[Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Archived discussions of all specifications which have been approved and put into use by the Research & Development Department
User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Alex » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:01 am

Again, I am not opposed to have a science vessel that is able to protect itself. I never said that science officers had to be "peace loving hippies", even though I have apparently been accused of it. My point is this: even in the future, stuff has to go somewhere. Conservation of mass must be obeyed. If we were to make a ship more heavily geared towards science, it would need things like advanced science labs, hydroponics bays and arboretums, extra computer cores for simulations, larger and more enhanced sensor capabilities. Those things have to go somewhere. You could sacrifice crew, but then who would run these labs? You could lose some shuttlecraft, but those might be useful for getting close to dangerous phenomena or conducting other science missions. You could take out some of the crew amenities and make the ship a little more spartan in design. You could also reduce the armaments. Fewer torpedo magazines and phaser arrays would open up some volume. Or, you could have a bigger ship. My point is, to have more of something, you have to have less of something else, or a bigger body to put it in. Yes, minor adjustments could be made to the ship's size, but you still have to make a concession somewhere for it to be feasibly scaled to the existing models, which is what this ship was meant for.

If we want to have a long range explorer with tons of science equipment and still be well armed, I have no problem with that. Just keep in mind that it needs to be a bigger ship. Even then, you bring in additional problems, like needing a larger crew to run said ship, and the crew quarters to house them. Other mechanical equipment will need to be increased as well, like more space for turbolifts or life support systems. There will likely need to be more transporters for emergency purposes. Larger ships would need larger hulls, which will need larger supports. Yes, there will be more space, but some of that additional space would have to be taken up by things other than what you want to add. Nothing is as simple as just adding it in. There are a lot of engineering factors to consider when designing anything, especially something like a starship. A counter argument is that I'm thinking too realistically for something that is clearly science fiction. But that's what separates us from other fleets. Having our ships grounded in reality makes it seem more real. Sure, we could put hyperdrives and planet busting cannons on all the ships and call it a day. Then no one would be able to mess with the Federation. But that's not realistic. Star Trek is science fiction, not a space opera.
ImageImage

User avatar
Joe_Rhimer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:52 am
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Joe_Rhimer » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:21 am

We've gotten a bit off topic here as well. I say that if the question of what a good science vessel is needs to be argued more, let's start a new R&D thread. This thread is for the Century-class specs, not the future of Science vessels as a whole.

Also, because I feel that I cannot leave this comment untouched: While saying that someone is incompetent may not register on your spectrum of name calling, it is extremely disrespectful and completely unneeded in a forum of friends and colleagues. There are ways to address a concern like that politely and within proper channels, and that was not it. Respect is another thing that makes our fleet great, and I take a great deal of offense to seeing it neglected like that.

Thanks!
Image
ImageImage

User avatar
FruitLoop
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: Deep South, USA
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by FruitLoop » Sat Feb 02, 2013 2:31 am

ANYWAY!! Explorer sounds good.

Clement
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Posts: 92
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:05 am

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Clement » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:04 pm

Alexandra wrote:We've added a few new cruisers lately, and the Vesta was the new Ship-of-the-Line, but the Explorers have not gotten much love. The Sovereign class still feels too new to me to have such a similar ship already built to closely resemble it. There just doesn't feel like enough differences or improvements have been made. I suppose we could say that the Century class is an update to the Sovereign based on developments from the Vesta program, but a Sovereign refit would make more sense to me than a whole new class. If the Century was meant to be a science powerhouse, then maybe it would be better as an actual science powerhouse?
Agreed. I know I am only a guest party to these conversations and that this decision really needs to come from the actual members of this community, but after all of the conversation we've had over the past day or so, I'm definitely leaning toward what Rear Admiral Quinn and Commodore Selos have suggested. It doesn't really make sense for the Century-class to simply be a "bigger and better" Sovereign. That would just create competition between two relatively sound designs for the same mission profile niche. Instead, it would make more sense to place the Century-class within the Explorer categorization, thereby giving additional support to deep space scientific exploration and research.
Captain Cassius Whittemore
Commanding Officer
USS Thames (NCC-80629)

misskorya
Crewman Recruit
Crewman Recruit
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:10 pm

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by misskorya » Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:26 pm

I'm just going to add this and I know I'm 'new' to this fleet but I'm not new to specifications, starships and the R&D behind them. Most other fleets will and have classified the Century as a Long Range Explorer. The Sovereign is an Enhanced Deterrence Explorer, please keep emphasis on the word Deterrence... With that said. Century is an explorer, congratulations you have a new baby explorer, would you like to cradle her in the docks? :D

User avatar
FruitLoop
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: Deep South, USA
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by FruitLoop » Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:26 am

I'm mostly GAC for a reason, but explorer sounds good.

User avatar
Alex
Pegasus Fleet CO
Pegasus Fleet CO
Posts: 571
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:04 am
Location: Indiana, US
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Alex » Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:37 am

I've made a few minor adjustments to make it an explorer. I added more science labs, an advanced sensor array, and a third computer core.
ImageImage

User avatar
FruitLoop
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: Deep South, USA
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by FruitLoop » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:10 am

Sounds good!

User avatar
Joe_Rhimer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Master Chief Petty Officer
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:52 am
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by Joe_Rhimer » Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:09 pm

Sounds like a winner. Though given the size difference between our current explorers and the Century, I think it's fair to say that we've got a big brother explorer, not a baby one lol. I'm all for the classification change and the spec mods, Bosslady. Sounds good.
Image
ImageImage

KejalBuris
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Petty Officer 3rd Class
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:54 am
Contact:

Re: [Proposed] Century-class Specifications

Post by KejalBuris » Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:40 pm

It doesn't strike me as a deep-space explorer. But I guess it'll do.

Post Reply

Return to “Approved Specifications”