Remove ads

Starship Design Bureau

Linked contents
Starship Design Bureau Starfleet Design Bureau
Reader mode
Adhoc vote count started by Derpmind on Oct 27, 2023 at 8:12 AM, finished with 90 posts and 48 votes.
Click to expand...
 
[X] An angular, widened saucer to accommodate a forward-facing shuttlebay or deflector.
 
[X] An angular, widened saucer to accommodate a forward-facing shuttlebay or deflector.
 
Found this not that long ago and think I'll make a vote now. But I'm wondering which would fit the style of the more I want to say dagger looking such as the Intrepid-class, Prometheus-class, or Vesta-class? Not sure if the angular or elongated fits the closest...Eh, guess will just vote for one.

[X] An elongated forward saucer section to maximise the power of a continuous phaser strip.


Federation attack fighter

Forgot to actually post this...Don't remember the reason why I also looked for a link of a federation fighter.
 
MysteryCPU said:
Ah. Thank you for explaining your thoughts.

However, the description of minimizing the secondary hull appears to apply to all three saucer sections. Note that even the OTL Saber class, which appears to use the widened saucer with the integrated deflector, also has a secondary hull. There is no indication that the secondary hull would be larger on the phaser saucer build (I suspect that we will lose a module space for deflector). But, even so, it is an assumption that that would have a large affect on the agility of the ship as that is not stated or really implied.

Even assuming your assumption that the widened hull has an affect on the agility of the ship because of a smaller secondary hull, the concern still exists that if the phaser is not strong enough it doesn't matter how agile the ship is: it will lose and die if it cannot damage the Borg. If it cannot damage the borg, all it can do is be an extra target. I do not want an entire class of ships that cannot damage the borg and are functionally extra targets.

Thus, even a slightly less agile ship that is more likely to be able to damage an adapting borg cube is preferable for a ship designed to take on the borg.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The vote option says that it helps us conserve scarce vertical space, which is obviously helpful for keeping the profile (and therefore mass) of the ship down. There are absolutely other ways we would be able to do this if we take the other options, but it will probably involve sacrificing internal space - this is what the update tells us. That's potentially valid if we think firepower or faster warp cruise are worth it, and I think there are valid arguments to be made for both, to be clear.

One option I suspect we might get for saving internal space if we go for the elongated hull is to go for a small vertical shuttle bay similar to the Defiant class.

Just as a general note, the design brief calls for agility to be maximised, it does not call for firepower to be maximised, so we should probably pay attention to that. However, there are definitely many routes we can take towards this goal this early in the design process. The wide saucer is not directly affecting our agility as I said, it just means we will have more internal space spare, which expands our options down the line. Every option is potentially valid, they just imply different trade-offs, as I said before.
 
To be clear, I think going for the elongated sauce is also fine, and it would be kind of cool to make our design look notably different. What made me go for the wide saucer in the end was that I suspect finding space for internals is going to be a bitch-and-a-half on this thing anyway, and I am interpreting the design brief as calling for a slightly more well-rounded ship than something like the Defiant. Also a lot of options we've wanted to take in the past have reduced internal space as their trade-off cost, so we might have slightly more options for stuff like nacelle layout, impulse engines, etc.. if we have more internal space to play with.

If we go for the elongated saucer, we can still probably take these things, but it might mean we get to the Internals stage and can't fit in one or more of the crew amenities, science labs or improved medical facilities which we might ideally like to. Or that the ship has limited cargo space, or has to use a cramped vertical shuttle bay. Those are potentially acceptable costs if we want to maximise the Tactical rating first and foremost, but I think a cruiser-style starship is meant to be slightly more well-rounded, which might be more difficult or force us to take space-saving options in other areas we don't want to.

It would be helpful if @Sayle could tell us the scores we're required to hit, although I guess maybe the point is that this is a crisis and Starfleet itself is in a bit of a flux over this.
 
I do not agree with your interpretation of the design brief. To be clear, it does not seem that we have a specific brief other than making a combat-focused ship that can fight the Borg. That can also do a specified mission as the role of the multi-role ship is largely at an end.

It does say that it should have a minimized profile and a "decent engine profiles vs mass factor". It does not say that it needs to be maximum agility. It does say it needs to be able to fight the Borg.

The main issue for fighting the Borg is their adaptation, which can be overcome with strength of weapons (according to QM).
 
MysteryCPU said:
I do not agree with your interpretation of the design brief. To be clear, it does not seem that we have a specific brief other than making a combat-focused ship that can fight the Borg. That can also do a specified mission as the role of the multi-role ship is largely at an end.

It does say that it should have a minimized profile and a "decent engine profiles vs mass factor". It does not say that it needs to be maximum agility. It does say it needs to be able to fight the Borg.

The main issue for fighting the Borg is their adaptation, which can be overcome with strength of weapons (according to QM).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On the other hand, we could choose to go for maximum agility. Which, on reflection, I think could be really fun.
 
Last edited:
Remove ads
2367: Project Saber (Propulsion)
  • Threadmarks
    • Order -> Spaceframe -> Propulsion -> Tactical -> Internals -> Prototyping -> Certification -> Retrospective
    ​
    [X] An elongated forward saucer section to maximise the power of a continuous phaser strip.

    Choosing an elongated saucer section as the best option for the Saber, the team sets to work. The Type-X phasers you have selected are the same used on the Galaxy-class and have plenty of punch, and you are confident that this much smaller ship design will be able to match at least the Ambassador in terms of accessible phaser power for the forward firing arc. Not bad for a ship that will probably mass less than a fifth of that. The team focuses on a mostly flat-bottomed saucer with an elevated command and crew deck along the spine of the ship. With the phasers taking up a surprising amount of space, that completely eliminates any chance of putting the deflector in the primary hull. Fortunately you should be able to use the flat ventral profile to mount a relatively unobtrusive navigational dish beneath the ship.

    But before you can do that, you need to decide where to put the warp core. And before you can do that, you need to decide what to do with the impulse engines. Unlike phasers, the sensor readings of Borg weapons suggest they follow the lock-charge-fire paradigm, which does yield higher energy outputs but also requires competent predictive algorithms. Allowing the Saber to rapidly change vectors would be a major advantage. Ironically the Type-5 would be perfect here, but they stopped being manufactured half a decade ago. Even Excelsior-class starships suffering engine problems are being upgraded to the Type-6, which is far too bulky for this small ship. No, you're going to need a smaller form factor.

    The first option is the Type-7 engine. Despite never measuring up to promised specifications it would still give the Saber an enormous thrust performance. Too much for the manoeuvring thrusters to actually control it, unfortunately. Unlinking the dual engine cluster and just using one Type-7 thruster and you'll still get remarkable acceleration curves.

    The second option is a scaled down Type-10, a next generation thruster that is undergoing final prototyping and assembly. It's unproven technology designed to be mounted as two separate impulse engines. Off-axis thrust would allow much more rapid course changes and the cutting-edge thruster system would allow the Saber to hit that sweet spot between acceleration and agility. The issue is it would take up more space, effectively monopolising the aft sections of the interior. That includes torpedo tubes.

    [ ] Type-7 Thruster Assembly
    [ ] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)



    Two Hour Moratorium on Voting, Please.
     
    Last edited:
  • Threadmarks
    • [ ] Type-10 Dual Impulse Thrusters (Prototype) (No Aft Torpedoes)
    agility is more important than torpedoes in the aft of the ship,
     
    Hmm. I'm thinking the Type 10s, keep with the hope that superior agility will allow the ship to keep enemies in the forward firing arcs. It's not like the Borg are known for dodging after all.
     
    I'm torn, honestly. On the one hand, agility is exactly what we need as we're aiming for maximum forward arc firepower. On the other hand, can we really afford a prototype impulse engine in this sort of emergency situation, when emphasis must be placed on ease of manufacture?
     
    Last edited:
    It might be for the best to avoid prototypes altogether, to make a much more easily manufactured ship instead. We can splurge on prototypes when we build the Sovereign class.
     
    While the Type 10 would give us an increase of maneuverability, I don't like that we are giving up on rear facing torpedo launchers. Being able to lob a couple of torpedoes behind you gives us the ability to kite our enemies.
     
    we should choose at most 2 prototypes for the saber class, no more, if we se something that looks like it could give use an advantage in agility or survivability then we should go for it.
    but ease of manufacuing is a high priority so we need to limit the amount of prototypes in the design. the type 10s are stated to be in the final stages of prototyping and assemably.
    they shouldn't have that many flaws.
    and i think that the agility we get in exchange for the aft torpedos is worth it
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top