USS Daystrom Beta Prep

Post by **Teaos** » Sat May 17, 2008 12:49 pm

Well its your jeep since your tacticle but I think armour would be better.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat May 17, 2008 12:53 pm

I don't see how. A shield is easily viable, there is no 'technical' constraint on not having one. And in the practical ones I can't see any reasons either - a shield is fully transparent (quite important on a scout/light attacking vehicle), is a lot stronger than any other transparent material - perhaps stronger than armour - can be turned on and off in a fraction of a second, and allows one way firing.

I just can't see any reason - even a small one - as to why armour would be better on a vehicle where looking everywhere is vitally important.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat May 17, 2008 12:54 pm

am i thinking of another race then?

I think so. Romulan ships aren't exactly tiny, and even with their large size they aren't all that powerful. I don't think there's ever really been any indication that the Romulan have anything useful other than cloaking tech.

Reliant121 · Post by **Reliant121** » Sat May 17, 2008 12:55 pm

fair point...i'm sure there was a species good with miniaturisation....hmmm...thats gonna bug me now....

Post by **Teaos** » Sat May 17, 2008 2:28 pm

You planning on posting some mission prep Rochey or just gonna wait for the action.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat May 17, 2008 2:49 pm

How's this then, for updating the mission brief. Note the overall power of the Daystrom is a bit misleading due to its quantum torpedos. Though accordingly the Dakota would have been upgraded with quantums too, and type XIIs, so should still be ahead.

Firstly, the ship itself.

USS-Daystrom NCC- 77127

Ship: Akira class heavy cruiser version 3.5

Length : 464.43 m
Beam : 316.67 m
Height : 87.43 m
Decks : 19

Mass : 3,055,000 tons
Crew : 500 (evac 4500)

3 x Type XII phaser arrays, total output 32,000 TeraWatts
15 x Pulse fire quantum torpedo tube with 1200 rounds

Standard shield system, total capacity 2,876,500 TeraJoules
High Duranium/Tritanium Double hull plus 5.4 cm High density armour.
High level Structural Integrity Field

Normal Cruise : 7.5
Maximum Cruise : 9.55
Maximum Rated : 9.87 for 12 hours.

Beam Firepower : 640
Torpedo Firepower : 10,125
Weapon Range and Accuracy : 1080
Shield Strength : 1065
Hull Armour : 942
Speed : 1,425
Combat Manoeuvrability : 1,880
Over all: 3,443

Type 9 Shuttle Craft: 7
Falcon Class Fighters: 21
Type 7 Cargo Shuttles: 5
Danube Class Runabout: 3
Prototype Shuttle: 1
ACV (Argo Class Vehicle): 3

Prototype class

Type: Short Range Explorer

Unit Run: 1 - experimental

Commisioned: 2379-present

Dimensions: Length: 41.5 m
Beam: 24.5 m
Height: 9.8 m
Decks: 2
Crew: 2 (evac 150)

Armament: 2 x pulse phaser cannons, total output 4700 TeraWatts
3 x Type VIII phaser arrays, total output 4500 TeraWatts
Standard probe/photon launcher with 25 rounds

Defense systems: Standard shield system, total capacity 159,520 TJ
Standard duranium/tritanium single hull
Standard SIF

Warp Speeds:
Normal cruise: 5
Maximum cruise: 6
Maximum rated: 8 for 9 hours

Beam firepower: 184
Torpedo firepower: 125
Weapon range and accuracy: 190
Shield strength: 59.081
Hull/armor: 50
Speed: 535
Combat maneuverability: 22900
Overall strength index: 184

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat May 17, 2008 3:02 pm

You planning on posting some mission prep Rochey or just gonna wait for the action.

I'll be posting. I'm just a bit busy right now.

Post by **Teaos** » Sat May 17, 2008 3:13 pm

Sweet.

I updated the ship stats in mission brief.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat May 17, 2008 3:48 pm

I was also thinking with regards to the ACVs that the 3 we have should all go on the Prototype shuttle to see how they fare on a planet. Then if they have a successful run (which they will

) we can replicate more. But I still think that forcefields are far more useful than armour, unless people have reasons against it!

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat May 17, 2008 5:47 pm

Just to compare the Galaxy Class Dakota, here's my suggestions for that...

16 x Type XII phaser arrays, total output 135,000 TeraWatts
2 x Type 4 burst fire quantum torpedo tubes with 450 rounds

Auto modulated shield system, total capacity 81,150,000 TeraJoules
Heavy Duranium/Tritanium Double hull plus 9 cm High density armour.
High level Structural Integrity Field

Normal Cruise : 8
Maximum Cruise : 9.7
Maximum Rated : 9.92 for 12 hours

Beam Firepower : 2700
Torpedo Firepower : 3250
Weapon Range and Accuracy : 1800
Shield Strength : 3006
Hull Armour : 1300
Speed : 1772
Combat Manoeuvrability : 1600
Over all: 2646

shran · Post by **shran** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:03 pm

An option not considered yet for the vehicles is the way is making them some sort of hovercraft. I assume the planets will have an atmosphere similar to Earth, and hasroughly the same gravity. That would mean it may be slightly more difficult or easier to use it. Hovercrafts can easily take terrain diferences of 1.5 meters, and Federaiotn technology will have it improved a great deal, I suppose.

Present day hovercrafts use rubber skirts to be so efficient. Perhaps Federation ones have forcefields, which allow objects to pass at a certain angle, some would not.

Would it be an option?

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:07 pm

shran wrote:An option not considered yet for the vehicles is the way is making them some sort of hovercraft. I assume the planets will have an atmosphere similar to Earth, and hasroughly the same gravity. That would mean it may be slightly more difficult or easier to use it. Hovercrafts can easily take terrain diferences of 1.5 meters, and Federaiotn technology will have it improved a great deal, I suppose.

Present day hovercrafts use rubber skirts to be so efficient. Perhaps Federation ones have forcefields, which allow objects to pass at a certain angle, some would not.

Would it be an option?

Actually that was considered, we just spent quite a bit of time talking about the best option between anti-grav units and wheels, and wheels (I think) were decided upon as they had less to go wrong - if they were shot wheels could still run on flat/be replaced quickly/be rolled away/carry on coasting - while anti-grav would just drop the vehicle and it'd have to be replaced taking hours.

shran · Post by **shran** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:10 pm

I'd mean hovercrafts as in air-powerd hovercrafts, while forcefieldswould create the skirt and optimize the cushion beneath the vehicle. it is in between wheels and anti-grav. Even if the engine failed, the force fields would keep it floating, enabling it to be towed. If the forcecfields failed, the vehicle would still float, just with a lower efficiency.

Thorin · Post by **Thorin** » Sat May 17, 2008 6:18 pm

Anti-grav and hovercraft are exactly the same except one has an airflow. You do know that hovercrafts don't just become inefficient when they lose their lining, they completely fall. They don't work without the cushion of air. I've actually made a hovercraft - I know

It seems unnecessarily complicated that doesn't add a benefit when wheels do the job just fine, especially when weapons wouldn't particularly affect wheels like a floating mechanism (whether that be an air cushion or anti-grav units).

Blackstar the Chakat · Sat May 17, 2008 6:25 pm

shran wrote:I'd mean hovercrafts as in air-powerd hovercrafts, while forcefieldswould create the skirt and optimize the cushion beneath the vehicle. it is in between wheels and anti-grav. Even if the engine failed, the force fields would keep it floating, enabling it to be towed. If the forcecfields failed, the vehicle would still float, just with a lower efficiency.

That sounds very complicated. Also, what if both of them fail? There's a lot that could go wrong. There is an old quote that engineers use: "Keep it simple Stupid." As for rough terrain I suggested a anti-grav booster/stabilizer