Re: [ft]modular ships

--- bif smith <bif@bifsmith.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Been reading the debate on modular ships, and have a
> few questions-
> 1-Is the debate about a normal ship hull with the
> weapons in moduals, as
> explaned by others as in present ships?
XXX
     I think the majority for posters are in 
agreement with this as the basic concept.
XXX

> 2-Or are the ideas more along the lines of a ship as
> a spinal core with everything attached?
XXX
     This has been mentioned mostly in the form
of the 'additional thrust' module.   Both concepts
are valid, the problem is in the form of execution
of the concept.   
XXX

> If it`s the first, the dissadvantages may be
> minimal, along the lines of a
> threshold check on a modual disabling all
> weapons/equipment in that modual.
> Also, I`d say that for the first design that only
> the weapons/electronics
> may be altered. The drives/hull etc are fixed.
XXX
     The 'module loss' check yould be better
implimented under a core systems check rather 
than a threshold check.   Reason: The design 
would have multiple various 'feeds' into and 
out of the module to prevent this from being
a problem.   Agreed, the basic hull should 
not change, this concept is the stuffing
of a weapons bay into the cargo hold of a
freighter.   
XXX

> For the second idea, I`d say that virtually
> everything is able to be
> changed, including drives (but excluding FTL). This
> would allow more
> flexibility, but make the ship more vulnerable.
> After all, the ship isn`t
> built as a one piece vessel, but as a group of
> separate parts, increasing
> the chance of literally "blowing off" the separate
> sections, and losing
> whatever was installed in than section. My reasoning
> being that the ship
> would only be as strong as the connections between
> the different sections.
> After all, if you design everything to be removable,
> you are introducing a
> week point into the ship. I would never use these
> ship myself, because I
> don`t want to use ships that are weeker than
> nessasery.
XXX
     While the logic is there, the counter is
simple:   Since the designers know of the problem,
the 'connection' points are better protected than
the majority of the ship systems.   By this I 
mean the 'bolts' are 'protected' by main structural
members of the ship.   This form of protection 
does not draw any mass/point penalty because to
destroy the 'bolt' you must destroy the main
structure of the ship.

     Change trains!
     As far as thrust goes...	The game logic
of high 'G' ships are required to have weak
hulls (or not carry a useful payload) is rather
strange.   However, nothing can be done about that.
The bolt on engine module must be handled in a
different way.	 The ship must be designed for the 
largest possible thrust and payload the ship may
be called upon to carry.  

DISADVANTAGES:
1) Must have an oversized structure.
2) Must buy additional modules.
3) Limited firing arcs for the module weapons.
   (The forward module mount can fire forward
   and one of the broadsides.	The aft mount
   can fire aft and one of the broadsides.
   All other mounts can only be 2 arc broadside.
4) The ship structure would not be protected
   by module armor, the structure and armor
   would share hits equally.
5) Such a ship would not be much faster to turn
   around than a normal ship after having taken
   battle damage.   The module replacement would
   be fast enough, the repair of the damaged 
   structure still requires time.   Unless you 
   are willing to send the ship into battle
   with half the first row of damage boxes 
   shot off.
6) Probably 10% of the module mass is for the
   module structure.
7) Only weapons mounted on the ship structure
   could have more that three arc coverage.
   (this would include PDS)
This is the penalty for the modular ability
as I see it.
XXX
> Make sence to anybody else?
> 
> BIF
> 
XXX
     This is sceince fiction, there is no question
that the concept 'can be done'.   The questions are;
How will the concept be implemented?
What points costs are required?
What limitations on design are required?

Comments?

Bye for now,
John L.