarters
-[ ] More Cargo

My main question here would be, can we convert either cargo bays or the room in better crew quarters into temporary quarters for evacuees?

Extra Transporter Rooms: -5 Crew

Really nice to have: it'd let us evacuate survivors or teleport in S&R parties faster. But teleportation tends to be finicky and situational, so I'd rather not have to rely on it in an emergency.
Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew

Must have. We'll be responding to emergencies and we may well have to evacuate casualties.

More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew

More range, eh. Can do with, can do without.

Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew

Must have. Shuttles would help a ton with both moving cargo and with S&R.

Multidisciplinary Science Labs: -10 Crew

The thing we least need, by my lights. We're going to be first responders, and inside the Federation so help isn't all that far out.

[]Plan Search And Rescue (10/20 Crew)
--[ ] Better Quarters
--[ ] Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew
--[ ] Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew

[ ]Plan Search And Rescue Extended Range (15/20 Crew)
--[ ] Better Quarters
--[ ] Expanded Sickbay: -5 Crew
--[ ] More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew
--[ ] Underfloor Shuttle Storage: -5 Crew

By improving crew comfort and endurance, we have a ship which can do cruise for longer, whilst adding labs means that it can do some useful scientific work and respond to contingencies when it gets to its destination. This should mean this ship still has a useful and flexible role in the coming decades, whilst remaining a capable escort when needed. Lastly, leaving five crew spare to help out engineering should hopefully make the ship easier to run , which hopefully should get us a B+ on running costs*, important in a workhorse of the fleet like this.

Click to shrink...

Something I should point out: we're getting six modules of cargo bays on this, and apparently those are the easiest modules to retrofit into other things. So we can build in labs or expanded quarters at a latter date.

 

[NSMS]

So, I always think that posting plans with empty brackets is kinda cheating the moratorium a bit, but given everyone is doing it, here's what I propose:

[] Plan Future Proofing
-[] Better Quarters
-[] More Antimatter Pods: -5 Crew
-[] Multidisciplinary Science Labs: -10 Crew

This ship meets or exceeds design requirements in every area, so I think it's worth looking towards the future. Whilst the Federation is in a rapid expansion phase now, and this ship meets design specs for supporting that effort, in the end, Starfleet is going to find itself needing to patrol a greatly enlarged Federation.

By improving crew comfort and endurance, we have a ship which can do cruise for longer, whilst adding labs means that it can do some useful scientific work and respond to contingencies when it gets to its destination. This should mean this ship still has a useful and flexible role in the coming decades, whilst remaining a capable escort when needed. Lastly, leaving five crew spare to help out engineering should hopefully make the ship easier to run , which hopefully should get us a B+ on running costs*, important in a workhorse of the fleet like this.

Given we have a dedicated shuttle bay, I think adding more space-lift capacity isn't super necessary; we're very well-equipped in that department for a ship of our size. Likewise, a large sickbay is less necessary given we have a fairly small crew, and even a standard starship's sickbay is fairly state of the art and able to triage effectively in most disasters, like a freighter whose crew get poisoned by strange alien seeds or something.


*(@Sayle, will five extra crew be enough to add a "+" to our Ease of Maintenance score? If it's not, or if another five would move us up by a whole letter grade, then I'd be willing to take out the Antimatter Pods.)

Click to shrink...

Something worth bearing in mind is that future runs of the ship can undergo slight redesigns to meet adjusted mission profiles then, and existing ships can be modified. Normally I wouldn't suggest that as an option to be relied upon, but in this case we've got a huge quantity of cargo space that should be relatively easy to convert to other tasks, giving us plenty of flexibility for refits.

 

[Skippy]

Something I should point out: we're getting six modules of cargo bays on this, and apparently those are the easiest modules to retrofit into other things. So we can build in labs or expanded quarters at a latter date.

Click to shrink...

Something worth bearing in mind is that future runs of the ship can undergo slight redesigns to meet adjusted mission profiles then, and existing ships can be modified. Normally I wouldn't suggest that as an option to be relied upon, but in this case we've got a huge quantity of cargo space that should be relatively easy to convert to other tasks, giving us plenty of flexibility for refits.

Click to shrink...

We could absolutely convert cargo space to labs in theory, but remember that space isn't actually our primary constraint here; it's the required number of crew to man the systems. The reason we've already got a massive amount of cargo space which overshoots our design goal is because the secondary hull takes so many extra crew to run versus a single-hulled design, meaning most of the internals had to be cargo bays.

So whilst I think Starfleet absolutely might be willing to convert cargo spaces to science labs in future, I think that they're less likely to do so if it would mean having to lose other capabilities from the ship, or if it would mean having to up the crew requirements, especially given personnel is probably one of their biggest constraints and operating costs. This is less of a concern if we leave some crew space spare, but would still mean pulling them from engineering, which will increase running costs.

Better science facilities also add a huge amount of versatility to the ship which is useful right now, not just in future. Going up from a "D" to a "C" or even "B" rating means that that rather than being unable to do anything other than the most basic scientific tasks, the ship can do useful research alongside its other duties. This significantly increases its mission profile, and means the ship should for example be able to perform surveys of proto-stars whilst escorting colonists to a new world.

It's the Starfleet way.

 

[NSMS]

We could absolutely convert cargo space to labs in theory, but remember that space isn't actually our primary constraint here; it's the required number of crew to man the systems. The reason we've already got a massive amount of cargo space which overshoots our design goal is because the secondary hull takes so many extra crew to run versus a single-hulled design, meaning most of the internals had to be cargo bays.

So whilst I think Starfleet absolutely might be willing to convert cargo spaces to science labs in future, I think that they're less likely to do so if it would mean having to lose other capabilities from the ship, or if it would mean having to up the crew requirements, especially given personnel is probably one of their biggest constraints and operating costs. This is less of a concern if we leave some crew space spare, but would still mean pulling them from engineering, which will increase running costs.

Better science facilities also add a huge amount of versatility to the ship which is useful right now, not just in future. Going up from a "D" to a "C" or even "B" rating means that that rather than being unable to do anything other than the most basic scientific tasks, the ship can do useful research alongside its other duties. This hugely significantly its mission profile, and means the ship should for example be able to perform surveys of proto-stars whilst escorting colonists to a new world.

It's the Starfleet way.

Click to shrink...

If the ship's mission profile changes, I expect Starfleet to also adapt crew numbers to fit. We have the space to support more crew than the 100 that have been mandated, after all- if the ship ends up being modified to operate outside of its original design envelope then the constraints of that envelope should change too, including staff numbers.