Star Bases and their maintenance

[Corik (OP)]

Right now, overhauling a Star Base is quite problematic unless it's located in a colony. Some of us have been suggesting that Star Bases should be out of the maintenance rule, but I just thought another possible solution: An "engineer ship". This would be just a normal ship with a module similar to sorium extractors, miners or terraformers but which could do overhaul of ships in space. You can just send this ship to your star bases and start maintenance works on them. The overhauling process could require the ship to have access to minerals.

Maybe the overhauling rate could be increased as for know it feels pretty slow (building a new ship is faster than overhauling a 5yo ship)... but that's another suggestion

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Maintenance modules already exist.  It's just expensive and difficult to cart around enough for ships/bases of any real size.

In any case, overhaul requirements are going to pale in comparison to shore leave requirements for starbases. xD

[Corik (OP)]

True. Another problem...

Ah well... I guess I'll have to forget about star bases xD

[Aldaris]

You could instead implement an alternative maintenance module that stops the maintenance clock for as long as the minerals required for maintenance are present on board the vessel.

[Garfunkel]

But that's what the current maintenance modules already do.

[Corik (OP)]

Those modules only work in colonies afaik. They add their capacity to the population.

[Garfunkel]

Yes.

Ah, now I get it - Aldaris is suggesting a module that could keep the starbase clock not ticking as it travels -  so you would need a cargo hold present in the design for the minerals and then this special maintenance module.

[madpraxis]

How bout just adding a 'starbase' flag to tick that requires the design have no engines? Design it, build it. Except you don't 'build' it. You build sections, then ship them to the site, then assemble them. Much like a PDC.
Maintenance is easy. With the starbase flag you run a calculation to figure out how many minerals per x amount of time you need to keep things up. If the minerals are not present (as in, not in a  cargo hold on the starbase, could do pull from docked ships but then you run into the problem of what if you don't want it pulling from ship x, but from ship y..easier to pull from built in cargo hold, KISS) then maintenance clock time is added. Now, maintenance supplies (as in the ship ones) should ALSO be required, again matching the mineral needs time. Should there be many needed? No...same with minerals. Now, keeping a stockpile of supplies on hand would be good, due to the fact that some items (just like ships) may break. It happens. No matter how well you take care of something, sometimes they just go splat.
For a good example, look at an aircraft carrier. They carry repair and FABRICATION supplies that can last their whole deployment time. Starbases should work just like that.
A self contained environment that needs outside supplies to exist. You could add hydroponics, green spaces, algae vats, whatever under 'Life Support' generic item. Make them need a stock of food. Let them count as destinations for trade vessels.
Should any maintenance module be needed? Yes I say. Make it starbase specific. Need x starbase maintenance modules per starbase section when fully assembled. There you go, the machine shops, repair bays, union meeting rooms, all the stuff needed to maintain a large structure assembled under one room
Should orbital habitats and starbases co-exist. Yes I say. When I picture orbital habitat, I picture something like...hrm..'the moon is a harsh mistress' or some such book. Where they exist to be a lay-over point for resting between shifts. That's it. Nothing fancy. Which means an ease of maintenance. Like the pile of overpriced crap we have in orbit, except you know, built well so it doesn't keep falling apart
Starbase I picture as..well..not a bernal sphere, to small scale. Nor a stanford torus for the same reason, though I guess they could be scaled upwards. I picture a o'neill cylinder to be honest as a starbase. I did even before the first time I saw babylon 5 way back when on tv (you know, when it first came out...I feel old..) and did a giddy dance about the o'neill cylinder...
Now, the advantages of doing them as a slightly altered PDC are many. The prime one we really really care about? It would make it easy for our man Steve to make a few changes to the PDC code and throw out starbases rather easily.
As for civilian vs. military starbases? I say allow up to x tonnage of weapons on a civilian starbase, when that point is passed, it counts as a military station. This would allow military starbases that can actually defend themselves. The military ones should of course require more maintenance modules per assembly unit. Along with a higher consumption of minerals and supplies. The manpower requirements just for maintenance and such should be lessened in my mind on a military starbase due to the inherent overbuilding that is all part of military design.
Just some ideas I had on the spur of the moment and spent a minute organising in my brain before typing them out...cheers!

[Elouda]

With the new changes to crew, the following could be done for stations.

A flag like 'Tanker', etc, or a new category like PDC, which would require the following;

1. No engines.
2. A crew design duration of more than say, 3 years.
3. A 'station maintenance' module (100tons) for every 2000tons of station.

If these were met, the station could;

1. Consume minerals for maintenance (only when over a colony, either from cargo or from the planet).
2. Consume maintenance supplies when being towed or not over a colony.
3. When doing either of these, it would not accrue maintenance clock. However, the failure rate would be set as some fixed value so you would still have to occasional failure, requiring maintenance supplies to fix even in orbit.
4. Be buildable like Orbital Habitats are.

[swarm_sadist]

With the new changes to crew, the following could be done for stations.
A flag like 'Tanker', etc, or a new category like PDC, ...

While this would work, it seems like a simple arbitration than a rule set. I personally don't see why a very large ship can't be self sustaining. That's one of the benefits of large ships, their easier to do repairs and maintenance on, not to mention much more reliable and long lived.

I believe there should be a fatigue rating based on the size of the ship and it's purpose, increases steadily over time, independent of the maintenance clock. This would represent the spinal structure of a ship, or the support system that the ship is built around and would be nearly impossible to replace through a simple overhaul. A ship would only be able to survive for as long as it's capable of withstanding fatigue. A large superfreighter would not experience much fatigue in it's life, and even a freighter with a relatively low fatigue limit would still last several years (think liberty class).

A battleship would be built stronger, but would experience fatigue in the form of battle manoeuvres, enemy fire and maintenance failures. While a battleship would have a higher fatigue limit (better construction), it would reach that limit faster. A fighter would be even worse, with modern fighters barely lasting a decade before being decommissioned for safety concerns. While you could theoretically use a ship long after it's metal fatigue reaches it's critical limit, the first battle manoeuvre it makes may break the ship in two.

A space station would experience no such fatigue, so they would last longer (except for a battle station). A component that performs self-maintenance can then be designed like a jump drive, with a certain amount of space dedicated to the maintenance comp that can maintain itself and any ships in the area, much like squadron size and jump distance of jump engines. The ship would eventually require replacement because of fatigue, unless it's an orbital way-station or fleet tender ship (again, a ship that goes not move as much and sees as little combat as possible would last decades, if not centuries).

[UnLimiTeD]

While an interesting idea, it essentially just adds another layer of maintenance to other ships, instead of easing the situation for Space stations.
Keep in mind Aurora has no actual movement, ships can be assumed to move in spacetime bubbles.

[swarm_sadist]

While an interesting idea, it essentially just adds another layer of maintenance to other ships, instead of easing the situation for Space stations.
Keep in mind Aurora has no actual movement, ships can be assumed to move in spacetime bubbles.

My idea was having the current maintenance clock to deal with the internal electronics, electrical systems, plumbing and heating, weapons and active defense systems. The current maintenance effect could even be more mild, as an internal overhaul is much cheaper and faster than a structural overhaul (a process so expensive it's cheaper to retool and build a new ship). A logistics tech that would increase the rate of overhaul could be implemented, lowering penalties of having overhauls on.

While I know Aurora has no actual movement, that defeats the purpose of having a large, self sustaining starbase. If anything can have engines, then there is no reason to restrict self-maintenance modules to only stationary objects.

Expanding on the idea of Efficiency Maintenance Modules, you could have dedicated fleet tenders which do minor overhauls in space, or utility shuttles capable of repair and maintenance.

[hostergaard]

Why not take a note from missile launchers?

Have a tick that define it as "boxed" or not.  So we have "boxed" ships designed with space efficiency in mind that are very small, but can only perform self-repairs to a limited degree through their maintenance areas or repair drones.  They need specialized equipment and areas for any real repairs and replacements, shipyards or hangars.  The equivalent of a laptop.

Then there is ships built with self-sustainability in mind, "non-boxed".  They are much larger but can, if they have the necessary resources, keep the ship/base itself in top shape because everything is built to be easily accessible and replaceable.  Like desktop computers. 

[se5a]

just keep the AFR for stations, but remove the clock so the rate does not increase.

[Bremen]

just keep the AFR for stations, but remove the clock so the rate does not increase.

This sounds like a great idea to me; if vessels without engines could still suffer breakdowns but didn't have a maintenance clock, it would make orbital and deep space weapons platforms much more practical. All you'd need would be a ship to drop off maintenance supplies every few years.