baithammer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:18 pm
Except it doesn't form part of the ship, it fits inside the ship but adds functionality the ship doesn't already have. ( Hence a modular space is provided in the ship's hull for it and is covered in the hulls cost.)
Classic modular cutter or MGT? Classic modular cutters modules do become part of the ship, as you can walk from flight deck to module going through a door, and then through another door to the engine compartment. Otherwise you'd have to access the rear by belly crawling through the spine access tube.
baithammer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:18 pm
Modules by definition aren't integral to the ship, hence they can be swapped out without impairing the ship's function.
I think that is too strict of a definition. Modular can mean that, or it can be more expansive. Depending on the design, a ship could be configured to be totally modular, and without the modules present it is nothing more than a simple frame (At the extreme of modularization).
baithammer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:18 pm
That function is covered by either an External cargo mount if operating solely in space or by the breakaway hull option if you need to operate in atmosphere.
I would disagree - but only for this specific instance. The modular cutter (classic design) does not treat SOME of it's modules that way. There are modules that would fall within this category, but most do not. Most of the modules, when attached, create a single craft with only a very slight gap between the module and the cutter itself. They are like high-speed railsets where the separate cars are basically a part of an entire train and the passenger doesn't notice the engineering behind the scenes to make individual cars into one single flowing car.
An external mount is different in operation and concept than the integrated module of the modular cutter. The Eagle from the Space 1999 series is also a good example of how combining the two creates something new (and essentially one) vehicle.