I say keep the redundancy! It would make me feel comfortable to have a gigantic lifeboat, with lots of little lifepods to go to if that doesn't work. I say that it is better to have the ability and not need it than to end up needing it and not have it! My design is supposed to have multiple redundancies, and not just a primary detachable hull with concealed slipstream nacelles, but complete with an additional two warp cores in the raised sections in the saucer, and multiple micro-fusion reactors in addition to the five standard fusion reactors powering impulse drives. Why, you ask? So that she is prepared as possible for anything that is thrown at her.
Then you just run the risks of it starting to sound like the "U.S.S. Fanboi". There is a point of diminishing returns with redundant systems. Like not having any room left in the ship to actually do it's job.
Maybe, maybe not. The Akira class has a pair of warp cores located towards the rear of the saucer, while managing to have enough room for a considerable arsenal in her saucer alone, and a pair of impulse drives. And I believe that the standard Galaxy class is supposed to have a certain portion of its hull left over that can be used for additional equipment.
So going by the Akira class example alone, and adding to the fact that my design is supposed to be bigger, I believe it should be possible fit all of the described equipment in a hull of the size I have in mind. The microfusion reactors wouldn't be a problem; I would imagine them around the size of a large trash can. I won't deny the possibility that the set of saucer warp cores are smaller than the warp core in the engineering section, but I would imagine them as having around the same output combined as the engineering warp core. If the Essex doesn't have enough room for a pair of nacelles in the saucer, than designs like the Arrogant and the Galaxy Evo might not work, which I'd hate to think, considering that I think that such designs are brilliant.
Could the additional warp nacelles, combined with the additional warp cores, and separation systems take up a considerable amount of space? Eh, I won't deny the possibility. But I doubt that they would sacrifice more than several dozen rooms, and given the size of the ship that I imagine, which should be at least the total size of the Galaxy class, and probably bigger, I still think there would still be plenty of room for crews quarters, guests quarters, passageways, sensor pallets, etc.
It wasn't my intention to make the Essex look like an uber; if I wanted to do that, I could have added a hyper phaser cannon similar to the ones on the Entente and Intimidator classes, but I felt that such a weapon belongs only on certain vessels. I also didn't add a fifth nacelle because I felt that:
1) Four nacelles are enough, and the saucer nacelles are there purely for the purpose of giving the crew a means of getting home at a reasonable pace, should the engineering section suffer a core breach, and
2) Because I felt that aesthetically speaking, it wouldn't be worth it considering the niche that the Essex is supposed to occupy.
I feel that at this point, Starfleet vessels are going to become considerably more powerful so that they can stand up to new threats that are as or more powerful than the recent threats of the past, such as (and especially) the Borg and the Dominion, which I have no doubt will happen as the Federation uses the Quantum Slipstream drive to explore the rest of the Milky Way and other galaxies.
I say keep the redundancy! It would make me feel comfortable to have a gigantic lifeboat, with lots of little lifepods to go to if that doesn't work. I say that it is better to have the ability and not need it than to end up needing it and not have it! My design is supposed to have multiple redundancies, and not just a primary detachable hull with concealed slipstream nacelles, but complete with an additional two warp cores in the raised sections in the saucer, and multiple micro-fusion reactors in addition to the five standard fusion reactors powering impulse drives. Why, you ask? So that she is prepared as possible for anything that is thrown at her.
You can only pack so much into a design before it starts to become a parody of itself. There are all sorts of “prepared for anything” features I could have included like multi-vector assault mode, a wing of combat shuttles, dreadnought-class phaser and photon batteries, batmobile armor, etc, etc, but I deliberately chose to stay within more realistic and practical parameters.
If by multi-vector assault mode, you mean a ship that separates into three or more ships (ala Prometheus), I can agree.
I would imagine that fighters actually aren't out of the question, especially during times of war, and same thing might go for other specialized combat vehicles, but I doubt more than a squadron of fighters like the Valkyrie, and maybe a few more specialized shuttles, would be assigned on board during typical exploration mission, and that is at the most.
I will agree with you on the hyper phaser cannon: that belongs mostly on true battleships and dreadnoughts, not on something that is meant for exploration.
I suppose that not too many torpedo tubes should be mounted, but I still think that the number mounted could still be around the same number seen on the Sovereign and the like, given that is the appears to be where things were going if you look at ships such as the Prometheus class and Luna class.
[/QUOTE]I think saucer separation was probably useful for something like the
Galaxy class back in the pre-Borg, pre-Dominion War days when Starfleet was still naively optimistic enough to put families and children onboard front-line starships, but also cautious enough to provide them with a way to be left behind in relative safety when everyone else had to go into battle. Design work on the
Sovereign class first began during the same era, so it’s not surprising the separable saucer was held over one more generation, but I don’t see it surviving as a ubiquitous feature beyond that. Certainly not just because a ship happened to be named
Enterprise.[/QUOTE]
I think that the ability for a ship to separate still has it's merits. A ship with two sections, both having Quantum Slipstream and warp capabilities, would give the crew a means to survive and return home, should one of the sections become destroyed. It could also give the captain options for more tactics, which could come in handy if everything else fails, such as using one of the sections by remote control as a decoy or ramming an enemy that can't be defeated or outrun otherwise, giving the entire crew a chance to escape.
I say give the Magellanic class separation abilities! Besides, she seems to have four nacelles, so why not try to work the separation plane to split between them similar to the Prometheus class? Otherwise, the nacelle design doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering that we see nothing like that with the Enterprise-G. By the way, the Congo class has separation ability, so you can't throw away this feature so easily.
I actually worried that I was pushing the envelope with four nacelles, but that seems to be one of the defining characteristics of a heavy cruiser in STO so I ran with it. Not that the
Enterprise necessarily has to be a heavy cruiser but that is its traditional classification. Having said that, I don’t see the Starfleet brass making their decision about which ship will be the next to carry the name
Enterprise based on how many nacelles it has. It’s a matter of prestige, not specific hull configuration.
What’s the rationale for having four nacelles? More power, higher sustainable warp factors, greater redundancy. Perhaps they even found a way to make warp drive itself more efficient by dividing the nacelles into tandem pairs. Whatever the rationale, it’s well established within the STO pantheon of ship design and that’s good enough for me, especially since my entry was one of the few to take that approach (aside from all the badly Photoshopped
Sovereigns with nacelles hanging off them like fruit on an apple tree).
The NX-01 to my knowledge was retired from service before the Federation was actually formed. I personally champion the idea that she was heavily damaged during the Romulan War and retired from service to make way for the Yorktown class (from the Starfleet Museum), and eventually was restored and made a museum ship. Even then, Eaves mentioned in one of his posts that it was planned for the Enterprise to receive among her upgrades for the canceled Season Five, the ability to separate the saucer section.
So, you’re arguing that, even though the NX-01 was named
Enterprise, it didn’t have to have a separable saucer because it wasn’t technically a Federation starship. Somehow I doubt that Starfleet’s shipwrights would base their decisions about things like separable saucers on such finely and irrelevantly split hairs.[/QUOTE]
Again, the one of the upgrades planned for the cancelled season five, according to one of the posts that I read on John Eaves's blog, was the ability for the saucer to separate from the engineering section, if I'm not mistaken. Even if you do not take that into consideration, the NX class was still not as advanced as the later Constitution class. I find it reasonable that ships from the ENT era didn't have hull separation abilities because the technological and architectural limitations at the time, and the possibility that it wasn't seriously considered enough at the time is also a possibility. But for the most part, it seems indicated that most ships classes whose lineages coincide with starships to carry the name Enterprise have the ability to separate their hulls. And Doug Drexler's Congo class Enterprise G also has the ability to separate her hull sections, and I believe that this design is considered to be semi-canon, unless I'm mistaken. I will allow for the possibility that maybe I'm wrong in that case, and if the Congo class isn't canon, then I will admit that the Enterprise F
might possibly abandon the hull separation feature. But if the Congo class were to be accepted as the canon Enterprise G, than it is a fair bet that the Enterprise F would also retain this feature. Which would be fine for your design, because with a bit of work, I think that a hull separation ability would put the Magellanic's four nacelles to good use.
The Ambassador class clearly has a hull separation lining visible, which is similar to the Constitution refit. I don't remember any canon sources stating that the Excelsior class is capable of saucer separation, true. But I do remember that there is at least one fanon source that supports the idea, and it is sound logic to assume that if the Constitution class has it, and the Ambassador class apparently has it, than the Excelsior class must have it as well.
It may seem logical if you’re trying to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion, but otherwise no. Case in point: Every Federation ship named
Enterprise up through the
Ent-D had a neck between the primary and secondary hulls. By your logic, the
Ent-E should have had one as well, but it didn’t. Clearly such assumptions will only get you so far and no farther. I simply chose not to make such assumptions with my design.[/QUOTE]
I suppose that my logic in that case is somewhat flawed in this case. So let me supplement this with another reason. Any benefits that a neck can offer are outweighed by the disadvantages at this point, so they are mostly obsolete, and I feel that they would mostly be present only on niche classes starting in the 2380's. I think that the ability to separate however still has it's merits, as shown with the Prometheus class. I think that Starfleet would continue to utilize and refine this ability in quite a few of their front-line ship classes.