Remove ads

Starship Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
[X] Bespoke Saucer Section (Ease of Manufacture: C-B)
As much as I love kit bash designs making a proper saucer section will be much more useful for this ship, especially in the long term
 
[X] Bespoke Saucer Section (Ease of Manufacture: C-B)

This is the main body of the ship, what people are going to notice and remember the most. Let's make our ship something unique, not a stripped-down Excelsior.
 
Remove ads
2335: Project Centaur (Warp Core/Nacelles)
  • Threadmarks
    • Order -> Spaceframe -> Warp Core/Nacelles -> Tactical -> Scientific -> Internals -> Prototyping -> Certification -> Final Review​

    [X] Excelsior Saucer Section (Ease of Manufacture: A)

    Deciding to use the Excelsior saucer section has its advantages, not least of which is the powerful impulse thrusters attached to the assembly. Given the Centaur is likely to mass less than half that of the Excelsior, those engines will provide stellar maneuverability at impulse. It will make putting any non-Excelsior technology into the saucer section a bit of a hassle, given that everything from the power distribution system to the size of the rooms has already been optimised, but it certainly won't be an impossible obstacle given enough enthusiasm and caution. You may end up eating your words later, of course, but you're confident that even the worse case scenario there won't torpedo the whole design.

    Which just leaves the secondary hull to plan, which will depend entirely on the warp propulsion systems. Ideally you will have room for the warp core, main deflector, torpedoes, and some basic auxiliary functions like a shuttle bay. But how much room you have for the other systems after the core/deflector pair will depend very much on the nacelle configuration you choose and its attendant warp core. So far there are three competing possibilities for you to choose from.

    While the Constellation had her flaws and the four-nacelle design is more finicky to manage, the advantages are hard to dismiss. With modern advancements the Centaur could manage a solid Warp 7 cruise with a comparatively underpowered warp core, leaving plenty of room for secondary systems. The tight power budget would mean no weapon upgrades, but the Excelsior's standard armament is more than sufficient to meet project goals.

    On the other hand, adopting the tried and true double nacelle design is unlikely to cause problems down the line. The larger warp core needed to maintain the expanded warp field would unfortunately mean displacing the deflector dish from the secondary hull to the forward saucer, which would reduce the space available for other systems. But the Centaur could maintain Warp 6 cruise just like her predecessor.

    The final option is the most untested of the lot, and consists of mounting nacelles above and below the main body. The latest Yoyodyne designs use substantially thicker casings with bulky warp coils that they promise can maintain high warp speeds without substantially increasing power consumption. If the design documents pan out, they can maintain Warp 7 without upgrading the warp core. But as with all prototype technology you don't know if the specs on paper will match reality.

    [ ] Four Nacelle Design (Decreased Ease of Maintenance, Increased Hull Space)
    [ ] Two Nacelle Standard (Decreased Hull Space)
    [ ] Two Nacelle Vertical (Prototype Technology)



    Project Centaur
    Goal: Produce a medium-range cruiser with robust tactical systems and high warp sprint factor. Design must be capable of basic collection and analysis of scientific samples.

    Minimum Tactical Score: B
    Minimum Scientific Score: C


    Constellation-class Light Cruiser [2282]
    Ease of Maintenance: C
    Ease of Manufacture: A
    Tactical Score: B
    Scientific Score: D
    Comfort Score: D
    Final Score: 44/100 [Marginal]

    [One Production Run of Twelve Ships - San Francisco Fleet Yards, 2282-2287]

    Excelsior-class Heavy Cruiser [2285]
    Ease of Maintenance: A
    Ease of Manufacture: B
    Tactical Score: S
    Scientific Score: A
    Comfort Score: B
    Final Score: 76/100 [Excellent]

    [Nine Production Runs - All Fleet Yards, 2290-2335+]
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] Two Nacelle Vertical (Prototype Technology)

    We've gone tried-and-tested for the saucer section, I think the nacelles are a good place to experiment a little bit. If we never take a gamble prototyping new technologies, then we'll never have new technologies for our starships. A higher cruising speed also means the ship is directly more useful for its intended mission of low-risk exploration and anti-piracy patrols over large volumes of space, as it can cover more ground in the same amount of time.

    I could also be talked into trying four nacelles again, this time with more experience from the failures of the Constellation class. But I think higher maintenance costs are a really bad drawback for something which is meant to be a patrol cruiser.
     
    [x] Two Nacelle Vertical (Prototype Technology)

    Not a fan of the downside of the Four Nacelle version, and if this can get us the speed we want then that seems like a good idea.
     
    Jax said:
    [x] Two Nacelle Vertical (Prototype Technology)

    By the way @Sayle, where do you get these sick graphics?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Searched for "LCARS" stole the first graphic I found and blacked out the main screen to use. Then it's mostly been a matter of booting up STO and taking screenshots to trace out the silhouette with paint and downloading the font Okuda used for LCARS (Helvetica Ultra Compressed). Fortunately they let you look at all the shiny ships you could buy with an extortionate microtransaction. It's not quite that simple, but it gets the general shapes done before the micro-detailing starts.
     
    Last edited:
    [X] Two Nacelle Vertical (Prototype Technology)

    We want high speed and easy maintenance for a wide-production patrol craft. Assuming the prototype works out, this gets us both. I think it's worth the gamble.
     
    There will almost inevitably be some unforeseen problem with implementing new tech in an unusual field configuration but (a) we have the rest of the project to figure that out an compensate and (b) cruising speed and operating cost are where we can't afford problems, in other areas we could live with them.

    If some unexpected issue with the vertical field orientation causes issues with some structural integrity fields, making the ship less tough, for example, or more space is needed in the secondary hull than expected making the science areas a bit cramped, that would be a shame. But if it still cruises at warp seven, is still cheaper to build and operate than a full exploration cruiser, can still carry a standard sensor suite, and still outguns and outruns most ships that are smaller than it... we could potentially live with some flaws.

    Sometimes the stars align, or you're willing to spend the extra time and money, and you get a "perfect" design, like the Excelsior. (Although let's not forget even that was designed around a propulsion system which didn't work.) But oftentimes, it's just about picking the trade-offs you can live with.
     
    Last edited:
    As long as it is better than the Constellation. And if we can work out the kinks maybe the Ambassador or Enterprise in this universe will be a vertical nacelle design
     
    2335: Project Centaur (Tactical)
  • Threadmarks
    • Order -> Spaceframe -> Warp Core/Nacelles -> Tactical -> Scientific -> Internals -> Prototyping -> Certification -> Final Review​

    [X] Two Nacelle Vertical (Prototype Technology)

    Using the new prototype nacelle design has some advantages, but the sight of them actually undergoing manufacturing for mounting next year is rather intimidating. The new nacelles are colossal by any metric, cramming the mass of an Excelsior's warp coils into a much shorter and bulkier space. The theory goes that a smaller warp bubble with a stronger field gradient will be able to extract greater performance at a lower power cost. The only catch is that the warp plasma is going to be that much hotter, so the warp transfer conduit will need substantially more coolant support and the thought of that much heat having nowhere to go if the coils quench makes you a little nauseous. But dealing with terrifying forces and putting them towards useful ends is part and parcel of being a starship designer, so you need to move on.

    The secondary hull is taking shape as well, and keeping the warp core at a manageable size has meant serious mass savings. It only takes a quarter of the material compared to the engineering section of an Excelsior, so if you can send it out with close-or-equivalent firepower you'll count that as a major win. Which is the next on the books, since the dock workers are going to need to know what the EPS conduit layout is going to look like not too long from now, and the tactical systems are the prime determinant of just that.

    The first option is just to use the Excelsior-standard layout. Ten banks of dual Type-8 phaser emitters, five on the dorsal surface and five on the ventral. Even nearly half a century after their roll-out, they still represent a substantial threat to other starships. Unlike the old Constitution-class which only had one bank serving each quadrant, an Excelsior's layout allows even minor trajectory changes to bring another emitter into its firing arc with minimal delay. It will certainly meet your design goals.

    Of course, there's always room for improvement. Starfleet Tactical insists their Type-9 phaser system is the future. It's not a big increase in actual firepower, but the staggered emitter system allows the integrated 'strip' to hand charge from emitter-to-emitter, then release it from a single point. They promise there will be no loss of firing arc, as well as a minor increase in damage-on-target. It's your choice, but it will require a more robust EPS network since you'll effectively be servicing over a dozen emitters per array rather than just two.

    Whatever you decide for phasers, space limits your choice of torpedo armament. As it stands the only real option is a single rear launcher and dual forward tubes. But the ship is neither designed nor expected to fight warships in one-on-one confrontations, and has the Excelsior's powerful engines to shake an attacker trying to stay in its rear arc to boot, so this doesn't seem a major issue.

    [ ] 10 Type-8 Phaser Banks
    [ ] 6 Type-9 Phaser Arrays (Prototype)


    (doing the internals is actually really fun)

    Project Centaur
    Goal: Produce a medium-range cruiser with robust tactical systems and high warp sprint factor. Design must be capable of basic collection and analysis of scientific samples.

    Minimum Tactical Score: B
    Minimum Scientific Score: C
    Constellation-class Light Cruiser [2282]
    Ease of Maintenance: C
    Ease of Manufacture: A
    Tactical Score: B
    Scientific Score: D
    Comfort Score: D
    Final Score: 44/100 [Marginal]

    [One Production Run of Twelve Ships - San Francisco Fleet Yards, 2282-2287]

    Excelsior-class Heavy Cruiser [2285]
    Ease of Maintenance: A
    Ease of Manufacture: B
    Tactical Score: S
    Scientific Score: A
    Comfort Score: B
    Final Score: 76/100 [Excellent]

    [Nine Production Runs - All Fleet Yards, 2290-2335+]
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • [X] 6 Type-9 Phaser Arrays (Prototype)

    In some ways the Centaur is going to do prep work for the next Capital ship we make and type-9s does sound like what we want to push towards. It is what you see in TNG and DS9 ships (might be a type-10 or 11 but the style is the same)

    Also using the excelsior saucer section as proven tech lets us do some new tech without having everything be new tech, torpedoes will also be current so no worries about those.

    Edit for those tracking, spaceframe- established design, nacelle- prototype, weapons- torpedoes established, phaser to be picked
     
    Last edited:
    [X] 6 Type-9 Phaser Arrays (Prototype)


    we will have to be careful of not painting to much prototype tech and trying to do to much or else it will end up like the f35 and ford class super carrier and be a budget nightmare
     
    [X] 10 Type-8 Phaser Banks

    If this were an option for experimental torpedoes I'd go for it, since like the engine configuration that goes in the custom section, but these phasers are meant to replace the Excelsior phasers - in the saucer. That'll mean significant modifications, needing to fit a "more robust EPS network" and different weapons into the section we're supposed to be reusing. It seems like a more invasive change, likely to lead to unreliability or cost problems.
     
    [X] 10 Type-8 Phaser Banks

    For the design goal, an Excelsior's phaser array is plenty of firepower, so compared to the nacelles where we actively wanted high Warp Factor sprint capabilities we have much less need to innovate here. Likely a similar story for Science systems, leaving us some room to be comfortable with some experimental goodies in Internals, which may very well be shiny, or just a largely conventional design that gets the job done with plenty of design focus able to be given to the one piece of experimental hardware.
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top