Federation Battlestar

[Mark]

And if we're using Defiant style cores, those will take up less physical space as well

A Defiant core can power a Defiant with IMO is like a fighter on steroids. We need something with as much operating power as we can produce.

[Mark]

I think space will be at a huge premium once you get done stuffing everything into a ship like this. The hanger alone will be huge, not to mention facilities for handling nearly 1,000 armored vehicles and maintaining all of the above while underway. You lose a ton of internal volume just to hallways and internal sub-division as well, not to mention crew quarters and medical facilities dictated in the initial specs.

And I agree you would want to use bigger cores, though I think two new designs that are very big would be far more space efficient than 8 cores with all the associated equipment that would need to go with them and could likely be more well protected than 8. If someone breaches this hull enough to get to a warp core it won't matter if you how big they are you are likely in a lot of trouble. The only real advantage I can see to having 8 warp cores is you could eject a few and not be crippled but given the level of armor on this ship I don't see ejection as being much of an option with a dual layered armor system and a void in between.

Hence the antimatter "deactivation" saftey I mentioned. I agree it's a trade off. But to GET to our warp cores they are gonna need to get through some serious defense. The advantage of that many is a surplus of power, the trade off for cooldown time increased running time, and massive redundency.

Lets address this issue now. What do you guys think?

BTW, can I get a volunteer to go back to the weapons and shields and spend some time on the calculator and calculate DITL scores for our weapons, shields, range, and such? Your contribution with be dually credited when we unveil the final version of this beast.

[BigJKU316]

FWIW this is sort of the issue the USS Enterprise (the US carrier) had when it came out with 8 reactors. It was just a mess internally and never really made everyone happy. In the end they traded down to two much larger versions on the Nimitz class when they built a series of nuclear carriers.

[Mark]

....


What do you guys think? I suppose we COULD have two quad sized warp cores in the back of the ship. I'd still go with four double sized ones if we do that though, but I'm not sure about that idea. Thoughts?

[BigJKU316]

....


What do you guys think? I suppose we COULD have two quad sized warp cores in the back of the ship. I'd still go with four double sized ones if we do that though, but I'm not sure about that idea. Thoughts?

Ideally what I would do is use bigger cores with an overall smaller footprint and then in addition to the other armor on the ship I would by keeping my power section as small as possible add as thick of armor as possible to the power generation section of the ship. Sort of its own armored bathtub within the ship itself. The idea being that by the time you pound down to there I am wrecked anyway.

[Mark]

Then load the core in horizontally rather than vertically. You can hide it deeper within the ship, with more cover.

[Deepcrush]

BTW, can I get a volunteer to go back to the weapons and shields and spend some time on the calculator and calculate DITL scores for our weapons, shields, range, and such? Your contribution with be dually credited when we unveil the final version of this beast.

I will as soon as we finish with the pod defenses and PDWs. BUT WE STILL HAVEN'T FINISHED WITH THAT PART YET!

[Mark]

That part can't be calculated with DITL stats (at least as far as I'm aware). AFAIK, the majority are in favor of all three for defense.

[Sionnach Glic]

WRT power, I'd favour two or three large reactors burried at separate points inside the ship over a dozen or so smaller reactors.

[alexmann]

I'd go for 7 Sov Reactors and 7 Defiant Reactors with the Sov ones mainly concentrated around the core. You would not want that ship to be blown up!

[Reliant121]

Having that much power generation is a recipe for disaster.

Fed reactors are like magnesium.

[alexmann]

You don't need that many reactors no, but 7 is my favourite number! Possible 2 or 3 (in total not each)

[McAvoy]

Seriously, you could go for just one and maybe a second for a backup. Just scale it up.

[alexmann]

"Hey, What does releasing the antimatter containment do?" BOOOOOMMMMMMMMM

[Deepcrush]

You're better off just using several of the same type of reactors. Its easier on upkeep if you don't have to keep double parts for two types of reactors.