This one kinda threw me for a loop....

[Doublecross0]

How do you handle Starbase movement? My players are the senior officers aboard a Starbase and wanted to move their Starbase to another part of the solar system they are in. Approximately how long should this take? Can a Starbase have an impulse engine? They pointed out that in the first episode of DS9, the station moved itself under its own power a fairly significant distance from Bajor and it looked like it moved fairly rapidly too. Any suggestions on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated. On a somewhat related note, can a starbase have a cloak?

[Erik Filean]

Originally posted by Doublecross0:
How do you handle Starbase movement? My players are the senior officers aboard a Starbase and wanted to move their Starbase to another part of the solar system they are in. Approximately how long should this take? Can a Starbase have an impulse engine? They pointed out that in the first episode of DS9, the station moved itself under its own power a fairly significant distance from Bajor and it looked like it moved fairly rapidly too. Any suggestions on how to handle this would be greatly appreciated. On a somewhat related note, can a starbase have a cloak?

It was only possible to move DS9 so far because O'Brien rigged the shields to lower the inertial mass of the station so the few operational attitude thrusters could push it. The station was never designed to do it, nor does it in any way show that it has impulse engines.

Barring exceptional story-generated conditions, I see no reason why a space station should be flown around a system. A space station is stationary (or, rather, moves in an orbit defined by gravitational forces)--hence the term. Ordinarily, moving one should require one or more ships to serve as tugs.

As for a cloaked station, sure, you can do it, but the benefit is a little limited because of that fixed orbit thing. All an enemy would have to do is mine the orbital path.

[Gemini]

Most stations are built with some long-term function in mind and don't need much mobility. DS9 was originally an ore processing facility and its designers never imagined a need to move it away from the mines on Bajor. The same holds true for orbital Starbases and construction docks.

A station in orbit around a system's star rather than one of the system's planets has more flexibility. It might be equipped with thrusters powerful enough to significantly change its orbit. Some of the paths taken by today's space probes provide good examples of the kind of mobility a station might have inside of a system. The more powerful thrusters available in the 23rd and 24th Centuries would result in quicker orbital changes as well. However, it would still take weeks or months to make major changes to the station's orbit.

Cloaking a station has limited value, since the cloak needs to be turned off at some point (for maintenance, if nothing else), revealing the location and orbit of the station. However, there are other ways of hiding a station. Building it in a remote location and making it as small and stealthy as possible is one approach. Another is to build it into an asteroid or comet.

[Dan Gurden]

Well in your DS9 example the station nearly ripped itself apart when it was moving rapidly under its own thrusters. The danger and slow speeds were solved by the drop in the inertial mass.

Looking at it from that angle, you would find that most stations wouldn't have much in the way of IDF fields, maybe just a primary and backup system to compensate for subspace turbulance. This in itself could prove a problem when moving.

Although the solar research station with greater movement control would likely have the same system as Starships, ie; 1 primary and 2 back up x size.

I would say that using the space movement rules a station using thrusters would move .5c a day, and if fitted with Imulse Thrusters and IDF's could maybe even get up to .1c per round...

It seems harsh, but thats where the players and their technobabble come in...

Sound Fair?

Also check the Spacedock Board out, theres a thread about Station systems, and one for carrier systems that could adapt easily...

------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts from a random mind!"

[Calcoran]

Well, one could imagine a region of space where orbits are extremely variable and unpredictable. Systems with twin or multiple planets, lots of asteroid fields possibly, planets moving fast enough to need quantum mechanics in order to compute their orbits (if we want to go into technobabble, we could say that Eisenberg uncertainty makes it extremely hard to forecast where it will be at a given time or something like that). Of course a station would need powerful thrusters to survive in such conditions, but cloaks would definitely be an option in this case.

[Dan Gurden]

Originally posted by Calcoran:
(if we want to go into technobabble, we could say that Eisenberg uncertainty makes it extremely hard to forecast where it will be at a given time or something like that).

You mean of course Heisenberg the physicist not Eisenberg the actor?

Sorry couldn't resist...


------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts from a random mind!"

[Diamond]

Dan,

.5c is a velocity measurement, not a distance measurement. c is the speed of light, ~300000km/second.

I was going to say that it doesn't make any sense to say 300000km per second per day but then I realized it made perfect sense- that is an acceleration measurement! The propulsion stats in the Star Trek core game book always list velocities, a necessary and understandable simplification of a very complex issue to make it cinematic.

[toadkiller]

From a physics standpoint, yes a station would likely have something on the order of a ship's impulse engines. Everytime a ship docks with the station or someone beams something heavy on or off the base it will alter the orbit due to changes in mass and 'nudges' given to it.

Since a lot of stations are much larger and 'heavier' than ships they would need large engines - even if they just want to stay in one orbit.

I'd handle it by letting them move around a system over a number or days/weeks with no dice rolls or stresses to the station structure. It would only if they wanted to go "fast" like DS9 (they had a time limit IIRC) that the station would be stressed. For more drama have them do a slingshot orbit around a gas giant or something (see A. Clarke's 2010).

------------------
TK

[First of Two]

Don't you think the station's own inertia would kep it from moving all tat much when ships dock with it? That and thrusters should be able to handle that particular job.
Same with keeping the station aloft. It only takes the occasional boost to keep our current stations up, so a proportionally relative thruster system should be enough to keep a Starbase up.

On the other hand, there should be, I would think, Monitor-type stations that COULD have some degree of mobility, perhaps on the order of orbital defense platforms.

On the gripping hand, any degree of movement for a standard station should be very slow indeed. It was a remarkable set of circumstances that allowed DS9 to be moved, one which is not likely to be repeated in THAT century.

------------------
"Guchk *Cough* muu ougtgha hrrgh!" -- Cmdr. An-tule Lemayan, USS Boadicea
"I'd have to say that's the worst case of smuush I've ever seen." -- Dr. Sonachai Smith, CMO, USS Boadicea

[hellsgate]

http://www.angelfire.com/ak4/startre...driaClass.html

To answer your question directly (instead of nit-picking at the technical criteria involved,) I'd say it should take about a day and a half to cross a solar system at low impulse & its' inertial dampers on full. Plus everyone at "General Quarters" & strapped in to safety harnesses in their quarters or in "Op's".

Maybe a few hours if the station were thoroughly emptied-out (prior to the Command Staff boarding & taking "official" posession) & had full-sized Sovereign-Class, Excelsior-Class, or Prometheus-Class ships in attendance to haul it into its new position via tractor-beams.

[LUGTrekGM]

From a nit-picker:

Well, one could imagine a region of space where orbits are extremely variable and unpredictable. Systems with twin or multiple planets, lots of asteroid fields possibly, planets moving fast enough to need quantum mechanics in order to compute their orbits...

One could also imagine that given such a system, a less hostile to starbase deployment system, (A tiny class M star can be found virtually anywhere) or alternatively, deep space would be selected. I mean given that a starbase is a big investment...

(if we want to go into technobabble, we could say that Eisenberg uncertainty makes it extremely hard to forecast where it will be at a given time or something like that). Of course a station would need powerful thrusters to survive in such conditions...

Or we could use real science, and call it the 3+ Body problem.

Changes in mass a la docked ship are not going to significantly change the total mass of the ship+starbase combination, relative to the mass of the planet or solar primary it is orbiting, which is the real source of the orbital mechanic. Station-keeping thrusters and diligent orbital distance sampling and daily corrections will handle it.

Moving a starbase at any speed beyond station-keeping speeds are expressly what (in theory) Inertial Dampening Fields are designed to do. Without it, the hull will fracture, crumple, and warp at any significant portion of c.

The real question that comes to mind is: Why do they want to move the station? If it is to make use of the station's weapons, as if it was a starship, then you've just created a really slow super dreadnought, with nothing stopping it from just sailing off to hostile space and torching things in its path...with a suitable escort fleet.

Just don't go there. Tell them "No."

If they WANT a new base there, have them requisition permission and materials from Starfleet corp of engineers, and have a new outpost built, which they then supervise over a few scenarios, cleanse of spies, and sabotage and there it is.

The only system likely to have two starbases is Earth, or perhaps Andor.