STF

SPEC FOR REVIEW: Hero Class by Kirt Gartner

Posted Dec. 5, 2019, 8:55 p.m. by Rear Admiral Sarah Hemenway (Engineering Director) (Sarah M)

Posted by Rear Admiral Sarah Hemenway (Engineering Director) in SPEC FOR REVIEW: Hero Class by Kirt Gartner

Posted by Kirt Gartner in SPEC FOR REVIEW: Hero Class by Kirt Gartner

Posted by Kirt Gartner in SPEC FOR REVIEW: Hero Class by Kirt Gartner
Posted by… suppressed (4) by the Post Ghost! 👻
HERO-CLASS
CATEGORY: EXPLORER
VARIANT: HEAVY
DESIGNER: Kirt Gartner
Mark I
Draft 1

<SNIP MY INITIAL REVIEW>
Sorry for the formatting issues. I’m still getting used to Exodus and how it formats post replies.

The use of real-life legends with mythical people seems to confuse the issue of how the vessels were named. Wallace, Earp, Holliday, Boone, Gaido, and Casey Jones don’t fit among the rest of this list.

Saving this for a later comment.

History- So For your first issue. The Hero is not built on the Frame or hull of the Kearsarge-class, This is a whole new ship to replace the Kearsarge-class completely. This is the same level of say going from Constitution Refit to Excelsior, Ambassador to Galaxy, and Galaxy to Sovereign. The Hero is a completely different ship from the Kearsarge-class, and I will make sure that it is made clear in the next revision. the Terms Explorer and Cruiser got interchanged a few times by accident

Thank you for the clarification. Given that the opening paragraph actually says “replacement cruiser”, it seemed like a complete shift to suddenly have an explorer take its place. Maybe you meant something like “replacement for the aging cruiser”?

Construction-I will expand the description in the next revision the Module is actually located on top of the Saucer at the back and I don’t see what’s wrong with keeping the Saucer section called Saucer section and Stardrive stardrive yes unlike the Galaxy the Saucer remains warp-capable but it’s still the saucer section

Star Drive implies that it is the main point of all power generation and propulsion systems. You later describe the engineering in the upper hull as having Main Engineering and all Primary propulsion systems. Upper hull and lower hull might make it a little more clear as to the function of the ship, instead of using convention because it’s what we’re used to having described. You’re reaching in to new frontiers, new wording could be useful.

Saucer Separation- Yeah that is helpful and does make it sound a bit better Thank you!

You’re welcome.

Mission Module-Not sure what the nitpick is at the momment Though the grammar and such will be cleaned up obviously

The nitpick was the grammar. :)

Sensor Systems- Is the title of the section really truely that important as long as it gets the point across but if it will help then I will change the title XD though What part of it belongs in the Tactical systems section?

If you’re going to submit a spec, it needs to follow the same format as every other spec. SSSF lists this section as being titled a certain way, so that’s the protocol that you follow. As to the second part, everything to do with shielding goes in the tactical systems section.

Warp-Both yeah this section might need a bit of rewording as Part of me wants to assume that Both cores were supposed to be working in tandem with each other feeding power throughout the ship but on the flip side I am not sure how that is supposed to work…and honestly the more I think about it would it not make more sense for the Main engineering to be in the Stardrive rather than the Saucer as for the emergency speed drop off once separated it was more of a balancing factor as well as once again having both cores working together so yeah this might change due to the whole idea of both cores working in Tandem being kinda nonsensical as for the locations of the cores and everything Is it not that way for just about all of the Canon star trek ships anyway but I will take the position under advisement

I understood the intent for both cores to be powering the ship when it is whole. Your choice to have everything as a single sentence implied that, somehow, both cores fed both sections of the vessel during separation. I probably could have suggested a change for clarity. Basically, I think what you meant was, “Both cores are used to power the ship’s warp propulsion systems during normal operations. Each core powers the section which contains it during separation operations.” As for the emergency speed drop off, I understand that you want to provide balance, but by separating the vessel, you’ve essentially reduced the work load of each core by (roughly) half, meaning that each core should be independently capable of still maintaining the full capabilities of a Class-9 core.

As for the positioning of the warp systems - for the (currently titled) Secondary Warp System, it is sometimes the case that we see warp assemblies positioned as you have the setup on the Hero-class. The easiest examples (i.e. the ones we’ve seen on screen a lot) are the Miranda-class, the Nova-class, the Defiant-class, and (surprisingly, given the location of Main Engineering) the Galaxy-class. However, plenty of other vessel designs do not follow this policy - Constellation, Excelsior, Ambassador, NX, Intrepid - all of these place the M/ARA core and its attending equipment well within the ship. What none of these designs does is put the warp core directly underneath or anywhere near the bridge. The Nova-class and the Miranda-class have the warp core as far aft and in as low of a deck as possible specifically to limit the danger to the crew. Similarly, while the NX-class had its warp core amidships, it was located in the aft of the vessel. The Prometheus-class may have the warp nacelle for its upper hull (which engages only in Multi-Vector Assault Mode) situated directly behind the Bridge, but the blueprints put the warp systems of said nacelle (which apparently has two coils, akin to the third nacelle in the upgraded Galaxy-class from a timeline where Lursa and B’Etor don’t blow up the Enterprise-D) directly underneath the nacelle. In any case, placing warp systems of any kind so close to the primary control and command systems of the ship is contrary to the design of any vessel which uses generated power, real or fictional.

Impulse engines- this will be taken under advisement as well I have no answers at this time the impulse speeds are set to take into account the combined “Weight” of the Combined ship as it would make sense given how the Galaxy class gets faster separated More than likely I would like to keep this as it is but if more people say that the Standard .50 .75 .60 is more appropriate then I will change it

No decimal points needed, just whole numbers. I wasn’t really questioning the math (and in space, it’s mass, as a side note). I was more saying that you needed to be consistent with your units. You use a whole minute for one of your speeds and 60 seconds for another. If you want to use minutes as a unit, the last number should just be a minute, not 60 seconds.

As for why we need this It is a little bit of a Predecessor but it also is because I am trying to work out the ship class for the Star Trek Stories (Would love to get them published I am trying to write and this would be the STF version of it

Give me an IC explanation that’s satisfactory, and the rest is just fun background detail.

NIck I believe I have given a good enough reason in the history The Class was designed to full-on replace the Kearsarge Class and by that I mean in universe ALL Kearsarge class ships are to return for Decommission not to mention that original construction was started in the time between Wolf 359 and the Dominion War Meaning this ship was made to help fill the holes left by the ships that did not come back from Wolf 359 I can very easily see Starfleet deciding to come up with a new ship to replace those lost instead of build up old designs that have already proven ineffective for modern enemies

And as for what I said about my own stories That is more of a Selfish personal side note reason and should not be taken as The only reason I am doing this

Tactical systems yeah thats going to get addressed

the rest is more of to be addressed issues so I will skip to the naming convention

Names- This naming convention is about honoring heroes of both Myth and Real life if the indivdual weather they were real or not earned the title of Hero the name is here The reason why William Wallace and Leonidas have a different Registry number because they were in the Pre Dominion war batch of ships Earp Holliday Gaido Achilles and Jones all are Post Dominion war additions to the second run of the class and I want to keep both Jones and Achilles as NPC ships and I dont want to make all the real names as NPCs or All in the PC ship list So respectfully I am going to leave the name list the way it is There was also another real name you missed in Daniel Boone being one of the 4 ships that History wise was destroyed at the second battle of Chin’toka

Actually, I mentioned Boone in my list. I wasn’t questioning the registry number order - you gave an explicit reason for it in your spec already. I was wondering about the scatter-shot inclusion of real-life figures. Come to that, I have a suggestion as to a fix - why not use the real-life heroes for the initial 7 following the ship of the line (maybe toss in a hero from Asia or Africa because you’ve only got six right now), and say that, following the destruction of four of the vessels, the choice was made to use mythological figures instead? And I thought of another issue - the real life heroes are all very white and Western-centric, and the mythological figures exclude several regions and ethnicities (seriously, you’ve got a bunch of American names, but no John Henry?). This seems to be a blind spot, given that these vessels are set for construction three centuries in the future with a pan-global governmental body as part of an interstellar governing alliance. Thinking about it more, having more than one legendary figure from any one culture actually seems - I get the irony, bear with me - unrealistic, especially when you’re including two legends of the same sort or two figures from the same legend (Earp and Holliday, Boone and Bunyan, Achilles and Leonidas, Enkidu and Gilgamesh), but not making them sister vessels.

Also, you excluded the four vessels destroyed at Second Chin’toka from the actual vessel registry. I asked why, and you didn’t address that.

Thanks Nick for your feed back I am already working on the edits and rewording a good bit of it to make more sense

Kirt G

I hope you don’t feel like I’m browbeating you; I know we discussed some of this in private. I want to be transparent about the process, and let others have input if my thinking is off track in any way.

~ Nick “Pelican” V

Returning once again to the Names I have decided that I will be removing all but two of the Fictional names as well as cutting the list down a tad to a more realistic number for a ship so large The two Fictional names I am keeping are Sherlock Holmes and Robin Hood I am also not going to be seperating out NPC ship names from the Player ship names instead all names will be available to ether player ship or NPC at will

Kirt G

BUMP to make sure it stays on the board

KG

The review period will end tomorrow. Please get your final feedback in!

Sarah, EDir

The review period is now closed and the design is returned to the designer for revisions. Thank you, Nick, for your insightful comments!

Sarah, EDir


Posts on Engineering Department

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2021 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.12.5