Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomission?

[Deks]

Ok ... so we know the mushroom type star-bases were first seen in mid/late 23rd century.
Taking into consideration that star-ships expected hull life span is about 100 years ... what about the huge star-bases ?

Those bases are indeed quite big, it would be a waste from my own personal opinion to simply scrap them after a century of use.
Wouldn't it be better if SF refitted them (which is normally most likely done with internal systems) by increasing their hull life span in the process ?

Ok ... new mushroom star-bases that were constructed in most recent history wouldn't need life span increase any time soon ... but scrapping the older ones built at the time of Kirk would most likely be not required.

If technology is progressing and the Federation is expanding, they can always move some of those upgraded star-bases to outer sections of Federation space to support ships that are on the outskirts.

I would imagine that after maybe 200 years of use, SF would be convinced to retire the said design until entirely new ones could take place.

I like the idea of such massive structures being able to house star-ships as large as the Galaxy class, or possibly larger.

In the distant future of the late 25th or 26th century, such designs maybe would not be needed.

But I would hope SF would initiate some kind of a program for increasing their life expectancy.

 

[hellsgate]

They'd be refit & individual sections drafted, expanded & replaced as necessary to accomodate the Sovereign-Class & additional classes/varients, comparable in size. To just leave everything as they are, would, of course, invite metal fatigue etc.

It would be a tremendous waste to scrap the entire orbital platform after a century. There will be varients (please see Bravo Fleet & Ship Schematics.Net,) of the Ournal-Class (a.k.a. "Buckingham-Class") used in all the tv shows & movies to depict Starfleet Command.

 

[Deks]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

lol ... well in any case ... refit of the mushroom star-bases is a viable option.

Star Fleet can easily expand the doors to accommodate larger designs.
If they already have stations that can take a Galaxy class in, then a Sovereign will fit with no problem.

The question is if Star Fleet will construct in the future ships larger than a Galaxy class.
Possibly, but not necessarily.

In any case, it would be nice to see mushroom bases in the 'in a few hundred years' future of trek.

 

[jolau]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

I would see it as Starfleet constantly refitting, upgrading, and maintaining the spacedock inside and out, bit by bit, as time passes.
Kinda like how they continuously maintain the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges in San Francisco.

Here's another related question: Why decommission and demolish Babylon 5 after 25 years?

 

[Praetor]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

I see the 'mushroom' starbases as being built over a number of years anyway, so tech upgrades would be planned and probably relatively easy. For example, I see the lower mushroom and core piece directly below being built first, the lower mushroom acting as a protective shield for docked ships but not encolosing them, then the next core tier below, then the upper mushroom part, enclosing the mushroom, then the lower sphere, etc, until you end up with the complete design... similar to how Terok Nor's construction was designed in the DS9 tech manual but over a longer period. I imagine if this was the case then a lot of the components were designed to be swapped out anyway.

 

[Deks]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

well, most if not all Star Fleet ships/stations can undergo upgrades to bring them up to the latest standards.

Granted that older designs might be slightly limited after a century or two for extensive upgrading, but it should be possible.

The Lakota was upgraded mostly internally which made her a worthy adversary for the 24th century.

One other thing ... is it my imagination or is SF rarely upgrading older designs ?
If we take from on screen evidence, the older ships were used on the front lines but were going down in masses.
The Mirandas come in mind for example.

Granted that we shouldn't be taking on screen visual representation of the battles as entirely true ... still ... it kinda points into direction that SF is negligent.

I mean ... take a look at what happened during the Dominion war and them taking over Betazed because the defensive systems were outdated.
What the heck ?
Excuse me, but if they had the time to upgrade DS9 and Lakota before the war even began, what took them so long to upgrade the rest ?

And don't make excuses based on economics and what not since the Feds have the resources to do it.
It's amazing the won the war at all.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

I've always called them "Spacedock-class" starbases myself.

I'm of the opinion that those things are designed to last a minimum of a thousand years and will be constantly upgraded to accommodate future starship designs that may be two or three times the size as the current Sovereign-class (even if that may never come to pass). I think it should be relatively easy for the Starfleet Corps of Engineers to enlarge those spacedoors to fit such conjectural ships.

 

[Timo]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

Enlarging the doors won't be enough, though. While it is entirely plausible that there were larger doors to an Earth Spacedock -sized station in, say, TNG "11001001" (and that we didn't see those doors open wide because of cuts in the action), we still have to face the fact that internal volume will be limited. You could drive a Sovereign through the doors, but the bow would scrape at the central core when the nacelles still prevented the doors from closing...

Well, yeah, you could still park a Sovereign or four. But you couldn't insert anything like a Romulan Warbird there.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

Why would you need to? Ships that big will likely have their own orbital drydocks or specialized facilities to call home.

But for what it's worth though:

Starship Spotter's specs on Spacedock (circa 2290)
DIAMETER AT WIDEST POINT: 4600 meters
HEIGHT: 6900-6950 meters, depending on tower configuration

[Shrugs]
(In the lack of any real onscreen evidence to the contrary, I'd say it's as good a figure as any...)

In any event, it's a given that the larger the ships are, the fewer ships that will be able to fit within a Spacedock-class station. I don't think these enclosed facilities are anything more than giant spaceports, so there will always be a limit to how many ships can be harbored within them based on size.

But I also go by Starship Spotter's idea that in addition to enlarging the spacedoors on some facilities that there were also larger versions of these Spacedocks in service as well that were built in the 24th-Century.

 

[Timo]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

I also feel that these structures are much more than mere starports or starbases. By size, they are entire city-states in orbit - their main task might be to provide space habitation and industries, with just the incidental docking pier or ten at one end of the structure.

They aren't very functional as starship support facilities, and indeed Earth Spacedock may be primarily intended for something else. A civilian starport in addition to orbital city, perhaps? We have only peered into it once or twice, at times of crisis; in comparable times, New York harbors would also have been full of warships, despite not being naval bases as such.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

Well to me, a spaceport is a multipurpose facility that services both military and civilian ships. But that's just my definition.

But indeed, Starship Spotter also cites these Spacedock-class facilities also as being basically cities in space--complete with industrial and commercial areas as well as even being tourist destinations for civilians. Yeah, they are more than just Starfleet facilities, even if one is officially designated as a starbase.

Personally, I think these facilities serve more in the capacity of friendly ports of call within Federation space. Starfleet vessels are stationed there, but so are civilian vessels too, including luxury liners, probably. Starfleet will still have to rely on dedicated shipyards and other support facilities for servicing the bulk of the fleet though.

 

[Timo]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

...even if one is officially designated as a starbase.

We might need to be careful here. While we see the E-D entering such a structure when "arriving at SB 74", that doesn't necessarily mean the structure is SB 74. All it has to mean is that SB 74 is in that structure.

Similarly, while we see Commander Quinteros in charge of receiving the E-D, that doesn't mean Commander Quinteros commands SB 74, let alone the entire mushroom wherein SB 74 is located...

SB 74 was said to be repairing a ship or two, and ST4 showed plenty of starships inside Spacedock Earth, but both facilities appear ill equipped to perform major repairs or construction. Or then their cranes and umbilicals are carefully camouflaged, which of course is perfectly possible. Still, I'd rather think these facilities chiefly cater for crew rotation, refueling and replenishment of consumables - things that take just a few days at worst, and may be achieved through a single docking arm. There would be a swarm of military docks around such a structure for actual teardown-style repairs or construction, even if the mushroom is a major manufacturing center for the components that get installed in such docks...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

Timo said:

...even if one is officially designated as a starbase.

We might need to be careful here. While we see the E-D entering such a structure when "arriving at SB 74", that doesn't necessarily mean the structure is SB 74. All it has to mean is that SB 74 is in that structure.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm talking about there. Even if a facility is referred to as a starbase, it may simply be that the station is where the command facility is located and that it performs other non-Starfleet functions as well.

Similarly, while we see Commander Quinteros in charge of receiving the E-D, that doesn't mean Commander Quinteros commands SB 74, let alone the entire mushroom wherein SB 74 is located...

I can definitely agree with that. I also think that the administration of such facilities can vary. Some starbases may be commanded by command-rank or flag-rank officers, while some could even be under civilian administration (like a local government council).

SB 74 was said to be repairing a ship or two, and ST4 showed plenty of starships inside Spacedock Earth, but both facilities appear ill equipped to perform major repairs or construction. Or then their cranes and umbilicals are carefully camouflaged, which of course is perfectly possible. Still, I'd rather think these facilities chiefly cater for crew rotation, refueling and replenishment of consumables - things that take just a few days at worst, and may be achieved through a single docking arm. There would be a swarm of military docks around such a structure for actual teardown-style repairs or construction, even if the mushroom is a major manufacturing center for the components that get installed in such docks...

Yes, but...I really hate the term "mushrooms" as the common name of these type of stations though...makes me want to order a pizza, y'know?

 

[Praetor]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

I'm liking the idea of the 'shrooms as space-city/space-harbor with a starbase as an incidental part. It really makes the whole thing make much more sense to me.

 

[Deks]

Re: Mushroom starbases - increased 'life span' or decomissio

Well I always did look at those larger bases as space-cities that can also hold star ships.

To consider that such bases are incapable of conducting construction/repair/upgrade of star ships would not be viable due to the fact they have been referenced on the contrary.

Plus I don't think any holding cranes or similar things are required due to the fact that most of the damage to a starship can be repaired internally.
As for damage to the outer plates ... that's what work-bees are for along with shuttles.
So in the 23rd to 24th century you really wouldn't need any extensions to create a star ship inside a star base.
And even if they did use any extensions, then they would be covered most likely in their place-holder areas.

Such bases would be nice to see in deep space on outskirts of Federation space and not just contained within the Federation itself.