Fed Module Debate

posted on October 26th, 2010, 6:46 pm

The ISS is modular only in the sense of being put together in pieces - that's not the same thing as attaching separate pieces together like Legos or Tinker Toys  . The shuttle's rocket engines even more so - the original plan may have been to have them all modular, but they were integrated and must be very carefully fine-tuned when replaced.

posted on October 26th, 2010, 7:25 pm

I mean in the sense that we build and take up pieces of the ISS as modules which each have a specific purpose.  They are actually called on the shuttle manifest.

The shuttle is only modular because of the way they put things in the cargo bay, but the rockets are modular because they launch together together, fall th the ground/ocean, and can sometimes be re-used.

The rockets themselves like the Apollo mission one(the name escapes me but I think it is a Saturn V) is/was more modular than when the projecct began, simply because they reused the back half without modifying them to make use for the Orion mission.  The only major differences were in the cockpit module.  They still used the same motors and fuel sections, they just made a new capsule for it.


But what is this debate actually about again?   I neglected to read the topic.

posted on October 26th, 2010, 7:36 pm

tokra seems to think that nebula class ships were built with modular superstructures. then he conceeded that this is not true in canon.

now we are arguing about whether its plausible as an idea for starfleet to build the nebula with the pods meant to be swapped. he thinks pods are stored and used when needed.

me and tyler say that would be resource inefficient due to the fact that these modules would cost so much.

i'm glad dom split it, it shouldnt have been off topic in the probe thread.

posted on October 26th, 2010, 8:13 pm

Yeah, though modular pods would be cool, it would be inefficient to build all the pods, store them, and only use some.

However, if you did the Nebula like the borg ships that would be cool.  It would be kinda neat if the nebula didn't have a pod at all, but instead you had to select the pod you wanted and the ship would stop and build your selected pod, much like borg modules, but instead, it would put like scaffolding around that section, build the pod, and then the scaffolding would blow off like for the borg.

Not that it would plausible for a warpin ship, but it would be pretty cool, none the less.

posted on October 26th, 2010, 8:22 pm

if nebulae were buildable, choosing the top bit would be very cool. but for warpin you shouldnt get a choice.

maybe another fed ship, the successor to the nebula. kinda like nebula is to galaxy, it would be to the sovvie.

a new ship, but with a superstructure u can choose using the module system. they could add other modules too.

the monsoon kinda looks like this. maybe a monsoon could have a sensor pod on top lol. give it extended sensor range, but no torp special.

posted on October 26th, 2010, 9:16 pm

ok about it taking a while to separate and replace the pods is silly because all u have to do is look at the galaxy separate and rejoin can b done in minutes

also its never innefficiant to be prepared for anything and to me with all the hostile and powerful races in trek the feds would have a few spare tacticle pods laying around in storage for such as the dominion war
(i personnally dont recall seeing sensor nebs in battle) (but plz correct me if im wrong)

plus how is it more cost effective to build a whole ship over a pod ??? naphack explains why[quote][/quote]-
-Pulse weaponry
-A warp core
-A Full impulse drive
-Full corridors, a bridge, a board computer, a complete sensor system
-Quantum torp launchers
-A deflector
-A Full set of Equipment such as Phasers etc. for the crew
-Some kind of Emergency Energy and redundant systems, spare parts etc.
-All those nifty Extras: Shuttles, Mines, etc.

so all im saying if trek was real (which it most certainly aint) (and if the neb pods can separate)
it would be more cost effective to have a few spare pods for the occasional galactic war

oh and the problem with storing the pods well i find that amusing have u guys actually seen the size of the fed starbases

id also like to point out that such things as a tractor beam exist in trek so no need for a self moving pod,all it needs to b able to do is detach from the neb and the beam would do the rest,same goes for reattaching

so even though it hasnt been mentioned in cannon i can see no reason why it couldnt to me it makes MORE sense for the pods to b interchangeable

posted on October 26th, 2010, 9:24 pm

Yay!!! Nebula Class separation!!!

posted on October 26th, 2010, 9:26 pm

id also like to add why build a ship with different modules when they arent replaceable that is just not very cost effective

build a whole new ship with tacticle pod > or build a pod for a fraction of the resources and replace the sensor pod of an already existing nebula hmmm which is more cost effective i wonder ?  :lol:

posted on October 26th, 2010, 9:35 pm

So you reckon building an entire fleet of pods that will mostly do nothing but take up room while being as large as full starships is efficient? Setting the role at construction is best.

Seperation is not the best example; the Galaxy is designed as 2 fully functioning ships, the Nebula is not.

posted on October 26th, 2010, 9:51 pm

ok ill say this again a few pods stored in a structure that can house many galaxy sized star ships should have no problems in storing them and like tok,ra has said NOT a whole fleets worth of pods just a few tacticle pods at stratigic locations ,for example the nearest starbase to the romulan border would have say 2-3 tacticle pods spare

and yes i do say its more cost effective to build a pod that can change the role of an already existing ship over a whole new ship when the only difference is what pod the nebula has


i used the galaxy as an example of how easy it is to separate and rejoin and the pods could b done in a very similar way ie where the pod joins to the hull

[Tyler]

posted on October 26th, 2010, 10:00 pm

Last edited by Tyler on October 26th, 2010, 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seperation is still not that good an example. It works for the Galaxy because the 2 halves are seperate ships, adding that feature to the superstructure of a Nebula would be the same as adding it to a Warp nacelle.

Myles explained the reason it is inefficient and wasteful:

this is completely obvious. building modules with the sole purpose of sitting around waiting for missions is plain wasteful. these resources go into stuff that sits around doing nothing. you're assuming a nebula can swap pods like removing a lego piece. this is plain barmy. no evidence has ever been shown of this. maybe if we saw a nebula pod separate (like galaxy saucer sep). even if we assume its quick to swap pods, the nebula still has to travel back to where the pod is. which takes time too. its much better value for money to have more ships, rather than 1 ship that can switch pods. its inefficient because resources are sitting around in pods doing nothing, when these resources could have made ships which actually do stuff. starfleet never had loads of ships around to respond. they only made 12 galaxy class. lets say they made 30-50 nebula class. thats still not a huge amount, and most areas wont have such large illustrious ships nearby. starfleet always seemed to be spread pretty thin during peace time, with ships all out exploring deep space, away from any base where pods could be stored. nebula classes were shown to be used as explorers (a ds9 ep springs to mind, with that woman who beat bashir in medical school was on the nebula class ship exploring deep space) building these pods and leaving them laying around gathering dust is wasting money.

Another point of view.

Saucer Seperation:

The difference here is that the Galaxy is usually only separated for a short time, and the saucer is part of the ship.  It's not like they have saucer sections lying around for you to switch them out.  You use the same saucer because over time, each ship has been modified by the chief engineer.  On many occasions they've stated that starships in the field end up much different than the design specifications.  There's an episode with Leah Brahms where she complains to him about all the changes he's made.  If the Enterprise did have to get a new saucer section for some reason, it is high likely that they would need to modify/refit it to make it work with the stardrive section.

The same would hold true for a pod which would need to integrate with their systems.  It's not like you're adding truck nuts on your Ford F-150 and calling it a day.   There would have to be inspections, and tests to see if everything is compatible.  The ye old diagnostic scan could take up to 8 hours sometimes, so it could take days or weeks to shake down a module that hasn't been used in years!

Storage:

The difference here is that the Galaxy is usually only separated for a short time, and the saucer is part of the ship.  It's not like they have saucer sections lying around for you to switch them out.  You use the same saucer because over time, each ship has been modified by the chief engineer.  On many occasions they've stated that starships in the field end up much different than the design specifications.  There's an episode with Leah Brahms where she complains to him about all the changes he's made.  If the Enterprise did have to get a new saucer section for some reason, it is high likely that they would need to modify/refit it to make it work with the stardrive section.

The same would hold true for a pod which would need to integrate with their systems.  It's not like you're adding truck nuts on your Ford F-150 and calling it a day.   There would have to be inspections, and tests to see if everything is compatible.  The ye old diagnostic scan could take up to 8 hours sometimes, so it could take days or weeks to shake down a module that hasn't been used in years!

Starbase

There are very few of those super large starbases.  Most starbases we see far from earth are like the outpost from SoA, which can't hold any starships, only allow them to dock.  Are the pods just going to hang out in space?

posted on October 26th, 2010, 10:35 pm

i still say building a few spare pods and placing them at certain starbases where they could b put to the best use is more cost effective

and like ive said no point in building a ship with different modules if the modules arent replacable thats silly and makes no sense

the spare pods would many b the tacticle pods therefore greatly increases the nebulas combat cababilities and would b stored for emergancy like WAR and defence

being prepared is never wasteful

as for the separation im not saying that the nebulas pod separates exactly like the galaxy but a similar mechanism 

ok heres how id imagine it

a nebula with a sensor pod enters starbase and comes to a full stop the pod releases its secondary clamps(or watever is holding it there) but wait the pod doesnt move?? then it all become clear as the station activates its tractorbeam on the pod ,then and only then the nebula releases its primary clamps(or whatever technobabble mechanism) and the pod is tractered away at the same time the new tacticle pod is being removed from storage and tractered to the nebula etc

see not hard to imagine at all is it 

[Tyler]

posted on October 26th, 2010, 11:30 pm

Last edited by Tyler on October 26th, 2010, 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i still say building a few spare pods and placing them at certain starbases where they could b put to the best use is more cost effective

and like ive said no point in building a ship with different modules if the modules arent replacable thats silly and makes no sense

the spare pods would many b the tacticle pods therefore greatly increases the nebulas combat cababilities and would b stored for emergancy like WAR and defence

being prepared is never wasteful

When it uses resourses for something that won't be used and just sits in a storage bay because it can only be used by a small fraction of the fleet when it could instead be put towards something useful (like an actual warship), then it's wasteful. Each pod has the same amount of hull/frame as a Defiant, which would be a wiser construction.

Nebula pod or Defiant; which would be more useful in a battle? Sabre, Norway, ect would also be a more useful alternative to a science ship with adittional weapons. Numbers are as important as weapons often, as is recon and border patrol.

as for the separation im not saying that the nebulas pod separates exactly like the galaxy but a similar mechanism 

It would need to done the way the Galaxy does it, the Galaxy one only works because of how they set it up.

ok heres how id imagine it

a nebula with a sensor pod enters starbase and comes to a full stop the pod releases its secondary clamps(or watever is holding it there) but wait the pod doesnt move?? then it all become clear as the station activates its tractorbeam on the pod ,then and only then the nebula releases its primary clamps(or whatever technobabble mechanism) and the pod is tractered away at the same time the new tacticle pod is being removed from storage and tractered to the nebula etc

see not hard to imagine at all is it 

Interesting RPG/novel idea, I wonder if any writers considered that method? The Starfleet battles game could probably find that very useful.

posted on October 27th, 2010, 12:46 am

ok id like to say yes the pods are around the same size as a defiant but would cost nowhere near the same amount of resources because the defiant is solely designed for combat ,so it has the ablative armour ,stronger weapons etc etc, also the replicater tech the feds have is very good and those things literally make SOMETHING out of NOTHING(or very little),or watch the ds9 episode with the self replicating mines.

and about the pods just sitting there doing nothing , its called being prepared , why wouldnt u store them

and like ive said already why have pods for the nebula class if they are not replacable? just seems silly to not have them b interchangable

and i just thought of something i dont think the contruction of a pod would take long (no warp core and such) to build so maybe they could be built on demand so u wouldnt have to store them yay 

erm why would it have to be the galaxys way ,there are many ways things can b attached and dissconnected even in trek clamps,locks,magnetic thingies etc etc .i only used the galaxy as a reference to show that the feds do have the separation tech and wouldnt just use it for one class of ship, hmmm the promethius comes to mind etc

and ty i thought so too 

sorry about my spelling 

posted on October 27th, 2010, 1:08 am

The thing is, there's no indication that the modules are or aren't replaceable.  There are arguments for both sides, and after seeing this argument go on for a while I doubt it's going to be resolved.