ravells
January 17th, 2007, 05:38 AM
I want to document the evolution of a starport in simple pictures. The first stage in building a starport is for two modular cutters (one containing earth-moving equipment and the other containing equipment to build the port) to land equipment at the chosen site.
The second stage is for the earth moving equipment to level the terrain. So in frame one we have the cutters which have landed and in frame 2 some vehicles moving about and a few crates which have been unloaded prior to 'terrain preparation'.
My question: What would be the best way to prepare the terrain? Just flat? making earthwork buttresses to act as blast shielding from ships' manoeuvre drives? A convex bowl? A concave bowl?
Thoughts appreciated.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_01.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_01-1.jpg
The second stage is for the earth moving equipment to level the terrain. So in frame one we have the cutters which have landed and in frame 2 some vehicles moving about and a few crates which have been unloaded prior to 'terrain preparation'.
My question: What would be the best way to prepare the terrain? Just flat? making earthwork buttresses to act as blast shielding from ships' manoeuvre drives? A convex bowl? A concave bowl?
Thoughts appreciated.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_01.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_01-1.jpg
Golan2072
January 17th, 2007, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
My question: What would be the best way to prepare the terrain? Just flat? making earthwork buttresses to act as blast shielding from ships' manoeuvre drives? A convex bowl? A concave bowl?With gravitic drives you don't have an engine wash to worry about; so solid, stable, even ground would be enough as long as it could support the weight of the landing starships. With earlier engines you'll probably need to expose the bedrock and add earthwork butresses to shield against the ships' engine wash.
My question: What would be the best way to prepare the terrain? Just flat? making earthwork buttresses to act as blast shielding from ships' manoeuvre drives? A convex bowl? A concave bowl?With gravitic drives you don't have an engine wash to worry about; so solid, stable, even ground would be enough as long as it could support the weight of the landing starships. With earlier engines you'll probably need to expose the bedrock and add earthwork butresses to shield against the ships' engine wash.
ravells
January 17th, 2007, 06:11 AM
That's very helpful - thanks Employee!
I suspect also environmental conditions would also need to be considered - a planet with high winds might require windbreaks, corrosive atmosphere some sort of cover etc. - but I'm trying to keep it simple for now.
Ravs
I suspect also environmental conditions would also need to be considered - a planet with high winds might require windbreaks, corrosive atmosphere some sort of cover etc. - but I'm trying to keep it simple for now.
Ravs
Elv
January 17th, 2007, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
I want to document the evolution of a starport in simple pictures. The first stage in building a starport is for two modular cutters (one containing earth-moving equipment and the other containing equipment to build the port) to land equipment at the chosen site.
A minor point: GURPS Modular Cutter lists a Class I (E) Starport module, so the second cutter will be carrying the basic base in a ready-to-run form, with (almost) no assembly required. Once the landing site is prepared the port can start operation immediately. Now, if you then want to upgrade the port to D or better, that's another story; but the initial base can be set up in a day except on the most hostile of worlds...
John
I want to document the evolution of a starport in simple pictures. The first stage in building a starport is for two modular cutters (one containing earth-moving equipment and the other containing equipment to build the port) to land equipment at the chosen site.
A minor point: GURPS Modular Cutter lists a Class I (E) Starport module, so the second cutter will be carrying the basic base in a ready-to-run form, with (almost) no assembly required. Once the landing site is prepared the port can start operation immediately. Now, if you then want to upgrade the port to D or better, that's another story; but the initial base can be set up in a day except on the most hostile of worlds...
John
ravells
January 17th, 2007, 08:55 AM
Thanks John,
That's helpful too as I intend to build in a time line and some historical narrative.
Ravs
That's helpful too as I intend to build in a time line and some historical narrative.
Ravs
Theo D Lite
January 17th, 2007, 08:56 AM
John,
Have you ever administered an earthworks contract? The establishment of the buildings would as you correctly point out be very quick for a class E port but the creation of the landing field, the removal of deliterious materials etc would take some time. Tha actual amount of time depending on the materials and plant in use, the size of the field, the suitability of the terrain in topographical terms (i.e is is basically level or is there to be major cut and fill).
During this time you will need a secure compound to keep the plant and operatives safe, prevent theft, keep the locals out of a dangerous construction site and so forth and where appropriate to provide an environment less hostile than the outside world.
You port once established needs to have water, power, communications, sanitation so it's a bit more than just unlimber a standard module and crank up the ILS!
It would be an interesting backdrop perhaps for a group of players though. They could be security preventing the local environmentalists from disrupting work, it could be a frontier with high tension as the port is seen as a prelude to military expansion, they could be a trade and marketing delegation trying to forge links with the indigenous population to ensure the commercial success of the new port.
Hmm.....
Have you ever administered an earthworks contract? The establishment of the buildings would as you correctly point out be very quick for a class E port but the creation of the landing field, the removal of deliterious materials etc would take some time. Tha actual amount of time depending on the materials and plant in use, the size of the field, the suitability of the terrain in topographical terms (i.e is is basically level or is there to be major cut and fill).
During this time you will need a secure compound to keep the plant and operatives safe, prevent theft, keep the locals out of a dangerous construction site and so forth and where appropriate to provide an environment less hostile than the outside world.
You port once established needs to have water, power, communications, sanitation so it's a bit more than just unlimber a standard module and crank up the ILS!
It would be an interesting backdrop perhaps for a group of players though. They could be security preventing the local environmentalists from disrupting work, it could be a frontier with high tension as the port is seen as a prelude to military expansion, they could be a trade and marketing delegation trying to forge links with the indigenous population to ensure the commercial success of the new port.
Hmm.....
atpollard
January 17th, 2007, 09:24 AM
On a world with any significant hydrographic percentage, it will rain. The landing pad will actually be closer to a pot lid in shape (a small hill to guide water away from the pad). There would probably be a ditch at the edge of the pad to collect the water (pipes and inlets – virtually invisible from the surface – would carry the water away). If the land is VERY flat, you might add lakes/ponds around the landing zone to handle the water.
A new starport would probably be designed to accommodate both engine wash and gravity drives – dirt berms are cheap to build. On a primitive world, the starport might require a wall to keep out large/dangerous animals (imagine building a starport in a forest with a carnivorous rhinoceros).
Given how heavy ships are and how cheap power is, the cheapest landing pad would be to clear the dirt off a rock hill and cut the rock into a landing pad. Then it is just a matter of pushing dirt around to dig holes and build hills. It might be nice if the first starport module stood vertically to create a control tower with a view of the area.
A new starport would probably be designed to accommodate both engine wash and gravity drives – dirt berms are cheap to build. On a primitive world, the starport might require a wall to keep out large/dangerous animals (imagine building a starport in a forest with a carnivorous rhinoceros).
Given how heavy ships are and how cheap power is, the cheapest landing pad would be to clear the dirt off a rock hill and cut the rock into a landing pad. Then it is just a matter of pushing dirt around to dig holes and build hills. It might be nice if the first starport module stood vertically to create a control tower with a view of the area.
kaladorn
January 17th, 2007, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Theo D Lite:
Have you ever administered an earthworks contract? The establishment of the buildings would as you correctly point out be very quick for a class E port but the creation of the landing field, the removal of deliterious materials etc would take some time. Tha actual amount of time depending on the materials and plant in use, the size of the field, the suitability of the terrain in topographical terms (i.e is is basically level or is there to be major cut and fill).
I suppose tech-level will influence this process significantly. If I pick a spot with the right underlying geogeny/geology, I should be able to make this process easier.
Do we know that at TL-12 there isn't some way to use grav-tech to hard pack the first 4 feet of any medium (rock or dirt) into diamong like hardness? If there is, you can create a very tough top layer. There may be invasive microbots, nanorobots, or some other sort of technology (think a massive ultrasound unit that busts everything up into dust even under the surface, much like how they wipe out kidney stones) that can prep the ground some number of feet down under this conjectural hard-coat.
I suppose one of the main annoyances for a port would be either concerns of geological activity (building along a stick-slip fault or even a consuming plate margin is probably a bad idea). The other aspects would be things like "how many rocks are going to try to thrust up through the pad this month?" (see the ultrasonic preparation of the first few feet of rock as nothing but dust, perhaps then with a binder chemical applied).
Locating on a hill isn't a bad idea for groundwater reasons, but it might significantly suck for wind-shear. Hills might either be more or less defensible than valleys and low lying areas depending on tech level of the foes - if you've got neobarbs, defending a hill is great. If you're looking at mid-tech threats, being in a bowl with your point defense and AP grid setup on rises around it might actually be better.
Wherever you are, you'll have short term concerns and long term concerns. If the base is temporary, the longer term ones might get short shrift.
Short Term Concerns:
- Security for staff and equipment
- Getting enough pad space build and parking space to facilitate further operations
- Time to readiness (not sure if this is a requirement or not, but might be in temporary military ports) for operations
- Disruptions to local traffic patterns (if the planet is already occupied)
- Local laws or environmental concerns
- Management of:
* waste materials
* hydrology/hydrosphere (water)
* wind
* atmosphere (other sorts of threats like contaminants, exotic, etc)
* geology/tectonics/etc
* food and other logistics for occupants
* communications
* surveillance of the area on the ground and any pertinent spacial or atmospheric approaches
Medium To Long Term Concerns:
- Maintainability
- Design for Growth
- Interactions with local populace (laws, lobby groups, people who wnat to take advantage of the port or don't want it at all, etc)
- Customs and Excise
- Immigration/Emigration
- Extrality issues
- Greater throughput without compromising security
- Management of:
* waste materials
* hydrology/hydrosphere (water)
* wind
* atmosphere (other sorts of threats like contaminants, exotic, etc)
* geology/tectonics/etc
* food and other logistics for occupants
* food, lodging, other facilities for visitors/users
* communications
* surveillance of air and space and land
* surveillance of visitors
- Establishing and controlling air and orbital traffic on a bigger scale
That's some early thoughts.
Have you ever administered an earthworks contract? The establishment of the buildings would as you correctly point out be very quick for a class E port but the creation of the landing field, the removal of deliterious materials etc would take some time. Tha actual amount of time depending on the materials and plant in use, the size of the field, the suitability of the terrain in topographical terms (i.e is is basically level or is there to be major cut and fill).
I suppose tech-level will influence this process significantly. If I pick a spot with the right underlying geogeny/geology, I should be able to make this process easier.
Do we know that at TL-12 there isn't some way to use grav-tech to hard pack the first 4 feet of any medium (rock or dirt) into diamong like hardness? If there is, you can create a very tough top layer. There may be invasive microbots, nanorobots, or some other sort of technology (think a massive ultrasound unit that busts everything up into dust even under the surface, much like how they wipe out kidney stones) that can prep the ground some number of feet down under this conjectural hard-coat.
I suppose one of the main annoyances for a port would be either concerns of geological activity (building along a stick-slip fault or even a consuming plate margin is probably a bad idea). The other aspects would be things like "how many rocks are going to try to thrust up through the pad this month?" (see the ultrasonic preparation of the first few feet of rock as nothing but dust, perhaps then with a binder chemical applied).
Locating on a hill isn't a bad idea for groundwater reasons, but it might significantly suck for wind-shear. Hills might either be more or less defensible than valleys and low lying areas depending on tech level of the foes - if you've got neobarbs, defending a hill is great. If you're looking at mid-tech threats, being in a bowl with your point defense and AP grid setup on rises around it might actually be better.
Wherever you are, you'll have short term concerns and long term concerns. If the base is temporary, the longer term ones might get short shrift.
Short Term Concerns:
- Security for staff and equipment
- Getting enough pad space build and parking space to facilitate further operations
- Time to readiness (not sure if this is a requirement or not, but might be in temporary military ports) for operations
- Disruptions to local traffic patterns (if the planet is already occupied)
- Local laws or environmental concerns
- Management of:
* waste materials
* hydrology/hydrosphere (water)
* wind
* atmosphere (other sorts of threats like contaminants, exotic, etc)
* geology/tectonics/etc
* food and other logistics for occupants
* communications
* surveillance of the area on the ground and any pertinent spacial or atmospheric approaches
Medium To Long Term Concerns:
- Maintainability
- Design for Growth
- Interactions with local populace (laws, lobby groups, people who wnat to take advantage of the port or don't want it at all, etc)
- Customs and Excise
- Immigration/Emigration
- Extrality issues
- Greater throughput without compromising security
- Management of:
* waste materials
* hydrology/hydrosphere (water)
* wind
* atmosphere (other sorts of threats like contaminants, exotic, etc)
* geology/tectonics/etc
* food and other logistics for occupants
* food, lodging, other facilities for visitors/users
* communications
* surveillance of air and space and land
* surveillance of visitors
- Establishing and controlling air and orbital traffic on a bigger scale
That's some early thoughts.
Elv
January 17th, 2007, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Theo D Lite:
John,
Have you ever administered an earthworks contract? Actually, no... tongue.gif
The establishment of the buildings would as you correctly point out be very quick for a class E port but the creation of the landing field, the removal of deliterious materials etc would take some time. Tha actual amount of time depending on the materials and plant in use, the size of the field, the suitability of the terrain in topographical terms (i.e is is basically level or is there to be major cut and fill).
During this time you will need a secure compound to keep the plant and operatives safe, prevent theft, keep the locals out of a dangerous construction site and so forth and where appropriate to provide an environment less hostile than the outside world.
All this is good stuff. I also forgot the need for putting up an extrality fence. So, since it will take longer than a day you'll need a quarters module for the work crew (one per ten workers, though two can use the starport manager's spare staterooms) and, as you say, somewhere to keep the equipment (assuming locals or a hazardous environment), such as one or more vehicle transport modules.
You port once established needs to have water, power, communications, sanitation so it's a bit more than just unlimber a standard module and crank up the ILS!
The module comes with power, communications, and freshers, so these are "luxuries" - it can operate as a highport if necessary (e.g., in a planetoid belt). You just need a vehicle to take away any non-recyclable waste (not much in the OTU) and top up the water supply.
Thanks for the info on the site preparation - I always wondered why roadworks took so long! :D
John,
Have you ever administered an earthworks contract? Actually, no... tongue.gif
The establishment of the buildings would as you correctly point out be very quick for a class E port but the creation of the landing field, the removal of deliterious materials etc would take some time. Tha actual amount of time depending on the materials and plant in use, the size of the field, the suitability of the terrain in topographical terms (i.e is is basically level or is there to be major cut and fill).
During this time you will need a secure compound to keep the plant and operatives safe, prevent theft, keep the locals out of a dangerous construction site and so forth and where appropriate to provide an environment less hostile than the outside world.
All this is good stuff. I also forgot the need for putting up an extrality fence. So, since it will take longer than a day you'll need a quarters module for the work crew (one per ten workers, though two can use the starport manager's spare staterooms) and, as you say, somewhere to keep the equipment (assuming locals or a hazardous environment), such as one or more vehicle transport modules.
You port once established needs to have water, power, communications, sanitation so it's a bit more than just unlimber a standard module and crank up the ILS!
The module comes with power, communications, and freshers, so these are "luxuries" - it can operate as a highport if necessary (e.g., in a planetoid belt). You just need a vehicle to take away any non-recyclable waste (not much in the OTU) and top up the water supply.
Thanks for the info on the site preparation - I always wondered why roadworks took so long! :D
sid6.7
January 17th, 2007, 12:47 PM
i dont remember the name of the book, but the
story was about an endless road on a planet
and the people would made it(read flat road)
used the ships drive to just burn it into the
surface, which was my impression of the X or
E ports...
they just come in burn a big flat spot on
the ground setup one building or 2...done...
story was about an endless road on a planet
and the people would made it(read flat road)
used the ships drive to just burn it into the
surface, which was my impression of the X or
E ports...
they just come in burn a big flat spot on
the ground setup one building or 2...done...
GypsyComet
January 17th, 2007, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I suppose one of the main annoyances for a port would be either concerns of geological activity (building along a stick-slip fault or even a consuming plate margin is probably a bad idea). The other aspects would be things like "how many rocks are going to try to thrust up through the pad this month?" (see the ultrasonic preparation of the first few feet of rock as nothing but dust, perhaps then with a binder chemical applied).
Assuming survey densitometers and a good ground surface map during initial world survey, fault zones generally are pretty obvious. Combine that information with surface gravity readings and IR mapping and you know the most likely active volcanoes. Fortunately subduction zones ("consuming plate margins") are usually under water.
I suppose one of the main annoyances for a port would be either concerns of geological activity (building along a stick-slip fault or even a consuming plate margin is probably a bad idea). The other aspects would be things like "how many rocks are going to try to thrust up through the pad this month?" (see the ultrasonic preparation of the first few feet of rock as nothing but dust, perhaps then with a binder chemical applied).
Assuming survey densitometers and a good ground surface map during initial world survey, fault zones generally are pretty obvious. Combine that information with surface gravity readings and IR mapping and you know the most likely active volcanoes. Fortunately subduction zones ("consuming plate margins") are usually under water.
atpollard
January 17th, 2007, 03:17 PM
A fusion powered "daisy cutter" type bomb could clear the site and "glass" the surface in one step for an instant X port. smile.gif
[putting on my "Civil Engineer" hat]
The thing that makes sand/clay/muck unsuitable for building is the small particles and water allowing the ground to move. At TL 7 or less it is usually easier to remove the bad soil and fill/compact the good soil. With Traveller fusion power, it could be practical to cook the ground – evaporate the water, burn off the carbon and fuse the small particles into a solid rock slab.
[switching to my "Land Planner" hat]
As a quick rule of thumb, you will want an area that can flood to a shallow depth without hurting anything (like a pond or swale) – this area is often quite large on a modern airport in case an aircraft feels like crashing/blowing up instead of just taking off and landing. You will want roads and a dry landing area about 1 foot higher than the pond/swale. You will want the buildings 2 feet higher than the pond/swale. What happens at the perimeter will be world specific (a fence, a wall, a valley, a mountain top).
[The 1 foot and 2 feet are minimums, the heavier the rainfall or the greater the local flooding, the higher the difference. In an effort to provide you with too much detail – so you can discard what you don’t need – the steepest recommended slope for transitioning near a road is 6 horizontal to 1 vertical which allows a car/riding mower to easily drive up/down it. A slope of 50 horizontal to 1 vertical will appear flat to the human eye and is typical for roads. A slope of 100 horizontal to 1 vertical is about the minimum to shed rainfall. A slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical is the steepest slope that sand will normally hold. A slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical is the steepest slope that clay will normally hold.]
[removing all hats]
As a side thought, a small world (or thin atmosphere) will tend to have a thinner atmosphere than Earth – so building cities and starports at the bottom of the deepest valleys (or underground) would be best. A large world (or dense atmosphere) will tend to have a thicker atmosphere and gravity than Earth – so building cities and starports on the tops of the tallest mountains (or floating in the sky) would be best.
[putting on my "Civil Engineer" hat]
The thing that makes sand/clay/muck unsuitable for building is the small particles and water allowing the ground to move. At TL 7 or less it is usually easier to remove the bad soil and fill/compact the good soil. With Traveller fusion power, it could be practical to cook the ground – evaporate the water, burn off the carbon and fuse the small particles into a solid rock slab.
[switching to my "Land Planner" hat]
As a quick rule of thumb, you will want an area that can flood to a shallow depth without hurting anything (like a pond or swale) – this area is often quite large on a modern airport in case an aircraft feels like crashing/blowing up instead of just taking off and landing. You will want roads and a dry landing area about 1 foot higher than the pond/swale. You will want the buildings 2 feet higher than the pond/swale. What happens at the perimeter will be world specific (a fence, a wall, a valley, a mountain top).
[The 1 foot and 2 feet are minimums, the heavier the rainfall or the greater the local flooding, the higher the difference. In an effort to provide you with too much detail – so you can discard what you don’t need – the steepest recommended slope for transitioning near a road is 6 horizontal to 1 vertical which allows a car/riding mower to easily drive up/down it. A slope of 50 horizontal to 1 vertical will appear flat to the human eye and is typical for roads. A slope of 100 horizontal to 1 vertical is about the minimum to shed rainfall. A slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical is the steepest slope that sand will normally hold. A slope of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical is the steepest slope that clay will normally hold.]
[removing all hats]
As a side thought, a small world (or thin atmosphere) will tend to have a thinner atmosphere than Earth – so building cities and starports at the bottom of the deepest valleys (or underground) would be best. A large world (or dense atmosphere) will tend to have a thicker atmosphere and gravity than Earth – so building cities and starports on the tops of the tallest mountains (or floating in the sky) would be best.
Mickazoid
January 17th, 2007, 04:44 PM
Now I've got an idea for a little vignette about a 'Stomper' tech, a guy who works maintenance at the nearby B class downport - whose job it is to tend the Stomper robots, their big flat grav plates thumping ceaselessly as they pack down, cook and re-surface the starport landing zones, one at a time, over and over, 24 hours a day...
sgbrown
January 17th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Drainage is vital during construction as well - not just as a finished product.
In school we were taught the three "laws of earthmoving." They sounded overly simple at the time - but subsequent experience (D8 dozer up to the crew cab in mud and similar) has proven their wisdom:
1) Dirt and water make mud.
2) Dirt and mud make ... more mud.
3) Mud will ruin your day.
In school we were taught the three "laws of earthmoving." They sounded overly simple at the time - but subsequent experience (D8 dozer up to the crew cab in mud and similar) has proven their wisdom:
1) Dirt and water make mud.
2) Dirt and mud make ... more mud.
3) Mud will ruin your day.
ravells
January 17th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Thanks for all the help.
I went with a raised hard platform for the landing pads - they can be painted on and are easier to see (also they don't get muddy) also it means less guesswork as to whether the landing pads will be able to bear the load. One has a blast shield (for non grav m-drives) the others do not. Also a simple XT fence has been built and the cutters have deposited more modules and are now departing.
Next job, I guess is to make the buildings - I'm thinking that these will be a basic porta-cabin modular type arrangement? What units would be required? I can think of:
-Control Tower
-Living Quarters.
-Some sort of simple workshop
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03b.jpg
I went with a raised hard platform for the landing pads - they can be painted on and are easier to see (also they don't get muddy) also it means less guesswork as to whether the landing pads will be able to bear the load. One has a blast shield (for non grav m-drives) the others do not. Also a simple XT fence has been built and the cutters have deposited more modules and are now departing.
Next job, I guess is to make the buildings - I'm thinking that these will be a basic porta-cabin modular type arrangement? What units would be required? I can think of:
-Control Tower
-Living Quarters.
-Some sort of simple workshop
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03b.jpg
FlightCommanderSolitude
January 17th, 2007, 09:01 PM
Ravs, what a cool project - I look forward to seeing more of this!
kaladorn
January 18th, 2007, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Assuming survey densitometers and a good ground surface map during initial world survey, fault zones generally are pretty obvious. Combine that information with surface gravity readings and IR mapping and you know the most likely active volcanoes. Fortunately subduction zones ("consuming plate margins") are usually under water. ...on Earth. :0)
Now, if you've ever farmed in North America over the Canadian Shield, you'll know that rockpicking is an annual bit of fun you get to engage in. You can totally clear a field of rock one year, and have plenty of work a year or two down the line. The large chunks of granite, sandstone, etc. rock tend to work their way up through the ground and present themselves as a risk for farming. And if you've ever seen what winter in Canada does to most roads (due to freezing and thawing cycles), then you'll appreciate how maintaining any sort of paved or even fused surface in such a situation would be challenging. Maintenance would involve finding a way to prevent upthrust rock and to prevent massive amounts of frost heaving and sinking.
Geology surveys will help, but Starport location on any inhabited world will have more to do with history, politics, and so forth than necessarily the absolute best location. On an empty world, you may well only have cursory geological data for the planet and so you go with the best place you can find, which may still not be all that good.... and thus you may have to deal with seasonal weather effects and movement of large chunks of rock under your pads and other facilities.
Assuming survey densitometers and a good ground surface map during initial world survey, fault zones generally are pretty obvious. Combine that information with surface gravity readings and IR mapping and you know the most likely active volcanoes. Fortunately subduction zones ("consuming plate margins") are usually under water. ...on Earth. :0)
Now, if you've ever farmed in North America over the Canadian Shield, you'll know that rockpicking is an annual bit of fun you get to engage in. You can totally clear a field of rock one year, and have plenty of work a year or two down the line. The large chunks of granite, sandstone, etc. rock tend to work their way up through the ground and present themselves as a risk for farming. And if you've ever seen what winter in Canada does to most roads (due to freezing and thawing cycles), then you'll appreciate how maintaining any sort of paved or even fused surface in such a situation would be challenging. Maintenance would involve finding a way to prevent upthrust rock and to prevent massive amounts of frost heaving and sinking.
Geology surveys will help, but Starport location on any inhabited world will have more to do with history, politics, and so forth than necessarily the absolute best location. On an empty world, you may well only have cursory geological data for the planet and so you go with the best place you can find, which may still not be all that good.... and thus you may have to deal with seasonal weather effects and movement of large chunks of rock under your pads and other facilities.
Pickles
January 18th, 2007, 12:31 AM
Neat idea, Ravs. So is the assumption that this is an uninhabited world, with everything coming in cutters from off-world?
kaladorn
January 18th, 2007, 12:49 AM
1. Shouldn't the blast deflector walls be canted outward to look more like a bowl than a cake...?
2. Sorts of facilities
ATCC: Aerospace Traffic Control Center
Some sort of facility, perhaps a tower, perhaps a bunker with lots of sensor antennae, etc, to house the ATC staff, the scanners and commo gear. Large comms antennae may be external but they'd feed into here.
Living Quarters
Simple modular habitation units with an airlock where necessary, probably sleeps about 8?
TSU: Technical Support Unit
Contains a small electronics and mechanical workshop for working on networking, communications gear, antennae and sensor motors, bots for the work or computers. Could also at a pinch fabricate a part for something. Techs that work here would have commo, electronics, and mechanical at a minimum, maybe add robot ops, sensor ops, and gravitics.
PSU: Power Supply Unit
Some sort of small sealed reactor with battery backup and perhaps solar panels or wind generators to recharge a battery bank. There'd be some sort of monitoring station but it would often operate on automatic, being checked every day or so by one of the techs who'd have to know a bit about power plants.
Storage
Small modular hab units similar to the crew quarters for stuff that requires storage under environments similar to humans. Simple tarps or buckeyball type collapsible shelters for things which can get stored outside (common in a vacuum for instance).
MSU: Medical Support Unit
A small modular hab unit with an airlock. Capable of taking 4 patients and up to two medics. One area is cordoned off as a surgery/ICU and the other part is a ward and examination area (segregated by movable panels or draps much like a modern ER). The medics live and sleep here, though they'd eat with the regular folks often enough. They'd have enough equipment to deal with any industrial or environmental accident they need to face before they could reasonably get the injured party to good medical assistance.
Mess Hall
If you have enough workers, a common mess hall in a hab might be a good idea.
Facilities
A facility with at least two big baths (capable of taking suited figures, if you need to clean off suits). Showers. Double as personal freshers and places to clean equipment. Some stalls and urinals. Water storage, filtering and recycling gear.
Garage Hab
If vehicles like ATVs, grav lifters, air rafts, or even big bots are present, having a garage hab adjacent to the workshop with special tools for working on large vehicle repairs and large bot repairs would be useful.
If you have a military, corporate, or private base, you could well have security elements in habs, an additional security CP with a lot of sensor feeds and antennae on it (directed at monitoring and surveilling the port and its surrounds). You may also then grow more defenses like razorwire, armed turrets, patrol bots, minefields, etc. You'll also have increased logistics if you've got grav tanks or APCs to support and to support the security troops. You've also may have a dug-in or otherwise fortified armoury and magazine facility.
2. Sorts of facilities
ATCC: Aerospace Traffic Control Center
Some sort of facility, perhaps a tower, perhaps a bunker with lots of sensor antennae, etc, to house the ATC staff, the scanners and commo gear. Large comms antennae may be external but they'd feed into here.
Living Quarters
Simple modular habitation units with an airlock where necessary, probably sleeps about 8?
TSU: Technical Support Unit
Contains a small electronics and mechanical workshop for working on networking, communications gear, antennae and sensor motors, bots for the work or computers. Could also at a pinch fabricate a part for something. Techs that work here would have commo, electronics, and mechanical at a minimum, maybe add robot ops, sensor ops, and gravitics.
PSU: Power Supply Unit
Some sort of small sealed reactor with battery backup and perhaps solar panels or wind generators to recharge a battery bank. There'd be some sort of monitoring station but it would often operate on automatic, being checked every day or so by one of the techs who'd have to know a bit about power plants.
Storage
Small modular hab units similar to the crew quarters for stuff that requires storage under environments similar to humans. Simple tarps or buckeyball type collapsible shelters for things which can get stored outside (common in a vacuum for instance).
MSU: Medical Support Unit
A small modular hab unit with an airlock. Capable of taking 4 patients and up to two medics. One area is cordoned off as a surgery/ICU and the other part is a ward and examination area (segregated by movable panels or draps much like a modern ER). The medics live and sleep here, though they'd eat with the regular folks often enough. They'd have enough equipment to deal with any industrial or environmental accident they need to face before they could reasonably get the injured party to good medical assistance.
Mess Hall
If you have enough workers, a common mess hall in a hab might be a good idea.
Facilities
A facility with at least two big baths (capable of taking suited figures, if you need to clean off suits). Showers. Double as personal freshers and places to clean equipment. Some stalls and urinals. Water storage, filtering and recycling gear.
Garage Hab
If vehicles like ATVs, grav lifters, air rafts, or even big bots are present, having a garage hab adjacent to the workshop with special tools for working on large vehicle repairs and large bot repairs would be useful.
If you have a military, corporate, or private base, you could well have security elements in habs, an additional security CP with a lot of sensor feeds and antennae on it (directed at monitoring and surveilling the port and its surrounds). You may also then grow more defenses like razorwire, armed turrets, patrol bots, minefields, etc. You'll also have increased logistics if you've got grav tanks or APCs to support and to support the security troops. You've also may have a dug-in or otherwise fortified armoury and magazine facility.
Valarian
January 18th, 2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ravs:
My question: What would be the best way to prepare the terrain? Just flat? making earthwork buttresses to act as blast shielding from ships' manoeuvre drives? A convex bowl? A concave bowl?With gravitic drives you don't have an engine wash to worry about; so solid, stable, even ground would be enough as long as it could support the weight of the landing starships. With earlier engines you'll probably need to expose the bedrock and add earthwork butresses to shield against the ships' engine wash. </font>[/QUOTE]You'd still want something to keep people away from the base of the ship while maneuvering was taking place. Remember, every action etc. You don't want people crushed by the gravitic backwash when the ship is taking off or landing.
The gravitic drives would be pushing against the planet surface when slowing the ship to land or accelerating on takeoff. Anyone under the ship would be subjected to a force equivalent to them trying to lift the ship.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ravs:
My question: What would be the best way to prepare the terrain? Just flat? making earthwork buttresses to act as blast shielding from ships' manoeuvre drives? A convex bowl? A concave bowl?With gravitic drives you don't have an engine wash to worry about; so solid, stable, even ground would be enough as long as it could support the weight of the landing starships. With earlier engines you'll probably need to expose the bedrock and add earthwork butresses to shield against the ships' engine wash. </font>[/QUOTE]You'd still want something to keep people away from the base of the ship while maneuvering was taking place. Remember, every action etc. You don't want people crushed by the gravitic backwash when the ship is taking off or landing.
The gravitic drives would be pushing against the planet surface when slowing the ship to land or accelerating on takeoff. Anyone under the ship would be subjected to a force equivalent to them trying to lift the ship.
Valarian
January 18th, 2007, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Next job, I guess is to make the buildings - I'm thinking that these will be a basic porta-cabin modular type arrangement? What units would be required? I can think of:
-Control Tower
-Living Quarters.
-Some sort of simple workshop
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
-Control Tower
Definately, even if it's a guy with a radio in a prefab hut.
-Living Quarters.
Not really, an office for the staff but anyone docking at the port has living quarters on their ship. Anyone who wants off the ship can make the trip in to town.
-Some sort of simple workshop
No repair facilities available for starships, but a small workshop for the staff keeping the port working.
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
Yes, a generator for the electrics in the port is a definate. Unless you can rely on local supply, and even then you may want a backup.
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
It's called a river. Build the port next to a conveninent water source and you have ready made unrefined fuel storage.
Next job, I guess is to make the buildings - I'm thinking that these will be a basic porta-cabin modular type arrangement? What units would be required? I can think of:
-Control Tower
-Living Quarters.
-Some sort of simple workshop
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
-Control Tower
Definately, even if it's a guy with a radio in a prefab hut.
-Living Quarters.
Not really, an office for the staff but anyone docking at the port has living quarters on their ship. Anyone who wants off the ship can make the trip in to town.
-Some sort of simple workshop
No repair facilities available for starships, but a small workshop for the staff keeping the port working.
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
Yes, a generator for the electrics in the port is a definate. Unless you can rely on local supply, and even then you may want a backup.
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
It's called a river. Build the port next to a conveninent water source and you have ready made unrefined fuel storage.
Elv
January 18th, 2007, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Valarian:
-Control Tower
Definately, even if it's a guy with a radio in a prefab hut.
Technically, for an E port you don't need any buildings, just a hard, flat piece of ground (surrounded by an extrality fence iff the local population and/or wildlife need to be kept out) and an automated landing beacon. However, for the rest of this answer I'll assume the more common one-module port building, with a single port manager.
-Living Quarters.
Not really, an office for the staff but anyone docking at the port has living quarters on their ship. Anyone who wants off the ship can make the trip in to town.
Exactly. There are three staterooms in the class I port module, and apparently two of those often get rented out as hotel rooms.
-Some sort of simple workshop
No repair facilities available for starships, but a small workshop for the staff keeping the port working.
Seems sensible, but not provided for in the module. Maybe the SPA send maintenance teams by every once in a while?
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
Yes, a generator for the electrics in the port is a definate. Unless you can rely on local supply, and even then you may want a backup.
The TU has small, long-lasting self-contained fusion generators. There's no real need for any alternatives (which is a shame from an adventuring perspective).
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
It's called a river. Build the port next to a conveninent water source and you have ready made unrefined fuel storage.
There's no requirement for an E port to provide any, but (as Valarian says) they are usually sited near water where possible.
kaladorn suggested some others:
- ATCC: Aerospace Traffic Control Center
- MSU: Medical Support Unit
- Facilities
These are part of the module, scaled for no more than 3 people.
- TSU: Technical Support Unit
- Storage
- Mess Hall
- Garage Hab
These are not provided, beyond the usual starship passenger/crew arrangements (in this case a small living area and 3.5dt cargo^H^H^H^H^H storage space).
HTH,
John
-Control Tower
Definately, even if it's a guy with a radio in a prefab hut.
Technically, for an E port you don't need any buildings, just a hard, flat piece of ground (surrounded by an extrality fence iff the local population and/or wildlife need to be kept out) and an automated landing beacon. However, for the rest of this answer I'll assume the more common one-module port building, with a single port manager.
-Living Quarters.
Not really, an office for the staff but anyone docking at the port has living quarters on their ship. Anyone who wants off the ship can make the trip in to town.
Exactly. There are three staterooms in the class I port module, and apparently two of those often get rented out as hotel rooms.
-Some sort of simple workshop
No repair facilities available for starships, but a small workshop for the staff keeping the port working.
Seems sensible, but not provided for in the module. Maybe the SPA send maintenance teams by every once in a while?
-Some sort of energy generating unit. (solar/wind etc).
Yes, a generator for the electrics in the port is a definate. Unless you can rely on local supply, and even then you may want a backup.
The TU has small, long-lasting self-contained fusion generators. There's no real need for any alternatives (which is a shame from an adventuring perspective).
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
It's called a river. Build the port next to a conveninent water source and you have ready made unrefined fuel storage.
There's no requirement for an E port to provide any, but (as Valarian says) they are usually sited near water where possible.
kaladorn suggested some others:
- ATCC: Aerospace Traffic Control Center
- MSU: Medical Support Unit
- Facilities
These are part of the module, scaled for no more than 3 people.
- TSU: Technical Support Unit
- Storage
- Mess Hall
- Garage Hab
These are not provided, beyond the usual starship passenger/crew arrangements (in this case a small living area and 3.5dt cargo^H^H^H^H^H storage space).
HTH,
John
ravells
January 18th, 2007, 07:05 AM
Bromgrev: So is the assumption that this is an uninhabited world, with everything coming in cutters from off-world? Either uninhabited or inhabited but low tech. (I would assume a high tech world would already have a starport although not necessarily one run by the SPA.)
Kaladorn: Shouldn't the blast deflector walls be canted outward to look more like a bowl than a cake...? That must be right...I'll correct it. Thanks for the facilities list, this will be useful for the reasons I'll explain further below.
Valarian: You'd still want something to keep people away from the base of the ship while maneuvering was taking place. Remember, every action etc. You don't want people crushed by the gravitic backwash when the ship is taking off or landing. I'm not sure about the physics of a grav drive, but I was thinking about having a klaxon on the landing pad which gives warnings for people to clear the landing pad prior to a lift-off or landing. - Adds to atmosphere and gives the guy in the control tower something to do.
John G Wood: Exactly. There are three staterooms in the class I port module, and apparently two of those often get rented out as hotel rooms.Where are you getting this information from? It sounds like canon stuff but I've never seen it in the LBBs...is it from another source?
General Thoughts
I'm not sure about the landing pads. Strikes me that although the existing linked round pads look cooler, a large flat hard-surfaced rectangular pad would be more versatile and easier to build. Any thoughts on the shape of the landing pad? I'd like to keep round but I really can't see any justification for it.
The assumptions I'm making about the planet at the moment is that it is an uninhabited/low tech earth type world. The idea is to start by building the simplest form of Class E base and then go back and look at it again asking questions like: how would building considerations differ if the world had no atmosphere? corrosive? high winds? hostile (animals or sophonts)? mountainous? All of these factors might require new or different units to the ones presently being used, but I want to do it as simply as possible to start with so I get a big picture.
Then I will start to detail the modelling of the structures a little more for all the units.
Once the Class E port is built, then I'll start adding bits to make it a class D port (Kaladorn's and others' lists will be helpful here). Also I 'll start to cover the evolution of the startown as well.
Next steps: Build the buildings, put in a small man-made lake within the XT line with a pump-house (this fulfills AT Pollard's drainage concern and solution and Valarian's fuel idea. If you need drainage, why not make it work for you?). Also put in a solar panel field (as a back-up to the fusion generator). I think that if this is a Class E starport it means that traffic will be sparse so relying solely on high-tech solutions to essential equipment (i.e. the power generator) might not be realistic.
I'm thinking that the containers left behind by the cutters could either be used as fabric of the buildings themselves or at least as simple warehousing - it means using resources more effectively. Any thoughts about this? Is it practical?
Ravs
Kaladorn: Shouldn't the blast deflector walls be canted outward to look more like a bowl than a cake...? That must be right...I'll correct it. Thanks for the facilities list, this will be useful for the reasons I'll explain further below.
Valarian: You'd still want something to keep people away from the base of the ship while maneuvering was taking place. Remember, every action etc. You don't want people crushed by the gravitic backwash when the ship is taking off or landing. I'm not sure about the physics of a grav drive, but I was thinking about having a klaxon on the landing pad which gives warnings for people to clear the landing pad prior to a lift-off or landing. - Adds to atmosphere and gives the guy in the control tower something to do.
John G Wood: Exactly. There are three staterooms in the class I port module, and apparently two of those often get rented out as hotel rooms.Where are you getting this information from? It sounds like canon stuff but I've never seen it in the LBBs...is it from another source?
General Thoughts
I'm not sure about the landing pads. Strikes me that although the existing linked round pads look cooler, a large flat hard-surfaced rectangular pad would be more versatile and easier to build. Any thoughts on the shape of the landing pad? I'd like to keep round but I really can't see any justification for it.
The assumptions I'm making about the planet at the moment is that it is an uninhabited/low tech earth type world. The idea is to start by building the simplest form of Class E base and then go back and look at it again asking questions like: how would building considerations differ if the world had no atmosphere? corrosive? high winds? hostile (animals or sophonts)? mountainous? All of these factors might require new or different units to the ones presently being used, but I want to do it as simply as possible to start with so I get a big picture.
Then I will start to detail the modelling of the structures a little more for all the units.
Once the Class E port is built, then I'll start adding bits to make it a class D port (Kaladorn's and others' lists will be helpful here). Also I 'll start to cover the evolution of the startown as well.
Next steps: Build the buildings, put in a small man-made lake within the XT line with a pump-house (this fulfills AT Pollard's drainage concern and solution and Valarian's fuel idea. If you need drainage, why not make it work for you?). Also put in a solar panel field (as a back-up to the fusion generator). I think that if this is a Class E starport it means that traffic will be sparse so relying solely on high-tech solutions to essential equipment (i.e. the power generator) might not be realistic.
I'm thinking that the containers left behind by the cutters could either be used as fabric of the buildings themselves or at least as simple warehousing - it means using resources more effectively. Any thoughts about this? Is it practical?
Ravs
Liam Devlin
January 18th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Ravs:
The evolution of a starport sounds like a very good way of presenting it, in the proper reverse Order of "X-E-D-C-B-A."
Note--Most Traveller variants of the game list facilities : "None" under this type of port.
By that, they mean, no fuel refininery, no repair yards, no shipbuilding, or spacecraft building, and certainly no TAS-Hotel-Restaurant-Entertainment-Shopping complex.
Extrality "fence?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elsewhere...
"Yah! Starjack, see them thar stones at th' edge of th' field?"... Former Scout Tanu Obrik turned a weather eye to where the local hetman in his chainmail and heavy reindeer hide cloak pointed with a hand like sledgehammer. In more primitive cultures they'd have made adequate runestones, Tanu recalled from his First Contact days in the IISS. These moss covered wind scarred dolmens of limestone pitted with age would never have withstood the elements for such memorials. Tanu nodded, looking back at the local barbarian.
"I see them, Avnarr."
"The Horse-tribes have made me speaker to the Starmen--beyond those, tis your throat to step past this field," The barbarian spat away and with the wind, fondling his well worn sword's pommel. "Trade & Barter aye, they kennit well--but trespass off this sward an Yonder pit at the sou' end be your resting place like as not."
"I see no Horse-tribesman Avnarr, only you."
"I gave my oath, to the tribes--I live at their liesure--ye may pass between stars all ye please--, as many times as ye can aye. But no farther on their holy soil, or tis me who will kill thee--and Tanu," Avnarr paused meaningfully, using his given name, " an' I like ye well enow, but there lies the truth O' it, hey?"
Tanu smiled, with his eyes and shook his head. Well, the S-3 will be happy to know things hadn't changed in four years of war since the Zho had been defeated here, he mused, and turned to his Sulieman-class ship's ramp.
"It pleases me to lose such hard won gains bandying a wordsmith & a warrior like you Avnarr," Obrik caught the leading edge of the small cargo lift and watched his "coveted trade goods" reach the ground. "The Emperor's thanks, I am to convey. Being all men of our words, you, He and I, I'll not be trying your blade and wait for the hand barrow, right here, yes?"
Avnarr's scarred craggy face split into an immense broken tooth grin, and after hoisting his hunting horn to his lips, gave the echoing signal to the Tribes that the Emperor's trade, had safely arrived...
------------------------------------------------------------- "Memories of an E-class port, TL3, Somewhere in the Marches, destination classified, date 1110 TI, Tanu Obrik, Detached Scout.
The evolution of a starport sounds like a very good way of presenting it, in the proper reverse Order of "X-E-D-C-B-A."
Note--Most Traveller variants of the game list facilities : "None" under this type of port.
By that, they mean, no fuel refininery, no repair yards, no shipbuilding, or spacecraft building, and certainly no TAS-Hotel-Restaurant-Entertainment-Shopping complex.
Extrality "fence?"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elsewhere...
"Yah! Starjack, see them thar stones at th' edge of th' field?"... Former Scout Tanu Obrik turned a weather eye to where the local hetman in his chainmail and heavy reindeer hide cloak pointed with a hand like sledgehammer. In more primitive cultures they'd have made adequate runestones, Tanu recalled from his First Contact days in the IISS. These moss covered wind scarred dolmens of limestone pitted with age would never have withstood the elements for such memorials. Tanu nodded, looking back at the local barbarian.
"I see them, Avnarr."
"The Horse-tribes have made me speaker to the Starmen--beyond those, tis your throat to step past this field," The barbarian spat away and with the wind, fondling his well worn sword's pommel. "Trade & Barter aye, they kennit well--but trespass off this sward an Yonder pit at the sou' end be your resting place like as not."
"I see no Horse-tribesman Avnarr, only you."
"I gave my oath, to the tribes--I live at their liesure--ye may pass between stars all ye please--, as many times as ye can aye. But no farther on their holy soil, or tis me who will kill thee--and Tanu," Avnarr paused meaningfully, using his given name, " an' I like ye well enow, but there lies the truth O' it, hey?"
Tanu smiled, with his eyes and shook his head. Well, the S-3 will be happy to know things hadn't changed in four years of war since the Zho had been defeated here, he mused, and turned to his Sulieman-class ship's ramp.
"It pleases me to lose such hard won gains bandying a wordsmith & a warrior like you Avnarr," Obrik caught the leading edge of the small cargo lift and watched his "coveted trade goods" reach the ground. "The Emperor's thanks, I am to convey. Being all men of our words, you, He and I, I'll not be trying your blade and wait for the hand barrow, right here, yes?"
Avnarr's scarred craggy face split into an immense broken tooth grin, and after hoisting his hunting horn to his lips, gave the echoing signal to the Tribes that the Emperor's trade, had safely arrived...
------------------------------------------------------------- "Memories of an E-class port, TL3, Somewhere in the Marches, destination classified, date 1110 TI, Tanu Obrik, Detached Scout.
atpollard
January 18th, 2007, 08:24 AM
-Storage for unrefined fuel? Not sure if that's appropriate for a class E starport.
It's called a river. Build the port next to a convenient water source and you have ready made unrefined fuel storage. A 0.3 meter diameter well with a pump can supply enough water flow to fight a fire (up to 4000 liters per minute). That equates to 1 dTon of unrefined fuel every 3.5 minutes delivered almost anywhere.
It's called a river. Build the port next to a convenient water source and you have ready made unrefined fuel storage. A 0.3 meter diameter well with a pump can supply enough water flow to fight a fire (up to 4000 liters per minute). That equates to 1 dTon of unrefined fuel every 3.5 minutes delivered almost anywhere.
atpollard
January 18th, 2007, 08:44 AM
Extrality "fence?"
Good story.
The strangest thing I ever saw was a boy shoplift from a grocery store in Nogales, Arizona and run 1000 feet over a white painted line in the asphalt walkway and into Nogales, Mexico. The security officer (a private “cop� I think) had to stop at the line. I’ve never been to the US/Canada border, but I hear that in most places it consist of even less than the US/Mexico border.
I would expect a fence if for no other reason than to keep “deer� off the landing field.
Good story.
The strangest thing I ever saw was a boy shoplift from a grocery store in Nogales, Arizona and run 1000 feet over a white painted line in the asphalt walkway and into Nogales, Mexico. The security officer (a private “cop� I think) had to stop at the line. I’ve never been to the US/Canada border, but I hear that in most places it consist of even less than the US/Mexico border.
I would expect a fence if for no other reason than to keep “deer� off the landing field.
ravells
January 18th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Excellent! I hadn't thought of of XT lines being used as much to keep the Imperium in rather than the local worlders out.
Ravs
Ravs
MR TEK
January 18th, 2007, 03:48 PM
We crossed the Canidian border in Northern Idaho, in heavy forest.
I think we we finally got a landmark on our map to know where we were close enough to confirm we had crossed the border we where probably a mile or two into Canadian territory.
No markings, of any sort as far as anyone in our group could spot.
I think we we finally got a landmark on our map to know where we were close enough to confirm we had crossed the border we where probably a mile or two into Canadian territory.
No markings, of any sort as far as anyone in our group could spot.
ravells
January 18th, 2007, 06:53 PM
Went to the pub..er starport bar...tonight. Next iteration of the evolving starport will be tomorrow, I hope.
Ravs
Ravs
dirk938
January 18th, 2007, 11:21 PM
something to think of is the use of native building materials and prefab buildings instead of 50 ton Cutter modules.
wood, stone, concrete, permacrete, ceramacrete, etc.
the use of Quansit Hut type structures to house barracks, shops, storage, offices, cafeterias, and other neccessary acomidations. These are cheap, easilly assembled buildings that can be built in sizes from storage shed to starship hanger.
wood, stone, concrete, permacrete, ceramacrete, etc.
the use of Quansit Hut type structures to house barracks, shops, storage, offices, cafeterias, and other neccessary acomidations. These are cheap, easilly assembled buildings that can be built in sizes from storage shed to starship hanger.
GypsyComet
January 19th, 2007, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Assuming survey densitometers and a good ground surface map during initial world survey, fault zones generally are pretty obvious. Combine that information with surface gravity readings and IR mapping and you know the most likely active volcanoes. Fortunately subduction zones ("consuming plate margins") are usually under water. ...on Earth. :0)
</font>[/QUOTE]Granted, but since the differences in crustal formation that allow subduction in the first place are due to the presence of large bodies of surface water, you are unlikely to have consistent subduction with its associated volcanic arc on a world that lacks a hydrosphere (be it water or something else). Plate tectonics also require a fairly active molten core. True exotics like Io operate under somewhat different rules, but anyone wanting to set up a starport facility in such a place is a loon, since the slightest weight change could cause the whole "plate" to vanish under the molten sulfur tomorrow.
Now, if you've ever farmed in North America over the Canadian Shield, you'll know that rockpicking is an annual bit of fun you get to engage in. You can totally clear a field of rock one year, and have plenty of work a year or two down the line. The large chunks of granite, sandstone, etc. rock tend to work their way up through the ground and present themselves as a risk for farming. And if you've ever seen what winter in Canada does to most roads (due to freezing and thawing cycles), then you'll appreciate how maintaining any sort of paved or even fused surface in such a situation would be challenging. Maintenance would involve finding a way to prevent upthrust rock and to prevent massive amounts of frost heaving and sinking.
Geology surveys will help, but Starport location on any inhabited world will have more to do with history, politics, and so forth than necessarily the absolute best location. On an empty world, you may well only have cursory geological data for the planet and so you go with the best place you can find, which may still not be all that good.... and thus you may have to deal with seasonal weather effects and movement of large chunks of rock under your pads and other facilities. Effects like frost heave are not plate tectonic effects, however. If a buck naked colony has even just a visual map from orbit, preferably with radar assist to get the ocean floors, plate structures will tend to jump out at any decently trained Geologist, particularly one you'd bring along on an organized colony trip. By comparison, it takes a close-up soil survey, though a close densitometer survey would do in a pinch, to find likely suspects for frost heaving and rock-picking, since many such places exist in happy equilibrium until some wiseguy comes along and plows the place...
Anyone under the Imperial colonization aegis stands a good chance of having that data available. Ditto for the Zhodani and the K'kree, who value colonial success and precise environmental parameters respectively. By comparison, the Solomani and Aslan love to dive into the unknown, while I wouldn't trust a planetary survey from a Vargr polity or the Hivers without a LOT of double checking (though for entirely different reasons).
One wonders how often the Imperial Starport Authority comes in conflict with the locals for exactly these reasons.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GypsyComet:
Assuming survey densitometers and a good ground surface map during initial world survey, fault zones generally are pretty obvious. Combine that information with surface gravity readings and IR mapping and you know the most likely active volcanoes. Fortunately subduction zones ("consuming plate margins") are usually under water. ...on Earth. :0)
</font>[/QUOTE]Granted, but since the differences in crustal formation that allow subduction in the first place are due to the presence of large bodies of surface water, you are unlikely to have consistent subduction with its associated volcanic arc on a world that lacks a hydrosphere (be it water or something else). Plate tectonics also require a fairly active molten core. True exotics like Io operate under somewhat different rules, but anyone wanting to set up a starport facility in such a place is a loon, since the slightest weight change could cause the whole "plate" to vanish under the molten sulfur tomorrow.
Now, if you've ever farmed in North America over the Canadian Shield, you'll know that rockpicking is an annual bit of fun you get to engage in. You can totally clear a field of rock one year, and have plenty of work a year or two down the line. The large chunks of granite, sandstone, etc. rock tend to work their way up through the ground and present themselves as a risk for farming. And if you've ever seen what winter in Canada does to most roads (due to freezing and thawing cycles), then you'll appreciate how maintaining any sort of paved or even fused surface in such a situation would be challenging. Maintenance would involve finding a way to prevent upthrust rock and to prevent massive amounts of frost heaving and sinking.
Geology surveys will help, but Starport location on any inhabited world will have more to do with history, politics, and so forth than necessarily the absolute best location. On an empty world, you may well only have cursory geological data for the planet and so you go with the best place you can find, which may still not be all that good.... and thus you may have to deal with seasonal weather effects and movement of large chunks of rock under your pads and other facilities. Effects like frost heave are not plate tectonic effects, however. If a buck naked colony has even just a visual map from orbit, preferably with radar assist to get the ocean floors, plate structures will tend to jump out at any decently trained Geologist, particularly one you'd bring along on an organized colony trip. By comparison, it takes a close-up soil survey, though a close densitometer survey would do in a pinch, to find likely suspects for frost heaving and rock-picking, since many such places exist in happy equilibrium until some wiseguy comes along and plows the place...
Anyone under the Imperial colonization aegis stands a good chance of having that data available. Ditto for the Zhodani and the K'kree, who value colonial success and precise environmental parameters respectively. By comparison, the Solomani and Aslan love to dive into the unknown, while I wouldn't trust a planetary survey from a Vargr polity or the Hivers without a LOT of double checking (though for entirely different reasons).
One wonders how often the Imperial Starport Authority comes in conflict with the locals for exactly these reasons.
Pickles
January 19th, 2007, 12:16 AM
Good point, Dirk, and one of the reasons why I asked about habitation. Even (or especially) a low-tech world would have all the necessary raw materials and labour on hand to build the starport. It makes sense to import the E-class if necessary, but anything more complex should be more cost-effective o produce on-world.
And welcome to CotI, Dirk!
And welcome to CotI, Dirk!
Elv
January 19th, 2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
John G Wood:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Exactly. There are three staterooms in the class I port module, and apparently two of those often get rented out as hotel rooms.
Where are you getting this information from? It sounds like canon stuff but I've never seen it in the LBBs...is it from another source?
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, it is GT "canon", but I see no reason it can't be applied to other versions. Most is from the Modular Cutter book, which was one of Loren Wiseman's "pet projects" that he never managed to get published when at GDW; the rest is from Starports, by John M. Ford, who wrote up the Starport Authority for JTAS back in the day. So, as close to canon as you can get for GT.
John
John G Wood:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Exactly. There are three staterooms in the class I port module, and apparently two of those often get rented out as hotel rooms.
Where are you getting this information from? It sounds like canon stuff but I've never seen it in the LBBs...is it from another source?
</font>[/QUOTE]Well, it is GT "canon", but I see no reason it can't be applied to other versions. Most is from the Modular Cutter book, which was one of Loren Wiseman's "pet projects" that he never managed to get published when at GDW; the rest is from Starports, by John M. Ford, who wrote up the Starport Authority for JTAS back in the day. So, as close to canon as you can get for GT.
John
Liam Devlin
January 19th, 2007, 06:46 AM
posted by atpollard:
Good story.
The strangest thing I ever saw was a boy shoplift from a grocery store in Nogales, Arizona and run 1000 feet over a white painted line in the asphalt walkway and into Nogales, Mexico. The security officer (a private “cop� I think) had to stop at the line. I’ve never been to the US/Canada border, but I hear that in most places it consist of even less than the US/Mexico border.
I would expect a fence if for no other reason than to keep “deer� off the landing field. Thanks for sharing your story too. smile.gif
posted by ravs:
Excellent! I hadn't thought of of XT lines being used as much to keep the Imperium in rather than the local worlders out. A Fence or barrier keeps folks "in", as well as keeps folks "out", my freinds.
;)
Good story.
The strangest thing I ever saw was a boy shoplift from a grocery store in Nogales, Arizona and run 1000 feet over a white painted line in the asphalt walkway and into Nogales, Mexico. The security officer (a private “cop� I think) had to stop at the line. I’ve never been to the US/Canada border, but I hear that in most places it consist of even less than the US/Mexico border.
I would expect a fence if for no other reason than to keep “deer� off the landing field. Thanks for sharing your story too. smile.gif
posted by ravs:
Excellent! I hadn't thought of of XT lines being used as much to keep the Imperium in rather than the local worlders out. A Fence or barrier keeps folks "in", as well as keeps folks "out", my freinds.
;)
Liam Devlin
January 19th, 2007, 07:43 AM
There was, (and exists in my deadtree files somewhere at the house) from a Traveller fanzine of the MT-TNE era of a prefab kit for a Modular, or "pop-up" build-it yourself D-class port, with the pour mix ceramocrete for blast berms/ pads for 800dtons worth of landing pads (typical is 1x 400dton size, 1x 200dton, 2x 100dton; Modular quarters for the 'Port staff, a Modular Control Tower Building; Modular hangar space (capable of holding 400dt of starship/ within it), Fencing material, a small fusion powerplant to run the port's power needs (Landing beacons, commlink, life support) from included was one 5dton Small Bulldozer with an atmosphere rebreather kit. Typical set up time with 10 sophonts was 30 days.
Tools and machinery needed for the Vessel "Minor repairs", not included. All of this in a 25dton (or so) sized kit (5dt of which was the TL5 bulldozer which you get to keep). Cost was somewhere between 15-30MCr offf the top of my head.
The Kit's total Costs varied with TL6 (Atmo-5,6, 8) modular housing buildings , to TL8 (Atmo 4,7, 9) filtered air Mod. buildings to TL9 Mod. housing Buildings with Airlock equipped (Atmo 0-3, A, B, & C), and of course, shipping & handling from whomever carried it to the new location.
All of the materials (especially the Modular Buildings) came straight from the MT-Rebellion Referee's & Players' Books under equipment.
Other posters are correct though, locally procurable materials are preferred to hold down the initial costs though if beginning with an E-class.
Tools and machinery needed for the Vessel "Minor repairs", not included. All of this in a 25dton (or so) sized kit (5dt of which was the TL5 bulldozer which you get to keep). Cost was somewhere between 15-30MCr offf the top of my head.
The Kit's total Costs varied with TL6 (Atmo-5,6, 8) modular housing buildings , to TL8 (Atmo 4,7, 9) filtered air Mod. buildings to TL9 Mod. housing Buildings with Airlock equipped (Atmo 0-3, A, B, & C), and of course, shipping & handling from whomever carried it to the new location.
All of the materials (especially the Modular Buildings) came straight from the MT-Rebellion Referee's & Players' Books under equipment.
Other posters are correct though, locally procurable materials are preferred to hold down the initial costs though if beginning with an E-class.
Scarecrow
January 19th, 2007, 11:17 AM
I've not read the entire thread so forgive me if this has already been covered.
I read Peter Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction a couple of years ago and whilst I hated it, I did really like his rough and ready Starport building system.
Basically a lander pod drops from an orbital craft. Upon landing it releases heavy machinery to clear flora and level the surrounding terrain. Next a rudimentary landing strip is layed down. The pod then acts as a temporary ATC, offices accomodation, garage, workshop and nav beacon with it's on-board fusion generator supplying power for itself and any shanty huts built in the vicinity. From here, the real purpose-built craft can now land comfortably and start setting up a proper starport.
I'm not sure how Hamilton imagined them, but I picture something like the Space Marine Drop pods from 40K:
http://spaceship.brainiac.com/GamesWork/death2-drop-pod.jpeg
Crow
I read Peter Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction a couple of years ago and whilst I hated it, I did really like his rough and ready Starport building system.
Basically a lander pod drops from an orbital craft. Upon landing it releases heavy machinery to clear flora and level the surrounding terrain. Next a rudimentary landing strip is layed down. The pod then acts as a temporary ATC, offices accomodation, garage, workshop and nav beacon with it's on-board fusion generator supplying power for itself and any shanty huts built in the vicinity. From here, the real purpose-built craft can now land comfortably and start setting up a proper starport.
I'm not sure how Hamilton imagined them, but I picture something like the Space Marine Drop pods from 40K:
http://spaceship.brainiac.com/GamesWork/death2-drop-pod.jpeg
Crow
dirk938
January 19th, 2007, 06:08 PM
something else to keep in mind. The actual shipyard for building Starships will be in space. Your class A starport will actually be a class B on planet. It comes down to economics. It would be to costly to build a 10,000t no stremlined bulk cargo ship inside an atmosphere.
Your planetside starport might produce small craft.
Your planetside starport might produce small craft.
dirk938
January 19th, 2007, 06:30 PM
you might want to think of some sort of blast berms. Just think for a minute how much liquid hydrogen would be at each pad. If a stupid space jock was goofing around or even a land lover who was not familiar with a particular model/tech level engine made an "error in judgement", the fireworkd could be spectacular. Remember that the Hindenburg was gas filled, not full of liquid Hydrogen.
You will als need a long landing strip or two. Fighters and Pinnaces land and take off using runways whenever possible to save fuel and increase payload.
Nothing beats the thrill of making a high speed low altitude run to the landing strip. There is no excitement in a zero/zero landing. you might as well be docking in space if your doing that. Streamlined smallcraft are ment to "fly through the atmosphere".
You will als need a long landing strip or two. Fighters and Pinnaces land and take off using runways whenever possible to save fuel and increase payload.
Nothing beats the thrill of making a high speed low altitude run to the landing strip. There is no excitement in a zero/zero landing. you might as well be docking in space if your doing that. Streamlined smallcraft are ment to "fly through the atmosphere".
GypsyComet
January 19th, 2007, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Dirk:
something else to keep in mind. The actual shipyard for building Starships will be in space. Your class A starport will actually be a class B on planet. It comes down to economics. It would be to costly to build a 10,000t no stremlined bulk cargo ship inside an atmosphere.
Your planetside starport might produce small craft. One of those factoids lost in the old materials is that downports are typically built to handle up to 5000 dTon ships, as anything bigger, even streamlined, gets unwieldy in a hurry. This has also been considered to include construction facilities. As such, a world with no highport will probably not be building unstreamlined hulls or anything bigger than 5000 dTons. The limit on streamlining ceases to be an issue if the world is one of the many airless balls of rock populated by the Imperium.
Smaller hulls make (invisible to the game) economic sense to build on the *ground*, as they simply aren't expensive enough to justify months of orbital berth space if they don't need to be built there.
something else to keep in mind. The actual shipyard for building Starships will be in space. Your class A starport will actually be a class B on planet. It comes down to economics. It would be to costly to build a 10,000t no stremlined bulk cargo ship inside an atmosphere.
Your planetside starport might produce small craft. One of those factoids lost in the old materials is that downports are typically built to handle up to 5000 dTon ships, as anything bigger, even streamlined, gets unwieldy in a hurry. This has also been considered to include construction facilities. As such, a world with no highport will probably not be building unstreamlined hulls or anything bigger than 5000 dTons. The limit on streamlining ceases to be an issue if the world is one of the many airless balls of rock populated by the Imperium.
Smaller hulls make (invisible to the game) economic sense to build on the *ground*, as they simply aren't expensive enough to justify months of orbital berth space if they don't need to be built there.
GypsyComet
January 19th, 2007, 09:26 PM
"There is no excitement in a zero/zero landing."
That depends entirely on which of your gauges are on Zero...
That depends entirely on which of your gauges are on Zero...
Pickles
January 19th, 2007, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
The limit on streamlining ceases to be an issue if the world is one of the many airless balls of rock populated by the Imperium.Gypsy - have you just hit on the secret reason for all those Hi Pop pinhead rockballs? :eek:
The limit on streamlining ceases to be an issue if the world is one of the many airless balls of rock populated by the Imperium.Gypsy - have you just hit on the secret reason for all those Hi Pop pinhead rockballs? :eek:
Plankowner
January 20th, 2007, 11:05 AM
Maybe, but that doesn't explain the rockballs with the Class E Starports and the HI population.
Andrew Boulton
January 20th, 2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Dirk:
Nothing beats the thrill of making a high speed low altitude run to the landing strip.The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time.
Nothing beats the thrill of making a high speed low altitude run to the landing strip.The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time.
ravells
January 20th, 2007, 01:09 PM
So the little E class starport is slowly becoming a D class. There is a control tower, workshop, living area and housing for the fusion power unit for the one or two members of the SPA who staff it. I assumed this to be a prefab construction or made from local materials. There is a solar panel array on the roof of the workshop / garage area of the control tower as a backup power supply.
A pit has been dug for drainage. In time this will evolve into a refuelling facility.
I decided to go with a (very short)landing strip - I'm not happy with the modelling which looks like a stretched cube plopped on the terrain - which it is, (but I keep telling myself that these are just concept drawings anyway).
In anycase, it wont last as the next step will be to tarmac the entire area within the XT line so it's nice and flat with landing areas painted on.
I've sloped the blast shielding on the landing pad outwards - makes more sense.
It all looks quite sad and empty, but there's lots of stuff that's been suggested which I can add on in time as the starport grows larger. I'll need to start putting in lights and other service materials.
Ravs
:Edit: the scale really sucks on this. The whole XT area needs to be bigger.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_02.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03-1.jpg
A pit has been dug for drainage. In time this will evolve into a refuelling facility.
I decided to go with a (very short)landing strip - I'm not happy with the modelling which looks like a stretched cube plopped on the terrain - which it is, (but I keep telling myself that these are just concept drawings anyway).
In anycase, it wont last as the next step will be to tarmac the entire area within the XT line so it's nice and flat with landing areas painted on.
I've sloped the blast shielding on the landing pad outwards - makes more sense.
It all looks quite sad and empty, but there's lots of stuff that's been suggested which I can add on in time as the starport grows larger. I'll need to start putting in lights and other service materials.
Ravs
:Edit: the scale really sucks on this. The whole XT area needs to be bigger.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_02.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_03-1.jpg
robject
January 21st, 2007, 01:42 AM
Ravs, that art is just neat. Thanks for posting it!
robject
January 21st, 2007, 01:47 AM
Ravs, blast shields have more uses than simply blocking rocket exhaust. They potentially are protection for the starport against a ship becoming some kind of fusion bomb. Also, they're potentially a way to restrict access to those ships; one entry point into a heavy bunker -- plus an attached suite per berth -- lets players rest easier if they leave their ship, ever.
kaladorn
January 21st, 2007, 10:33 AM
I keep thinking back to Mos Eisley, Docking Bay 94. This must be (at a guess) a C-class starport. But it has a fully raised solid-sided bay with a decent locking bulkhead-level door on it. This is definitely to keep people away from your ship (to prevent stow-aways, cargo-jacking, bomb-planting, surveillance, etc). So that's something as time goes on.
I sort of agree that the secondary blast-shield function is to shield the port from something like a hydrogen explosion. Fusion bomb? Good luck... unless your plates are made of some pretty heavy aligned superdense or something. Even then, a fusion explosion would expand out over it and the port would be pooched anyway. So I think that particular case won't be so feasible to defend against. OTOH, a mundane explosion is A) probably more likely and B) probably can be usefully defended against.
I sort of agree that the secondary blast-shield function is to shield the port from something like a hydrogen explosion. Fusion bomb? Good luck... unless your plates are made of some pretty heavy aligned superdense or something. Even then, a fusion explosion would expand out over it and the port would be pooched anyway. So I think that particular case won't be so feasible to defend against. OTOH, a mundane explosion is A) probably more likely and B) probably can be usefully defended against.
Valarian
January 21st, 2007, 11:11 AM
Most gravity age vessels will be VTOL capable. The docking facilities are likely to be similar to those of Mos Eisley in Star Wars or the Eavesdown docks of Persephone in Firefly. Mos Eisley has separate docking bays (perhaps a C-class port as suggested by Kaladorn). The Eavesdown docks seemed to just be an open field with areas set aside for landings. This may be closer to the D-class downport.
Earlier orbital space planes (TL8) will require a runway for take off or landing. The spaceports may look more like traditional airports. The higher technology spaceports may have a runway at the side of the main docking area for emergencies.
Earlier orbital space planes (TL8) will require a runway for take off or landing. The spaceports may look more like traditional airports. The higher technology spaceports may have a runway at the side of the main docking area for emergencies.
Andrew Boulton
January 21st, 2007, 12:16 PM
I'd rate Mos Eisley as a D, or even a good E - no terminal buildings, ATC, repair yards etc, and not much traffic.
Mickazoid
January 21st, 2007, 05:39 PM
Just a note to say that this and the other 'starports' thread currently active contain some of the best work (idea brainstorms, rules interpretations, 3d modelling/thumbnailing) that I've ever seen on CotI.
Great work all!
Great work all!
Liam Devlin
January 21st, 2007, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Plankowner:
Maybe, but that doesn't explain the rockballs with the Class E Starports and the HI population. How about Diaspora/ Libert (B) ZEELAND (1602) E989AA9-E Hi C:4 504 Im.?
40% of the world are chirpers, the majority of the world (60% Humaniti, others) live at TL-14.
Yet only an E-class starport... graemlins/file_22.gif
Maybe, but that doesn't explain the rockballs with the Class E Starports and the HI population. How about Diaspora/ Libert (B) ZEELAND (1602) E989AA9-E Hi C:4 504 Im.?
40% of the world are chirpers, the majority of the world (60% Humaniti, others) live at TL-14.
Yet only an E-class starport... graemlins/file_22.gif
GypsyComet
January 21st, 2007, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plankowner:
Maybe, but that doesn't explain the rockballs with the Class E Starports and the HI population. How about Diaspora/ Libert (B) ZEELAND (1602) E989AA9-E Hi C:4 504 Im.?
40% of the world are chirpers, the majority of the world (60% Humaniti, others) live at TL-14.
Yet only an E-class starport... graemlins/file_22.gif </font>[/QUOTE]The combination of a veritable garden world, a huge population of child-like aliens, AND a charismatic dictatorship? The lack of a public starport makes perfect sense, as I can see these folks having developed a dislike of outsiders. One wonders if there is a Droyne covert presence on this world, trying to uplift the billions of Chirpers...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plankowner:
Maybe, but that doesn't explain the rockballs with the Class E Starports and the HI population. How about Diaspora/ Libert (B) ZEELAND (1602) E989AA9-E Hi C:4 504 Im.?
40% of the world are chirpers, the majority of the world (60% Humaniti, others) live at TL-14.
Yet only an E-class starport... graemlins/file_22.gif </font>[/QUOTE]The combination of a veritable garden world, a huge population of child-like aliens, AND a charismatic dictatorship? The lack of a public starport makes perfect sense, as I can see these folks having developed a dislike of outsiders. One wonders if there is a Droyne covert presence on this world, trying to uplift the billions of Chirpers...
TheBrain
January 21st, 2007, 10:42 PM
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_04a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_04b.jpg [/QB][/QUOTE]
Ravs I notice your sarprt is missing one little thing. Where is the bar? As soon as more than one Far/Free Trader sets down someone HAS to open a bar, it's just the way things are.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_04b.jpg [/QB][/QUOTE]
Ravs I notice your sarprt is missing one little thing. Where is the bar? As soon as more than one Far/Free Trader sets down someone HAS to open a bar, it's just the way things are.
kaladorn
January 22nd, 2007, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
I'd rate Mos Eisley as a D, or even a good E - no terminal buildings, ATC, repair yards etc, and not much traffic. I think Mos Eisley actually does have ATC actually. I'm not sure how much of what we see in Ep IV is part of the spaceport and so it is hard to tell if they do have any facilities or not. Besides, I'm not sure traffic level and starport type are interchangeable - they are probably related, but not identical. It could be a D though... either interpretation would fly. It's more than an X or E and less than a B in any case.
I'd rate Mos Eisley as a D, or even a good E - no terminal buildings, ATC, repair yards etc, and not much traffic. I think Mos Eisley actually does have ATC actually. I'm not sure how much of what we see in Ep IV is part of the spaceport and so it is hard to tell if they do have any facilities or not. Besides, I'm not sure traffic level and starport type are interchangeable - they are probably related, but not identical. It could be a D though... either interpretation would fly. It's more than an X or E and less than a B in any case.
Scarecrow
January 22nd, 2007, 05:08 AM
There was an ATC in the WEG Star Wars Mos Eisley supplement. It's up to you wether you consider that canon smile.gif
Crow
Crow
Scarecrow
January 22nd, 2007, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time. Andrew, I just snorted coffee out my nose and all over my keyboard. I'm going to print that out and put it on the wall. graemlins/file_21.gif
Crow
The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time. Andrew, I just snorted coffee out my nose and all over my keyboard. I'm going to print that out and put it on the wall. graemlins/file_21.gif
Crow
ravells
January 22nd, 2007, 05:39 AM
The Brian: The starport bar is coming...at the moment they just have to make do with sitting on crates in the warehouse.
Blast Shielding / Mos Eisley: I was thinking about Mos Eisley as well this weekend. There is something very travellerish about having your own berth (a la Mos Eisley), which is an enclosed space. The interesting thing about Mos Eisley was that it appeared that each berth was in its own building and that the starport and town were entirely integrated with each other - which is a really neat concept but means no XT line for our purposes.
So I think the way this will develop is that there will be a 'common area' where ships can park but also berth areas which cost more but which are enclosed.
I'm thinking of the ship's berth structure either being:
a sunken level below ground level but open to the sky (if you see what I mean).
On ground level but with surrounding walls.
An arrangement that looks like a multistory driving range (see pic below), maybe even with some sort of honeycomb structure.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_05a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_05.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06b.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06a.jpg
Any pros / cons as to which is better or best? Any other designs that people can think of?
One technological fact which I still havn't got my head around yet is whether a 'landing area' is needed for VTOL craft which then taxi to their parking bays, or whether they just land in the parking bay. Having to taxi to a parking bay sounds better, but I can't really see any reason for it. Valarian's comments about ensuring that there are no unprotected sophonts near a ship that is landing / taking off will have a large bearing as to how the berthing will actually look. Taking a modern aircraft for example, It's not too dangerous to be 50 meters behind the aircraft when it's taxing (unless it's an Antonov - the backwash of dang thing nearly blew me over at the Farnborough air show), but you probably want to be a lot further away when it's exerting full thrust. Do you see it as the same for starships? That might be a reason for having a 'take off / landing pad' ?
NB in the Mos Eisley case it looked like the starships just landed and took off directly to and from their berths.
Ravs
Blast Shielding / Mos Eisley: I was thinking about Mos Eisley as well this weekend. There is something very travellerish about having your own berth (a la Mos Eisley), which is an enclosed space. The interesting thing about Mos Eisley was that it appeared that each berth was in its own building and that the starport and town were entirely integrated with each other - which is a really neat concept but means no XT line for our purposes.
So I think the way this will develop is that there will be a 'common area' where ships can park but also berth areas which cost more but which are enclosed.
I'm thinking of the ship's berth structure either being:
a sunken level below ground level but open to the sky (if you see what I mean).
On ground level but with surrounding walls.
An arrangement that looks like a multistory driving range (see pic below), maybe even with some sort of honeycomb structure.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_05a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_05.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06b.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06a.jpg
Any pros / cons as to which is better or best? Any other designs that people can think of?
One technological fact which I still havn't got my head around yet is whether a 'landing area' is needed for VTOL craft which then taxi to their parking bays, or whether they just land in the parking bay. Having to taxi to a parking bay sounds better, but I can't really see any reason for it. Valarian's comments about ensuring that there are no unprotected sophonts near a ship that is landing / taking off will have a large bearing as to how the berthing will actually look. Taking a modern aircraft for example, It's not too dangerous to be 50 meters behind the aircraft when it's taxing (unless it's an Antonov - the backwash of dang thing nearly blew me over at the Farnborough air show), but you probably want to be a lot further away when it's exerting full thrust. Do you see it as the same for starships? That might be a reason for having a 'take off / landing pad' ?
NB in the Mos Eisley case it looked like the starships just landed and took off directly to and from their berths.
Ravs
Andrew Boulton
January 22nd, 2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time. Andrew, I just snorted coffee out my nose and all over my keyboard. I'm going to print that out and put it on the wall. graemlins/file_21.gif
Crow </font>[/QUOTE]Pretty much my reaction when I first heard it!
I generally assume ships VTOL straight in and out of their bays, but you still need a runway for lower-tech ships or emergencies. And maybe a "car park" for ships which aren't staying long or don't need a proper bay.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
The three best things in life are a good landing, a good orgasm, and a good bowel movement. The night carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time. Andrew, I just snorted coffee out my nose and all over my keyboard. I'm going to print that out and put it on the wall. graemlins/file_21.gif
Crow </font>[/QUOTE]Pretty much my reaction when I first heard it!
I generally assume ships VTOL straight in and out of their bays, but you still need a runway for lower-tech ships or emergencies. And maybe a "car park" for ships which aren't staying long or don't need a proper bay.
Valarian
January 22nd, 2007, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Blast Shielding / Mos Eisley: I was thinking about Mos Eisley as well this weekend. There is something very travellerish about having your own berth (a la Mos Eisley), which is an enclosed space. The interesting thing about Mos Eisley was that it appeared that each berth was in its own building and that the starport and town were entirely integrated with each other - which is a really neat concept but means no XT line for our purposes.I think most of Mos Eisley was considered the spaceport, so the town could be considered the "startown" around the spaceport. In Traveller terms, the environs of Mos Eisley would be Imperium territory. Once outside Mos Eisley, local laws would apply.
Originally posted by ravs:
One technological fact which I still havn't got my head around yet is whether a 'landing area' is needed for VTOL craft which then taxi to their parking bays, or whether they just land in the parking bay. Having to taxi to a parking bay sounds better, but I can't really see any reason for it. Valarian's comments about ensuring that there are no unprotected sophonts near a ship that is landing / taking off will have a large bearing as to how the berthing will actually look. Taking a modern aircraft for example, It's not too dangerous to be 50 meters behind the aircraft when it's taxing (unless it's an Antonov - the backwash of dang thing nearly blew me over at the Farnborough air show), but you probably want to be a lot further away when it's exerting full thrust. Do you see it as the same for starships? That might be a reason for having a 'take off / landing pad' ?Modern aircraft use hot air as thrust and movement of air under the wings to generate lift. In a gravity age vessel, the gravitic modules/drive are providing both thrust and lift by manipulating gravitational forces. The backwash from a modern aircraft is basically hot air. The backwash from a gravity module/drive will be pressure. Newtons Third Law: All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. When a ship is taking off or landing, the gravity modules/drive (to adhere to this rule) must exhert a pressure equal to the effort of lifting or slowing the ship on the planet. When the ship is in the air, this pressure will be extremely generalised and act on the planetary gravity as a whole. When the ship is close the the ground, this effect will be localised. When the ship is really close to the ground the whole effect will be centred on a small area (the footprint of the ship itself). If someone were to stand directly under the ship when it's taking off, the pressure exerted on the patch of ground they're standing on would be roughly equivalent to the person trying to lift the ship themselves.
[EDIT] The act of switching from the generalised to localised gravity manipulation could be like the Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley in Star Wars IV. The Falcon lifts VTOL, then turns and engages the main drive. According to the West End Games version of Star Wars, ships have repulsorlift modules for take off and landing, then switch to main drive. In Traveller terms, the ship could switch it's m-drive from maneuvering to landing/take-off mode. The ship comes in over the spaceport, using generalised gravity manipulation, then slows until over the landing bay. Then the pilot shifts to local manipulation, placing a gravity footprint equal to the size of the ship on to the ground. This allows him to "pull" the ship toward the ground (actually just slow it's rate of falling). On take off, the opposite applies. The ship pushes against the planet surface until airborne, then the pilot shifts to generalised mode and the ship maneuvers in relation to the planet. [EDIT ENDS]
The actual forces involved would depend on the weight of the ship, the acceleration of the ship (number of G's), and the ratio of the footprint of the person's body to the footprint of the ship as a whole. Someone more mathematically minded could probably come up with the formula.
As far as runways go, I can see a need for lower tech levels (less than TL9), as you will be using spaceplanes or orbital transfer vehicles. These require a runway for landing at least (in the case of spaceplanes - for takeoff as well). However, once you get in to the gravity age (TL9+) then all traffic is going to be VTOL. You only need the landing pads/bays not runways. There may still be a runway for emergencies (gliding your airframe ship in to land after a gravity module/m-drive failure). This emergency runway will be off to the side of your spaceport away from anything expensive.
Blast Shielding / Mos Eisley: I was thinking about Mos Eisley as well this weekend. There is something very travellerish about having your own berth (a la Mos Eisley), which is an enclosed space. The interesting thing about Mos Eisley was that it appeared that each berth was in its own building and that the starport and town were entirely integrated with each other - which is a really neat concept but means no XT line for our purposes.I think most of Mos Eisley was considered the spaceport, so the town could be considered the "startown" around the spaceport. In Traveller terms, the environs of Mos Eisley would be Imperium territory. Once outside Mos Eisley, local laws would apply.
Originally posted by ravs:
One technological fact which I still havn't got my head around yet is whether a 'landing area' is needed for VTOL craft which then taxi to their parking bays, or whether they just land in the parking bay. Having to taxi to a parking bay sounds better, but I can't really see any reason for it. Valarian's comments about ensuring that there are no unprotected sophonts near a ship that is landing / taking off will have a large bearing as to how the berthing will actually look. Taking a modern aircraft for example, It's not too dangerous to be 50 meters behind the aircraft when it's taxing (unless it's an Antonov - the backwash of dang thing nearly blew me over at the Farnborough air show), but you probably want to be a lot further away when it's exerting full thrust. Do you see it as the same for starships? That might be a reason for having a 'take off / landing pad' ?Modern aircraft use hot air as thrust and movement of air under the wings to generate lift. In a gravity age vessel, the gravitic modules/drive are providing both thrust and lift by manipulating gravitational forces. The backwash from a modern aircraft is basically hot air. The backwash from a gravity module/drive will be pressure. Newtons Third Law: All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. When a ship is taking off or landing, the gravity modules/drive (to adhere to this rule) must exhert a pressure equal to the effort of lifting or slowing the ship on the planet. When the ship is in the air, this pressure will be extremely generalised and act on the planetary gravity as a whole. When the ship is close the the ground, this effect will be localised. When the ship is really close to the ground the whole effect will be centred on a small area (the footprint of the ship itself). If someone were to stand directly under the ship when it's taking off, the pressure exerted on the patch of ground they're standing on would be roughly equivalent to the person trying to lift the ship themselves.
[EDIT] The act of switching from the generalised to localised gravity manipulation could be like the Falcon taking off from Mos Eisley in Star Wars IV. The Falcon lifts VTOL, then turns and engages the main drive. According to the West End Games version of Star Wars, ships have repulsorlift modules for take off and landing, then switch to main drive. In Traveller terms, the ship could switch it's m-drive from maneuvering to landing/take-off mode. The ship comes in over the spaceport, using generalised gravity manipulation, then slows until over the landing bay. Then the pilot shifts to local manipulation, placing a gravity footprint equal to the size of the ship on to the ground. This allows him to "pull" the ship toward the ground (actually just slow it's rate of falling). On take off, the opposite applies. The ship pushes against the planet surface until airborne, then the pilot shifts to generalised mode and the ship maneuvers in relation to the planet. [EDIT ENDS]
The actual forces involved would depend on the weight of the ship, the acceleration of the ship (number of G's), and the ratio of the footprint of the person's body to the footprint of the ship as a whole. Someone more mathematically minded could probably come up with the formula.
As far as runways go, I can see a need for lower tech levels (less than TL9), as you will be using spaceplanes or orbital transfer vehicles. These require a runway for landing at least (in the case of spaceplanes - for takeoff as well). However, once you get in to the gravity age (TL9+) then all traffic is going to be VTOL. You only need the landing pads/bays not runways. There may still be a runway for emergencies (gliding your airframe ship in to land after a gravity module/m-drive failure). This emergency runway will be off to the side of your spaceport away from anything expensive.
Hyphen
January 22nd, 2007, 09:01 PM
Dear Folks -
Originally posted by ravs:
One technological fact which I still havn't got my head around yet is whether a 'landing area' is needed for VTOL craft which then taxi to their parking bays, or whether they just land in the parking bay."Canonical" images of starships show skids, not wheels, so not much taxiing there.
*However*, (and this was where I had a beef with GT: Starports) I still think there can be a place for a runway. Not on all 'ports, only some, and only for a few reasons:
- on a low-tech worlds, shuttles may well be lifting bodies that use power to ascend but that glide back down to land (saving fuel);
- you would think there would at least be a need for an emergency landing strip of *some* sort, to allow ships that lose power during descent to land *somewhere* (er, those that can glide, I mean, rather than "plummet" ;) ) and if it's near the 'port, it's also near rescue facilities
- in specialist cases, such as Beowulf Down/Tavonni, where we cater for out-of-towners who want to attend conferences and also experience the joys of flying any of those "old-fashioned" COACC aircraft...
Originally posted by ravs:
One technological fact which I still havn't got my head around yet is whether a 'landing area' is needed for VTOL craft which then taxi to their parking bays, or whether they just land in the parking bay."Canonical" images of starships show skids, not wheels, so not much taxiing there.
*However*, (and this was where I had a beef with GT: Starports) I still think there can be a place for a runway. Not on all 'ports, only some, and only for a few reasons:
- on a low-tech worlds, shuttles may well be lifting bodies that use power to ascend but that glide back down to land (saving fuel);
- you would think there would at least be a need for an emergency landing strip of *some* sort, to allow ships that lose power during descent to land *somewhere* (er, those that can glide, I mean, rather than "plummet" ;) ) and if it's near the 'port, it's also near rescue facilities
- in specialist cases, such as Beowulf Down/Tavonni, where we cater for out-of-towners who want to attend conferences and also experience the joys of flying any of those "old-fashioned" COACC aircraft...
Pickles
January 23rd, 2007, 12:16 AM
I was going to agree on the safety issue, but then agan ... maybe not. Safety features tend to be in direct proportion to the perceived risk of an activity - that's why you don't get parachutes on airliners. The rules don't support the idea that manoeuvre drives are anything less than ultra-reliable, so maybe the idea of having to crash land a ship is simply inconceivable?
The short version being, no, 'realistically', Traveller starports should not have landing strips.
The short version being, no, 'realistically', Traveller starports should not have landing strips.
far-trader
January 23rd, 2007, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Valarian:
The backwash from a gravity module/drive will be pressure.I think there are a few canon sources that say spacecraft grav thrusters throw heat... a lot of heat.
The backwash from a gravity module/drive will be pressure.I think there are a few canon sources that say spacecraft grav thrusters throw heat... a lot of heat.
far-trader
January 23rd, 2007, 02:47 AM
Originally posted by Hyphen:
"Canonical" images of starships show skids, not wheels, so not much taxiing there.They could still "taxi" under grav lift though, no need for wheels, which would have to be massive to support/distribute the weight. I see the landing skids just for staying put and allowing the grav to be taken off-line and powered down.
"Canonical" images of starships show skids, not wheels, so not much taxiing there.They could still "taxi" under grav lift though, no need for wheels, which would have to be massive to support/distribute the weight. I see the landing skids just for staying put and allowing the grav to be taken off-line and powered down.
TheEngineer
January 23rd, 2007, 03:31 AM
Dan, is there really a source giving informatiuon about the stuff a spacecraft spits out ??
TE
TE
Liam Devlin
January 23rd, 2007, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
ZEELAND (1602) E989AA9-E Hi C:4 A504 Im.
The combination of a veritable garden world, a huge population of child-like aliens, AND a charismatic dictatorship? The lack of a public starport makes perfect sense, as I can see these folks having developed a dislike of outsiders. One wonders if there is a Droyne covert presence on this world, trying to uplift the billions of Chirpers...Possibly... Astrogator's Guide to Diaspora does annotate within it that Zeeland's sizable merchant fleet gets its repairs at the adjacent world of Channel (1503) B694557-E Ag Ni 912 Im.
Other notations in MT-Hard Times for Zeeland show that the Chirpers were noted for having "strangely developing webbed feet and hands there" before the Collapse. Being only 10% surface world and the rest being water...even at Size 9, thats a lot of folks (30x Billion Humaniti vs 20x Billion Chirpers) down there.
It is extremely possible that Zeeland's shipping fleet does get its work done elsewhere, like the B-class facility at Channel, and makes sense. Your notation of disliking outsiders and keeping the starport to the minimum for trade (E-class) reduces the time a starship would spend downside here as well, and force the starship owner-operators to look elsewhere for repairs and service. Definitely prevents "offworld contamination" into that society doesn't it? graemlins/file_22.gif
The Zeelanders are also noted in MT-HT as taking an extremely dim view of anyone messing with them or telling them that "they're not treating the Chirpers in anything less than a humane way".
ZEELAND (1602) E989AA9-E Hi C:4 A504 Im.
The combination of a veritable garden world, a huge population of child-like aliens, AND a charismatic dictatorship? The lack of a public starport makes perfect sense, as I can see these folks having developed a dislike of outsiders. One wonders if there is a Droyne covert presence on this world, trying to uplift the billions of Chirpers...Possibly... Astrogator's Guide to Diaspora does annotate within it that Zeeland's sizable merchant fleet gets its repairs at the adjacent world of Channel (1503) B694557-E Ag Ni 912 Im.
Other notations in MT-Hard Times for Zeeland show that the Chirpers were noted for having "strangely developing webbed feet and hands there" before the Collapse. Being only 10% surface world and the rest being water...even at Size 9, thats a lot of folks (30x Billion Humaniti vs 20x Billion Chirpers) down there.
It is extremely possible that Zeeland's shipping fleet does get its work done elsewhere, like the B-class facility at Channel, and makes sense. Your notation of disliking outsiders and keeping the starport to the minimum for trade (E-class) reduces the time a starship would spend downside here as well, and force the starship owner-operators to look elsewhere for repairs and service. Definitely prevents "offworld contamination" into that society doesn't it? graemlins/file_22.gif
The Zeelanders are also noted in MT-HT as taking an extremely dim view of anyone messing with them or telling them that "they're not treating the Chirpers in anything less than a humane way".
ravells
January 23rd, 2007, 05:10 AM
Now that the spaceport is growing, the entire area has been hard surfaced which allows the painting of lines.
The reference I used was that gateway to the stars, Newcastle airport. The scale works much better now.
I'm still puzzling over what the berths should look like for Grav Vehicles - I think I'm going to go for sunken berths but at the moment it's just painted place-holders. Time also to knock down the main spaceport building and to make something in keeping with the increase in traffic that the larger landing area will be able to accomodate.
The 'non grav' landing area has been placed quite far away, I'll need to redo the landing pads there. There is also a separate parking area for shuttles, I might make a traditional airport building with sky bridges for passenger access
At the moment capacity is 12 starship (with grav drives)berths, and an open area that might hold what? 5 or 6 d200 ton ships? Parking bays for 5 shuttles and a landing area for say 6 VTOL non-grav drive space/starships. The area looks like it will need a lot more buidlings to look 'normal'. There have been lots of useful suggestions as to facilties so I'll use those to define the functions of the buildings.
Still not much to look at (Class E/D) but it has the ability to support the increased infrastructure now.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06d.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06c.jpg
The reference I used was that gateway to the stars, Newcastle airport. The scale works much better now.
I'm still puzzling over what the berths should look like for Grav Vehicles - I think I'm going to go for sunken berths but at the moment it's just painted place-holders. Time also to knock down the main spaceport building and to make something in keeping with the increase in traffic that the larger landing area will be able to accomodate.
The 'non grav' landing area has been placed quite far away, I'll need to redo the landing pads there. There is also a separate parking area for shuttles, I might make a traditional airport building with sky bridges for passenger access
At the moment capacity is 12 starship (with grav drives)berths, and an open area that might hold what? 5 or 6 d200 ton ships? Parking bays for 5 shuttles and a landing area for say 6 VTOL non-grav drive space/starships. The area looks like it will need a lot more buidlings to look 'normal'. There have been lots of useful suggestions as to facilties so I'll use those to define the functions of the buildings.
Still not much to look at (Class E/D) but it has the ability to support the increased infrastructure now.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06d.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_06c.jpg
mbrinkhues
January 23rd, 2007, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
I was going to agree on the safety issue, but then agan ... maybe not. Safety features tend to be in direct proportion to the perceived risk of an activity - that's why you don't get parachutes on airliners. The rules don't support the idea that manoeuvre drives are anything less than ultra-reliable, so maybe the idea of having to crash land a ship is simply inconceivable?
The short version being, no, 'realistically', Traveller starports should not have landing strips. Well, part of the "no chute" policy is that there is no way to get 200+ persons out of a downward accellerating airliner and that the extra weight would substract from the payload (income). The fact that HALO jumps require even more gear adds to the problem
And I guess if some airlines (like Aeroflot, SpanAir) started handing out chutes to it's passengers they would see a massiv decrease in passenger numbers.
OTOH there is the 1 Rescue ball or Suit per person policy on IRS (Imperial Registered Ships) in the OTU.
I was going to agree on the safety issue, but then agan ... maybe not. Safety features tend to be in direct proportion to the perceived risk of an activity - that's why you don't get parachutes on airliners. The rules don't support the idea that manoeuvre drives are anything less than ultra-reliable, so maybe the idea of having to crash land a ship is simply inconceivable?
The short version being, no, 'realistically', Traveller starports should not have landing strips. Well, part of the "no chute" policy is that there is no way to get 200+ persons out of a downward accellerating airliner and that the extra weight would substract from the payload (income). The fact that HALO jumps require even more gear adds to the problem
And I guess if some airlines (like Aeroflot, SpanAir) started handing out chutes to it's passengers they would see a massiv decrease in passenger numbers.
OTOH there is the 1 Rescue ball or Suit per person policy on IRS (Imperial Registered Ships) in the OTU.
mbrinkhues
January 23rd, 2007, 06:39 AM
I guess the landing system varies by Traveller implementation:
In TNE and GT gravity systems only provide lift not trust. They can make you weightless but any movement must be done by an other source
In MT you have Thrusters that only excert maximum force along one acis and reduce it if you use vectored thrust (Starship Operator) OTOH both types of plates are "cold". The old (pre TTL10 IIRC) pushes against a planetary gravity field, the new against a self-generated one.
======================
If a planet has TL9 or lower COACC he will likely have runways since most of those use runways. OTOH a COACC base must not be co-located with the starport and IIRC most of the time will not be co-located. Even a seperation by 50km still means that the military (i.e Rheine-Hopsten/JaBo36(72)) will cause problems for the civilian airport (i.e Münster-Osnabrück) and vice versa.
=====================
Runways for lower tech shuttles makes sense.
=====================
Emergency strips are something I'd rather locate AWAY from my mainport. Give them a seperate emergency unit and all but a multi-hundred tons craft (the cargo on a A2 alone can weight more than a fully loaded B52) build to withstand athmosphere entry (DR100 in GT, Armor 40+ in MT) can cause far more damage than a crashing airliner. Even worse if the Jump tanks are full.
In TNE and GT gravity systems only provide lift not trust. They can make you weightless but any movement must be done by an other source
In MT you have Thrusters that only excert maximum force along one acis and reduce it if you use vectored thrust (Starship Operator) OTOH both types of plates are "cold". The old (pre TTL10 IIRC) pushes against a planetary gravity field, the new against a self-generated one.
======================
If a planet has TL9 or lower COACC he will likely have runways since most of those use runways. OTOH a COACC base must not be co-located with the starport and IIRC most of the time will not be co-located. Even a seperation by 50km still means that the military (i.e Rheine-Hopsten/JaBo36(72)) will cause problems for the civilian airport (i.e Münster-Osnabrück) and vice versa.
=====================
Runways for lower tech shuttles makes sense.
=====================
Emergency strips are something I'd rather locate AWAY from my mainport. Give them a seperate emergency unit and all but a multi-hundred tons craft (the cargo on a A2 alone can weight more than a fully loaded B52) build to withstand athmosphere entry (DR100 in GT, Armor 40+ in MT) can cause far more damage than a crashing airliner. Even worse if the Jump tanks are full.
Icosahedron
January 23rd, 2007, 07:26 AM
I've just come in on this thread - looks good.
My 2p for points raised so far:
Landing pads are round so that ships can always head into the wind to minimise buffeting.
Caves are cheap and simple for protection against hostile atmosphere/natives, so should be nearby.
An idea of build timescale could be obtained from a Book 5 planetoid ship of equivalent size or the table in Pocket Empires p107 (1 year X to E, 2 years E to D, 10 years D to C).
I've always thought starports would be located on a lake if possible - ready made smooth flat surface and fuel store in one, but minimal tide/waves. Easy to taxi if need be, and quickly puts out any fires. Facilities can be mounted on a floating/legged/island structure for security, no need to build a fence, XT ends at the shore.
Coincidentally, before I read this thread, I started one under 'Ships Locker' to enquire about the effects of grav vehicle 'wash'. Would there be any pressure? Grav vehicles don't thrust against the surface but against the planet's gravity. If it creates a '1G overpressure' under the vehicle, the pressure might simply double the bystander's weight rather than crushing him?
My 2p for points raised so far:
Landing pads are round so that ships can always head into the wind to minimise buffeting.
Caves are cheap and simple for protection against hostile atmosphere/natives, so should be nearby.
An idea of build timescale could be obtained from a Book 5 planetoid ship of equivalent size or the table in Pocket Empires p107 (1 year X to E, 2 years E to D, 10 years D to C).
I've always thought starports would be located on a lake if possible - ready made smooth flat surface and fuel store in one, but minimal tide/waves. Easy to taxi if need be, and quickly puts out any fires. Facilities can be mounted on a floating/legged/island structure for security, no need to build a fence, XT ends at the shore.
Coincidentally, before I read this thread, I started one under 'Ships Locker' to enquire about the effects of grav vehicle 'wash'. Would there be any pressure? Grav vehicles don't thrust against the surface but against the planet's gravity. If it creates a '1G overpressure' under the vehicle, the pressure might simply double the bystander's weight rather than crushing him?
far-trader
January 23rd, 2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Dan, is there really a source giving information about the stuff a spacecraft spits out ??
TE Off the top of my head only two, and both are iffy canon I guess.
The first is High Guard 1st edition with it's fusion torch maneuver drives being useful as a weapon of mass destruction. The same rule didn't make it into HG 2nd ed but then so did some other stuff that maybe should have. So was it a rule change or errata? Probably the first.
The second is Starship Operators Manual 1 with it's color text about the (visible?) light and heat signature of the thruster plates being a dead giveaway in space.
However I think there are other sources, just none I can nail down at the moment. I'm almost sure SOM got the idea from some previous source besides HG 1st ed.
Dan, is there really a source giving information about the stuff a spacecraft spits out ??
TE Off the top of my head only two, and both are iffy canon I guess.
The first is High Guard 1st edition with it's fusion torch maneuver drives being useful as a weapon of mass destruction. The same rule didn't make it into HG 2nd ed but then so did some other stuff that maybe should have. So was it a rule change or errata? Probably the first.
The second is Starship Operators Manual 1 with it's color text about the (visible?) light and heat signature of the thruster plates being a dead giveaway in space.
However I think there are other sources, just none I can nail down at the moment. I'm almost sure SOM got the idea from some previous source besides HG 1st ed.
kaladorn
January 23rd, 2007, 03:28 PM
1) The point about emergency landing areas being external to the larger size ports is well taken. At an E class, it may well be that everywhere is essentially an emergency landing spot and there isn't really much to risk. But as you move up, more collateral damage becomes possible/likely, so you'd want to shift further away your emergency landing area. I'd say not so far away that your emergency responders can't reach, but far enough that a nice big boom won't destroy everything. Perhaps all emergency landings should be made into water (no harder than ground, absorbs heat, and could cushion and explosion).
2. Airports might want large ponds (actually, open-pit reservoirs) to provide available water for firefighting or irrigation. Also might be where their drainage goes.
3. Ship parking berths: Raised walls and a slightly raised platform are probably the best long term combo - raised walls protects from the environment (and in some cases, could have huge iris or clamshell doors or even some sort of static field repelling rain or other atmosphere) which I most specifically think of wind and wind blown particulates as part of, and the raised platform (a few feet) helps avoid drainage issues. Of course, for the largest ships, a raised platform in the open is the answer - you aren't likely putting a 50dton liner in a round berth or it'd be one freaking huge berth and big wall around it.
4. Starport buildings:
a) Well distributed emergency response will require multiple locations for at least one or two emergency vehicles. An infirmary/med center will become necessary.
b) Customs facilities will be integrated into the main terminal, but some form of impound lot for large cargo or even vessels may be necessary as well.
c) Quarantine area: An area for ships to be quarantined for a period (ideally, this would happen in space before inward clearance, but who knows?). This might just be a lockable berth or it might include its own mini hotel or cargo warehouses. This would also allow ships to be cleaned up (think of the scene in the 5th element where they use flamethrowers to clear vermin off the landing gear).
d) Repair berths, of sizes varying from 10dTons up to possibly several hundred dTons, some for short term work, others for longer term overhauls (think large quonsets or just scaffold frameworks). Also, warehouse space.
e) Fuel tankage and pumps for refined fuel, fuel for local atmosphere craft, and fuel for local ground/grav vehicles. Also probably storage of stuff like LOX and other sorts of gases or liquids needed for starships (coolants, atmospheric gases, lubricants, etc).
f) Disbursed security presence. You need to keep an eye on ships, people entering from the outside world, and even your staff.
g) Storage - parts, paperwork, computer data, yard maintenance equipment, electrical gear and powerplant parts, electronics spares (if the ILS goes down, you don't have time to call offsite), etc. Lots of buildings scattered about.
h) Inspection areas. Various ship's compliance with standards may need verified. The inspectors will need a place to work (berths could double as this) but they'll need offices and record annexes.
i) Onsite hotel/hostel, SPA office, TAS office, insurers offices, ground/grav vehicle rental offices, flight schools for atmospheric craft, perhaps schools for space vehicle crew, currency exchanges, food storage and preparation (from fast food joints to a cafeteria for the staff to fancy restuarants dealing in only offworld food), bank offices, trading factor offices (to buy and sell cargos and do brokerage stuff), veterinary and non-emergency medical services, knick nack and book stores, souvenir stores, stores selling restricted or regulated goods (licqour, drugs, weapons, armour, etc), camera/communications/computer store, tourist bureau, police installation for liason with local PDs outside extrality line, customs both from the planet and the Imperial side, etc.
j) Local defense force presence (for coordination with Imperial presence). Alternately SPA, corporate goons, IBI, Marines or Army... recruiters for various local and Imperial forces. Perhaps an embassy presence (I can see coupling embassies and starports in some places).
k) Acclimatization facilities - even with breathable atmospheres, you might have atmospheric pressure adaptions, you might need a shot or two for local allergens that need some time to take effect, you might need educated on what to do if you discover you are infected with Yallow Fever, etc. - This may take some time. This could be part of the hotel complexes or immigration or wherever.
l) Firefighting services - vehicles and men need a place to live and be worked on.
m) Mandatory Starport Bar(s)
n) Any professional guild (Astrogator's Guild, etc) offices.
o) Journalist offices (TNS, local news looking to break any incoming stories from the ships arriving, etc)
p) Indoor storage for atmospheric craft. Parking areas for same. Repair areas for same. Parking areas for ground or grav vehicles that are picking people up, dropping people off, or doing business with the port or its various ancillary businesses.
q) Psionics Institute (I'm kidding - just seeing if you were still reading)
r) Silos, gun emplacements, etc - Planetary and Starport specific defense against threats in the atmosphere or space (you have your ground-pounders to stop ground threats along with some perimeter defenses).
Note their should be a tower somewhere once you get a bit further along. It lets you mount your search radars higher up (good to avoid irradiating people with powerful emitters!) and it also lets your controllers get a visual eyes-on of what is happening on landing pads, runways, and so on. Sometimes planes/ships aren't responding, but if you can get eyes-on, they you can tell the other nearby craft a bit about what to watch for. You could also respond by dispatching police or emergency response as required. So a tower serves valid purposes even at higher TL.
All of these bits will be present or not depending on the TL, political, environmental, medical, legal, or financial situation (add diplomatic too). They will also evolve over time from smaller flat-pad only ports through your swirling multi-nodal metropoli of chaos.... like your large modern airport on steroids.
2. Airports might want large ponds (actually, open-pit reservoirs) to provide available water for firefighting or irrigation. Also might be where their drainage goes.
3. Ship parking berths: Raised walls and a slightly raised platform are probably the best long term combo - raised walls protects from the environment (and in some cases, could have huge iris or clamshell doors or even some sort of static field repelling rain or other atmosphere) which I most specifically think of wind and wind blown particulates as part of, and the raised platform (a few feet) helps avoid drainage issues. Of course, for the largest ships, a raised platform in the open is the answer - you aren't likely putting a 50dton liner in a round berth or it'd be one freaking huge berth and big wall around it.
4. Starport buildings:
a) Well distributed emergency response will require multiple locations for at least one or two emergency vehicles. An infirmary/med center will become necessary.
b) Customs facilities will be integrated into the main terminal, but some form of impound lot for large cargo or even vessels may be necessary as well.
c) Quarantine area: An area for ships to be quarantined for a period (ideally, this would happen in space before inward clearance, but who knows?). This might just be a lockable berth or it might include its own mini hotel or cargo warehouses. This would also allow ships to be cleaned up (think of the scene in the 5th element where they use flamethrowers to clear vermin off the landing gear).
d) Repair berths, of sizes varying from 10dTons up to possibly several hundred dTons, some for short term work, others for longer term overhauls (think large quonsets or just scaffold frameworks). Also, warehouse space.
e) Fuel tankage and pumps for refined fuel, fuel for local atmosphere craft, and fuel for local ground/grav vehicles. Also probably storage of stuff like LOX and other sorts of gases or liquids needed for starships (coolants, atmospheric gases, lubricants, etc).
f) Disbursed security presence. You need to keep an eye on ships, people entering from the outside world, and even your staff.
g) Storage - parts, paperwork, computer data, yard maintenance equipment, electrical gear and powerplant parts, electronics spares (if the ILS goes down, you don't have time to call offsite), etc. Lots of buildings scattered about.
h) Inspection areas. Various ship's compliance with standards may need verified. The inspectors will need a place to work (berths could double as this) but they'll need offices and record annexes.
i) Onsite hotel/hostel, SPA office, TAS office, insurers offices, ground/grav vehicle rental offices, flight schools for atmospheric craft, perhaps schools for space vehicle crew, currency exchanges, food storage and preparation (from fast food joints to a cafeteria for the staff to fancy restuarants dealing in only offworld food), bank offices, trading factor offices (to buy and sell cargos and do brokerage stuff), veterinary and non-emergency medical services, knick nack and book stores, souvenir stores, stores selling restricted or regulated goods (licqour, drugs, weapons, armour, etc), camera/communications/computer store, tourist bureau, police installation for liason with local PDs outside extrality line, customs both from the planet and the Imperial side, etc.
j) Local defense force presence (for coordination with Imperial presence). Alternately SPA, corporate goons, IBI, Marines or Army... recruiters for various local and Imperial forces. Perhaps an embassy presence (I can see coupling embassies and starports in some places).
k) Acclimatization facilities - even with breathable atmospheres, you might have atmospheric pressure adaptions, you might need a shot or two for local allergens that need some time to take effect, you might need educated on what to do if you discover you are infected with Yallow Fever, etc. - This may take some time. This could be part of the hotel complexes or immigration or wherever.
l) Firefighting services - vehicles and men need a place to live and be worked on.
m) Mandatory Starport Bar(s)
n) Any professional guild (Astrogator's Guild, etc) offices.
o) Journalist offices (TNS, local news looking to break any incoming stories from the ships arriving, etc)
p) Indoor storage for atmospheric craft. Parking areas for same. Repair areas for same. Parking areas for ground or grav vehicles that are picking people up, dropping people off, or doing business with the port or its various ancillary businesses.
q) Psionics Institute (I'm kidding - just seeing if you were still reading)
r) Silos, gun emplacements, etc - Planetary and Starport specific defense against threats in the atmosphere or space (you have your ground-pounders to stop ground threats along with some perimeter defenses).
Note their should be a tower somewhere once you get a bit further along. It lets you mount your search radars higher up (good to avoid irradiating people with powerful emitters!) and it also lets your controllers get a visual eyes-on of what is happening on landing pads, runways, and so on. Sometimes planes/ships aren't responding, but if you can get eyes-on, they you can tell the other nearby craft a bit about what to watch for. You could also respond by dispatching police or emergency response as required. So a tower serves valid purposes even at higher TL.
All of these bits will be present or not depending on the TL, political, environmental, medical, legal, or financial situation (add diplomatic too). They will also evolve over time from smaller flat-pad only ports through your swirling multi-nodal metropoli of chaos.... like your large modern airport on steroids.
mbrinkhues
January 23rd, 2007, 04:20 PM
I'd say anything greater than 5kTons is not likely to land on a planet. These are crafts that you'll likely only find on the big routes along major ports that in turn have orbital dockings.
I like the idea of the berm-internal drainage as well as the firefighting lake. Maybe combine it with a fuel source, using a reservoir for both (if a river is nearby) Page 10 (http://www.rwe.com/generator.aspx/rwe-power-icw/standorte/konvent-kraftwerke/erdgas/emsland/informationsmaterial/property=Data/id=109366/emsland-2-engl-pdf.pdf) of this PDF has an example of a real world one (used by "our" local nuke plant)
When it comes to covering a berth, the simples construction would be some crossbars suspendet on rollers/rails on both ends that are pulled over the berth after landing and then covered by a tarpaulin. Won't hold in a major hurricane but anything short of that should do.
I'd put emergency equipment and starport hospital under ground if the TL permits. Or at least in HAS like shelters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardened_Aircraft_Shelter)
Depending on the techlevel the tower could be an underground structure. With nuclear powered phase arrays and holographic displays the modern turret style towers are no longer needed at a mature TL8 or later
I like the idea of the berm-internal drainage as well as the firefighting lake. Maybe combine it with a fuel source, using a reservoir for both (if a river is nearby) Page 10 (http://www.rwe.com/generator.aspx/rwe-power-icw/standorte/konvent-kraftwerke/erdgas/emsland/informationsmaterial/property=Data/id=109366/emsland-2-engl-pdf.pdf) of this PDF has an example of a real world one (used by "our" local nuke plant)
When it comes to covering a berth, the simples construction would be some crossbars suspendet on rollers/rails on both ends that are pulled over the berth after landing and then covered by a tarpaulin. Won't hold in a major hurricane but anything short of that should do.
I'd put emergency equipment and starport hospital under ground if the TL permits. Or at least in HAS like shelters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardened_Aircraft_Shelter)
Depending on the techlevel the tower could be an underground structure. With nuclear powered phase arrays and holographic displays the modern turret style towers are no longer needed at a mature TL8 or later
Valarian
January 23rd, 2007, 04:41 PM
Once you start heading toward the B-class starport, the drainage lake / unrefined fuel source would want to have a fuel processing plant built next to it, with refined fuel storage. This is maybe not the best place to ditch spacecraft having difficulties.
Maybe starports and spaceports would be built on a coastline if possible. This allows for an emergency ditching area, and access to water for fuel processing.
Maybe starports and spaceports would be built on a coastline if possible. This allows for an emergency ditching area, and access to water for fuel processing.
mbrinkhues
January 23rd, 2007, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Valarian:
Once you start heading toward the B-class starport, the drainage lake / unrefined fuel source would want to have a fuel processing plant built next to it, with refined fuel storage. This is maybe not the best place to ditch spacecraft having difficulties.
Maybe starports and spaceports would be built on a coastline if possible. This allows for an emergency ditching area, and access to water for fuel processing. Do we need to have ready refined fuel on a base? Aside from a small amount for COACC and emergency craft?
I mean the average downtime is measured in days so a rather large refinery that does on demand refining might be a better idea. After all hydrogen is rather complex to store while water is very easy.
Just watching "The Vikings", Douglas/Curtis/Leight trashing history. More stuff to anger the re-enactors with. :D
Once you start heading toward the B-class starport, the drainage lake / unrefined fuel source would want to have a fuel processing plant built next to it, with refined fuel storage. This is maybe not the best place to ditch spacecraft having difficulties.
Maybe starports and spaceports would be built on a coastline if possible. This allows for an emergency ditching area, and access to water for fuel processing. Do we need to have ready refined fuel on a base? Aside from a small amount for COACC and emergency craft?
I mean the average downtime is measured in days so a rather large refinery that does on demand refining might be a better idea. After all hydrogen is rather complex to store while water is very easy.
Just watching "The Vikings", Douglas/Curtis/Leight trashing history. More stuff to anger the re-enactors with. :D
ravells
January 23rd, 2007, 06:41 PM
Um...ok, here is the next step.
Investment from the Imperium!
Without a highport, I think a landing strip is essential to cater to LASH craft and shuttles (TRADE!), so there are now shuttles (sort of in the style of the ones Brom wrote up for the last issue of Stellar Reaches).
Kaladorn has already forseen a couple of the investments made (thank you Kaladorn, I wish I could do proper justice to your stream of ideas, but they are so many and I am so slow!). I went for little berms around the starport berths with a utility room (for repair facilities) and a hydrogen cannister on top. In the second picture you can see the man-made lake with the refinery in the distance. I see the piping of the hydrogen to the cannisters underground on an as and when needed basis so there isn't a lot of the stuff lying around.
Because of the increased traffic there is now a proper starport concourse (TAS accomodation, starport bar, processing areas for passengers). Out of shot is an observatory (why not?) and a very large beacon. In shot there is a new much larger control tower. The original is still there, probably used as crew quarters now or something mundane.
I think the starport is now a D class at least.
I think we need Andrew and/or Mickazoid on this, I don't think I can keep up with the structures...they are all not mine but downloads from the web.
In the first picture I see the building on the far left as (p) in Kaladorn's most excellent list of facilities.
The starport is still lacking in those little things that make it a starport...lighting etc, but I don't have the time.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_08a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_07a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_07.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10.jpg
Investment from the Imperium!
Without a highport, I think a landing strip is essential to cater to LASH craft and shuttles (TRADE!), so there are now shuttles (sort of in the style of the ones Brom wrote up for the last issue of Stellar Reaches).
Kaladorn has already forseen a couple of the investments made (thank you Kaladorn, I wish I could do proper justice to your stream of ideas, but they are so many and I am so slow!). I went for little berms around the starport berths with a utility room (for repair facilities) and a hydrogen cannister on top. In the second picture you can see the man-made lake with the refinery in the distance. I see the piping of the hydrogen to the cannisters underground on an as and when needed basis so there isn't a lot of the stuff lying around.
Because of the increased traffic there is now a proper starport concourse (TAS accomodation, starport bar, processing areas for passengers). Out of shot is an observatory (why not?) and a very large beacon. In shot there is a new much larger control tower. The original is still there, probably used as crew quarters now or something mundane.
I think the starport is now a D class at least.
I think we need Andrew and/or Mickazoid on this, I don't think I can keep up with the structures...they are all not mine but downloads from the web.
In the first picture I see the building on the far left as (p) in Kaladorn's most excellent list of facilities.
The starport is still lacking in those little things that make it a starport...lighting etc, but I don't have the time.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_08a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_07a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_07.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10.jpg
Hyphen
January 23rd, 2007, 08:54 PM
Dear Folks -
Originally posted by far-trader:
However I think there are other sources, just none I can nail down at the moment. I'm almost sure SOM got the idea from some previous source besides HG 1st ed. The square baffles attached to the gig shown in Supp 9: Fighting Ships.
The colour text says the baffles were added to reduce the problems with heat spilling from the drives. However, many people really do just consider this to be colour, rather an example of The Law of Unintended Consequences[TM].
(The "jump flash" idea was added to MT, mainly because the game designers thought it would be a "cool effect!" Real astronomers pointed out that the consquence is "hey, you can detect when a ship jumps into a system!", which was thus used and expanded upon in TNE.)
Originally posted by far-trader:
However I think there are other sources, just none I can nail down at the moment. I'm almost sure SOM got the idea from some previous source besides HG 1st ed. The square baffles attached to the gig shown in Supp 9: Fighting Ships.
The colour text says the baffles were added to reduce the problems with heat spilling from the drives. However, many people really do just consider this to be colour, rather an example of The Law of Unintended Consequences[TM].
(The "jump flash" idea was added to MT, mainly because the game designers thought it would be a "cool effect!" Real astronomers pointed out that the consquence is "hey, you can detect when a ship jumps into a system!", which was thus used and expanded upon in TNE.)
Hyphen
January 23rd, 2007, 09:02 PM
Dear Folks -
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I'd say anything greater than 5kTons is not likely to land on a planet.My rule of thumb (and thus what's available at Beowulf Down) is max size that actually lands on the ground is 6kT. Craft up to 20kT can enter lower atmosphere and land... in water; they're not rigid enough to support themselves on land without breaking (think of the effect of putting legs on an oil tanker).
They may be able to land on special cradles (like the liner in an early Trav Digest), but that assumes the cradle is available, which assumes a standard merchant route, pre-positioned cradles, etc etc, i.e. Not For Everyone.
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
I'd say anything greater than 5kTons is not likely to land on a planet.My rule of thumb (and thus what's available at Beowulf Down) is max size that actually lands on the ground is 6kT. Craft up to 20kT can enter lower atmosphere and land... in water; they're not rigid enough to support themselves on land without breaking (think of the effect of putting legs on an oil tanker).
They may be able to land on special cradles (like the liner in an early Trav Digest), but that assumes the cradle is available, which assumes a standard merchant route, pre-positioned cradles, etc etc, i.e. Not For Everyone.
Mickazoid
January 23rd, 2007, 09:27 PM
I think it's also useful to note that a starport is a very likely hub for travel between cities/regions of the world, and so might just as well be an actual 'airport' or 'gravport' for travel across the planetary globe as much as starships or suborbital ships. I like the runways because they seem practical even at some high tech levels. Air travel and powered gliding could be extremely efficient at high TLs, when materials can be extra-light.
mbrinkhues
January 24th, 2007, 05:19 AM
Hyphen:
Sounds good. I like the idea with the cradel. Maybe something for a port in a flare star system where a highport is not the best idea. Makes for an interesting scene or two (i.e a series of cradle sabotages ala Rollercoaster)
mickazoid:
I always wondered wether there IS local air travel at a high tech world. Wouldn't tube trains using a grav or maglev suspension and evacuatet tubes) be a faster and more economic means of transport? What I could see is local short-ranged air traffic from the end-hub to the equivalent of the Australian Outback but with Traveller Tech one should be abel to get rid of trans-continantel flights
Sounds good. I like the idea with the cradel. Maybe something for a port in a flare star system where a highport is not the best idea. Makes for an interesting scene or two (i.e a series of cradle sabotages ala Rollercoaster)
mickazoid:
I always wondered wether there IS local air travel at a high tech world. Wouldn't tube trains using a grav or maglev suspension and evacuatet tubes) be a faster and more economic means of transport? What I could see is local short-ranged air traffic from the end-hub to the equivalent of the Australian Outback but with Traveller Tech one should be abel to get rid of trans-continantel flights
ravells
January 24th, 2007, 05:38 AM
I always wondered wether there IS local air travel at a high tech world. Wouldn't tube trains using a grav or maglev suspension and evacuatet tubes) be a faster and more economic means of transport? What I could see is local short-ranged air traffic from the end-hub to the equivalent of the Australian Outback but with Traveller Tech one should be abel to get rid of trans-continantel flights Doesn't the tech-level of the planet determine what intra-planetary 'feeder' transport is used in/out of starport as the infrastructure will have to also be maintained outside the XT line?
If this is correct then, depending on the tech level of the planet, transport could vary from camels to airships to mag-lev trains, which is kind of cool as it preserves diversity (which is how I like my traveller worlds, old tech rubbing shoulders with new tech).
Imagine a starport with hangars housing a load of hindenburg sized zepplins! Or cargo being taken out of the starport on caravans pulled by six legged oxen - great imaginative fodder.
Ravs
If this is correct then, depending on the tech level of the planet, transport could vary from camels to airships to mag-lev trains, which is kind of cool as it preserves diversity (which is how I like my traveller worlds, old tech rubbing shoulders with new tech).
Imagine a starport with hangars housing a load of hindenburg sized zepplins! Or cargo being taken out of the starport on caravans pulled by six legged oxen - great imaginative fodder.
Ravs
Valarian
January 24th, 2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Imagine a starport with hangars housing a load of hindenburg sized zepplins! Or cargo being taken out of the starport on caravans pulled by six legged oxenOooooooooh! :D
I like the airship idea - lots and lots of hydrogen in the area. :eek: No smoking! Please!
Imagine a starport with hangars housing a load of hindenburg sized zepplins! Or cargo being taken out of the starport on caravans pulled by six legged oxenOooooooooh! :D
I like the airship idea - lots and lots of hydrogen in the area. :eek: No smoking! Please!
Liam Devlin
January 24th, 2007, 07:49 AM
Ms.Mickazoid wrote:
I always wondered wether there IS local air travel at a high tech world. Wouldn't tube trains using a grav or maglev suspension and evacuatet tubes) be a faster and more economic means of transport? What I could see is local short-ranged air traffic from the end-hub to the equivalent of the Australian Outback but with Traveller Tech one should be abel to get rid of trans-continantel flights GDW's MT'-COACC displayed that even on worlds of TLA (TL-10) that aircraft were cheaper to produce than gravitic vehicles.
ravs wrote:
Doesn't the tech-level of the planet determine what intra-planetary 'feeder' transport is used in/out of starport as the infrastructure will have to also be maintained outside the XT line?Yes. smile.gif This also accounts that the starport itself is sometimes in anomalous UWP's found a world where the TL is lower than what is known it could sustain (the readymost examples are of an A-class port on a TL-8 world, and on another, a B-class starport on a TL3 world).
+TL8 is not high enough to produce even a Jump-1 capable starship, hence the A-class port must be presumed to be a minimum of TL9 & supported by offworld trade.
+TL3 is not a high enough TL to support a B-class starport again (its not even the age of electricty or early industrialization, TL4!). Once again, offworld outpost set up here, and supported by offworld trade.
If this is correct then, depending on the tech level of the planet, transport could vary from camels to airships to mag-lev trains, which is kind of cool as it preserves diversity (which is how I like my traveller worlds, old tech rubbing shoulders with new tech).
Imagine a starport with hangars housing a load of hindenburg sized zepplins! Or cargo being taken out of the starport on caravans pulled by six legged oxen - great imaginative fodder. Circa 1201: Jump (2022) B66536B-3 Lo Ni 411 Na/ The Blight (K)/ Diaspora--govt type 6 military/ or occupied by outside force delineates some of the story here... graemlins/file_22.gif
Yes, local transportation means to schlep the cargo & passengers off and away the Starport are dependent on the local majority Tech enjoyed elsewhere on the world :D
I always wondered wether there IS local air travel at a high tech world. Wouldn't tube trains using a grav or maglev suspension and evacuatet tubes) be a faster and more economic means of transport? What I could see is local short-ranged air traffic from the end-hub to the equivalent of the Australian Outback but with Traveller Tech one should be abel to get rid of trans-continantel flights GDW's MT'-COACC displayed that even on worlds of TLA (TL-10) that aircraft were cheaper to produce than gravitic vehicles.
ravs wrote:
Doesn't the tech-level of the planet determine what intra-planetary 'feeder' transport is used in/out of starport as the infrastructure will have to also be maintained outside the XT line?Yes. smile.gif This also accounts that the starport itself is sometimes in anomalous UWP's found a world where the TL is lower than what is known it could sustain (the readymost examples are of an A-class port on a TL-8 world, and on another, a B-class starport on a TL3 world).
+TL8 is not high enough to produce even a Jump-1 capable starship, hence the A-class port must be presumed to be a minimum of TL9 & supported by offworld trade.
+TL3 is not a high enough TL to support a B-class starport again (its not even the age of electricty or early industrialization, TL4!). Once again, offworld outpost set up here, and supported by offworld trade.
If this is correct then, depending on the tech level of the planet, transport could vary from camels to airships to mag-lev trains, which is kind of cool as it preserves diversity (which is how I like my traveller worlds, old tech rubbing shoulders with new tech).
Imagine a starport with hangars housing a load of hindenburg sized zepplins! Or cargo being taken out of the starport on caravans pulled by six legged oxen - great imaginative fodder. Circa 1201: Jump (2022) B66536B-3 Lo Ni 411 Na/ The Blight (K)/ Diaspora--govt type 6 military/ or occupied by outside force delineates some of the story here... graemlins/file_22.gif
Yes, local transportation means to schlep the cargo & passengers off and away the Starport are dependent on the local majority Tech enjoyed elsewhere on the world :D
ravells
January 24th, 2007, 09:20 AM
I guess a low class starport on a high tech planet would be easier to explain: The planet already has its own high class starports which excercise free trade so there is no need for the Imperium to duplicate.
Valarian: If I were making the zepplins I might opt for Helium! Although the prospect of hydrogen airships / dirigibles being used as in flight tankers for starships may have some legs for a very (odd) adventure.
:Edit: Question: As far as I can see, the only 'fuel' required by starships is hydrogen. Is this correct? Does the H fuel the manouevre and jump drives and powerplant?
Ravs
Ravs
Valarian: If I were making the zepplins I might opt for Helium! Although the prospect of hydrogen airships / dirigibles being used as in flight tankers for starships may have some legs for a very (odd) adventure.
:Edit: Question: As far as I can see, the only 'fuel' required by starships is hydrogen. Is this correct? Does the H fuel the manouevre and jump drives and powerplant?
Ravs
Ravs
Valarian
January 24th, 2007, 10:53 AM
I believe canon Traveller is that the liquid hydrogen fuel is used to power both jump and power plant (presumably a H-H fusion reaction). The maneuver drive uses the power from the power plant.
There's an article on Nuclear Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) at Wikipedia, with various links for fusion power etc.
You could try to figure the various reactions (at increasing levels of efficiency) in to the Traveller tech levels.
e.g.
D-T fusion at TL9
D-D fusion (with D-T secondary reaction) at TL13
and so on ...
There's an article on Nuclear Fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) at Wikipedia, with various links for fusion power etc.
You could try to figure the various reactions (at increasing levels of efficiency) in to the Traveller tech levels.
e.g.
D-T fusion at TL9
D-D fusion (with D-T secondary reaction) at TL13
and so on ...
Andrew Boulton
January 24th, 2007, 11:31 AM
FF&S has TL9-11 fusion using deuterium fuel.
ravells
January 24th, 2007, 12:10 PM
So the only fuel that the staport needs to have on hand is hydrogen (or its isotopes like deuterium). Excellent, thanks!
Ravs
Ravs
Mickazoid
January 24th, 2007, 12:14 PM
IMTU a free-standing body of water is the best way to provide fuel (skim/processors). When ravs first showed us his 'hollowed-out bowl'/valley basis for starport location, I figured that was the reason. A nice lake, replenished by frequent rain, is a wonderful self-refilling fuel source for a downport.
kaladorn
January 24th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Hyphen:
My rule of thumb (and thus what's available at Beowulf Down) is max size that actually lands on the ground is 6kT. Craft up to 20kT can enter lower atmosphere and land... in water; they're not rigid enough to support themselves on land without breaking (think of the effect of putting legs on an oil tanker).That would be fine, except most (all?) editions of ship construction rules don't apply this sort of limitation to the purchase of streamlined hulls. Presumably, if this was so, you could not buy streamlined hulls for larger vessels, but you can. Ergo there must be a purpose. Landing on a planet is that purpose, isn't it?
I mean, I personally concur with you that big ships shouldn't land - they should send shuttles or use beanstalks or whatever (hey, a high TL starport could have a beanstalk terminus too!). But I don't think the canon supports this sort of limitation.
My rule of thumb (and thus what's available at Beowulf Down) is max size that actually lands on the ground is 6kT. Craft up to 20kT can enter lower atmosphere and land... in water; they're not rigid enough to support themselves on land without breaking (think of the effect of putting legs on an oil tanker).That would be fine, except most (all?) editions of ship construction rules don't apply this sort of limitation to the purchase of streamlined hulls. Presumably, if this was so, you could not buy streamlined hulls for larger vessels, but you can. Ergo there must be a purpose. Landing on a planet is that purpose, isn't it?
I mean, I personally concur with you that big ships shouldn't land - they should send shuttles or use beanstalks or whatever (hey, a high TL starport could have a beanstalk terminus too!). But I don't think the canon supports this sort of limitation.
kaladorn
January 24th, 2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Yes, local transportation means to schlep the cargo & passengers off and away the Starport are dependent on the local majority Tech enjoyed elsewhere on the world :D I would add the word 'usually'. Take for example a TL-3 world with a Starport type B. B ports may well have a high volume of trade. Sure, your TL-3 locals can't really support this, but it may be that some entrepeneurs go to them and say 'Gee guys, you're bringing in a lot of stuff via camel trains, it takes forever, and that costs you X.... we can lay in a maglev rail, maintained by a few of your people we'll train with a few offworld techs, and it'll quintuple your delivery rates and cost you X/2...' or something like that. I can see a big port extending higher tech feeder lines out into a lower tech world, if the social and political climate permits, to ease commerce with the locals. If there is money to be made and there is a climate (political/economic/diplomatic) to support it, then someone will try to realize the profit. Now, given exchange rates, etc. this isn't an everywhere solution, but some TL-3 worlds might have valuable exports (Tea! The Empire can't function without it!).
I like the idea of a big reservoir with a massive fuel processor (maybe most of it underground) with feeder pipes running underground to developed bays. Each bay would have a boom or large hose system to mate to ships and feed them fuel from the underground system... there would be fair-sized underground reservoirs of refined fuel, but mostly it'd be made on demand by the massive fuel processor. This would work like today's rechargeable battery systems - you draw from the battery while the recharger simultaneously pumps charge into it to keep it topped up. (Except substitute fuel for charge).
This is probably safer vs. leaks and terrorist acts (underground facilities having controlled entry/exit points) as well as being good for the storage aspect. And the massive processor could be underground (mostly... small exterior entry areas or venting) for aesthetics too.
Yes, local transportation means to schlep the cargo & passengers off and away the Starport are dependent on the local majority Tech enjoyed elsewhere on the world :D I would add the word 'usually'. Take for example a TL-3 world with a Starport type B. B ports may well have a high volume of trade. Sure, your TL-3 locals can't really support this, but it may be that some entrepeneurs go to them and say 'Gee guys, you're bringing in a lot of stuff via camel trains, it takes forever, and that costs you X.... we can lay in a maglev rail, maintained by a few of your people we'll train with a few offworld techs, and it'll quintuple your delivery rates and cost you X/2...' or something like that. I can see a big port extending higher tech feeder lines out into a lower tech world, if the social and political climate permits, to ease commerce with the locals. If there is money to be made and there is a climate (political/economic/diplomatic) to support it, then someone will try to realize the profit. Now, given exchange rates, etc. this isn't an everywhere solution, but some TL-3 worlds might have valuable exports (Tea! The Empire can't function without it!).
I like the idea of a big reservoir with a massive fuel processor (maybe most of it underground) with feeder pipes running underground to developed bays. Each bay would have a boom or large hose system to mate to ships and feed them fuel from the underground system... there would be fair-sized underground reservoirs of refined fuel, but mostly it'd be made on demand by the massive fuel processor. This would work like today's rechargeable battery systems - you draw from the battery while the recharger simultaneously pumps charge into it to keep it topped up. (Except substitute fuel for charge).
This is probably safer vs. leaks and terrorist acts (underground facilities having controlled entry/exit points) as well as being good for the storage aspect. And the massive processor could be underground (mostly... small exterior entry areas or venting) for aesthetics too.
Andrew Boulton
January 24th, 2007, 02:29 PM
I generally say only ships under 1000dt can land, not because bigger ships *can't* land but because it's not practical to build bays big enough.
sgbrown
January 24th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
I generally say only ships under 1000dt can land, not because bigger ships *can't* land but because it's not practical to build bays big enough. Unless of course they're designed to land in a harbor / natural bay (ie ocean or lake landing).
I could see a situation where large ships are designed for waterlandings and bare rock landings while smaller ships use hard pad landing bays. Oceans become more than just a fuel source in this case.
I generally say only ships under 1000dt can land, not because bigger ships *can't* land but because it's not practical to build bays big enough. Unless of course they're designed to land in a harbor / natural bay (ie ocean or lake landing).
I could see a situation where large ships are designed for waterlandings and bare rock landings while smaller ships use hard pad landing bays. Oceans become more than just a fuel source in this case.
Andrew Boulton
January 24th, 2007, 03:12 PM
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in.
ravells
January 24th, 2007, 03:20 PM
(Tea! The Empire can't function without it!).
You need to add: 'We'll build railways!'
I've just been watching the first episode of the rerun of Niall Ferguson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson) 'Empire' about the the life of the British Empire. You can see a lot of interplay between trade and empire building as applied to traveller possibilities there.
Ravs
You need to add: 'We'll build railways!'
I've just been watching the first episode of the rerun of Niall Ferguson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson) 'Empire' about the the life of the British Empire. You can see a lot of interplay between trade and empire building as applied to traveller possibilities there.
Ravs
Mickazoid
January 24th, 2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in. I can see a city modeled after current-day Venice or Amsterdam, with one foot in the water (the waterways serving as roads and harbors) and one hand in the sky (the starships landing in the lakes, bays and dedicated starport pads). Would be a lovely world to visit, but reduced ground traffic speeds due to the canals would probably be a major issue too... smile.gif
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in. I can see a city modeled after current-day Venice or Amsterdam, with one foot in the water (the waterways serving as roads and harbors) and one hand in the sky (the starships landing in the lakes, bays and dedicated starport pads). Would be a lovely world to visit, but reduced ground traffic speeds due to the canals would probably be a major issue too... smile.gif
GypsyComet
January 24th, 2007, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in. As an example of water-assisted ports, here is a fairly nice aerial shot of the airport in Anchorage, Alaska. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=13&Z=6&X=212&Y=4241&W=2&qs=%7c%7cAlaska%7c
Note the barbell-shaped lake. Zoom in on the shores of the lake.
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in. As an example of water-assisted ports, here is a fairly nice aerial shot of the airport in Anchorage, Alaska. http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=4&S=13&Z=6&X=212&Y=4241&W=2&qs=%7c%7cAlaska%7c
Note the barbell-shaped lake. Zoom in on the shores of the lake.
Stefan325
January 24th, 2007, 11:29 PM
.....but reduced ground traffic speeds due to the canals would probably be a major issue too...
"Ground Traffic"?you wouldn't have to restrict the traffic to the ground, with grav vehicles the only real limit would be atmospheric, so I can't see that as a major issue given the proper tech level.
"Ground Traffic"?you wouldn't have to restrict the traffic to the ground, with grav vehicles the only real limit would be atmospheric, so I can't see that as a major issue given the proper tech level.
Mickazoid
January 24th, 2007, 11:33 PM
I was envisioning a world where grav was the exception, but yeah that spices it up too!
kaladorn
January 25th, 2007, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in. Supertankers of today top 300m. I think Vancouver harbour (I had a friend who spent a lot of time with the Navy) can accomodate either 2 or 4 of the big boys simultaneously (now, maybe that's just on the way in/out at one time... I'll have to ask him when he gets back with his ship from work ups post-refit in a week or three). The others wait at some sort of 'parking' zone and all of them get a local harbour pilot before they are allowed to come in. So some scheme like this might be used... how many 50,000 dTon ships would one expect at once? Even a big port might have 3 or 4 with a couple of others lined up waiting for a slot - they're just so large they'd only be justified on routes with a very high BTN (trade value in Gurpsian terms). Most places just wouldn't justify the heavy traffic, getting maybe one of these big boys at a time.
But there's only a finite amount of harbour space, and multi-kt ships can easily be >100m long. You'd still only get a handful in. Supertankers of today top 300m. I think Vancouver harbour (I had a friend who spent a lot of time with the Navy) can accomodate either 2 or 4 of the big boys simultaneously (now, maybe that's just on the way in/out at one time... I'll have to ask him when he gets back with his ship from work ups post-refit in a week or three). The others wait at some sort of 'parking' zone and all of them get a local harbour pilot before they are allowed to come in. So some scheme like this might be used... how many 50,000 dTon ships would one expect at once? Even a big port might have 3 or 4 with a couple of others lined up waiting for a slot - they're just so large they'd only be justified on routes with a very high BTN (trade value in Gurpsian terms). Most places just wouldn't justify the heavy traffic, getting maybe one of these big boys at a time.
kaladorn
January 25th, 2007, 12:44 AM
Harbour Pilots!
That's another point: Some ports may not let people land without a certified port pilot accompanying them. This would be for high traffic, high volume ports. The port pilot would transfer aboard at the highport or from a pinnace in orbit and supervise the atmospheric entry, the approach to the port, and the landing and securing of the vessel. Then they might launch to orbit for a second go. I'm imagining 2-3 of these trips might fit in a 12 hour shift. Note that only ships of a minimum size (perhaps > 1000 or 5000 dTons) would be required to use this sort of service and only at certain ports. The Harbour pilots would similarly be used on egress as well as on ingress. And of course, this gives a further 'union'/'guild' feel to some places (and leaves all sorts of Teamsters/Jimmy Hoffa sort of scenarios for the players to become involved in).
That's another point: Some ports may not let people land without a certified port pilot accompanying them. This would be for high traffic, high volume ports. The port pilot would transfer aboard at the highport or from a pinnace in orbit and supervise the atmospheric entry, the approach to the port, and the landing and securing of the vessel. Then they might launch to orbit for a second go. I'm imagining 2-3 of these trips might fit in a 12 hour shift. Note that only ships of a minimum size (perhaps > 1000 or 5000 dTons) would be required to use this sort of service and only at certain ports. The Harbour pilots would similarly be used on egress as well as on ingress. And of course, this gives a further 'union'/'guild' feel to some places (and leaves all sorts of Teamsters/Jimmy Hoffa sort of scenarios for the players to become involved in).
ravells
January 25th, 2007, 04:58 AM
Is there a listing anywhere of the size of traveller starships?
I went to that comparative staship site and copied these 4 (747,Hindenberg,Worlds Largest ship, Battlestar Galactica) to help me get my mind around the scale of ships generally. What would you assess the D-tonnage as of the craft pictured below?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_09.jpg
Ravs
I went to that comparative staship site and copied these 4 (747,Hindenberg,Worlds Largest ship, Battlestar Galactica) to help me get my mind around the scale of ships generally. What would you assess the D-tonnage as of the craft pictured below?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_09.jpg
Ravs
Scarecrow
January 25th, 2007, 06:19 AM
Yes, Mr Bolton of this parish did one a while back...
http://www.traveller3d.com/sizechart/index.htm
Enjoy,
Crow
http://www.traveller3d.com/sizechart/index.htm
Enjoy,
Crow
ravells
January 25th, 2007, 06:32 AM
Oh that is amazing! It's so rare when you get exactly what you ask for on the web!!!
Thanks Crow!
Ravs
Thanks Crow!
Ravs
Scarecrow
January 25th, 2007, 06:34 AM
Heh! Thank Andrew!
For some volumes... I've been working on a dTon volumes project on and off for a few years in which I build 1:1 scale block models of famous Sci-Fi starships and fighters and calculate their volume as accurately as possible and convert into dTons.
This is what I have to date:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">SHIP_________________dTons (13.5 cubic Metres)
X-Wing Fighter_______2.7
TIE Fighter__________1.74
B-Wing_______________4.19
A-Wing_______________2.15
Y-Wing_______________3.34
Jedi Interceptor_____0.45
Star Fury____________14.2
Colonial Viper_______1.34
Millenium Falcon_____63.96 (depending on which length you accept as canon)
Slave1_______________32.01
Rebel Transport______1324.1
Enterprise A_________18661
Enterprise D_________433352.2
Federation Starbase__219.76 mil
Star Destroyer_______5.1 mil
DeathStar II_________1265.8 Billion
Tydirium Shuttle_____44
Hindenburg___________18,212.69
Cloud City___________22,690.5 mil
Borg Cube____________2.1 mil
</pre>[/QUOTE]1 DTon = 13.5 M cu
1 Billion = 1,000,000,000,000
1 Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
Traveller ships it seems, really aren't that big smile.gif
Crow
For some volumes... I've been working on a dTon volumes project on and off for a few years in which I build 1:1 scale block models of famous Sci-Fi starships and fighters and calculate their volume as accurately as possible and convert into dTons.
This is what I have to date:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">SHIP_________________dTons (13.5 cubic Metres)
X-Wing Fighter_______2.7
TIE Fighter__________1.74
B-Wing_______________4.19
A-Wing_______________2.15
Y-Wing_______________3.34
Jedi Interceptor_____0.45
Star Fury____________14.2
Colonial Viper_______1.34
Millenium Falcon_____63.96 (depending on which length you accept as canon)
Slave1_______________32.01
Rebel Transport______1324.1
Enterprise A_________18661
Enterprise D_________433352.2
Federation Starbase__219.76 mil
Star Destroyer_______5.1 mil
DeathStar II_________1265.8 Billion
Tydirium Shuttle_____44
Hindenburg___________18,212.69
Cloud City___________22,690.5 mil
Borg Cube____________2.1 mil
</pre>[/QUOTE]1 DTon = 13.5 M cu
1 Billion = 1,000,000,000,000
1 Trillion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000
Traveller ships it seems, really aren't that big smile.gif
Crow
ravells
January 25th, 2007, 07:03 AM
So this is quite interesting. The nearest traveller equivalent of a 747 on Andrew's site is a 600dt subsidised liner. The largest aircraft today (the An-225, so the web says) is 10m or so longer than a 747 (so still within the 600dt range). In fact the web also says that the An-225's take-off weight is about 6 t which fits quite nicely.
So using the 747 as a 600dt yardstick and going back to my question above about the dtonnage of the pictured craft, and guesstimating by eye:
Hindenberg: 2500 dt? (more volumetric shape)
Supertanker: 5000 dt?
Battle Star G: 6500 dt?
These sizes mean that the types of starship that normally put down at a Starport (merchants, shuttles and liners) are of similar dimensions to aeroplanes at a modern airport.
I wonder through whether there is a case for having behemoth non-starships for intra-system cargo transport that actually use the downport. I suppose (engineering considerations permitting)it would depend on the economics of lots of trips ferrying the cargo to orbit as opposed to one trip for the ship to land planetside.
Ravs
So using the 747 as a 600dt yardstick and going back to my question above about the dtonnage of the pictured craft, and guesstimating by eye:
Hindenberg: 2500 dt? (more volumetric shape)
Supertanker: 5000 dt?
Battle Star G: 6500 dt?
These sizes mean that the types of starship that normally put down at a Starport (merchants, shuttles and liners) are of similar dimensions to aeroplanes at a modern airport.
I wonder through whether there is a case for having behemoth non-starships for intra-system cargo transport that actually use the downport. I suppose (engineering considerations permitting)it would depend on the economics of lots of trips ferrying the cargo to orbit as opposed to one trip for the ship to land planetside.
Ravs
Scarecrow
January 25th, 2007, 07:30 AM
The Hindenburg is actually just over 18,000 dTons
it's 245m long and using plans of it, I modelled it 1:1 scale (bearing in mind it was a close volumetric approximation and not an exact replica down to every last rivet) and it produced a volume of: 245,871.39 cubic Metres.
/13.5 = 18,212.69 dTons
The Supertanker looks to be over twice that and as a totally wild stab in the dark, I'd guess that the Galactica would in the 100,000 dTon range.
Note that you can't take Traveller ships' dTonnage as strictly accurate either. I'm pretty sure Andrew's got his lengths correct according to canon, yet note that the 200dTon Empress Marava is about a 3rd of the size of the 200 dTon Beowulf above it!!!
Crow
it's 245m long and using plans of it, I modelled it 1:1 scale (bearing in mind it was a close volumetric approximation and not an exact replica down to every last rivet) and it produced a volume of: 245,871.39 cubic Metres.
/13.5 = 18,212.69 dTons
The Supertanker looks to be over twice that and as a totally wild stab in the dark, I'd guess that the Galactica would in the 100,000 dTon range.
Note that you can't take Traveller ships' dTonnage as strictly accurate either. I'm pretty sure Andrew's got his lengths correct according to canon, yet note that the 200dTon Empress Marava is about a 3rd of the size of the 200 dTon Beowulf above it!!!
Crow
Liam Devlin
January 25th, 2007, 08:03 AM
Ravs:
given the Hindenburg's displacement at 18Ktons,
and the largest, best known freighter of the 3rd Imperium (MT-era) is the Imperial-class Bulk freighter came in at 20Kton J3/1G, you've got a decent amount of leeway.
The Imperial-class 20kton was built primarily in USL configuration, although PSL & SL versions of the hull are noted to have been retrofitted later.
Tukera-Lines LIC, & her subsidiaries also had a 10kton Bulk freighter (J-1 & J-2/1G)models, as well as their Hercules-class 5kton J1/1G bulk freighter, SL hull.
The 10kton is mentioned several times, but was never statted out (MT-COACC), but was Streamlined (SL) hulled for planetary landings and was a favorite surplus transport vessel of Mercenary outfits of the rebellion era.
Stepping back from there, the Tukera Lines 'Long' Liner at 3ktons (CT-MT fame) J4/1G, that followed the X-boat routes (USL hulled, orbital docking only), and their 1kton J3/1G Long-liner enlarged version of the trusty 400dt 'Subbie' airframe.
& Lest I forgett, the TransImperiallines, LIC's 2kton Frontier Far Trader, 2ktons J2/2G.
From these sources ravs, looks like the biggest landing commercial vessel is 10Ktons, as the others are primarily unsuitable for planetside landings, and will have to rely on Lighters/ shuttles to ferry the freight dirtside.
Orbital & Dirtside:
+10Ktons--Medium Imperial Bulk freighter
+5Ktons--Hercules-class Bulk freighter
+2Ktons--TransImperiallines Frontier Far Trader
+1Ktons--Tukera-Lines "Long-Liner"
Orbital Only:
+20Kton--Large Bulk Imperial-class freighter
+3Ktons--Tukera Lines "Liner"
helpfully yours,
given the Hindenburg's displacement at 18Ktons,
and the largest, best known freighter of the 3rd Imperium (MT-era) is the Imperial-class Bulk freighter came in at 20Kton J3/1G, you've got a decent amount of leeway.
The Imperial-class 20kton was built primarily in USL configuration, although PSL & SL versions of the hull are noted to have been retrofitted later.
Tukera-Lines LIC, & her subsidiaries also had a 10kton Bulk freighter (J-1 & J-2/1G)models, as well as their Hercules-class 5kton J1/1G bulk freighter, SL hull.
The 10kton is mentioned several times, but was never statted out (MT-COACC), but was Streamlined (SL) hulled for planetary landings and was a favorite surplus transport vessel of Mercenary outfits of the rebellion era.
Stepping back from there, the Tukera Lines 'Long' Liner at 3ktons (CT-MT fame) J4/1G, that followed the X-boat routes (USL hulled, orbital docking only), and their 1kton J3/1G Long-liner enlarged version of the trusty 400dt 'Subbie' airframe.
& Lest I forgett, the TransImperiallines, LIC's 2kton Frontier Far Trader, 2ktons J2/2G.
From these sources ravs, looks like the biggest landing commercial vessel is 10Ktons, as the others are primarily unsuitable for planetside landings, and will have to rely on Lighters/ shuttles to ferry the freight dirtside.
Orbital & Dirtside:
+10Ktons--Medium Imperial Bulk freighter
+5Ktons--Hercules-class Bulk freighter
+2Ktons--TransImperiallines Frontier Far Trader
+1Ktons--Tukera-Lines "Long-Liner"
Orbital Only:
+20Kton--Large Bulk Imperial-class freighter
+3Ktons--Tukera Lines "Liner"
helpfully yours,
ravells
January 25th, 2007, 08:06 AM
The Hindenburg is actually just over 18,000 dTons Blimey!
Just working off rough dimensions of a 747 fuselage then, length: 70m, cabin width: 6m, fuselage height: 10m = 4,200 / 13.5 = 311 dtons.
(not including the dtonnage for the wings).
Thinking about it because dtonnage is a measure of volume, the increase of dtonnage would rise geometrically if the length, bredth and height increased arithmetically.
I think for the purposes of guaguing scale on the starport I'm better off forgetting dtonnage and just using Andrew's pictures as a guide.
Thanks again, Crow!
Ravs
:Edit: I'm going to have to stop saying 'dtons' and just say 'tons' (it confused the hell out of me at first as I thought it was the si index of x10 tons, until I found out that the d stood for displacement)
:Edit: Thanks Liam, but see above, I'm not sure how useful (in terms of scaling the starport) tons are as a measurement.
Crow, as you have the software there, if it's not too much trouble could you make varying cigar shapes (generic hull) of 25m, 50m, 100m, 200m length and tell me what the tonage would be (or just the volume), and again if not too much trouble the same for a generic saucer shape? Crow - no need, I've found a volume calculator on the web Here (http://grapevine.abe.msstate.edu/~fto/tools/vol/index.html)
Cheers
Ravs
Just working off rough dimensions of a 747 fuselage then, length: 70m, cabin width: 6m, fuselage height: 10m = 4,200 / 13.5 = 311 dtons.
(not including the dtonnage for the wings).
Thinking about it because dtonnage is a measure of volume, the increase of dtonnage would rise geometrically if the length, bredth and height increased arithmetically.
I think for the purposes of guaguing scale on the starport I'm better off forgetting dtonnage and just using Andrew's pictures as a guide.
Thanks again, Crow!
Ravs
:Edit: I'm going to have to stop saying 'dtons' and just say 'tons' (it confused the hell out of me at first as I thought it was the si index of x10 tons, until I found out that the d stood for displacement)
:Edit: Thanks Liam, but see above, I'm not sure how useful (in terms of scaling the starport) tons are as a measurement.
Crow, as you have the software there, if it's not too much trouble could you make varying cigar shapes (generic hull) of 25m, 50m, 100m, 200m length and tell me what the tonage would be (or just the volume), and again if not too much trouble the same for a generic saucer shape? Crow - no need, I've found a volume calculator on the web Here (http://grapevine.abe.msstate.edu/~fto/tools/vol/index.html)
Cheers
Ravs
Hemdian
January 25th, 2007, 08:41 AM
Just a thought: As berthing capacity increases you'll need to upsize the port's generator, and not just for the larger general facilities. Berthed ships will want to power down their power plants prior to maintenance. So these ships will want to switch to an external electrical power supply for housekeeping needs for the duration. In fact it may even be considered a safety issue to not run a berthed ship's power planet unnecessarily.
Regards PLST
Regards PLST
Andrew Boulton
January 25th, 2007, 08:43 AM
The FF&S2 spreadsheet give dimensions based on tonnage and configuration.
http://www.traveller3d.com/downloads/FFS2XL97.xls
http://www.traveller3d.com/downloads/FFS2XL97.xls
Valarian
January 25th, 2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Hemdian:
Just a thought: As berthing capacity increases you'll need to upsize the port's generator, and not just for the larger general facilities. Berthed ships will want to power down their power plants prior to maintenance. So these ships will want to switch to an external electrical power supply for housekeeping needs for the duration. In fact it may even be considered a safety issue to not run a berthed ship's power planet unnecessarily.
Regards PLST Wouldn't it take too long to start up when you want to leave? I don't think nuclear power plants in naval vessels now are shut down completely even when in dock. May be one of the ex-naval guys on the boards could enlighten us.
Just a thought: As berthing capacity increases you'll need to upsize the port's generator, and not just for the larger general facilities. Berthed ships will want to power down their power plants prior to maintenance. So these ships will want to switch to an external electrical power supply for housekeeping needs for the duration. In fact it may even be considered a safety issue to not run a berthed ship's power planet unnecessarily.
Regards PLST Wouldn't it take too long to start up when you want to leave? I don't think nuclear power plants in naval vessels now are shut down completely even when in dock. May be one of the ex-naval guys on the boards could enlighten us.
Andrew Boulton
January 25th, 2007, 11:16 AM
A cold start takes about an hour, according to MT.
ravells
January 25th, 2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
The FF&S2 spreadsheet give dimensions based on tonnage and configuration.
http://www.traveller3d.com/downloads/FFS2XL97.xls Thanks Andrew - looks far too complicated for my simple brain, though! I'm just going to do an excel spreadsheet with the basic dimensions to input for different shapes.
Quick question: Am I right in thinking that dtonnage is a measure not just of all the 'empty bits' within a ship but the entire space bounded by the fabric of the hull?
I.e. a solid metal cube of 14m.5^3 would be 1 dton and not 0 dtons.
Ravs
The FF&S2 spreadsheet give dimensions based on tonnage and configuration.
http://www.traveller3d.com/downloads/FFS2XL97.xls Thanks Andrew - looks far too complicated for my simple brain, though! I'm just going to do an excel spreadsheet with the basic dimensions to input for different shapes.
Quick question: Am I right in thinking that dtonnage is a measure not just of all the 'empty bits' within a ship but the entire space bounded by the fabric of the hull?
I.e. a solid metal cube of 14m.5^3 would be 1 dton and not 0 dtons.
Ravs
Valarian
January 25th, 2007, 11:34 AM
I thought dTonnage was the volume of liquid hydrogen the body would displace if immersed.
ravells
January 25th, 2007, 11:48 AM
If that's the case, then I don't understand how 1 m^3 of any material can displace any more or less than 1 m^3 of any liquid - unless you're floating the material on the liquid in an environment with gravity, so the density of the material and the strength of gravity will become relevant factors.
I had understood a dton to be the volume occupied by one ton of liquid hydrogen (presumably measured at 1 gravity).
...but then that would not explain why it's called a displacement ton.
ravs
I had understood a dton to be the volume occupied by one ton of liquid hydrogen (presumably measured at 1 gravity).
...but then that would not explain why it's called a displacement ton.
ravs
Andrew Boulton
January 25th, 2007, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
Thanks Andrew - looks far too complicated for my simple brain, though!It is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but you only need the Hull section.
A dton is the volume displaced by 1 ton of liquid hydrogen.
Thanks Andrew - looks far too complicated for my simple brain, though!It is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but you only need the Hull section.
A dton is the volume displaced by 1 ton of liquid hydrogen.
Icosahedron
January 25th, 2007, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
I had understood a dton to be the volume occupied by one ton of liquid hydrogen (presumably measured at 1 gravity).
...but then that would not explain why it's called a displacement ton.
This is correct. When a ship of a certain volume is completely submerged in liquid hydrogen it will diplace a certain mass of lHyd. You are measuring the number of tons of Lhyd the ship displaces, hence the name.
I had understood a dton to be the volume occupied by one ton of liquid hydrogen (presumably measured at 1 gravity).
...but then that would not explain why it's called a displacement ton.
This is correct. When a ship of a certain volume is completely submerged in liquid hydrogen it will diplace a certain mass of lHyd. You are measuring the number of tons of Lhyd the ship displaces, hence the name.
kaladorn
January 25th, 2007, 06:40 PM
Depends what sources he used. Recall that Traders and Gunboats had some deckplans which are... seriously broken. I'm sure not all deckplans have been correctly drawn to scale so using them in size comparisons is dubious...
GypsyComet
January 25th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Note that you can't take Traveller ships' dTonnage as strictly accurate either. I'm pretty sure Andrew's got his lengths correct according to canon, yet note that the 200dTon Empress Marava is about a 3rd of the size of the 200 dTon Beowulf above it!!!
Crow The Marava and Beowulf are both notoriously inaccurate. The Sulieman, Animal, March Harrier, and Sommerset are fairly close to stated displacements.
Note that you can't take Traveller ships' dTonnage as strictly accurate either. I'm pretty sure Andrew's got his lengths correct according to canon, yet note that the 200dTon Empress Marava is about a 3rd of the size of the 200 dTon Beowulf above it!!!
Crow The Marava and Beowulf are both notoriously inaccurate. The Sulieman, Animal, March Harrier, and Sommerset are fairly close to stated displacements.
GypsyComet
January 25th, 2007, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
[b]
Orbital & Dirtside:
+10Ktons--Medium Imperial Bulk freighter
+5Ktons--Hercules-class Bulk freighter
+2Ktons--TransImperiallines Frontier Far Trader
+1Ktons--Tukera-Lines "Long-Liner"
Orbital Only:
+20Kton--Large Bulk Imperial-class freighter
+3Ktons--Tukera Lines "Liner"
helpfully yours, The Imperiallines TI/TJ can land, but has to fold up its wings to do so. Most of the habitable space is high in the hull, so water landings are also done where available. Specific landing conditions will also determine if it needs to de-dock its Shuttle, which sits in an indentation in the two bottom decks. No official deckplans and only three artwork appearances (from which my deckplans were derived).
According to the published deckplans (DGP Traveller's Digest, very early), the Tukera Long Liner needs either a special cradle or water landing areas, as its down wings *don't* fold up. As a Tukera design, it is likely to only call on ports equipped for it, so the cradles will normally not be an issue.
[b]
Orbital & Dirtside:
+10Ktons--Medium Imperial Bulk freighter
+5Ktons--Hercules-class Bulk freighter
+2Ktons--TransImperiallines Frontier Far Trader
+1Ktons--Tukera-Lines "Long-Liner"
Orbital Only:
+20Kton--Large Bulk Imperial-class freighter
+3Ktons--Tukera Lines "Liner"
helpfully yours, The Imperiallines TI/TJ can land, but has to fold up its wings to do so. Most of the habitable space is high in the hull, so water landings are also done where available. Specific landing conditions will also determine if it needs to de-dock its Shuttle, which sits in an indentation in the two bottom decks. No official deckplans and only three artwork appearances (from which my deckplans were derived).
According to the published deckplans (DGP Traveller's Digest, very early), the Tukera Long Liner needs either a special cradle or water landing areas, as its down wings *don't* fold up. As a Tukera design, it is likely to only call on ports equipped for it, so the cradles will normally not be an issue.
Liam Devlin
January 26th, 2007, 03:18 AM
Gypsy Comet wrote:
The Imperiallines TI/TJ can land, but has to fold up its wings to do so. Most of the habitable space is high in the hull, so water landings are also done where available. Specific landing conditions will also determine if it needs to de-dock its Shuttle, which sits in an indentation in the two bottom decks. No official deckplans and only three artwork appearances (from which my deckplans were derived).Which were well done btw, might I add. :cool: x10! And true, the TI/TJ was designed for frontier landings, the MT-Rebellion Sourcebook illus. pp.84-85, give us the conclusion waterborne 'soft' landings are preferred. MT-Imperial Encyclopedia illus. page 51 gave us an 'in-space' flight picture of the whole vessel (albeit by a diff artist).
According to the published deckplans (DGP Traveller's Digest, very early), the Tukera Long Liner needs either a special cradle or water landing areas, as its down wings *don't* fold up. As a Tukera design, it is likely to only call on ports equipped for it, so the cradles will normally not be an issue. Kewlness. :D I had not known that GC. Thanx! :cool:
The Imperiallines TI/TJ can land, but has to fold up its wings to do so. Most of the habitable space is high in the hull, so water landings are also done where available. Specific landing conditions will also determine if it needs to de-dock its Shuttle, which sits in an indentation in the two bottom decks. No official deckplans and only three artwork appearances (from which my deckplans were derived).Which were well done btw, might I add. :cool: x10! And true, the TI/TJ was designed for frontier landings, the MT-Rebellion Sourcebook illus. pp.84-85, give us the conclusion waterborne 'soft' landings are preferred. MT-Imperial Encyclopedia illus. page 51 gave us an 'in-space' flight picture of the whole vessel (albeit by a diff artist).
According to the published deckplans (DGP Traveller's Digest, very early), the Tukera Long Liner needs either a special cradle or water landing areas, as its down wings *don't* fold up. As a Tukera design, it is likely to only call on ports equipped for it, so the cradles will normally not be an issue. Kewlness. :D I had not known that GC. Thanx! :cool:
Andrew Boulton
January 26th, 2007, 08:16 AM
The Marava is based on corrected plans. The Broadsword is too big. I think the other models are correct. The rest vary.
Scarecrow
January 26th, 2007, 08:59 AM
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet? smile.gif
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/waynepeters/Beowulf.jpg
Crow
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet? smile.gif
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/waynepeters/Beowulf.jpg
Crow
ravells
January 26th, 2007, 10:03 AM
Hi Crow, As far as I can see there can be no argument about your figures - the dtonnage of the vehicle has nothing to do with what its made of or how much of the internals are solid.
I bet the poor authors of these ships had no idea that their work would be picked over 20 years after the fact!
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm smile.gif
Ravs
I bet the poor authors of these ships had no idea that their work would be picked over 20 years after the fact!
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm smile.gif
Ravs
Scarecrow
January 26th, 2007, 10:11 AM
No, quite. I don't think they either imagined that some anal retentive like me would be whining about accurate volumes 30 years down the line and I don't think they actually cared either. I think the philosophy was, "It's 400 squares (1dTon = 2 squares) and that'll do."
At the end of the day, it doesn't really affect gameplay one way or another wether the Beowulf deckplans are exactly 200 dTons or not, I do these things out of curiosity more than anything else and yes, using the 3D model cut through, is how I do my deckplans (when I actually do any). It's how I'm doing the Beagle deckplans (oh yes, I haven't forgotten.)
Crow
At the end of the day, it doesn't really affect gameplay one way or another wether the Beowulf deckplans are exactly 200 dTons or not, I do these things out of curiosity more than anything else and yes, using the 3D model cut through, is how I do my deckplans (when I actually do any). It's how I'm doing the Beagle deckplans (oh yes, I haven't forgotten.)
Crow
ravells
January 26th, 2007, 10:15 AM
There is a confluence in thread thought there...
This posted by TE on the 168 hours thread:
So - as often - we are approaching Traveller up to surface contact, discussing about high resolution details, based on vague hints of the Traveller documentation. We develop nifty theories about some cool details.
Well and the details disappear anyway, as we step a bit away for actual gameplay.
Life is tough. But that fun.
YAY for the Beagle deckplans!!! (Don't worry the adventure itself is still in playtest hell)
Ravs
This posted by TE on the 168 hours thread:
So - as often - we are approaching Traveller up to surface contact, discussing about high resolution details, based on vague hints of the Traveller documentation. We develop nifty theories about some cool details.
Well and the details disappear anyway, as we step a bit away for actual gameplay.
Life is tough. But that fun.
YAY for the Beagle deckplans!!! (Don't worry the adventure itself is still in playtest hell)
Ravs
kaladorn
January 26th, 2007, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet? smile.gif
Crow Do I not recall some caveat about drawing deck plans that suggested off by as much as +/- 20% was considered acceptable? Not sure if that would solve the problem, but perhaps it would go a long way towards explaining it?
Deck plans are the bane of my existence... especially since, by the time you get one done, some other retentive (*grin*) will locate a flaw in the *construction rules* like an errata or outright error in the algorithm or software you used, and the things you based your design off will be bogus anyway.
And yet, I've never seen a traveller game session ruined by having incorrect deckplans. Never even had a player worry about how many cubic meters their stateroom was or wasn't. Just never really entered the picture....
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet? smile.gif
Crow Do I not recall some caveat about drawing deck plans that suggested off by as much as +/- 20% was considered acceptable? Not sure if that would solve the problem, but perhaps it would go a long way towards explaining it?
Deck plans are the bane of my existence... especially since, by the time you get one done, some other retentive (*grin*) will locate a flaw in the *construction rules* like an errata or outright error in the algorithm or software you used, and the things you based your design off will be bogus anyway.
And yet, I've never seen a traveller game session ruined by having incorrect deckplans. Never even had a player worry about how many cubic meters their stateroom was or wasn't. Just never really entered the picture....
GypsyComet
January 26th, 2007, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Do I not recall some caveat about drawing deck plans that suggested off by as much as +/- 20% was considered acceptable? Not sure if that would solve the problem, but perhaps it would go a long way towards explaining it?
[/QB]Not in the case of the Beo and Marava, both of which are about twice their stated displacement. The Marava did eventually get *a* fix in TNE "Guilded Lily", while the folks at Seeker (and in my campaign) went the other route, designing a 400-ton ship to fit the deckplans.
I think someone has taken a stab at fixing the Beo, but not in official print. The original "flying iron" version of the Beo from Snapshot was actually pretty close, but a lot less interesting to look at. FASA's Alexandria class and the sleek version done by Judges Guild are both quite good renditions of the Type A, but they aren't the Beo.
Do I not recall some caveat about drawing deck plans that suggested off by as much as +/- 20% was considered acceptable? Not sure if that would solve the problem, but perhaps it would go a long way towards explaining it?
[/QB]Not in the case of the Beo and Marava, both of which are about twice their stated displacement. The Marava did eventually get *a* fix in TNE "Guilded Lily", while the folks at Seeker (and in my campaign) went the other route, designing a 400-ton ship to fit the deckplans.
I think someone has taken a stab at fixing the Beo, but not in official print. The original "flying iron" version of the Beo from Snapshot was actually pretty close, but a lot less interesting to look at. FASA's Alexandria class and the sleek version done by Judges Guild are both quite good renditions of the Type A, but they aren't the Beo.
far-trader
January 26th, 2007, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
I bet the poor authors of these ships had no idea that their work would be picked over 20 years after the fact!Or as in my case more like 20 seconds when I looked at Starship Operators Manual Volume 1 in the store smile.gif But I was sold when I saw the first ad for it in Challenge and bought it anyway. The rest of the book is superb. The fact that the deckplans, as nice to look at as they were, were so badly out of scale that I deemed them unusable didn't bother me much, I kept using my own closer scaled deckplans for play and had the "blueprints" up for eye candy as a poster. I would have been complaining 20 years ago* if I'd had a forum like this graemlins/file_22.gif graemlins/file_28.gif
* or more, like when I first found the Empress deckplans in Traders and Gunboats to be so badly out
It wasn't till many years later that I found a workable fix (which should have occured to me then). Just change the scale from 1.5m squares to 1m squares and it's pretty close. Instead of 50m long it's 33m which is as Crow found the right dimension. It fixes some of the problems but not all of them. Like way too much volume in staterooms and too little in cargo iirc. But then I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the wrong one critically in a long time.
Originally posted by ravs:
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm smile.gif
Pah, back then I did it the hard way, rescaling the profiles by graphing on top of photocopies until I got the hand calculated volumes about right smile.gif Came out pretty close I think.
My own corrected deckplans (teaser below) are a bit longer than Crows calculations at 42m but considering my primitive resources and methods is good enough. As I recall I had to stick to that length to get the classic 3 deck height while maintaining the same shape and general layout as shown in the interior sketches and blueprint. Externally I stuck to the mini which loses some volume under the back of the fuel scoops.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4460/beowulfdoodle4sn.jpg
I managed to fit everything in, in more or less the spirit of the original and if there is a dton overage it's in the fuel tanks. The actual internals come out to exactly the dtons designed iirc. That was my goal and I was perfectionist enough to not let go until that was met. I'd probably have to redo it again to be truly happy but I'm playing with other stuff at the moment and no game on the horizon anyway.
I bet the poor authors of these ships had no idea that their work would be picked over 20 years after the fact!Or as in my case more like 20 seconds when I looked at Starship Operators Manual Volume 1 in the store smile.gif But I was sold when I saw the first ad for it in Challenge and bought it anyway. The rest of the book is superb. The fact that the deckplans, as nice to look at as they were, were so badly out of scale that I deemed them unusable didn't bother me much, I kept using my own closer scaled deckplans for play and had the "blueprints" up for eye candy as a poster. I would have been complaining 20 years ago* if I'd had a forum like this graemlins/file_22.gif graemlins/file_28.gif
* or more, like when I first found the Empress deckplans in Traders and Gunboats to be so badly out
It wasn't till many years later that I found a workable fix (which should have occured to me then). Just change the scale from 1.5m squares to 1m squares and it's pretty close. Instead of 50m long it's 33m which is as Crow found the right dimension. It fixes some of the problems but not all of them. Like way too much volume in staterooms and too little in cargo iirc. But then I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the wrong one critically in a long time.
Originally posted by ravs:
Come to think of it, if one could take sections through the block model, it would be a really good way of accurately deck-planning the ship...hmmm smile.gif
Pah, back then I did it the hard way, rescaling the profiles by graphing on top of photocopies until I got the hand calculated volumes about right smile.gif Came out pretty close I think.
My own corrected deckplans (teaser below) are a bit longer than Crows calculations at 42m but considering my primitive resources and methods is good enough. As I recall I had to stick to that length to get the classic 3 deck height while maintaining the same shape and general layout as shown in the interior sketches and blueprint. Externally I stuck to the mini which loses some volume under the back of the fuel scoops.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4460/beowulfdoodle4sn.jpg
I managed to fit everything in, in more or less the spirit of the original and if there is a dton overage it's in the fuel tanks. The actual internals come out to exactly the dtons designed iirc. That was my goal and I was perfectionist enough to not let go until that was met. I'd probably have to redo it again to be truly happy but I'm playing with other stuff at the moment and no game on the horizon anyway.
far-trader
January 26th, 2007, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
I think someone has taken a stab at fixing the Beo, but not in official print.Me for one (see above), several times tongue.gif
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
The original "flying iron" version of the Beo from Snapshot was actually pretty close, but a lot less interesting to look at. FASA's Alexandria class and the sleek version done by Judges Guild are both quite good renditions of the Type A, but they aren't the Beo. I'd call the Snapshot deckplans ugly but great for a game of "monster in the hold" or "hi-jack in j-space" smile.gif
I think someone has taken a stab at fixing the Beo, but not in official print.Me for one (see above), several times tongue.gif
Originally posted by GypsyComet:
The original "flying iron" version of the Beo from Snapshot was actually pretty close, but a lot less interesting to look at. FASA's Alexandria class and the sleek version done by Judges Guild are both quite good renditions of the Type A, but they aren't the Beo. I'd call the Snapshot deckplans ugly but great for a game of "monster in the hold" or "hi-jack in j-space" smile.gif
far-trader
January 26th, 2007, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet? smile.gif
Certainly one of smile.gif
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model?
Out of curiosity, I ran up a block model of a Beowulf at lunch and scaling it to 2700 cubic metres (200 dTons) I measured it's length - it turned out to actually be just under 34 metres. There is room for error as the block model is very basic as you can see but it's a far cry from 50 metres!!!
Is it the most broken ship in the Traveller fleet? smile.gif
Certainly one of smile.gif
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model?
kaladorn
January 27th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Far-Trader, got a complete (not bisected) version of your plans to post?
Also, I have the hex-based deck plans from GT as well as the Seeker Deck plans as well as SOM and others. Is any one of those any better or worse for the Beowulf?
Also, I have the hex-based deck plans from GT as well as the Seeker Deck plans as well as SOM and others. Is any one of those any better or worse for the Beowulf?
Andrew Boulton
January 27th, 2007, 06:29 AM
There's a fixed Marava here:
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/peter/starships.html
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/peter/starships.html
far-trader
January 27th, 2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Far-Trader, got a complete (not bisected) version of your plans to post?Yes (I have full plans and external top view), and no (not ready to post), or maybe... I told you it was a teaser graemlins/file_22.gif
I had planned on working it up completely and trying to sneak it into some official product to get it canonized but then the wheels came off Hunter's life and I'm not sure it would have fit into the limits of the proposed Limited License idea being talked about. And somewhere along the way the new Beowulf mini came out, changing the shape yet again.
So it's been sitting around here long enough now that I am again less than perfectly pleased with it and would probably need to tune it up at least a little before I'd feel like sharing or shopping it around again. But we'll see, I hate it just sitting there not doing anybody any good :(
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Also, I have the hex-based deck plans from GT as well as the Seeker Deck plans as well as SOM and others. Is any one of those any better or worse for the Beowulf? Can't really say for sure...
I don't recall the GT ones clearly, only glanced at it years ago in the store but seem to recall them being nearly the same as the SOM plans.
Never had the Seeker Beowulf ones but if the other plans by Seeker that I did have are an indication then they are probably a bit off too.
The SOM ones can be made better if you rescale so that the squares are 1m (note the length of the beds for one) but it throws off some relationships to the external views and there are still issues.
...so it all depends on how picky you are. They all work fine if approched as only a placement map of the ship and not an accurate scaled representation.
What I mean is:
If in combat aboard ship, don't take the map distance as accurate for range purposes, but then most shipboard combat is going to be close range anyway and range is not a big issue.
When loading cargo use the design parameters as the limit and not the squares shown on the deckplan.
Don't let players "add" more staterooms into the ample open space on the passenger deck based on the squares.
If replacing drives, again use the design limits, not the squares shown.
Stuff like that.
Far-Trader, got a complete (not bisected) version of your plans to post?Yes (I have full plans and external top view), and no (not ready to post), or maybe... I told you it was a teaser graemlins/file_22.gif
I had planned on working it up completely and trying to sneak it into some official product to get it canonized but then the wheels came off Hunter's life and I'm not sure it would have fit into the limits of the proposed Limited License idea being talked about. And somewhere along the way the new Beowulf mini came out, changing the shape yet again.
So it's been sitting around here long enough now that I am again less than perfectly pleased with it and would probably need to tune it up at least a little before I'd feel like sharing or shopping it around again. But we'll see, I hate it just sitting there not doing anybody any good :(
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Also, I have the hex-based deck plans from GT as well as the Seeker Deck plans as well as SOM and others. Is any one of those any better or worse for the Beowulf? Can't really say for sure...
I don't recall the GT ones clearly, only glanced at it years ago in the store but seem to recall them being nearly the same as the SOM plans.
Never had the Seeker Beowulf ones but if the other plans by Seeker that I did have are an indication then they are probably a bit off too.
The SOM ones can be made better if you rescale so that the squares are 1m (note the length of the beds for one) but it throws off some relationships to the external views and there are still issues.
...so it all depends on how picky you are. They all work fine if approched as only a placement map of the ship and not an accurate scaled representation.
What I mean is:
If in combat aboard ship, don't take the map distance as accurate for range purposes, but then most shipboard combat is going to be close range anyway and range is not a big issue.
When loading cargo use the design parameters as the limit and not the squares shown on the deckplan.
Don't let players "add" more staterooms into the ample open space on the passenger deck based on the squares.
If replacing drives, again use the design limits, not the squares shown.
Stuff like that.
marvo
January 27th, 2007, 04:50 PM
If you landed a 100kton ship on the surface wouldn't you have to keep the anti-grav on all the time just to prevent the ship being crushed under it's own weight? The structural reinforcement required to maintain the structural integrity of the ship might not be very cost effective. :confused: And just imagine the landing gear that you would need to support such a weight. Landing on the belly would be okay for some ships, but not for any that have any turrets on the bottom.
far-trader
January 27th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Marvo:
If you landed a 100kton ship on the surface wouldn't you have to keep the anti-grav on all the time just to prevent the ship being crushed under it's own weight? Depends. Do the inertial compensators also protect the whole ship by reinforcing the structure during maneuvers? If so then they will also counter local gravity to the same degree I think. If they are tied to the anti-grav then you do still have a problem. If they are seperate then you're ok, other issues not withstanding.
If you landed a 100kton ship on the surface wouldn't you have to keep the anti-grav on all the time just to prevent the ship being crushed under it's own weight? Depends. Do the inertial compensators also protect the whole ship by reinforcing the structure during maneuvers? If so then they will also counter local gravity to the same degree I think. If they are tied to the anti-grav then you do still have a problem. If they are seperate then you're ok, other issues not withstanding.
kaladorn
January 27th, 2007, 09:00 PM
The problem here is that the rules system says streamlined ships can land on planets (presumably that implies not crushing from their own weight!) and it assigns a cost. This cost is not scaled out of proportion to size to penalize larger ships. This cost doesn't put any caveats down that I know of. So here we have what the rules say and what we suspect physics tells us differently.
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
graemlins/file_23.gif graemlins/file_23.gif
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
graemlins/file_23.gif graemlins/file_23.gif
far-trader
January 27th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
graemlins/file_23.gif graemlins/file_23.gif HEY! Them's fighten words! Slander me with that name again and you'll wish you'd never left the safety of the gravity of your homeworld. Calling me Trader Jim indeed! All your Tav'chredl and Hivers won't stand a chance against the favours I can call in among the Vargr Corsairs graemlins/file_22.gif
Oh, and Trader Jim, I sent the Tav'chredl or the Hivers after those who tease me for too long, so be cautioned.... :0)
graemlins/file_23.gif graemlins/file_23.gif HEY! Them's fighten words! Slander me with that name again and you'll wish you'd never left the safety of the gravity of your homeworld. Calling me Trader Jim indeed! All your Tav'chredl and Hivers won't stand a chance against the favours I can call in among the Vargr Corsairs graemlins/file_22.gif
Icosahedron
January 28th, 2007, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
The poor old overstretched rules again. :rolleyes:
They say little enough in this case that a compromise may be possible; ships over a certain size can enter an atmosphere, but MUST 'land' in water.
A 20kT berth will therefore include a suitable pool.
How's that sound?
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
The poor old overstretched rules again. :rolleyes:
They say little enough in this case that a compromise may be possible; ships over a certain size can enter an atmosphere, but MUST 'land' in water.
A 20kT berth will therefore include a suitable pool.
How's that sound?
mbrinkhues
January 28th, 2007, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Icosahedron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kaladorn:
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
The poor old overstretched rules again. :rolleyes:
They say little enough in this case that a compromise may be possible; ships over a certain size can enter an atmosphere, but MUST 'land' in water.
A 20kT berth will therefore include a suitable pool.
How's that sound? </font>[/QUOTE]Why do I have the picture of a mid-sized Vagr craft sitting in such a berth, the captain and crew floating around on inflateable "easy" chairs being served those drinks with the little umbrellas in it graemlins/file_23.gif
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by kaladorn:
I'm not saying I like large ships landing on planets, but the canonical sources tell us this is a fact of life, at least in the sense that it is feasible to do and the cost is X. So I'm just trying to be sure any understanding of ports takes this reality of the canon into account.
The poor old overstretched rules again. :rolleyes:
They say little enough in this case that a compromise may be possible; ships over a certain size can enter an atmosphere, but MUST 'land' in water.
A 20kT berth will therefore include a suitable pool.
How's that sound? </font>[/QUOTE]Why do I have the picture of a mid-sized Vagr craft sitting in such a berth, the captain and crew floating around on inflateable "easy" chairs being served those drinks with the little umbrellas in it graemlins/file_23.gif
Pickles
January 28th, 2007, 02:51 AM
Just because the rules don't explicitly say big ship's can't land, doesn't mean to say they can ...
far-trader
January 28th, 2007, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
Why do I have the picture of a mid-sized Vagr craft sitting in such a berth, the captain and crew floating around on inflateable "easy" chairs being served those drinks with the little umbrellas in it graemlins/file_23.gif Hey! I was at that party too! :D
Why do I have the picture of a mid-sized Vagr craft sitting in such a berth, the captain and crew floating around on inflateable "easy" chairs being served those drinks with the little umbrellas in it graemlins/file_23.gif Hey! I was at that party too! :D
sgbrown
January 29th, 2007, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Marvo:
If you landed a 100kton ship on the surface wouldn't you have to keep the anti-grav on all the time just to prevent the ship being crushed under it's own weight? The structural reinforcement required to maintain the structural integrity of the ship might not be very cost effective. :confused: And just imagine the landing gear that you would need to support such a weight. Landing on the belly would be okay for some ships, but not for any that have any turrets on the bottom. If you use HePlar or other "thrust" based m-drives (vs the falling into an artificial gravity well type) - then anything with a 1G acceleration or better would of necessity have more than enough structural reinforcement for sitting on land as long as the local gravity didn't exceed the drive rating.
However, unless the ship was designed to land, the structural reinforcement may not be in the right locations. This goes along with the landing gear statement and the issue of the landing pad for large ships. Both of which are addressed if the large ships land in water (though there are other implications for design that water landing creates.)
The question is at what level does the starport provide the intertubes and drinks with umbrella's? ;)
If you landed a 100kton ship on the surface wouldn't you have to keep the anti-grav on all the time just to prevent the ship being crushed under it's own weight? The structural reinforcement required to maintain the structural integrity of the ship might not be very cost effective. :confused: And just imagine the landing gear that you would need to support such a weight. Landing on the belly would be okay for some ships, but not for any that have any turrets on the bottom. If you use HePlar or other "thrust" based m-drives (vs the falling into an artificial gravity well type) - then anything with a 1G acceleration or better would of necessity have more than enough structural reinforcement for sitting on land as long as the local gravity didn't exceed the drive rating.
However, unless the ship was designed to land, the structural reinforcement may not be in the right locations. This goes along with the landing gear statement and the issue of the landing pad for large ships. Both of which are addressed if the large ships land in water (though there are other implications for design that water landing creates.)
The question is at what level does the starport provide the intertubes and drinks with umbrella's? ;)
Liam Devlin
January 29th, 2007, 03:11 AM
The question is at what level does the starport provide the intertubes and drinks with umbrella's?
;) That would be TL4 where innertube tires first appear.
paper-twig drink umbrellas...TL3
Free drinks--Must be a No law, or Low-Level world--book me passage, I'm there! :D
;) That would be TL4 where innertube tires first appear.
paper-twig drink umbrellas...TL3
Free drinks--Must be a No law, or Low-Level world--book me passage, I'm there! :D
kaladorn
January 29th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
[QUOTE]HEY! Them's fighten words! Slander me with that name again and you'll wish you'd never left the safety of the gravity of your homeworld. Calling me Trader Jim indeed! All your Tav'chredl and Hivers won't stand a chance against the favours I can call in among the Vargr Corsairs graemlins/file_22.gif A thousand pardons, Far-Trader. I got my traders confused... and indeed, I am penitent... :0)
[QUOTE]HEY! Them's fighten words! Slander me with that name again and you'll wish you'd never left the safety of the gravity of your homeworld. Calling me Trader Jim indeed! All your Tav'chredl and Hivers won't stand a chance against the favours I can call in among the Vargr Corsairs graemlins/file_22.gif A thousand pardons, Far-Trader. I got my traders confused... and indeed, I am penitent... :0)
marvo
January 29th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
If you use HePlar or other "thrust" based m-drives (vs the falling into an artificial gravity well type) - then anything with a 1G acceleration or better would of necessity have more than enough structural reinforcement for sitting on land as long as the local gravity didn't exceed the drive rating.
However, unless the ship was designed to land, the structural reinforcement may not be in the right locations. This goes along with the landing gear statement and the issue of the landing pad for large ships. Both of which are addressed if the large ships land in water (though there are other implications for design that water landing creates.)
The question is at what level does the starport provide the intertubes and drinks with umbrella's? ;) That's kind of what I was getting at but didn't put it so well. The structure would be okay for acceleration, but probably not so good for landing. What happens when a configuration like the High Lightning class lands on a planet? It's configuration is a tail sitter, but that's got to be totally impractical. If it lands horizontally there will have to be some interesting terminal facilities to handle the 90 degree shift in gravity when entering or leaving the ship.
Another problem is that a large number of small ships only have 1G of acceleration. That makes a vertical landing/takeoff impossible on a planet with more than 1G gravity. Perhaps that's a logical explanation for the streamlining and potential runway use.
If you use HePlar or other "thrust" based m-drives (vs the falling into an artificial gravity well type) - then anything with a 1G acceleration or better would of necessity have more than enough structural reinforcement for sitting on land as long as the local gravity didn't exceed the drive rating.
However, unless the ship was designed to land, the structural reinforcement may not be in the right locations. This goes along with the landing gear statement and the issue of the landing pad for large ships. Both of which are addressed if the large ships land in water (though there are other implications for design that water landing creates.)
The question is at what level does the starport provide the intertubes and drinks with umbrella's? ;) That's kind of what I was getting at but didn't put it so well. The structure would be okay for acceleration, but probably not so good for landing. What happens when a configuration like the High Lightning class lands on a planet? It's configuration is a tail sitter, but that's got to be totally impractical. If it lands horizontally there will have to be some interesting terminal facilities to handle the 90 degree shift in gravity when entering or leaving the ship.
Another problem is that a large number of small ships only have 1G of acceleration. That makes a vertical landing/takeoff impossible on a planet with more than 1G gravity. Perhaps that's a logical explanation for the streamlining and potential runway use.
kaladorn
January 29th, 2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
Just because the rules don't explicitly say big ship's can't land, doesn't mean to say they can ... I think several versions of the game define atmospheric streamlining or airframe construction being possible for ships and allowing them to land on planets. Others talk about semi-streamlined versus streamlined. So, I don't think I'd go so far as to assume the rules let you build these things and have them be pointless. This is a case where the implication of the construction rules is pretty clear (you can build these systems onto large ships, presumably to a purpose) and there is no contrarian statement indicating such landings are not possible. So taken together, that strongly augurs in favour of it being possible.
At higher TL, we have antigrav and all sorts of funky flying cities and stuff like that. Why anyone would balk at having an ability to land a 100Kton liner in a world that can hit enemy targets at hundreds of thousands of kilometers is beyond me... :)
Just because the rules don't explicitly say big ship's can't land, doesn't mean to say they can ... I think several versions of the game define atmospheric streamlining or airframe construction being possible for ships and allowing them to land on planets. Others talk about semi-streamlined versus streamlined. So, I don't think I'd go so far as to assume the rules let you build these things and have them be pointless. This is a case where the implication of the construction rules is pretty clear (you can build these systems onto large ships, presumably to a purpose) and there is no contrarian statement indicating such landings are not possible. So taken together, that strongly augurs in favour of it being possible.
At higher TL, we have antigrav and all sorts of funky flying cities and stuff like that. Why anyone would balk at having an ability to land a 100Kton liner in a world that can hit enemy targets at hundreds of thousands of kilometers is beyond me... :)
marvo
January 29th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif
far-trader
January 29th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Marvo:
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif You get to roll up new characters and the ref has to redo the UPP for the planet graemlins/file_23.gif
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif You get to roll up new characters and the ref has to redo the UPP for the planet graemlins/file_23.gif
Icosahedron
January 30th, 2007, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marvo:
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif You get to roll up new characters and the ref has to redo the UPP for the planet graemlins/file_23.gif </font>[/QUOTE]This is why, IMTU, at any decent size starport, ALL ships are brought in by a harbour pilot, and dangerous things like turrets and jump drives are locked off. Try to take off without the harbour pilot unlocking it, and your engineer has some bypassing to do. Not impossible, but the idea is an average engineer won't fix it this side of the 100D line.
Realistically, starships are just too darn dangerous to bring into a port, especially given the sort of gung-ho characters who usually crew the things!
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marvo:
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif You get to roll up new characters and the ref has to redo the UPP for the planet graemlins/file_23.gif </font>[/QUOTE]This is why, IMTU, at any decent size starport, ALL ships are brought in by a harbour pilot, and dangerous things like turrets and jump drives are locked off. Try to take off without the harbour pilot unlocking it, and your engineer has some bypassing to do. Not impossible, but the idea is an average engineer won't fix it this side of the 100D line.
Realistically, starships are just too darn dangerous to bring into a port, especially given the sort of gung-ho characters who usually crew the things!
Hyphen
January 30th, 2007, 02:24 AM
Dear Folks -
Originally posted by Marvo:
Another problem is that a large number of small ships only have 1G of acceleration. That makes a vertical landing/takeoff impossible on a planet with more than 1G gravity. Perhaps that's a logical explanation for the streamlining and potential runway use. ...although the Starship Operators's Manual suggests they "throttle-up" to a greater than 100% thrust (400% in the case of a 1g thruster landing horizontally).
But only for a few minutes (which is why you ensure you employ a good engineer).
Still, I *like* the idea of saving a few credits by allowing airframe craft to glide down to land...
Originally posted by Marvo:
Another problem is that a large number of small ships only have 1G of acceleration. That makes a vertical landing/takeoff impossible on a planet with more than 1G gravity. Perhaps that's a logical explanation for the streamlining and potential runway use. ...although the Starship Operators's Manual suggests they "throttle-up" to a greater than 100% thrust (400% in the case of a 1g thruster landing horizontally).
But only for a few minutes (which is why you ensure you employ a good engineer).
Still, I *like* the idea of saving a few credits by allowing airframe craft to glide down to land...
TheEngineer
January 30th, 2007, 06:43 AM
Hi !
Just think of a tiny ship - with a size of a pregnant Queen Mary II - so around 345 m long, 75 m wide, 70 m high, approaching the landing area of a dirtsite starport or a large troop transport approaching a battle field...
Don't you think, that this is just a MUST HAVE for Traveller ? smile.gif
Well, the rules do not have problems with that, and at least with MT m-drives and the IC/CG stuff it shouldn't be a problem anyway.
But even with regular constructions I don't see a mass/Dton limit here in this range.
Just consider the real world Queen Mary II. This is a 31 kDton vessel in Traveller terms and it is not considered to break apart if sitting in a dry dock or on sand smile.gif
The theoretical size limits for stable structures are pretty high....usually above the tiny Traveller ship sizes.
Regards,
TE
Just think of a tiny ship - with a size of a pregnant Queen Mary II - so around 345 m long, 75 m wide, 70 m high, approaching the landing area of a dirtsite starport or a large troop transport approaching a battle field...
Don't you think, that this is just a MUST HAVE for Traveller ? smile.gif
Well, the rules do not have problems with that, and at least with MT m-drives and the IC/CG stuff it shouldn't be a problem anyway.
But even with regular constructions I don't see a mass/Dton limit here in this range.
Just consider the real world Queen Mary II. This is a 31 kDton vessel in Traveller terms and it is not considered to break apart if sitting in a dry dock or on sand smile.gif
The theoretical size limits for stable structures are pretty high....usually above the tiny Traveller ship sizes.
Regards,
TE
kaladorn
January 30th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Keep in mind, in old CT (HG?) rules, it was easier to build high-G ships that were larger rather than smaller. So some of your 4G+ ships are big ships. This would mean that your large ships should have no problem landing.
I further assume that anything large like a 100K dTon ship that lands still has the usual issue of taking its powerplant offline. That kills (under normal circumstances) antigravity and if you've got your decks mis-aligned with local gravity, hilarity ensues. So how do we get around this? I think modern jets use auxilliary (external) power feeds to run some onboard systems while sitting in an embarkation/debarkation slip at an airport. I assume high tech, high quality ports have similar large (standardized) power feeds to provide power for anti-grav and similar sorts of systems while the ship is in port, even with the ship's main power offline. I'm sure the ship itself has enough battery capacity for a day or more with the main plant offline, but I'm also sure that they'd take a feed if it was available.
I know Traveller isn't Lucasville, but the image of battalions of Imperial Marines loading on large warhulls and getting ready to majestically head off on a campaign could be compelling. Certainly bulk goods transfer could be expidited like this (among other ways). Nothing says "Listen to Uncle Strephon" like a huge ship landing at your local port and dwarfing all the surroundings and disgorging a brigade of Imperial Marines.
I further assume that anything large like a 100K dTon ship that lands still has the usual issue of taking its powerplant offline. That kills (under normal circumstances) antigravity and if you've got your decks mis-aligned with local gravity, hilarity ensues. So how do we get around this? I think modern jets use auxilliary (external) power feeds to run some onboard systems while sitting in an embarkation/debarkation slip at an airport. I assume high tech, high quality ports have similar large (standardized) power feeds to provide power for anti-grav and similar sorts of systems while the ship is in port, even with the ship's main power offline. I'm sure the ship itself has enough battery capacity for a day or more with the main plant offline, but I'm also sure that they'd take a feed if it was available.
I know Traveller isn't Lucasville, but the image of battalions of Imperial Marines loading on large warhulls and getting ready to majestically head off on a campaign could be compelling. Certainly bulk goods transfer could be expidited like this (among other ways). Nothing says "Listen to Uncle Strephon" like a huge ship landing at your local port and dwarfing all the surroundings and disgorging a brigade of Imperial Marines.
Hemdian
January 30th, 2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Marvo:
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif On a 1G planet you need to make a Formidable+2 task roll or misjump. Reasoning here (http://www.trisen.com/sol/default.asp?topic=10&page=29) (at bottom of 'gravity' model).
Regards PLST
Now the big question... what happens if you activate your jump drive while sitting on the tarmac? graemlins/file_23.gif On a 1G planet you need to make a Formidable+2 task roll or misjump. Reasoning here (http://www.trisen.com/sol/default.asp?topic=10&page=29) (at bottom of 'gravity' model).
Regards PLST
ravells
January 30th, 2007, 11:29 AM
Is there anything to suggest that jumping out of a starport would create collateral damage to the surroundings, or would you simply be magnifying the chances of a misjump by a huge amount?
From what I have read on this thread there are now two potential ways in which a starship can wreck a downport:
1. Through misuse of the fusion plant
2. By activating the jump drive whilst in port.
If such actions were possible, taking out a starport would be a very simple process. Perps fly in and either rig up the fusion drive on their ship as a timed bomb or put some sort of timer on the J-drive. Then they just leave.
So my questions:
A1. Which is more probable? That jumping from a starport does or does not cause damage?
A2. Which is more probable? That the fusion plant on a ship can or cannot be turned into a potential nuclear device?
B1. If the answers to either or both A1 and A2 is that it's more probable for damage / nuclear device, then how does a starport protect itself?
If either of these methods are feasible it seems like a much easier way to launch a pre-emptive strike than using a navy.
Ravs
From what I have read on this thread there are now two potential ways in which a starship can wreck a downport:
1. Through misuse of the fusion plant
2. By activating the jump drive whilst in port.
If such actions were possible, taking out a starport would be a very simple process. Perps fly in and either rig up the fusion drive on their ship as a timed bomb or put some sort of timer on the J-drive. Then they just leave.
So my questions:
A1. Which is more probable? That jumping from a starport does or does not cause damage?
A2. Which is more probable? That the fusion plant on a ship can or cannot be turned into a potential nuclear device?
B1. If the answers to either or both A1 and A2 is that it's more probable for damage / nuclear device, then how does a starport protect itself?
If either of these methods are feasible it seems like a much easier way to launch a pre-emptive strike than using a navy.
Ravs
far-trader
January 30th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
Is there anything to suggest that jumping out of a starport would create collateral damage to the surroundings, or would you simply be magnifying the chances of a misjump by a huge amount?Well my answer above was largely facetious :D Not terribly helpful, so I apologize and offer the following as penance...
Suggest yes, prove no. The amount of energy involved in ripping a hole in space into jumpspace suggests a huge energy release. The amount of fuel used also suggests (unless you use the jump ballon idea) a huge energy release. The nature of jumpspace itself being violently hostile to normal space and material not protected by a jump grid suggests bad things for the local environment in close proximity to the open hole to jumpspace.
The ship IS going to have the misjump DM for inside 10D so they may even survive and simply be somewhere else. There are no rules that very close proximity jumps are more dangerous than close (10D) proximity ones. I wouldn't let anyone willfully attempting such a thing survive though.
Originally posted by ravs:
From what I have read on this thread there are now two potential ways in which a starship can wreck a downport:
1. Through misuse of the fusion plant
2. By activating the jump drive whilst in port.
If such actions were possible, taking out a starport would be a very simple process. Perps fly in and either rig up the fusion drive on their ship as a timed bomb or put some sort of timer on the J-drive. Then they just leave.
So my questions:
A1. Which is more probable? That jumping from a starport does or does not cause damage?
A2. Which is more probable? That the fusion plant on a ship can or cannot be turned into a potential nuclear device?
B1. If the answers to either or both A1 and A2 is that it's more probable for damage / nuclear device, then how does a starport protect itself?
If either of these methods are feasible it seems like a much easier way to launch a pre-emptive strike than using a navy.
Yep, and yet there doesn't seem to have been a rash of such incidents. We may speculate that no one in the OTU is so desperate or whatever to employ such expensive methods or, as in MTU...
All starships are built with hardwired failsafes to prevent dangerous tampering and employment.
Powerplants cannot be overloaded and exploded, they simply shut down with a hardwired lockout of the system in such a case.
Jump Drives cannot be initiated in very close (less than 1D?) proximity to a gravity source and any attempt to do so will result in a hardwired lockout of the system.
Navigation programs have built in collision avoidance overrides. So no autopilot high vee impact craters. Though a pilot may manually fly into something or set up the ship on a collision course far enough away to avoid the override and then attempt to disable the program. However such an attempt to interrupt a flight program in use will probably result in the computer initiating a hardwired emergency all stop and lockout of the Maneuver drive.
The Imperium, and every other star-faring polity, has had millenia to perfect the safety sytems to prevent such idiocy. I think if the players can think of it someone else has already considered it and come up with a way to prevent it. All that's left to the ref is to describe why it fails and then book the character(s) on the next prison transport graemlins/file_23.gif
Is there anything to suggest that jumping out of a starport would create collateral damage to the surroundings, or would you simply be magnifying the chances of a misjump by a huge amount?Well my answer above was largely facetious :D Not terribly helpful, so I apologize and offer the following as penance...
Suggest yes, prove no. The amount of energy involved in ripping a hole in space into jumpspace suggests a huge energy release. The amount of fuel used also suggests (unless you use the jump ballon idea) a huge energy release. The nature of jumpspace itself being violently hostile to normal space and material not protected by a jump grid suggests bad things for the local environment in close proximity to the open hole to jumpspace.
The ship IS going to have the misjump DM for inside 10D so they may even survive and simply be somewhere else. There are no rules that very close proximity jumps are more dangerous than close (10D) proximity ones. I wouldn't let anyone willfully attempting such a thing survive though.
Originally posted by ravs:
From what I have read on this thread there are now two potential ways in which a starship can wreck a downport:
1. Through misuse of the fusion plant
2. By activating the jump drive whilst in port.
If such actions were possible, taking out a starport would be a very simple process. Perps fly in and either rig up the fusion drive on their ship as a timed bomb or put some sort of timer on the J-drive. Then they just leave.
So my questions:
A1. Which is more probable? That jumping from a starport does or does not cause damage?
A2. Which is more probable? That the fusion plant on a ship can or cannot be turned into a potential nuclear device?
B1. If the answers to either or both A1 and A2 is that it's more probable for damage / nuclear device, then how does a starport protect itself?
If either of these methods are feasible it seems like a much easier way to launch a pre-emptive strike than using a navy.
Yep, and yet there doesn't seem to have been a rash of such incidents. We may speculate that no one in the OTU is so desperate or whatever to employ such expensive methods or, as in MTU...
All starships are built with hardwired failsafes to prevent dangerous tampering and employment.
Powerplants cannot be overloaded and exploded, they simply shut down with a hardwired lockout of the system in such a case.
Jump Drives cannot be initiated in very close (less than 1D?) proximity to a gravity source and any attempt to do so will result in a hardwired lockout of the system.
Navigation programs have built in collision avoidance overrides. So no autopilot high vee impact craters. Though a pilot may manually fly into something or set up the ship on a collision course far enough away to avoid the override and then attempt to disable the program. However such an attempt to interrupt a flight program in use will probably result in the computer initiating a hardwired emergency all stop and lockout of the Maneuver drive.
The Imperium, and every other star-faring polity, has had millenia to perfect the safety sytems to prevent such idiocy. I think if the players can think of it someone else has already considered it and come up with a way to prevent it. All that's left to the ref is to describe why it fails and then book the character(s) on the next prison transport graemlins/file_23.gif
Andrew Boulton
January 30th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Yup, there are several layers of safety locks preventing this. It's possible to get around them - and it will have happened many times over the centuries - but it's very difficult.
ravells
January 30th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Thanks Dan, I think that internal, unbreakable failsafes must be the answer.
The fact that neither form of destruction has been used in any canon literature (as far as I am aware) fortifies the point.
Ravs
The fact that neither form of destruction has been used in any canon literature (as far as I am aware) fortifies the point.
Ravs
Mickazoid
January 30th, 2007, 01:42 PM
BSG's "Jump in atmo" scene was very good for this purpose... the ship jumped into a stationary position above the 'target', and began to fall towards the planet.
As it fell, they launched fighters (that survived the passage thru the 'plasma' generated by friction), and afterwards, as the ship was rapidly approaching the ground, Galactica jumped back into space. The 'thundercrack' was pronounced (I would speculate it was caused by the 'implosion' of air into the space where the ship had been) and raised debris/pebbles/etc. on the ground (about a half-mile or so below the jump point).
I'd say that a stationary jump out of a starport would cause a similar 'thundercrack', a shock wave of air rushing into the volume formerly occupied by the ship first imploding towards the 'center' of the jump point, and then rippling back outwards accordingly, doing minor (if any) damage to facilities beyond a good sandblasting. Of course, the size of the ship in dtons would be the exact measure of the intensity of the implosion (displacement is the issue).
Thoughts?
As it fell, they launched fighters (that survived the passage thru the 'plasma' generated by friction), and afterwards, as the ship was rapidly approaching the ground, Galactica jumped back into space. The 'thundercrack' was pronounced (I would speculate it was caused by the 'implosion' of air into the space where the ship had been) and raised debris/pebbles/etc. on the ground (about a half-mile or so below the jump point).
I'd say that a stationary jump out of a starport would cause a similar 'thundercrack', a shock wave of air rushing into the volume formerly occupied by the ship first imploding towards the 'center' of the jump point, and then rippling back outwards accordingly, doing minor (if any) damage to facilities beyond a good sandblasting. Of course, the size of the ship in dtons would be the exact measure of the intensity of the implosion (displacement is the issue).
Thoughts?
Malenfant
January 30th, 2007, 01:44 PM
The only thought I have is that I thought the scene you're describing was one of the most spectacular, brilliant, insane things I've ever seen in a scifi show smile.gif
Wasn't there a bit in Bab5 when a whitestar was in a gas giant atmosphere and had to make a jump too? IIRC that was pretty spectacular too.
Wasn't there a bit in Bab5 when a whitestar was in a gas giant atmosphere and had to make a jump too? IIRC that was pretty spectacular too.
Mickazoid
January 30th, 2007, 01:48 PM
Agreed. Here in Mickiville that scene was on a loop for a while - I showed it to a few friends who weren't BSG watchers and now they are. GREAT DRAMA.
Never saw that B5 scene (I wasn't a big B5 watcher) - but I'll google it, find the episode number and hit up one of my B5 geeks friends to show me a copy smile.gif
Never saw that B5 scene (I wasn't a big B5 watcher) - but I'll google it, find the episode number and hit up one of my B5 geeks friends to show me a copy smile.gif
far-trader
January 30th, 2007, 02:12 PM
Haven't gotten to see much of the new BSG :( That sounds like a very cool scene though, I like desperation insanity tactics smile.gif At least in sci-fiction ;)
Yep, at the very least there'd be the vacuum left by the departure of the ship, presuming an atmosphere of course and not some airless world or highport is involved.
But I've got a feeling there'd be some interaction with the hole into jumpspace too. Or not. Depends on how "that" actually "works". In my mind I'm seeing something like a few seconds (however long it takes to tumble the ship) of F5 hurricane winds ripping everything nearby apart and across the event horizon (or whatever) and then creating a huge explosion when that matter interacts with jumpspace. It would cause extreme devastation imo, tied perhaps to the size of the starship and the jumpspace level (jump number) opened up. The ship would also take some of that damage but most of it would be directed out of the hole.
I don't recall the one you're thinking of in B5 Mal but then I missed a whole season and some so it could have been. It does sound a lot like an episode (I'm thinking) from one of the ST shows though, unless maybe I've gotten them mixed up in my mind smile.gif
Yep, at the very least there'd be the vacuum left by the departure of the ship, presuming an atmosphere of course and not some airless world or highport is involved.
But I've got a feeling there'd be some interaction with the hole into jumpspace too. Or not. Depends on how "that" actually "works". In my mind I'm seeing something like a few seconds (however long it takes to tumble the ship) of F5 hurricane winds ripping everything nearby apart and across the event horizon (or whatever) and then creating a huge explosion when that matter interacts with jumpspace. It would cause extreme devastation imo, tied perhaps to the size of the starship and the jumpspace level (jump number) opened up. The ship would also take some of that damage but most of it would be directed out of the hole.
I don't recall the one you're thinking of in B5 Mal but then I missed a whole season and some so it could have been. It does sound a lot like an episode (I'm thinking) from one of the ST shows though, unless maybe I've gotten them mixed up in my mind smile.gif
Mickazoid
January 30th, 2007, 02:20 PM
And here we find ourselves at a Hawking hypothesis - do black holes (jump singularities) have 'hair'? Does anything emerge from a singularity when matter goes in? One hypothesis is that the information that goes into a singularity is retained, in a kind of 'smear' on the event horizon. Another is that the creation of 'virtual particles' outside the event horizon reflects the information entering the singularity. (warning: I am a mere cosmological layperson)
Astrophysics notwithstanding, IMTU, in order to balance gameplay such a tactic (jumping in atmo) should damage the ship far more than the surrounding environment.
This would discourage such tactics as ineffective warmaking - if some of my grognardy friends could jump while stationary in order to intentionally cause an F5 hurricane, my game balance would suffer greatly. Every starjack pilot with a grudge would 'burn rubber' out of spacedock. Maybe that's what downporters should call in-atmo jumps... "burning rubber". Just like the RL equivalent, most of the damage is done to the vehicle (bald tires), and the stain on the road is superficial but the sound and smoke are very annoying.
If damage is directed more towards the ship, different story... it becomes an acceptable game mechanic (but one that would earn the pilot a troublemaker's reputation).
Astrophysics notwithstanding, IMTU, in order to balance gameplay such a tactic (jumping in atmo) should damage the ship far more than the surrounding environment.
This would discourage such tactics as ineffective warmaking - if some of my grognardy friends could jump while stationary in order to intentionally cause an F5 hurricane, my game balance would suffer greatly. Every starjack pilot with a grudge would 'burn rubber' out of spacedock. Maybe that's what downporters should call in-atmo jumps... "burning rubber". Just like the RL equivalent, most of the damage is done to the vehicle (bald tires), and the stain on the road is superficial but the sound and smoke are very annoying.
If damage is directed more towards the ship, different story... it becomes an acceptable game mechanic (but one that would earn the pilot a troublemaker's reputation).
far-trader
January 30th, 2007, 03:17 PM
I like your reasoning and analogy Micki smile.gif
ravells
January 30th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Wonderful reasoning all round. Starport design not affected. I was trying to think of ways of keeping the option of jump damage / fusion drive detonation and designing against the occurance (either through human or architectural systems) but this is much better.
In other news, I lost the next phase of development of the starport (dang) in a kitten induced computer shutdown.
No animals were hurt in the making of this starport (but only because she runs faster than I do).
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10b.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_09b.jpg
Ravs
In other news, I lost the next phase of development of the starport (dang) in a kitten induced computer shutdown.
No animals were hurt in the making of this starport (but only because she runs faster than I do).
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10b.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_09b.jpg
Ravs
Hyphen
January 30th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Dear Folks -
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
But even with regular constructions I don't see a mass/Dton limit here in this range.
Just consider the real world Queen Mary II. This is a 31 kDton vessel in Traveller terms and it is not considered to break apart if sitting in a dry dock or on sand smile.gif Notice what you are saying, however. A dry-dock(*) is designed to support the ship evenly so it doesn't break apart.
If you *carefully* run it aground (beach the ship), again, it is evenly supported and will not break its back.
Gee, it even works if you float the ship in water! (Oh, yeah, it's a SHIP, right? ;) )
I still think that a reasonable rule-of-thumb is that anything above 10KT will need to be supported in some special way, rather than being able to land on its own "feet".
(*) Note that a dry-dock is similar to the landing cradle shown in Digest 4's feature adventure "The Gold of Zurrian". The ship has "wings" that slant downwards, and it has no integral landing gear, so if it is going to land it must land either in water or on a cradle:
The Travellers' Digest, Number 4 (http://www.travellerbibliography.org/dgp/td4.html)
Note also that it is reasonable for better-quality 'ports to have landing cradles available for weird ships like this. A combination of gravitics (repulsors/grav plates) and mechanical "arms" ought to be able to provide a reconfigurable cradle arrangement. "One Size Fits Most". ;)
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
But even with regular constructions I don't see a mass/Dton limit here in this range.
Just consider the real world Queen Mary II. This is a 31 kDton vessel in Traveller terms and it is not considered to break apart if sitting in a dry dock or on sand smile.gif Notice what you are saying, however. A dry-dock(*) is designed to support the ship evenly so it doesn't break apart.
If you *carefully* run it aground (beach the ship), again, it is evenly supported and will not break its back.
Gee, it even works if you float the ship in water! (Oh, yeah, it's a SHIP, right? ;) )
I still think that a reasonable rule-of-thumb is that anything above 10KT will need to be supported in some special way, rather than being able to land on its own "feet".
(*) Note that a dry-dock is similar to the landing cradle shown in Digest 4's feature adventure "The Gold of Zurrian". The ship has "wings" that slant downwards, and it has no integral landing gear, so if it is going to land it must land either in water or on a cradle:
The Travellers' Digest, Number 4 (http://www.travellerbibliography.org/dgp/td4.html)
Note also that it is reasonable for better-quality 'ports to have landing cradles available for weird ships like this. A combination of gravitics (repulsors/grav plates) and mechanical "arms" ought to be able to provide a reconfigurable cradle arrangement. "One Size Fits Most". ;)
ravells
January 30th, 2007, 06:55 PM
OK, new starport rebuilt. Seconds to destroy but a couple of hours to repair.
Startown has arrived (middle distance). Also a huge new powerplant - front left.
I figured that the berths as we move from a D to a C class starport should start going up, so front right is a sort of multi-story starship park construction. I'm Not happy with it. Maybe the docks need to be more irregularly spaced and there needs to be more than one per face? Any suggestions?
As for the the very big 10kt ships, they are going to be huge on the scale we are talking about and I am torn between building some sort of huge lake (can double as a landing area for large ships (if you buy into the 'it'll float on water' theory) with little jettys and lighters to bring back the folk. Maybe vast crane constructions to resupply etc. The other option is to just have huge ground landing areas for them with cradles, but I have no idea what a cradle would remotely look like if it is to take more than one design of kilo-ship (sorry should be a mega ship).
:Edit: not sure why 100,000 tons has become the magic number - wouldn't it be probable that materials would have improved the the time frame we're considering? Although if canon says not, then I guess not.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10d.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10c.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_12a.jpg
Startown has arrived (middle distance). Also a huge new powerplant - front left.
I figured that the berths as we move from a D to a C class starport should start going up, so front right is a sort of multi-story starship park construction. I'm Not happy with it. Maybe the docks need to be more irregularly spaced and there needs to be more than one per face? Any suggestions?
As for the the very big 10kt ships, they are going to be huge on the scale we are talking about and I am torn between building some sort of huge lake (can double as a landing area for large ships (if you buy into the 'it'll float on water' theory) with little jettys and lighters to bring back the folk. Maybe vast crane constructions to resupply etc. The other option is to just have huge ground landing areas for them with cradles, but I have no idea what a cradle would remotely look like if it is to take more than one design of kilo-ship (sorry should be a mega ship).
:Edit: not sure why 100,000 tons has become the magic number - wouldn't it be probable that materials would have improved the the time frame we're considering? Although if canon says not, then I guess not.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10d.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10c.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_12a.jpg
Mickazoid
January 30th, 2007, 10:16 PM
Gorgeous. Would love to see a top-down or isometric view of each of the stages in the development of complexes, for direct comparison. These creations of yours will make a lovely collection of images and diagrams for the book!
Also please note - I have uploaded the 'atmo jump' segment for the enjoyment of all, and it can be viewed in Flash movie format here:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Zole/atmojumpstill.jpg (http://www.columbia.edu/~mbk2109/traveller/atmojump/)
Note one of my favorite lines - when the Viper pilot "Hot Dog" drily says "Well, this oughta be different" before launching from the plummeting ship. Priceless!
Also please note - I have uploaded the 'atmo jump' segment for the enjoyment of all, and it can be viewed in Flash movie format here:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/Zole/atmojumpstill.jpg (http://www.columbia.edu/~mbk2109/traveller/atmojump/)
Note one of my favorite lines - when the Viper pilot "Hot Dog" drily says "Well, this oughta be different" before launching from the plummeting ship. Priceless!
kaladorn
January 30th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Ravs,
Nice work.
Take a 100K dTon rectangular ship (40m x 40m cross section, 800m+ length). 800m+ is big, but 100K dTons is absolutely huge. Still 800m+, vs the length of modern airports isn't really unmanageable (one or two of them!). A modern Nimitz is 332m long. 40m beam, 78 m to top of the mast from base of the keel.
So if our conjectural ship was 40x60m, it would be 560m or so. That's on the way towards twice the length of a Nimitz.
But compared to large expanses of ground, maybe not so large. You have to imagine an A or B class port must be huge. An A-class, especially, can *build* these things. So it *must* have sufficient space.
For large ships, I think having a big pad area (perhaps normally used to park a variety of smaller craft... bit ships could expect reasonable landing delays to allow reshuffling of local small craft) would be one answer. The lake, which can help fill a groundwater runoff and firefighting role, certainly is another viable option. Make it about 1000m wide, pretty much circular, and it could handle as many as 20 of the ships I outlined. Note there should be spillways that drain back into the lake around it, so that when ships displace water, it flows into the spillways and then when they leave, it flows back into the lake.
I'm thinking a good way to handle small ships is to drill down - use stacked underground docking bays with elevators. Then your traffic scheduling becomes tractoring your ship (or floating it on AG) over to the elevator and getting lifted to the surface - you can't just fly off (a la Falcon at Mos Eisley) ignoring ATC, because you're underground. It also makes a good way to provide secure bays, safe from weather and intruders, and with controlled entry and exit. And to lockdown the whole port (small traffic anyway) if you need to. The visible surface presence just looks like a large raised pad, maybe rectangular (one elevator used for bringing ships up for launch, one to take them down... odds are actually at busy times they'd both be used efficiently and bidirectionally). Bury a bunch of these pads around and have 10 or 20 layers worth of storage beneath each pad. Perhaps allow ships to pay extra dockage fees for a 'priority' surface berth to allow departure at whim (the rich, diplomats, military ships, etc).
For the security issues:
1) A starship nuclear plant could become a nuclear bomb. But that's a fair bit of work. Easier to smuggle an actual nuke in (small, could be shielded). Assume that this doesn't happen due to A) Imperial efforts to keep nukes under wraps, B) high tech detectors that are *very* hard to shield against or fool and C) the fact that a well designed port made out of the materials of well designed ships of the TL (or at least equivalent hardnesses, even if it is achieved through thick walls of permacrete or something) can probably withstand more of a 'whack' than most people think. Also, to take a bomb supercritical may take key fractions of a second and a port may have emergency focusable nuclear dampers to thwart this kind of thing or at least to protect key infrastructure and which is 'always watching'. I'm sure there are interlocks to prevent such shenanigans on ships, but I'm also sure any interlock can be worked around by a skilled and patient technically savvy individual. Note any form of tampering may show up at ship inspections and be dealt with rather unmercifully. Also note that the hardened underground storage I'm talking about might actually help contain blasts and mitigate any sort of real threat from small ships (terrorists) doing this sort of thing. Blast maybe cripples an elevator for a time, damages a few bays up or down... bad, but hardly crippling for the port.
2. Jump Drive engagement: I like the 'vaccuum rushes in' idea, but that only becomes an issue for really big ships going out like this (large mass of air to replace). Otherwise it is just a sound effect (maybe blow down some nearby locals if they're not well anchored). I assume any failure/destruction of the ship has its energy directed INTO the jumpspace and thus is only threatening to the ship. The jumpspace is a greater zone of entropy (or some such thing) and sucks in all such energies. Or maybe the nature of the failures (never really specified) tends to be in not reaching the correct subspace, but that is an 'elsewhere' issue and not affecting the normal space reality at all. Goodbye ship, no damage to the port or surroundings. No 'Jump Bomb'. Here again we add in interlocks and inspections (and harsh punishements for futzing around or having gear that isn't in correct operating condition).
Nice work.
Take a 100K dTon rectangular ship (40m x 40m cross section, 800m+ length). 800m+ is big, but 100K dTons is absolutely huge. Still 800m+, vs the length of modern airports isn't really unmanageable (one or two of them!). A modern Nimitz is 332m long. 40m beam, 78 m to top of the mast from base of the keel.
So if our conjectural ship was 40x60m, it would be 560m or so. That's on the way towards twice the length of a Nimitz.
But compared to large expanses of ground, maybe not so large. You have to imagine an A or B class port must be huge. An A-class, especially, can *build* these things. So it *must* have sufficient space.
For large ships, I think having a big pad area (perhaps normally used to park a variety of smaller craft... bit ships could expect reasonable landing delays to allow reshuffling of local small craft) would be one answer. The lake, which can help fill a groundwater runoff and firefighting role, certainly is another viable option. Make it about 1000m wide, pretty much circular, and it could handle as many as 20 of the ships I outlined. Note there should be spillways that drain back into the lake around it, so that when ships displace water, it flows into the spillways and then when they leave, it flows back into the lake.
I'm thinking a good way to handle small ships is to drill down - use stacked underground docking bays with elevators. Then your traffic scheduling becomes tractoring your ship (or floating it on AG) over to the elevator and getting lifted to the surface - you can't just fly off (a la Falcon at Mos Eisley) ignoring ATC, because you're underground. It also makes a good way to provide secure bays, safe from weather and intruders, and with controlled entry and exit. And to lockdown the whole port (small traffic anyway) if you need to. The visible surface presence just looks like a large raised pad, maybe rectangular (one elevator used for bringing ships up for launch, one to take them down... odds are actually at busy times they'd both be used efficiently and bidirectionally). Bury a bunch of these pads around and have 10 or 20 layers worth of storage beneath each pad. Perhaps allow ships to pay extra dockage fees for a 'priority' surface berth to allow departure at whim (the rich, diplomats, military ships, etc).
For the security issues:
1) A starship nuclear plant could become a nuclear bomb. But that's a fair bit of work. Easier to smuggle an actual nuke in (small, could be shielded). Assume that this doesn't happen due to A) Imperial efforts to keep nukes under wraps, B) high tech detectors that are *very* hard to shield against or fool and C) the fact that a well designed port made out of the materials of well designed ships of the TL (or at least equivalent hardnesses, even if it is achieved through thick walls of permacrete or something) can probably withstand more of a 'whack' than most people think. Also, to take a bomb supercritical may take key fractions of a second and a port may have emergency focusable nuclear dampers to thwart this kind of thing or at least to protect key infrastructure and which is 'always watching'. I'm sure there are interlocks to prevent such shenanigans on ships, but I'm also sure any interlock can be worked around by a skilled and patient technically savvy individual. Note any form of tampering may show up at ship inspections and be dealt with rather unmercifully. Also note that the hardened underground storage I'm talking about might actually help contain blasts and mitigate any sort of real threat from small ships (terrorists) doing this sort of thing. Blast maybe cripples an elevator for a time, damages a few bays up or down... bad, but hardly crippling for the port.
2. Jump Drive engagement: I like the 'vaccuum rushes in' idea, but that only becomes an issue for really big ships going out like this (large mass of air to replace). Otherwise it is just a sound effect (maybe blow down some nearby locals if they're not well anchored). I assume any failure/destruction of the ship has its energy directed INTO the jumpspace and thus is only threatening to the ship. The jumpspace is a greater zone of entropy (or some such thing) and sucks in all such energies. Or maybe the nature of the failures (never really specified) tends to be in not reaching the correct subspace, but that is an 'elsewhere' issue and not affecting the normal space reality at all. Goodbye ship, no damage to the port or surroundings. No 'Jump Bomb'. Here again we add in interlocks and inspections (and harsh punishements for futzing around or having gear that isn't in correct operating condition).
far-trader
January 31st, 2007, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Ravs,
Nice work.Quite so kaladorn, and I keep forgetting to say so here. Thanks for another reminder. And so...
I'm liking this project of yours a lot Ravs. Try to ignore my "helpful" comments when they interfere smile.gif
Case in point... graemlins/file_22.gif
Originally posted by kaladorn:
But compared to large expanses of ground, maybe not so large. You have to imagine an A or B class port must be huge. An A-class, especially, can *build* these things. So it *must* have sufficient space. I'd say not myself. Once you get to a class A or B port I expect the bulk of it is done in orbit. No need to build, repair or process the behemoths on the ground with all it's complications when there's all that easier space up there.
If you want a canon cite (I knew I'd seen it somewhere) CT S9 (albeit speaking of Imperial Navy and Scout Bases) offers...
Naval Bases: The berthing area is generally a series of orbit patterns which large naval vessels
are placed into when not in need of any sort of major repair. Smaller craft also use
these orbits when not wishing to land as part of their stop. Light repair work
involving no structural or integral systems can be performed with the ship either
placed in an orbit pattern or berthed at the ground based facility. Surface support
of ships is generally limited to vessels displacing 1,000 tons or less. Although larger
ships can sometimes be handled on the ground, they are usually repaired and maintained
in orbit.
and...
Way stations... <are the> equivalent of naval bases... although
they are capable of servicing only the smaller tonnage ships (10,000 tons and
below) due to restrictions on facilities...
Scout bases... are small repair and maintenance
facilities capable of handling ships of 1,000 tons and under.
It seems reasonable that civilian facilities would be if anything smaller than an IN one.
So we have:
Naval Bases able to handle any size ship in orbit but limited to 1,000tons on the ground routinely.
Scout Way Stations able to handle up to 10,000tons (presumably in orbit) due to restrictions on facilities.
Scout Bases able to handle up to 1,000tons (again presumably in orbit).
And we know the IN only has Naval Bases at class A or B starports while IISS Bases can be found at class A through D starports, though more commonly at the lower end.
I'd tie the size of civilian facilities to the starport class using the above as guidelines. Something like:
Class A starports: Highport and Downport Facilties limited to 10,000tons maximum size.
Class B Starports: Highport and Downport Facilities are limited to 5,000tons.
Class C Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 1,000tons. No Highport.
Class D Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 500tons. No Highport.
Just off the top of my head. I had it worked out similarily at least once before but with more details and a population factor.
Ravs,
Nice work.Quite so kaladorn, and I keep forgetting to say so here. Thanks for another reminder. And so...
I'm liking this project of yours a lot Ravs. Try to ignore my "helpful" comments when they interfere smile.gif
Case in point... graemlins/file_22.gif
Originally posted by kaladorn:
But compared to large expanses of ground, maybe not so large. You have to imagine an A or B class port must be huge. An A-class, especially, can *build* these things. So it *must* have sufficient space. I'd say not myself. Once you get to a class A or B port I expect the bulk of it is done in orbit. No need to build, repair or process the behemoths on the ground with all it's complications when there's all that easier space up there.
If you want a canon cite (I knew I'd seen it somewhere) CT S9 (albeit speaking of Imperial Navy and Scout Bases) offers...
Naval Bases: The berthing area is generally a series of orbit patterns which large naval vessels
are placed into when not in need of any sort of major repair. Smaller craft also use
these orbits when not wishing to land as part of their stop. Light repair work
involving no structural or integral systems can be performed with the ship either
placed in an orbit pattern or berthed at the ground based facility. Surface support
of ships is generally limited to vessels displacing 1,000 tons or less. Although larger
ships can sometimes be handled on the ground, they are usually repaired and maintained
in orbit.
and...
Way stations... <are the> equivalent of naval bases... although
they are capable of servicing only the smaller tonnage ships (10,000 tons and
below) due to restrictions on facilities...
Scout bases... are small repair and maintenance
facilities capable of handling ships of 1,000 tons and under.
It seems reasonable that civilian facilities would be if anything smaller than an IN one.
So we have:
Naval Bases able to handle any size ship in orbit but limited to 1,000tons on the ground routinely.
Scout Way Stations able to handle up to 10,000tons (presumably in orbit) due to restrictions on facilities.
Scout Bases able to handle up to 1,000tons (again presumably in orbit).
And we know the IN only has Naval Bases at class A or B starports while IISS Bases can be found at class A through D starports, though more commonly at the lower end.
I'd tie the size of civilian facilities to the starport class using the above as guidelines. Something like:
Class A starports: Highport and Downport Facilties limited to 10,000tons maximum size.
Class B Starports: Highport and Downport Facilities are limited to 5,000tons.
Class C Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 1,000tons. No Highport.
Class D Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 500tons. No Highport.
Just off the top of my head. I had it worked out similarily at least once before but with more details and a population factor.
TheEngineer
January 31st, 2007, 04:23 AM
Hi !
Dan, pretty good notes.
As we are talking about the regular way things are managed on a starport, this aspect seems to be resolved. smile.gif
So could we say, large streamlined ship can land on a dirtside but regulary do not ?
regards,
TE
Dan, pretty good notes.
As we are talking about the regular way things are managed on a starport, this aspect seems to be resolved. smile.gif
So could we say, large streamlined ship can land on a dirtside but regulary do not ?
regards,
TE
ravells
January 31st, 2007, 05:16 AM
Kaladorn, thank you for your continuing avalanche of ideas. They really do help in the conception of this project.
Dan, you've been a great help!
I guess once this starport starts to become a C/B class the landing area you see might become a secondary area and a huge primary landing area will need to be built.
Still need to redo the shipyard which was destroyed by the Godzilla cat.
Ravs
All the best
Ravs
Dan, you've been a great help!
I guess once this starport starts to become a C/B class the landing area you see might become a secondary area and a huge primary landing area will need to be built.
Still need to redo the shipyard which was destroyed by the Godzilla cat.
Ravs
All the best
Ravs
kaladorn
January 31st, 2007, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Kaladorn, thank you for your continuing avalanche of ideas. They really do help in the conception of this project.Most interesting Traveller thread in an epoch! Keep up the good work (though clearly I'm going to have to counter-cite vs. Dan shortly... *grin*).
Still need to redo the shipyard which was destroyed by the Godzilla cat.That's a nice looking cat, BTW. (I'm a sucker for cats and dogs). Cats are evil incarnate, but their charm makes up for it (and they've been granted fast reflexes and a high fleeing speed for when this is not true). But it does underscore the 'save often!' directive....
I do look forward to this whole evolution seeing some sort of consolidated book/booklet format. It's a pretty cool project, really.
All the best
Ravs [/QB][/QUOTE]
Kaladorn, thank you for your continuing avalanche of ideas. They really do help in the conception of this project.Most interesting Traveller thread in an epoch! Keep up the good work (though clearly I'm going to have to counter-cite vs. Dan shortly... *grin*).
Still need to redo the shipyard which was destroyed by the Godzilla cat.That's a nice looking cat, BTW. (I'm a sucker for cats and dogs). Cats are evil incarnate, but their charm makes up for it (and they've been granted fast reflexes and a high fleeing speed for when this is not true). But it does underscore the 'save often!' directive....
I do look forward to this whole evolution seeing some sort of consolidated book/booklet format. It's a pretty cool project, really.
All the best
Ravs [/QB][/QUOTE]
far-trader
January 31st, 2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
...(though clearly I'm going to have to counter-cite vs. Dan shortly... *grin*).smile.gif By all means do. I don't have any GT stuff (if you do) and think the Starports book must have some ideas on the size and general traffic volume that might help. I also seem to recall another source with info similar to that in S9 but don't recall what it was.
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I do look forward to this whole evolution seeing some sort of consolidated book/booklet format. It's a pretty cool project, really.
Me too. And maybe a little time-lapse movie smile.gif
...(though clearly I'm going to have to counter-cite vs. Dan shortly... *grin*).smile.gif By all means do. I don't have any GT stuff (if you do) and think the Starports book must have some ideas on the size and general traffic volume that might help. I also seem to recall another source with info similar to that in S9 but don't recall what it was.
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I do look forward to this whole evolution seeing some sort of consolidated book/booklet format. It's a pretty cool project, really.
Me too. And maybe a little time-lapse movie smile.gif
far-trader
January 31st, 2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
guess once this starport starts to become a C/B class the landing area you see might become a secondary area and a huge primary landing area will need to be built.That makes sense. Trade increases for one thing will mean more warehousing and distribution. Passengers will need access and hotels. Perhaps the old secondary port becomes a dedicated small craft feild serving to connect to the increased orbital traffic and the fledgling Highport?
Speaking of which, will you be addressing the possible Scout Base and Naval Base development alongside the civilian facility? Or is this just a civilian facility?
Oh, and a nice big shiny TAS tower smile.gif And a monorail! :D And... ;)
guess once this starport starts to become a C/B class the landing area you see might become a secondary area and a huge primary landing area will need to be built.That makes sense. Trade increases for one thing will mean more warehousing and distribution. Passengers will need access and hotels. Perhaps the old secondary port becomes a dedicated small craft feild serving to connect to the increased orbital traffic and the fledgling Highport?
Speaking of which, will you be addressing the possible Scout Base and Naval Base development alongside the civilian facility? Or is this just a civilian facility?
Oh, and a nice big shiny TAS tower smile.gif And a monorail! :D And... ;)
far-trader
January 31st, 2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
So could we say, large streamlined ship can land on a dirtside but regulary do not?
I see no reason why not. I do recall an in depth engineering examination on these boards (don't recall who did it) of just how big a ship could be built structurally sound, and I think it topped out at around 15Ktons. But that was without benefit of gravitics.
Personally I'd probably top out 1G grounding of ships at 10Ktons as a practical matter. Everthing from not having scaffolding and such high enough to reach the ship to creating a navigation nuisance/hazard locally. Larger ships could make water landings though, or simply ground on smaller low-g worlds where they wouldn't be subject to as much stress. In both cases though they'd be outside the service area of the starport and not much better off than in a parking orbit.
So could we say, large streamlined ship can land on a dirtside but regulary do not?
I see no reason why not. I do recall an in depth engineering examination on these boards (don't recall who did it) of just how big a ship could be built structurally sound, and I think it topped out at around 15Ktons. But that was without benefit of gravitics.
Personally I'd probably top out 1G grounding of ships at 10Ktons as a practical matter. Everthing from not having scaffolding and such high enough to reach the ship to creating a navigation nuisance/hazard locally. Larger ships could make water landings though, or simply ground on smaller low-g worlds where they wouldn't be subject to as much stress. In both cases though they'd be outside the service area of the starport and not much better off than in a parking orbit.
ravells
January 31st, 2007, 10:56 AM
Micki: Top down view coming. I'm watching BSG in order, and haven't come to that episode yet. Can't wait!
Consolidation / Final Format / movie: Part of the reason for starting this thread was to generate ideas for the joint effort starport booklet that Liam Devlin is project managing. I may do a movie of the starport evolving, but this will take an age. The initial idea was to thumbnail it as quickly as possible and then look into how the starport would develop differently in different environmental conditions.
Scout Base / Naval Base - Yes, these will come, I think submarine pens might be a nice reference for these.
TAS Tower / monorail - monorail is in the next phase of development. I thought the TAS tower as an office block? Or something like the CN Tower? (Neon signage would be tempting but I'd have to do that in post in paintshop - and I'm trying to avoid postwork (or work on any details) until I get the fundamental buildings / positions right. I can then work on prettyfying them, doing proper materials, renders, atmospheric scale indicators etc. At the moment it's all very crude.
At some point I'm also thinking of putting in an orbital umbilical (maybe we can attach it to Andrew's orbital starport?) but that will probably be when the starport becomes an A class. I imagine a typical A class starport along the same lines as Corsucant in the SW movies: a huge building complex where all the elements are all part of the same rambling structure. See picture below for an idea of what I mean
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_11a.jpg
Ravs
Consolidation / Final Format / movie: Part of the reason for starting this thread was to generate ideas for the joint effort starport booklet that Liam Devlin is project managing. I may do a movie of the starport evolving, but this will take an age. The initial idea was to thumbnail it as quickly as possible and then look into how the starport would develop differently in different environmental conditions.
Scout Base / Naval Base - Yes, these will come, I think submarine pens might be a nice reference for these.
TAS Tower / monorail - monorail is in the next phase of development. I thought the TAS tower as an office block? Or something like the CN Tower? (Neon signage would be tempting but I'd have to do that in post in paintshop - and I'm trying to avoid postwork (or work on any details) until I get the fundamental buildings / positions right. I can then work on prettyfying them, doing proper materials, renders, atmospheric scale indicators etc. At the moment it's all very crude.
At some point I'm also thinking of putting in an orbital umbilical (maybe we can attach it to Andrew's orbital starport?) but that will probably be when the starport becomes an A class. I imagine a typical A class starport along the same lines as Corsucant in the SW movies: a huge building complex where all the elements are all part of the same rambling structure. See picture below for an idea of what I mean
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_11a.jpg
Ravs
kaladorn
January 31st, 2007, 12:52 PM
The idea of a beanstalk pretty much would require (I believe?) an equatorial placement for the port.
I think my problem with what Dan has suggested re: ships is the construction system allows an uber large ship to be atmospherically streamlined. I think this says to me that you must be able to land these beasties. Yes, you and I both admit that such large ships would have to be made of unobtainium (or have a very special design) to handle the torques and whatnot inherent in being monstrous and in a gravity well under thrust, but the game seems to allow it. So I wouldn't be trying to impose any MTU/YTU rules on the OTU. I might state normal conventions, but I wouldn't dare to rule out something the rules allow for.
I do have GT stuff, and GT:Starports, but I was planning to keep this stuff 'clean room' by not consulting it. I was only going to consult CT or maybe MT as canonical references for construction rules for ships and rules for planetary landings, etc.
I think as port goes D -> C -> B -> A, it'll eventually become the hub of a city providing ancillary services and it will become itself very large in order to handle the increased trade volumes. I like the idea of the original port becoming an ancillary port to handle local small craft traffic - this kind of approach I think has been used in the real world. Sometimes you just outgrow and the best development is to leave what is there in place but build a new thing nearby (adjoining) that is large enough for your new needs.
Monorail, maglev, accelerator catapults, beanstalk, etc - all of these things are good additions to larger, higher tech ports.
That's another aspect of this: As a port goes E -> D -> C -> B -> A, it won't do so overnight. I think Pocket Empires or something has some data on this sort of transformation, but years and years come to mind. So TL may well change as well. So initial facilities for E may be TL-10, but by the time you get to B or A it may be TL-12. That might change port design a bit too, as grav and power availability go up noticably.
I think my problem with what Dan has suggested re: ships is the construction system allows an uber large ship to be atmospherically streamlined. I think this says to me that you must be able to land these beasties. Yes, you and I both admit that such large ships would have to be made of unobtainium (or have a very special design) to handle the torques and whatnot inherent in being monstrous and in a gravity well under thrust, but the game seems to allow it. So I wouldn't be trying to impose any MTU/YTU rules on the OTU. I might state normal conventions, but I wouldn't dare to rule out something the rules allow for.
I do have GT stuff, and GT:Starports, but I was planning to keep this stuff 'clean room' by not consulting it. I was only going to consult CT or maybe MT as canonical references for construction rules for ships and rules for planetary landings, etc.
I think as port goes D -> C -> B -> A, it'll eventually become the hub of a city providing ancillary services and it will become itself very large in order to handle the increased trade volumes. I like the idea of the original port becoming an ancillary port to handle local small craft traffic - this kind of approach I think has been used in the real world. Sometimes you just outgrow and the best development is to leave what is there in place but build a new thing nearby (adjoining) that is large enough for your new needs.
Monorail, maglev, accelerator catapults, beanstalk, etc - all of these things are good additions to larger, higher tech ports.
That's another aspect of this: As a port goes E -> D -> C -> B -> A, it won't do so overnight. I think Pocket Empires or something has some data on this sort of transformation, but years and years come to mind. So TL may well change as well. So initial facilities for E may be TL-10, but by the time you get to B or A it may be TL-12. That might change port design a bit too, as grav and power availability go up noticably.
Valarian
January 31st, 2007, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
I'm watching BSG in order, and haven't come to that episode yet. Can't wait!That clip looks like it could be from one of the Resistance Webisodes
I'm watching BSG in order, and haven't come to that episode yet. Can't wait!That clip looks like it could be from one of the Resistance Webisodes
Mickazoid
January 31st, 2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Valarian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ravs:
I'm watching BSG in order, and haven't come to that episode yet. Can't wait!That clip looks like it could be from one of the Resistance Webisodes </font>[/QUOTE]It's from season three, episode 4. They wouldn't spend all that money on these insanely good special effects if it were just for the webisode. smile.gif
And once again - killer work, Ravs!
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ravs:
I'm watching BSG in order, and haven't come to that episode yet. Can't wait!That clip looks like it could be from one of the Resistance Webisodes </font>[/QUOTE]It's from season three, episode 4. They wouldn't spend all that money on these insanely good special effects if it were just for the webisode. smile.gif
And once again - killer work, Ravs!
ravells
January 31st, 2007, 07:06 PM
Ah, I'm on season 2. I think the middle of season 2 is getting a bit too episodic rather than pushing the main plot forward (but they still do episodes so well for all of that)
You're very kind, but it's not killer work. It's pretty crap, lego...put this here and see how it works without too much thought. It's a lack of time and tiredness at the end of the day. I wish I had the time to model the buildings to the way I vision them to be (and the time to realise what that vision should look like), rather than putting in place-holders...'this sort of fits' buildings. I am really not addressing the design as I should.
What I'm putting down is not how I see it in my mind's eye. It's lazy and sloppy....I just wish I could do it in the morning when my mind is active and bouncy. /rant.
R
You're very kind, but it's not killer work. It's pretty crap, lego...put this here and see how it works without too much thought. It's a lack of time and tiredness at the end of the day. I wish I had the time to model the buildings to the way I vision them to be (and the time to realise what that vision should look like), rather than putting in place-holders...'this sort of fits' buildings. I am really not addressing the design as I should.
What I'm putting down is not how I see it in my mind's eye. It's lazy and sloppy....I just wish I could do it in the morning when my mind is active and bouncy. /rant.
R
Mickazoid
January 31st, 2007, 07:31 PM
The imagination is the 'killer' part. smile.gif
ravells
January 31st, 2007, 07:55 PM
Micki...here is the top down view,
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13d.jpg
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13d.jpg
ravells
January 31st, 2007, 08:23 PM
Error No 1: wouldn't really have a power plant so near to a runway.
Mickazoid
January 31st, 2007, 08:30 PM
I thought that was the observation and control complex anyhoo... smile.gif
kaladorn
February 1st, 2007, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Error No 1: wouldn't really have a power plant so near to a runway. Bury the plant (good for the plant's safety, controlled access, and lets ground surface be used for other things). :0)
No, despite my repeated suggestions of underground stuff, I am neither Dwarf nor Troll... at least not intentionally.
Error No 1: wouldn't really have a power plant so near to a runway. Bury the plant (good for the plant's safety, controlled access, and lets ground surface be used for other things). :0)
No, despite my repeated suggestions of underground stuff, I am neither Dwarf nor Troll... at least not intentionally.
Valarian
February 1st, 2007, 03:18 AM
Still wouldn't have it so close to a runway
TheEngineer
February 1st, 2007, 03:44 AM
Well, this would perhaps lead to a simplification of the map, but as a starport architect I would put powerplant, refineries and similar stuff under ground....
TheEngineer
February 1st, 2007, 03:45 AM
Ah, Ottawa was faster smile.gif
ravells
February 1st, 2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by mickazoid:
I thought that was the observation and control complex anyhoo... smile.gif Great Idea, Micki! It's not a power plant (which is underground and can't be seen) it's an oberervation and control complex!
That was easy!
smile.gif
Ravs
I thought that was the observation and control complex anyhoo... smile.gif Great Idea, Micki! It's not a power plant (which is underground and can't be seen) it's an oberervation and control complex!
That was easy!
smile.gif
Ravs
robject
February 1st, 2007, 10:41 AM
Ravs, you may not like the rough level of detail with your images, but I think they're great! Noone to my knowledge has done a series/progression like this before, and I find it inspiring.
marvo
February 1st, 2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Wasn't there a bit in Bab5 when a whitestar was in a gas giant atmosphere and had to make a jump too? IIRC that was pretty spectacular too. Originally posted by mickazoid:
Never saw that B5 scene (I wasn't a big B5 watcher) - but I'll google it, find the episode number and hit up one of my B5 geeks friends to show me a copy smile.gif Mal and Micki and all B5 fans. I looked this up and here is what I found. In B5 a whitestar never actually jumped out of a gas giant, but there are 3 episodes where something similar, and relevant, happened.
301 Matters of Honor - Sheridan destroys a shadow ship by making it create a jump point inside a jump gate. A jump field within a jump field which causes a massive explosion. graemlins/toast.gif
308 Messages from Earth - A whitestar dives into the atmosphere of Jupiter followed by a shadow ship. The whitestar is able to pull out of the dive but the shadow ship cannot and is crushed by the pressure.
420 Endgame - A whitestar jumps into the atmosphere of Mars less than a mile off the surface for a surprise attack. To do this Garibaldi is on the ground and gives exact jump coordinates to the ship.
My take on this would be that jumping out of an atmosphere causes a shock wave due to the inrush of air, but not a lot else. But jumping into an atmosphere you have two masses trying to exist in the same physical space. This is likely to cause more serious damage, explosion, radiation etc. In MTU the transition into/out of jumpspace is almost instantaneous.
Wasn't there a bit in Bab5 when a whitestar was in a gas giant atmosphere and had to make a jump too? IIRC that was pretty spectacular too. Originally posted by mickazoid:
Never saw that B5 scene (I wasn't a big B5 watcher) - but I'll google it, find the episode number and hit up one of my B5 geeks friends to show me a copy smile.gif Mal and Micki and all B5 fans. I looked this up and here is what I found. In B5 a whitestar never actually jumped out of a gas giant, but there are 3 episodes where something similar, and relevant, happened.
301 Matters of Honor - Sheridan destroys a shadow ship by making it create a jump point inside a jump gate. A jump field within a jump field which causes a massive explosion. graemlins/toast.gif
308 Messages from Earth - A whitestar dives into the atmosphere of Jupiter followed by a shadow ship. The whitestar is able to pull out of the dive but the shadow ship cannot and is crushed by the pressure.
420 Endgame - A whitestar jumps into the atmosphere of Mars less than a mile off the surface for a surprise attack. To do this Garibaldi is on the ground and gives exact jump coordinates to the ship.
My take on this would be that jumping out of an atmosphere causes a shock wave due to the inrush of air, but not a lot else. But jumping into an atmosphere you have two masses trying to exist in the same physical space. This is likely to cause more serious damage, explosion, radiation etc. In MTU the transition into/out of jumpspace is almost instantaneous.
Valarian
February 1st, 2007, 11:34 AM
There is an episode (308 Messages from Earth?) where Sheridan and Delenn jump from Jupiter's atmosphere as they don't want to engage the Agamemnon
marvo
February 1st, 2007, 12:10 PM
I stand corrected :( I guess I should have watched the episode through. But at this point in the saga B5 gets really addictive and I have to sleep sometime. smile.gif smile.gif
Back on the starport issue. What would be the method of grading the starport area? This could potentially be several square miles of land that needs to be graded. Today's methods would probably be to slow for that area unless given a very long time frame. If the ground is not level, that could cause all kinds of interesting problems. (Vision of an untethered Tigress rolling downhill across the suburbs smile.gif smile.gif )
Back on the starport issue. What would be the method of grading the starport area? This could potentially be several square miles of land that needs to be graded. Today's methods would probably be to slow for that area unless given a very long time frame. If the ground is not level, that could cause all kinds of interesting problems. (Vision of an untethered Tigress rolling downhill across the suburbs smile.gif smile.gif )
Malenfant
February 1st, 2007, 04:32 PM
Yah, I think it was the "Messages from Earth" ep that I was thinking of. Ta!
Gadrin
February 1st, 2007, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Marvo:
Back on the starport issue. What would be the method of grading the starport area? This could potentially be several square miles of land that needs to be graded. Today's methods would probably be to slow for that area unless given a very long time frame. If the ground is not level, that could cause all kinds of interesting problems. (Vision of an untethered Tigress rolling downhill across the suburbs smile.gif smile.gif ) I suppose TDX and creative/experienced engineering team could prove useful, at least in some circumstances. It might speed up the grading.
I'm sure the developers would scout out the site first hand, meaning that they won't buy the place blind and "make do".
Back on the starport issue. What would be the method of grading the starport area? This could potentially be several square miles of land that needs to be graded. Today's methods would probably be to slow for that area unless given a very long time frame. If the ground is not level, that could cause all kinds of interesting problems. (Vision of an untethered Tigress rolling downhill across the suburbs smile.gif smile.gif ) I suppose TDX and creative/experienced engineering team could prove useful, at least in some circumstances. It might speed up the grading.
I'm sure the developers would scout out the site first hand, meaning that they won't buy the place blind and "make do".
kaladorn
February 1st, 2007, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Ah, Ottawa was faster smile.gif One of my friends, an industrial and web designer now headed into teaching, always says to me "You think like an Engineer." I suspect he believes this is some form of predjudicial statement whereas I see it as a complement. :0)
Ah, Ottawa was faster smile.gif One of my friends, an industrial and web designer now headed into teaching, always says to me "You think like an Engineer." I suspect he believes this is some form of predjudicial statement whereas I see it as a complement. :0)
ravells
February 1st, 2007, 05:36 PM
What is TDX? Grading, I assume is flattening.
From all I've read about it, the grading/flattening is done by 'earth moving machinery' (whatever that is), I just imagined bulldozers and the like, but ramped up a bit so they could be multi-functional in other roles.
I am tempted to put in hills and valleys as the starport grows if only because I don't like the utter flatness of it and it'll mean that we can get some beautifully vaulting bridges for the monorail and roads (which are coming) to go over.
Ravs
From all I've read about it, the grading/flattening is done by 'earth moving machinery' (whatever that is), I just imagined bulldozers and the like, but ramped up a bit so they could be multi-functional in other roles.
I am tempted to put in hills and valleys as the starport grows if only because I don't like the utter flatness of it and it'll mean that we can get some beautifully vaulting bridges for the monorail and roads (which are coming) to go over.
Ravs
TheEngineer
February 2nd, 2007, 02:52 AM
Hills and valleys in a starport area ? smile.gif
Liam Devlin
February 2nd, 2007, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
What is TDX? Grading, I assume is flattening.
From all I've read about it, the grading/flattening is done by 'earth moving machinery' (whatever that is), I just imagined bulldozers and the like, but ramped up a bit so they could be multi-functional in other roles.
I am tempted to put in hills and valleys as the starport grows if only because I don't like the utter flatness of it and it'll mean that we can get some beautifully vaulting bridges for the monorail and roads (which are coming) to go over.
Ravs TDX is a high tech explosive that blasts in a flat-plane, and is excellent for clear-cutting on said flat plane. The charges come with an altimeter to be used in the detonation sequence to set the height of the plane, say, to go off at 0.75 meters..the average Sophont of 1.5M is thereby cut in half by the blast.
For reducing hills and obstinate flora, its perfect for hasty knock-out obstacle jobs. Its a tad trendy, being TL-15 though.
What is TDX? Grading, I assume is flattening.
From all I've read about it, the grading/flattening is done by 'earth moving machinery' (whatever that is), I just imagined bulldozers and the like, but ramped up a bit so they could be multi-functional in other roles.
I am tempted to put in hills and valleys as the starport grows if only because I don't like the utter flatness of it and it'll mean that we can get some beautifully vaulting bridges for the monorail and roads (which are coming) to go over.
Ravs TDX is a high tech explosive that blasts in a flat-plane, and is excellent for clear-cutting on said flat plane. The charges come with an altimeter to be used in the detonation sequence to set the height of the plane, say, to go off at 0.75 meters..the average Sophont of 1.5M is thereby cut in half by the blast.
For reducing hills and obstinate flora, its perfect for hasty knock-out obstacle jobs. Its a tad trendy, being TL-15 though.
Liam Devlin
February 2nd, 2007, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm liking this project of yours a lot Ravs. Try to ignore my "helpful" comments when they interfere smile.gif
Case in point... graemlins/file_22.gif Originally posted by kaladorn:
But compared to large expanses of ground, maybe not so large. You have to imagine an A or B class port must be huge. An A-class, especially, can *build* these things. So it *must* have sufficient space. I'd say not myself. Once you get to a class A or B port I expect the bulk of it is done in orbit. No need to build, repair or process the behemoths on the ground with all it's complications when there's all that easier space up there.
If you want a canon cite (I knew I'd seen it somewhere) CT S9 (albeit speaking of Imperial Navy and Scout Bases) offers...
Naval Bases: The berthing area is generally a series of orbit patterns which large naval vessels are placed into when not in need of any sort of major repair. Smaller craft also use
these orbits when not wishing to land as part of their stop. Light repair work involving no structural or integral systems can be performed with the ship either placed in an orbit pattern or berthed at the ground based facility. Surface support of ships is generally limited to vessels displacing 1,000 tons or less. Although larger
ships can sometimes be handled on the ground, they are usually repaired and maintained
in orbit.
and...
Way stations... <are the> equivalent of naval bases... although
they are capable of servicing only the smaller tonnage ships (10,000 tons and
below) due to restrictions on facilities...
Scout bases... are small repair and maintenance
facilities capable of handling ships of 1,000 tons and under. Fascinating Far Trader! An excellent reference--when covering Naval & Scout Bases... ;)
It seems reasonable that civilian facilities would be if anything smaller than an IN one.
So we have:
Naval Bases able to handle any size ship in orbit but limited to 1,000tons on the ground routinely.
Scout Way Stations able to handle up to 10,000tons (presumably in orbit) due to restrictions on facilities.
Scout Bases able to handle up to 1,000tons (again presumably in orbit).
And we know the IN only has Naval Bases at class A or B starports while IISS Bases can be found at class A through D starports, though more commonly at the lower end.Au contraire mon frere! IN bases can also be found at C-class Starports as well: check the Imperial naval Depot systems out--quite a few of these are C-class graemlins/file_22.gif And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. :D Agreed about the IISS Bases.
I'd tie the size of civilian facilities to the starport class using the above as guidelines. Something like:
Class A starports: Highport and Downport Facilties limited to 10,000tons maximum size.
Class B Starports: Highport and Downport Facilities are limited to 5,000tons.
Class C Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 1,000tons. No Highport.
Class D Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 500tons. No Highport.
Just off the top of my head. I had it worked out similarily at least once before but with more details and a population factor. All Good points Far Trader, but I figure the size of the port's facilities is directly tied to the Population of the world, and the size berths based on amount of traffic and the largest sized vessel serving the Imperium commercially.
I disagree with the C & D-class Highports assessment on these grounds:
1) Orbital habitats/ in system space ports (F, G & H) have the equivalent of E & D-class ports until they achieve Size F (and have a UWP pop 5) in which they can then support an A, B, or C-class orbital starshipyard. That means all those habitats of Size A-E must have D-class orbital ports of call, right?
2) Planetary tech level and it's population can also dictate whether or not a world can even build an orbital starport. Generally considered one needs a Pop 6, TL8+, with either an A, B, or C-class starport as minimums. This relegates By TL7 & below and population 5 and below to which worlds have only downside ports.
3) Supported by a large mainworld pop, the downside port of call will almost always be a larger facility than the orbital one. Asteroid systems are an exception I'm sure, as well as worlds with 0-2 atmospheres for USL hulled vessels.
I'm liking this project of yours a lot Ravs. Try to ignore my "helpful" comments when they interfere smile.gif
Case in point... graemlins/file_22.gif Originally posted by kaladorn:
But compared to large expanses of ground, maybe not so large. You have to imagine an A or B class port must be huge. An A-class, especially, can *build* these things. So it *must* have sufficient space. I'd say not myself. Once you get to a class A or B port I expect the bulk of it is done in orbit. No need to build, repair or process the behemoths on the ground with all it's complications when there's all that easier space up there.
If you want a canon cite (I knew I'd seen it somewhere) CT S9 (albeit speaking of Imperial Navy and Scout Bases) offers...
Naval Bases: The berthing area is generally a series of orbit patterns which large naval vessels are placed into when not in need of any sort of major repair. Smaller craft also use
these orbits when not wishing to land as part of their stop. Light repair work involving no structural or integral systems can be performed with the ship either placed in an orbit pattern or berthed at the ground based facility. Surface support of ships is generally limited to vessels displacing 1,000 tons or less. Although larger
ships can sometimes be handled on the ground, they are usually repaired and maintained
in orbit.
and...
Way stations... <are the> equivalent of naval bases... although
they are capable of servicing only the smaller tonnage ships (10,000 tons and
below) due to restrictions on facilities...
Scout bases... are small repair and maintenance
facilities capable of handling ships of 1,000 tons and under. Fascinating Far Trader! An excellent reference--when covering Naval & Scout Bases... ;)
It seems reasonable that civilian facilities would be if anything smaller than an IN one.
So we have:
Naval Bases able to handle any size ship in orbit but limited to 1,000tons on the ground routinely.
Scout Way Stations able to handle up to 10,000tons (presumably in orbit) due to restrictions on facilities.
Scout Bases able to handle up to 1,000tons (again presumably in orbit).
And we know the IN only has Naval Bases at class A or B starports while IISS Bases can be found at class A through D starports, though more commonly at the lower end.Au contraire mon frere! IN bases can also be found at C-class Starports as well: check the Imperial naval Depot systems out--quite a few of these are C-class graemlins/file_22.gif And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. :D Agreed about the IISS Bases.
I'd tie the size of civilian facilities to the starport class using the above as guidelines. Something like:
Class A starports: Highport and Downport Facilties limited to 10,000tons maximum size.
Class B Starports: Highport and Downport Facilities are limited to 5,000tons.
Class C Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 1,000tons. No Highport.
Class D Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 500tons. No Highport.
Just off the top of my head. I had it worked out similarily at least once before but with more details and a population factor. All Good points Far Trader, but I figure the size of the port's facilities is directly tied to the Population of the world, and the size berths based on amount of traffic and the largest sized vessel serving the Imperium commercially.
I disagree with the C & D-class Highports assessment on these grounds:
1) Orbital habitats/ in system space ports (F, G & H) have the equivalent of E & D-class ports until they achieve Size F (and have a UWP pop 5) in which they can then support an A, B, or C-class orbital starshipyard. That means all those habitats of Size A-E must have D-class orbital ports of call, right?
2) Planetary tech level and it's population can also dictate whether or not a world can even build an orbital starport. Generally considered one needs a Pop 6, TL8+, with either an A, B, or C-class starport as minimums. This relegates By TL7 & below and population 5 and below to which worlds have only downside ports.
3) Supported by a large mainworld pop, the downside port of call will almost always be a larger facility than the orbital one. Asteroid systems are an exception I'm sure, as well as worlds with 0-2 atmospheres for USL hulled vessels.
TheEngineer
February 2nd, 2007, 04:47 AM
Well, perhaps we should see the starport-class really just as classification of core features, but not set up rigid rules on how those features are implemented.
So, if a starport has downside, orbital or even far components should depend on individual world/system characteristics.
??
regards,
TE
So, if a starport has downside, orbital or even far components should depend on individual world/system characteristics.
??
regards,
TE
Liam Devlin
February 2nd, 2007, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by TheEngineer:
Well, perhaps we should see the starport-class really just as classification of core features, but not set up rigid rules on how those features are implemented.
So, if a starport has downside, orbital or even far components should depend on individual world/system characteristics.
??
regards,
TE Yep. Certain Core features & How many of said depends on the size of the population & class of port listed there to support them!
Well, perhaps we should see the starport-class really just as classification of core features, but not set up rigid rules on how those features are implemented.
So, if a starport has downside, orbital or even far components should depend on individual world/system characteristics.
??
regards,
TE Yep. Certain Core features & How many of said depends on the size of the population & class of port listed there to support them!
far-trader
February 2nd, 2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:And we know the IN only has Naval Bases at class A or B starports while IISS Bases can be found at class A through D starports, though more commonly at the lower end.Au contraire mon frere! IN bases can also be found at C-class Starports as well: check the Imperial naval Depot systems out--quite a few of these are C-class graemlins/file_22.gif And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. :D Agreed about the IISS Bases.</font>[/QUOTE]Interesting, but I'd have to classify them all as mistakes ;) I was only looking at CT system generation rules (maybe it was changed in some version but I can't remember it being different) which are crystal clear on the matter "Navy Base: Do not roll if starport C, D, E, or X."
I can't really imagine a Naval Depot being less than Class B either. No ability to build, no refined fuel, and limited repair facilities (Class C) doesn't strike me as being able to "supply entire fleets, provide construction and repair, and produce new prototypes". I'd say that sounds more like Class A.
Of course maybe it is a case of there being two seperate facilities, but that isn't the implication of the (CT at least) system creation rules. There you roll to determine the type of starport and then see if the Imperium is interested in basing there. And the inference I always made was that the Imperium then relied on the local starport for support, backed up by the old "Imperial Navy... also procures vessels at tech levels 10 through 14". It has always seemed to me the Imperial Navy (and presumably IISS) don't operate their own starports (outside of Naval Depots and perhaps Way Stations) but simply use the local starport to center their bases on where they deem them worthy. In peacetime the fuction of the starport is mostly civilian/trade oriented, with some support of the IN/IISS if there is a base. Preferential support no doubt. And in wartime they become fully Imperial Navy installations.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:And we know the IN only has Naval Bases at class A or B starports while IISS Bases can be found at class A through D starports, though more commonly at the lower end.Au contraire mon frere! IN bases can also be found at C-class Starports as well: check the Imperial naval Depot systems out--quite a few of these are C-class graemlins/file_22.gif And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. :D Agreed about the IISS Bases.</font>[/QUOTE]Interesting, but I'd have to classify them all as mistakes ;) I was only looking at CT system generation rules (maybe it was changed in some version but I can't remember it being different) which are crystal clear on the matter "Navy Base: Do not roll if starport C, D, E, or X."
I can't really imagine a Naval Depot being less than Class B either. No ability to build, no refined fuel, and limited repair facilities (Class C) doesn't strike me as being able to "supply entire fleets, provide construction and repair, and produce new prototypes". I'd say that sounds more like Class A.
Of course maybe it is a case of there being two seperate facilities, but that isn't the implication of the (CT at least) system creation rules. There you roll to determine the type of starport and then see if the Imperium is interested in basing there. And the inference I always made was that the Imperium then relied on the local starport for support, backed up by the old "Imperial Navy... also procures vessels at tech levels 10 through 14". It has always seemed to me the Imperial Navy (and presumably IISS) don't operate their own starports (outside of Naval Depots and perhaps Way Stations) but simply use the local starport to center their bases on where they deem them worthy. In peacetime the fuction of the starport is mostly civilian/trade oriented, with some support of the IN/IISS if there is a base. Preferential support no doubt. And in wartime they become fully Imperial Navy installations.
far-trader
February 2nd, 2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I'd tie the size of civilian facilities to the starport class using the above as guidelines. Something like:
Class A starports: Highport and Downport Facilties limited to 10,000tons maximum size.
Class B Starports: Highport and Downport Facilities are limited to 5,000tons.
Class C Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 1,000tons. No Highport.
Class D Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 500tons. No Highport.
Just off the top of my head. I had it worked out similarily at least once before but with more details and a population factor. All Good points Far Trader, but I figure the size of the port's facilities is directly tied to the Population of the world, and the size berths based on amount of traffic and the largest sized vessel serving the Imperium commercially.</font>So too have I in the past, had it all worked out once, but I've simplified smile.gif
I just no longer see a need to figure that the traffic a system sees is related to population. The generation of the starport and population are not tied together in the rules.
So to me the Class B starport speaks more about how important a system is on the interstellar level than the billion dirt-farmers the world has scratching out a living there. That's my currently evolved take on it.
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
I disagree with the C & D-class Highports assessment on these grounds:
1) Orbital habitats/ in system space ports (F, G & H) have the equivalent of E & D-class ports until they achieve Size F (and have a UWP pop 5) in which they can then support an A, B, or C-class orbital starshipyard. That means all those habitats of Size A-E must have D-class orbital ports of call, right?That's from where, WBH? Just curious, it's around here somewhere but not handy. I just don't recall spaceports ever being given official equality to any starport and always effectively at best nearly equal to a Class C, certainly not A or B. I always figured the two, starports and spaceports, were kind of meshed: A, B, C, F, D, G, H, E, Y, X.
An orbital (or any) starshipyard must be Class A by definition. And a spaceshipyard must be at least Class B. Spaceports can't build ships at all.
Maybe I'm denser than usual today, I can't follow your argument above too well smile.gif I think I agree, and perhaps didn't state it well in the short simplified notes earlier, that orbital facilities may be tied to pretty much any class of port. It will depend on other circumstances than the class of port. Things like local atmosphere, population density, surface conditions, etc.
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
2) Planetary tech level and it's population can also dictate whether or not a world can even build an orbital starport. Generally considered one needs a Pop 6, TL8+, with either an A, B, or C-class starport as minimums. This relegates By TL7 & below and population 5 and below to which worlds have only downside ports.Agreed on prinicple if not specifics. I also think there should be a tie-in of TL and Starport class, at least as far as no Class A starport should be less than TL9. And there should be a minimum population level for Class A and B starports as well. But now I'm getting into "fixing" the rules rather than working out what the results mean re the topic.
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
3) Supported by a large mainworld pop, the downside port of call will almost always be a larger facility than the orbital one. Asteroid systems are an exception I'm sure, as well as worlds with 0-2 atmospheres for USL hulled vessels. Agreed again. Though I suppose an asteroid and negligable atmosphere/size situation has little need for differentiating orbital and ground facilities. The "ground" facilities would be effectively orbital in practical terms. No (or little) atmosphere or gravity to impact ship operations and little difference in the actual infracstructure required.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
I'd tie the size of civilian facilities to the starport class using the above as guidelines. Something like:
Class A starports: Highport and Downport Facilties limited to 10,000tons maximum size.
Class B Starports: Highport and Downport Facilities are limited to 5,000tons.
Class C Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 1,000tons. No Highport.
Class D Starports: Downport Facilities limited to 500tons. No Highport.
Just off the top of my head. I had it worked out similarily at least once before but with more details and a population factor. All Good points Far Trader, but I figure the size of the port's facilities is directly tied to the Population of the world, and the size berths based on amount of traffic and the largest sized vessel serving the Imperium commercially.</font>So too have I in the past, had it all worked out once, but I've simplified smile.gif
I just no longer see a need to figure that the traffic a system sees is related to population. The generation of the starport and population are not tied together in the rules.
So to me the Class B starport speaks more about how important a system is on the interstellar level than the billion dirt-farmers the world has scratching out a living there. That's my currently evolved take on it.
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
I disagree with the C & D-class Highports assessment on these grounds:
1) Orbital habitats/ in system space ports (F, G & H) have the equivalent of E & D-class ports until they achieve Size F (and have a UWP pop 5) in which they can then support an A, B, or C-class orbital starshipyard. That means all those habitats of Size A-E must have D-class orbital ports of call, right?That's from where, WBH? Just curious, it's around here somewhere but not handy. I just don't recall spaceports ever being given official equality to any starport and always effectively at best nearly equal to a Class C, certainly not A or B. I always figured the two, starports and spaceports, were kind of meshed: A, B, C, F, D, G, H, E, Y, X.
An orbital (or any) starshipyard must be Class A by definition. And a spaceshipyard must be at least Class B. Spaceports can't build ships at all.
Maybe I'm denser than usual today, I can't follow your argument above too well smile.gif I think I agree, and perhaps didn't state it well in the short simplified notes earlier, that orbital facilities may be tied to pretty much any class of port. It will depend on other circumstances than the class of port. Things like local atmosphere, population density, surface conditions, etc.
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
2) Planetary tech level and it's population can also dictate whether or not a world can even build an orbital starport. Generally considered one needs a Pop 6, TL8+, with either an A, B, or C-class starport as minimums. This relegates By TL7 & below and population 5 and below to which worlds have only downside ports.Agreed on prinicple if not specifics. I also think there should be a tie-in of TL and Starport class, at least as far as no Class A starport should be less than TL9. And there should be a minimum population level for Class A and B starports as well. But now I'm getting into "fixing" the rules rather than working out what the results mean re the topic.
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
3) Supported by a large mainworld pop, the downside port of call will almost always be a larger facility than the orbital one. Asteroid systems are an exception I'm sure, as well as worlds with 0-2 atmospheres for USL hulled vessels. Agreed again. Though I suppose an asteroid and negligable atmosphere/size situation has little need for differentiating orbital and ground facilities. The "ground" facilities would be effectively orbital in practical terms. No (or little) atmosphere or gravity to impact ship operations and little difference in the actual infracstructure required.
kaladorn
February 2nd, 2007, 05:59 PM
It seems to me that starport type determines the nature of facilities, but not the size. Starport size isn't *directly* specified and therefore could be considered to directly relate to planet population, though it would be better if it related to aggregate GURPS BTNs or some similar feature.
The reality is, it would depend on how much trade and population flowed through it - and trade is determined partly by population, but also by nearby markets and their capabilities. A very high pop TL-3 world may not ship much offworld and can't afford (due to the value of a TL-3 credit) much offworld kit. A mid pop TL-12 planet may ship more on or off world. So BTN or something like would make a better determiner than raw pop, but requires a bit more detailed economic model.
Political significance factors in, but it should be occasional in its impact, whereas population would be more common as a factor of size, if not type.
Similarly, a Naval Base may happen on a class C world despite CT rules A) because the Imperium needed one there (or someone lobbied for one) and B) because the IN can deploy sufficient facilities of their own there. So I normally make a similar assumption to Far-Trader, that the Navy uses the local starports and does localized procurement (typical for political reasons, if no other). However, in the case of a Naval Base on a class C starport system, it might be a case where the base has to supply more of its own capability organically or the base is actually more skeletal and less capable than the average IN base.
Here is another poser, since I don't recall. Mainworlds are mainworlds for various reasons. They are not always the biggest world in their system. Do they always have the highest starport rating? (I don't have book 6 or WBH handy) If not, then a C world with an IN base might actually have a C starport on the mainworld, but a B or A on another less politically significant world not represented in the UWP, but which the IN could use for their base.
I also agree with Liam that the maximum ship sized served will relate to the maximum commercial ship size which will itself relate to BTN or an equivalent concept (trade volume coming into/out of a world). So heavy trade corridors may well use massive transports (of course, they could use LASH techniques, but then you need to land masses of landers). So on those sorts of places, you may have huge landing areas. Less so other places.
The military/political folks may also impose the need for a large landing are somewhere from time to time.
The reality is, it would depend on how much trade and population flowed through it - and trade is determined partly by population, but also by nearby markets and their capabilities. A very high pop TL-3 world may not ship much offworld and can't afford (due to the value of a TL-3 credit) much offworld kit. A mid pop TL-12 planet may ship more on or off world. So BTN or something like would make a better determiner than raw pop, but requires a bit more detailed economic model.
Political significance factors in, but it should be occasional in its impact, whereas population would be more common as a factor of size, if not type.
Similarly, a Naval Base may happen on a class C world despite CT rules A) because the Imperium needed one there (or someone lobbied for one) and B) because the IN can deploy sufficient facilities of their own there. So I normally make a similar assumption to Far-Trader, that the Navy uses the local starports and does localized procurement (typical for political reasons, if no other). However, in the case of a Naval Base on a class C starport system, it might be a case where the base has to supply more of its own capability organically or the base is actually more skeletal and less capable than the average IN base.
Here is another poser, since I don't recall. Mainworlds are mainworlds for various reasons. They are not always the biggest world in their system. Do they always have the highest starport rating? (I don't have book 6 or WBH handy) If not, then a C world with an IN base might actually have a C starport on the mainworld, but a B or A on another less politically significant world not represented in the UWP, but which the IN could use for their base.
I also agree with Liam that the maximum ship sized served will relate to the maximum commercial ship size which will itself relate to BTN or an equivalent concept (trade volume coming into/out of a world). So heavy trade corridors may well use massive transports (of course, they could use LASH techniques, but then you need to land masses of landers). So on those sorts of places, you may have huge landing areas. Less so other places.
The military/political folks may also impose the need for a large landing are somewhere from time to time.
ravells
February 2nd, 2007, 06:28 PM
Not much to report...the big lake is being excavated, it's going to get much bigger. The monorail has been built and the multistory has been remodelled - I'm still not happy with the basic shape.
Moving it up a level to a class C/B is going to be a big job, which will take at least a couple of weeks. The renders are taking a long time now too.
I'll do another render which shows off the monorail (the vaulting bridge over the deep valleys will have to wait until the next stage) and then there will be a longish silence.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_11.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13b.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_12.jpg
Moving it up a level to a class C/B is going to be a big job, which will take at least a couple of weeks. The renders are taking a long time now too.
I'll do another render which shows off the monorail (the vaulting bridge over the deep valleys will have to wait until the next stage) and then there will be a longish silence.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_11.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13b.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_12.jpg
far-trader
February 2nd, 2007, 06:51 PM
I'm pretty sure the mainworld gets the best starport and any secondary and tertiary spaceports are always less, or at best equal.
As for judging traffic/trade solely on the starport class another precedent occured to me, the original (1st edition?) CT rules had a table to roll trade routes and I'm pretty sure it was a cross reference of just the starports involved.
Naturally I can see where people are getting the population equals trade idea, that's how one determines how much freight or passengers the players can find when they look. But that is not really meant to be the end all of the trade equation. There's no way those rolls can support anything much over 400tons. They are really meant to represent how much business a wandering trader can find laying about in a week when they happen to come along.
As for judging traffic/trade solely on the starport class another precedent occured to me, the original (1st edition?) CT rules had a table to roll trade routes and I'm pretty sure it was a cross reference of just the starports involved.
Naturally I can see where people are getting the population equals trade idea, that's how one determines how much freight or passengers the players can find when they look. But that is not really meant to be the end all of the trade equation. There's no way those rolls can support anything much over 400tons. They are really meant to represent how much business a wandering trader can find laying about in a week when they happen to come along.
kaladorn
February 2nd, 2007, 09:01 PM
I'm getting the trade is proportional to population idea from economics 101, not any canon source that may or may not have factored in any particularly sane economic model.
T = f(P) where T = total trade entering and exiting a world, P = population of that world and f is "some function" (could be as simple as kP where k is some constant derived from TL, government, etc, or it could factor in where the trade is going).
Gurps Far Trader has a pretty decent trade model with BTNs and Chris Thrash had a pretty good grasp of most of the involved factors when he wrote it. I haven't seen anything nearly as good in CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T20. Now, I'm not using that as a refernce for this point, but it works on some of the same underlying economic realities.
I think using a table de-canonized by virtue of it having been pulled from subsequent rules editions to assume a trade route relates to starport types alone is a bit dubious. It is simple, fits on a chart... but nowhere near reflecting economic realities. And we never really know what a trade route really is - there was only ever one type and you either had one or you didn't (IIRC) which really left a pretty black and white picture of something which probably has lots of shades of grey.
Anyway, my point was real trade is influence by a lot of factors. A probable fair equation might be
T(a->b) = kc((ka * Pa) * (kb * Pb))
ka = some factor derived from cultural aspects of a like their extensiveness (in WBH terms) - how much they like dealing with the outside and including a factor for the starport present at a and the government type of a
kb = same as above, but for b
kc = some factor derived from tech level differences between A and B and including some reflection of differing trade codes (Ag likes trade from Ind and vice versa, etc)
Starport type probably factors in (or starport type + size if you separate them), but so do governments, cultural attitudes, and tech differences.
In fact, tech differences might not even factor in just by a simple delta. If I'm a TL-8 world, TL-9 goods are awesome because they're better, but still probably usable/interfacable. TL-8 world might not have much use for most TL-15 kit because they wouldn't understand it or even necessarily be able to make good use of it.
Anyway, I don't think starport size and starport type are coupled in any way less tenuous than the table Far-Trader refers to which was removed (presumably intentionally) from subsequent editions of CT.
T = f(P) where T = total trade entering and exiting a world, P = population of that world and f is "some function" (could be as simple as kP where k is some constant derived from TL, government, etc, or it could factor in where the trade is going).
Gurps Far Trader has a pretty decent trade model with BTNs and Chris Thrash had a pretty good grasp of most of the involved factors when he wrote it. I haven't seen anything nearly as good in CT, MT, TNE, T4 or T20. Now, I'm not using that as a refernce for this point, but it works on some of the same underlying economic realities.
I think using a table de-canonized by virtue of it having been pulled from subsequent rules editions to assume a trade route relates to starport types alone is a bit dubious. It is simple, fits on a chart... but nowhere near reflecting economic realities. And we never really know what a trade route really is - there was only ever one type and you either had one or you didn't (IIRC) which really left a pretty black and white picture of something which probably has lots of shades of grey.
Anyway, my point was real trade is influence by a lot of factors. A probable fair equation might be
T(a->b) = kc((ka * Pa) * (kb * Pb))
ka = some factor derived from cultural aspects of a like their extensiveness (in WBH terms) - how much they like dealing with the outside and including a factor for the starport present at a and the government type of a
kb = same as above, but for b
kc = some factor derived from tech level differences between A and B and including some reflection of differing trade codes (Ag likes trade from Ind and vice versa, etc)
Starport type probably factors in (or starport type + size if you separate them), but so do governments, cultural attitudes, and tech differences.
In fact, tech differences might not even factor in just by a simple delta. If I'm a TL-8 world, TL-9 goods are awesome because they're better, but still probably usable/interfacable. TL-8 world might not have much use for most TL-15 kit because they wouldn't understand it or even necessarily be able to make good use of it.
Anyway, I don't think starport size and starport type are coupled in any way less tenuous than the table Far-Trader refers to which was removed (presumably intentionally) from subsequent editions of CT.
GypsyComet
February 2nd, 2007, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm pretty sure the mainworld gets the best starport and any secondary and tertiary spaceports are always less, or at best equal.
The one caveat here is "public starport". The best public starport in a system *defines* the mainworld. If not for the extended system generation also linking mainwold to highest population and TL, there would be little to complain about all those odd little worlds in published sectors that really look like system detritus. Decouple those other two from the definition of "Mainworld" even just a little, and a lot of the "extended system generation is broken" crowd go quiet.
The Navy is going to be found in A and B ports primarily because the Navy tends to create them by its mere presense. You might find the Navy at a C port if they have just recently arrived, but their deciding to set up shop will drive resources both in and beyond the system to elevate that port to a public B at least. In the name of pilot training and economics, any Navy base will elevate a barren rockball to a C port by the simple act of bringing in fuel processing facilities and reselling their excess to the civilian port. Since most Navy ships can perform their own fuel purification, just sitting an escort on the pad and providing a fuel shuttle or external tankage is enough. Getting to a B port is a matter of someone in Navy Logistics to put a bug in the ear of someone on their shipyard contractor list a subsector away. "Juicy maintenance contract opening up" says the bug. Instant B port. Similar bug a few years later "We'd like to be able to service elements of the Fleet here, not just the subcraft. You do good work, go hire someone with Jump Drive maintenance certs, and we'll keep him, and you, busy." Bam, A port.
The other face of the "public port" is the corporate world. The port may offer every amenity to employees, but Joe Jump Merchant will be shown the cold shoulder and the more expensive rates list, and won't even be offered the maintenance services unless he has an in with that Corp.
I'm pretty sure the mainworld gets the best starport and any secondary and tertiary spaceports are always less, or at best equal.
The one caveat here is "public starport". The best public starport in a system *defines* the mainworld. If not for the extended system generation also linking mainwold to highest population and TL, there would be little to complain about all those odd little worlds in published sectors that really look like system detritus. Decouple those other two from the definition of "Mainworld" even just a little, and a lot of the "extended system generation is broken" crowd go quiet.
The Navy is going to be found in A and B ports primarily because the Navy tends to create them by its mere presense. You might find the Navy at a C port if they have just recently arrived, but their deciding to set up shop will drive resources both in and beyond the system to elevate that port to a public B at least. In the name of pilot training and economics, any Navy base will elevate a barren rockball to a C port by the simple act of bringing in fuel processing facilities and reselling their excess to the civilian port. Since most Navy ships can perform their own fuel purification, just sitting an escort on the pad and providing a fuel shuttle or external tankage is enough. Getting to a B port is a matter of someone in Navy Logistics to put a bug in the ear of someone on their shipyard contractor list a subsector away. "Juicy maintenance contract opening up" says the bug. Instant B port. Similar bug a few years later "We'd like to be able to service elements of the Fleet here, not just the subcraft. You do good work, go hire someone with Jump Drive maintenance certs, and we'll keep him, and you, busy." Bam, A port.
The other face of the "public port" is the corporate world. The port may offer every amenity to employees, but Joe Jump Merchant will be shown the cold shoulder and the more expensive rates list, and won't even be offered the maintenance services unless he has an in with that Corp.
GypsyComet
February 2nd, 2007, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
Grading, I assume is flattening.
Grading is whatever it takes to turn the ground surface you found into the ground surface you want. While that is often "flat", it doesn't have to be.
Grading, I assume is flattening.
Grading is whatever it takes to turn the ground surface you found into the ground surface you want. While that is often "flat", it doesn't have to be.
far-trader
February 2nd, 2007, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
I'm getting the trade is proportional to population idea from economics 101, not any canon source that may or may not have factored in any particularly sane economic model. Really? I don't mean to come across as a pain but I don't think real economics shows any such relationship, except perhaps in the most general sense. A population by itself does not make either an export or import market. What is needed first and formost for trade is transportation and freindly access to other populations, and a need (perceived or created) for the product of at least one of the populations by the other such that both think they are getting a good deal. Maybe it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Certainly you do need population for trade, but you don't really need trade for population. So making a case that population dictates trade makes less sense than trade dictates population, but in my thinking neither stands logically.
But I think the biggest thing is I'm not making myself clear here. You seem to have me backwards.
I'm not saying the level of traffic/trade is because of the level of the starport, I'm saying the starport evolved to the level it has because of the traffic/trade through the system. That is all I think the old trade routes table was intended to show.
As you say real trade is very complicated. I'm just suggesting we don't need that level of modelling to make sensible game rules/guidelines to reflect it.
Agreed, there was no official use for the trade routes generated, and that was the failing of the table by itself and maybe why it was dropped*. It needed a few more things to make it useful. Like the total traffic/trade volume for worlds based on their placement on or off the trade routes and the relative strengths of the other worlds traded with. As in the trade codes factoring idea for example. I don't think that'd be a huge trick, I've done some of it on the fly before as simple mods to the trade rolls for free-traders.
Do we need more than that for the regular game? Or is it just so it scales up accurately on the off chance someone wants to play Mega-Corp Prince instead of Merchant Prince?
Again, not trying to be a pain, but feeling like I'm coming across that way smile.gif
* But reappeared in a JTAS maybe? I have a vague recollection of it somewhere else. Maybe just a ghost memory though smile.gif
I'm getting the trade is proportional to population idea from economics 101, not any canon source that may or may not have factored in any particularly sane economic model. Really? I don't mean to come across as a pain but I don't think real economics shows any such relationship, except perhaps in the most general sense. A population by itself does not make either an export or import market. What is needed first and formost for trade is transportation and freindly access to other populations, and a need (perceived or created) for the product of at least one of the populations by the other such that both think they are getting a good deal. Maybe it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing. Certainly you do need population for trade, but you don't really need trade for population. So making a case that population dictates trade makes less sense than trade dictates population, but in my thinking neither stands logically.
But I think the biggest thing is I'm not making myself clear here. You seem to have me backwards.
I'm not saying the level of traffic/trade is because of the level of the starport, I'm saying the starport evolved to the level it has because of the traffic/trade through the system. That is all I think the old trade routes table was intended to show.
As you say real trade is very complicated. I'm just suggesting we don't need that level of modelling to make sensible game rules/guidelines to reflect it.
Agreed, there was no official use for the trade routes generated, and that was the failing of the table by itself and maybe why it was dropped*. It needed a few more things to make it useful. Like the total traffic/trade volume for worlds based on their placement on or off the trade routes and the relative strengths of the other worlds traded with. As in the trade codes factoring idea for example. I don't think that'd be a huge trick, I've done some of it on the fly before as simple mods to the trade rolls for free-traders.
Do we need more than that for the regular game? Or is it just so it scales up accurately on the off chance someone wants to play Mega-Corp Prince instead of Merchant Prince?
Again, not trying to be a pain, but feeling like I'm coming across that way smile.gif
* But reappeared in a JTAS maybe? I have a vague recollection of it somewhere else. Maybe just a ghost memory though smile.gif
sgbrown
February 2nd, 2007, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by kaladorn:
-clip-
For the security issues:
1) A starship nuclear plant could become a nuclear bomb. But that's a fair bit of work. Easier to smuggle an actual nuke in (small, could be shielded). Assume that this doesn't happen due to...-clip- Uh actually no - the reactor would not be able to used as a nuclear bomb. Modern nuclear reactors (early ones too for that matter) can't be turned into a bomb. The fuel in them can be enriched to make a bomb with VERY specialized equipment, but the reactors physically can not result in a nuclear explosion.
Similarly, if our current theories on fusion hold, once you have a working fusion reactor, the engineering to make it nearly impossible to use the reactor as a bomb would also be pretty easy. End result - anyone with the ability to reverse engineer a fusion reactor into a bomb would have no need to because they could build the fusion bomb directly and much more efficiently without the reactor (as long as they have the parts.)
-clip-
For the security issues:
1) A starship nuclear plant could become a nuclear bomb. But that's a fair bit of work. Easier to smuggle an actual nuke in (small, could be shielded). Assume that this doesn't happen due to...-clip- Uh actually no - the reactor would not be able to used as a nuclear bomb. Modern nuclear reactors (early ones too for that matter) can't be turned into a bomb. The fuel in them can be enriched to make a bomb with VERY specialized equipment, but the reactors physically can not result in a nuclear explosion.
Similarly, if our current theories on fusion hold, once you have a working fusion reactor, the engineering to make it nearly impossible to use the reactor as a bomb would also be pretty easy. End result - anyone with the ability to reverse engineer a fusion reactor into a bomb would have no need to because they could build the fusion bomb directly and much more efficiently without the reactor (as long as they have the parts.)
kaladorn
February 3rd, 2007, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by SGB - Steve B:
Uh actually no - the reactor would not be able to used as a nuclear bomb. Hmmm. I know in CANDU for instance, most failures will cause the reaction to be damped (not even requiring power). Yet at the same time, I do wonder how hard it would be for someone actively trying to cause a bad failure to do so. Maybe it can't happen - generally we don't let nutbars or people with that sort of bent near our reactors so it is hard for me to know for sure. They'd likely not admit such a possibility even if it existed.
But I imagine you could cause an incident - contamination at the very least, even if you couldn't cause some form of localized explosion. You might not achieve supercriticality, but you ought to be able to do something bad.
But I'll concede it might be tough. If I combine a working nuclear plant with various forms of explosives and whatnot that could well be available (your ship has a missile launcher or you have some TDX or C4 handy), that might be bad.
Not 'big mushroom cloud' bad, I concede. You are right there.
The ability to produce a bomb safely (if you care) and reliably using enriched radioactive materials is probably in fact simpler than doing anything with the drives, I'll grant you that as well. That's really all you could ask the engineers to do anyway... if they make it hard enough that there are other easier ways to produce the threat, they've done all they need to.
Uh actually no - the reactor would not be able to used as a nuclear bomb. Hmmm. I know in CANDU for instance, most failures will cause the reaction to be damped (not even requiring power). Yet at the same time, I do wonder how hard it would be for someone actively trying to cause a bad failure to do so. Maybe it can't happen - generally we don't let nutbars or people with that sort of bent near our reactors so it is hard for me to know for sure. They'd likely not admit such a possibility even if it existed.
But I imagine you could cause an incident - contamination at the very least, even if you couldn't cause some form of localized explosion. You might not achieve supercriticality, but you ought to be able to do something bad.
But I'll concede it might be tough. If I combine a working nuclear plant with various forms of explosives and whatnot that could well be available (your ship has a missile launcher or you have some TDX or C4 handy), that might be bad.
Not 'big mushroom cloud' bad, I concede. You are right there.
The ability to produce a bomb safely (if you care) and reliably using enriched radioactive materials is probably in fact simpler than doing anything with the drives, I'll grant you that as well. That's really all you could ask the engineers to do anyway... if they make it hard enough that there are other easier ways to produce the threat, they've done all they need to.
kaladorn
February 3rd, 2007, 01:41 AM
Far-Trader,
I see your argument, but here we are... Population is necessary for trade, trade is not necessarily implied by population. I imagine, however, given a large enough sample, one could draw a decent statistical inference about the relationship of population and trade. Population does not require trade, but I'll bet that population equates to trade a fairly high percentage of the time. But that's why this stuff should probably have a random factor in it too.
Taking a step back and looking at your argument, I'd agree that in any sane universe (say one not crunched out by a program throwing random dice with no respect for nearby worlds or economic sense), a large trade avenue would tend to produce a high quality starport so the presence of a high quality starport will also tend to indicate a high volume of trade. Key word here is 'sane universe' and 'tend to'. The problem here is we still have Starport Type A in a variety of places that are neither on a trade main nor on a world that would mandate a large volume of traffic moving through it (low pop world, perhaps even isolated).
So the relationship between large port and large trade cannot be 100%. Anomalies in UWPs tell us that. So I guess that's my root reason for suggesting type and scale/size/scope are actually separate from one and the other. I can then justify having Starport A in an otherwise trade-unlikely location, if I imagine it as a very small A, and I can justify Starport C in what should be a key tradelane by arguing it is only C quality, but is it ever big!
We're essentially trying to rationalize trade in a non-painful fashion with existing UWPs in this argument and coming at it from different slants.
If one was ever trying to generate a sane sector, it might be nice to generate some random stats, but then have a few passes to do things like bump some ports up and others down based on trade volumes as they are likely to occur and to clean up some other anomolous types of situations. The end result would be more sensible trade mains and so forth.
Of course, then that isn't the case with our standard sectors... :0(
I see your argument, but here we are... Population is necessary for trade, trade is not necessarily implied by population. I imagine, however, given a large enough sample, one could draw a decent statistical inference about the relationship of population and trade. Population does not require trade, but I'll bet that population equates to trade a fairly high percentage of the time. But that's why this stuff should probably have a random factor in it too.
Taking a step back and looking at your argument, I'd agree that in any sane universe (say one not crunched out by a program throwing random dice with no respect for nearby worlds or economic sense), a large trade avenue would tend to produce a high quality starport so the presence of a high quality starport will also tend to indicate a high volume of trade. Key word here is 'sane universe' and 'tend to'. The problem here is we still have Starport Type A in a variety of places that are neither on a trade main nor on a world that would mandate a large volume of traffic moving through it (low pop world, perhaps even isolated).
So the relationship between large port and large trade cannot be 100%. Anomalies in UWPs tell us that. So I guess that's my root reason for suggesting type and scale/size/scope are actually separate from one and the other. I can then justify having Starport A in an otherwise trade-unlikely location, if I imagine it as a very small A, and I can justify Starport C in what should be a key tradelane by arguing it is only C quality, but is it ever big!
We're essentially trying to rationalize trade in a non-painful fashion with existing UWPs in this argument and coming at it from different slants.
If one was ever trying to generate a sane sector, it might be nice to generate some random stats, but then have a few passes to do things like bump some ports up and others down based on trade volumes as they are likely to occur and to clean up some other anomolous types of situations. The end result would be more sensible trade mains and so forth.
Of course, then that isn't the case with our standard sectors... :0(
far-trader
February 3rd, 2007, 02:15 AM
Yep, you've summed it up nicely kaladorn and I do see the logic of your point. Of course given the random generation nature, could we be so wrong if we just rolled 2d6 for the size of the port :D I kid. Any scheme will work with the right considered thought.
I'm just throwing ideas out. Sometimes they hit, sometimes not. Heck, half the time I'm not even in the right thread between here and the "Evolution of a Starport" thread. What? Oh, not again! Well between here and the "Starports" thread then...
I'm just throwing ideas out. Sometimes they hit, sometimes not. Heck, half the time I'm not even in the right thread between here and the "Evolution of a Starport" thread. What? Oh, not again! Well between here and the "Starports" thread then...
Hemdian
February 3rd, 2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_08a.jpg Instead of building the multistory park thing I would ...
(a) Extend the port south and create an additional 16-20 berths (possibly destroying one of the old berths to provide access). This would be done before the monorail link was built otherwise part of that would need demolishing too.
I'm assuming the terrain to the south permits this. Otherwise ...
(b) Build an underground park structure along the lines of the Eagle pads from Space:1999.
Actually, given the money I'd probably go with (a) for starships and (b) for small craft. I'd then build a new terminal concourse between the old and new berthing areas and have the monorail link end there rather than wrap round the whole thing.
Next allow the startown to grow up the east side (behind the Old Concourse), and build additional warehouses (possibly loosing the NW corner of the startown). And you will need a secure bonded warehouse (for Customs and Quarantine).
Now that the "Power plant" has become an "Observation and control complex" you'll also want a transport link from there to the New Concourse (going underneith the runway).
Where are emergency services located? Are firefighting vehicles ground-based or grav? If ground-based and normally situated somewhere over the east side (part of SPA Admin?) then you'll want a small staging area near the west end of the runway. (Actually you might want that anyway even if grav-based.)
Regards PLST
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/stage_08a.jpg Instead of building the multistory park thing I would ...
(a) Extend the port south and create an additional 16-20 berths (possibly destroying one of the old berths to provide access). This would be done before the monorail link was built otherwise part of that would need demolishing too.
I'm assuming the terrain to the south permits this. Otherwise ...
(b) Build an underground park structure along the lines of the Eagle pads from Space:1999.
Actually, given the money I'd probably go with (a) for starships and (b) for small craft. I'd then build a new terminal concourse between the old and new berthing areas and have the monorail link end there rather than wrap round the whole thing.
Next allow the startown to grow up the east side (behind the Old Concourse), and build additional warehouses (possibly loosing the NW corner of the startown). And you will need a secure bonded warehouse (for Customs and Quarantine).
Now that the "Power plant" has become an "Observation and control complex" you'll also want a transport link from there to the New Concourse (going underneith the runway).
Where are emergency services located? Are firefighting vehicles ground-based or grav? If ground-based and normally situated somewhere over the east side (part of SPA Admin?) then you'll want a small staging area near the west end of the runway. (Actually you might want that anyway even if grav-based.)
Regards PLST
Hemdian
February 3rd, 2007, 09:25 AM
On the subject of Naval Bases, IMTU they are separate installations from the starport. They are funded differently, they have different agendas (in most interstellar polities their agenda is not defined by the local world), etc. Having said that they are usually co-located with the starport. IMTU naval bases are defined here. (http://www.trisen.com/sol/default.asp?topic=10&page=18)
Regards PLST
Regards PLST
ravells
February 3rd, 2007, 06:29 PM
Wow! Thanks Hemdian!
(a) I aim to extend the port...but it's going to mean re-doing the uv maps for the starport...which is going to take a little time
The big problem with this project was that I didn't think about scaling when I started it.
(b) I watched Space 1999 as a kid but what do eagle pads look like? I don't remember. If you could give me some reference pictures that would be really helpful.
What you suggest makes sense from an evolutionary point of view...I'll try to implement it. But as the next stage is going to be scaled up considerably, it will take some time.
The emergency services were meant to be on that little projected island off the taxiway, but I hadn't got around to making the buildings for them yet.
What I think would be quite travellerish would be to have crane like structures somewhere as part of a shipyard. I'd also like to build a park around a lake with lots of trees. I think that people who have been in space for far too long would really like to wander around in a bit of green.
Ravs
(a) I aim to extend the port...but it's going to mean re-doing the uv maps for the starport...which is going to take a little time
The big problem with this project was that I didn't think about scaling when I started it.
(b) I watched Space 1999 as a kid but what do eagle pads look like? I don't remember. If you could give me some reference pictures that would be really helpful.
What you suggest makes sense from an evolutionary point of view...I'll try to implement it. But as the next stage is going to be scaled up considerably, it will take some time.
The emergency services were meant to be on that little projected island off the taxiway, but I hadn't got around to making the buildings for them yet.
What I think would be quite travellerish would be to have crane like structures somewhere as part of a shipyard. I'd also like to build a park around a lake with lots of trees. I think that people who have been in space for far too long would really like to wander around in a bit of green.
Ravs
ravells
February 3rd, 2007, 06:55 PM
Oh come on. Only 14 people have voted on the ship design competition. Lurkers! your moment has come...vote! If only to make us geeks know you appreciate the time and effort that we put into keeping Traveller alive.
Ravs
Ravs
kaladorn
February 3rd, 2007, 09:11 PM
Space 1999 Meshes (Landing Pad among them) (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.space1999.org/images/gallery/jmurphy/jamesmurphy_pad_150x113.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.space1999.org/gallery/cgi_models_meshes/index.html&h=113&w=150&sz=17&hl=en&start=22&tbnid=hF6wy5YdSu_rZM:&tbnh=72&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dspace%2B1999%2Blanding%2Bpads%26start %3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)
One thing I notice missing is a perimeter fence. At least *that much* security would seem a good thing. Maybe a few 'silo' type irises in the ground which contain pop up weaponry for point-defence and perhaps a sensor or two for the planetary meson emplacement. Point/area defense would be important for the starport potentially.
One thing I notice missing is a perimeter fence. At least *that much* security would seem a good thing. Maybe a few 'silo' type irises in the ground which contain pop up weaponry for point-defence and perhaps a sensor or two for the planetary meson emplacement. Point/area defense would be important for the starport potentially.
ravells
February 4th, 2007, 05:07 AM
Ah yes the fence was on my 'to do' list. I might put watchtowers at corners otherwise it will be very hard to see at this scale.
The silo irises and sensor array should not be a problem.
Thanks also for the landing pad mesh - perfect, I don't even have to model it!
Ravs
The silo irises and sensor array should not be a problem.
Thanks also for the landing pad mesh - perfect, I don't even have to model it!
Ravs
Hemdian
February 4th, 2007, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
(b) I watched Space 1999 as a kid but what do eagle pads look like? I don't remember. If you could give me some reference pictures that would be really helpful.Kaladorn already sent you some meshes but here are some pics that will help with context: (an Eagle is a modular cutter)
Moonbase Alpha with one of the Eagle pads in foreground (http://www.space1999.org/images/gallery/pictures_photos/space1999-year1-collisioncourse-1024x768-3.png)
View of docking tube extended (http://www.space1999.net/~moonbase99/tech/rescue_eagle.jpg)
Eagle on pad ... ascending/descending (http://members.aol.com/andicombs/eagle11.jpg)
Facility under pad (some sort of accident in progress) (http://www.space1999.org/images/gallery/pictures_photos/space1999-year2-spacewarp-1024x768-1.png)
Regards PLST
(b) I watched Space 1999 as a kid but what do eagle pads look like? I don't remember. If you could give me some reference pictures that would be really helpful.Kaladorn already sent you some meshes but here are some pics that will help with context: (an Eagle is a modular cutter)
Moonbase Alpha with one of the Eagle pads in foreground (http://www.space1999.org/images/gallery/pictures_photos/space1999-year1-collisioncourse-1024x768-3.png)
View of docking tube extended (http://www.space1999.net/~moonbase99/tech/rescue_eagle.jpg)
Eagle on pad ... ascending/descending (http://members.aol.com/andicombs/eagle11.jpg)
Facility under pad (some sort of accident in progress) (http://www.space1999.org/images/gallery/pictures_photos/space1999-year2-spacewarp-1024x768-1.png)
Regards PLST
ravells
February 4th, 2007, 02:55 PM
Next stage.
Following Hemdian's suggestions, startown has grown to the east of the starport (It'll need to be rescaled - the buildings look a little small now). Also the space 1999 bays and a new starport terminal.
I've remodelled the multistory - I think it looks better this way; comms equipment is on the roof.
I've moved the power plant / observation refinery and put a shipyard in its place.
I've also added a 747 aircraft on the tarmac to give me an idea about whether I'm scaling this properly. I think we can now say it's a class C starport - it has 48 starship berths.
I'm modelled a simple Scout class starship and plopped a few down (again for scale). The close up of the 1999 pads (sorry that they're floating), I'll fix that on the next effort gives a good idea of the scale of ships they can take using the sky bridges as a measure. Still not all that large, size of a 747 tops.
I've opened up some area to the west to land the big buggers but will have to re-route the monrail.
Also the hydrogen refinery has been moved to the south west corner and there's a big lake there.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_14.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13c.jpg
Following Hemdian's suggestions, startown has grown to the east of the starport (It'll need to be rescaled - the buildings look a little small now). Also the space 1999 bays and a new starport terminal.
I've remodelled the multistory - I think it looks better this way; comms equipment is on the roof.
I've moved the power plant / observation refinery and put a shipyard in its place.
I've also added a 747 aircraft on the tarmac to give me an idea about whether I'm scaling this properly. I think we can now say it's a class C starport - it has 48 starship berths.
I'm modelled a simple Scout class starship and plopped a few down (again for scale). The close up of the 1999 pads (sorry that they're floating), I'll fix that on the next effort gives a good idea of the scale of ships they can take using the sky bridges as a measure. Still not all that large, size of a 747 tops.
I've opened up some area to the west to land the big buggers but will have to re-route the monrail.
Also the hydrogen refinery has been moved to the south west corner and there's a big lake there.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13a.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_14.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13c.jpg
far-trader
February 4th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Looking very sharp!
That "comms equipment" looks positively threatening in the close up smile.gif Any easy way to make it look a little less "big gun turret" looking? Maybe even just cover it with a simple dark hex faced dome?
That "comms equipment" looks positively threatening in the close up smile.gif Any easy way to make it look a little less "big gun turret" looking? Maybe even just cover it with a simple dark hex faced dome?
ravells
February 4th, 2007, 03:51 PM
Er...it's a gun turret really! I'll model some radar stuff. I was hoping you wouldn't notice!
Do you think Gerry Anderson made the eagle landing pads out of bottle tops? Very striking similarity!
Ravs
Do you think Gerry Anderson made the eagle landing pads out of bottle tops? Very striking similarity!
Ravs
far-trader
February 4th, 2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by ravs:
Er...it's a gun turret really! I'll model some radar stuff. I was hoping you wouldn't notice!
smile.gif That explains the resemblance then ;) No worries, placeholder forms are fine. I won't argue with that "comms equipment" there. If a gun turret says "I'm comms equiment!" I'll tend to agree, at least until out of range of any further "communication" ;)
Originally posted by ravs:
Do you think Gerry Anderson made the eagle landing pads out of bottle tops? Very striking similarity!
I'd never made that connection to the eagle pads, though now that you point it out it could very well be.
Er...it's a gun turret really! I'll model some radar stuff. I was hoping you wouldn't notice!
smile.gif That explains the resemblance then ;) No worries, placeholder forms are fine. I won't argue with that "comms equipment" there. If a gun turret says "I'm comms equiment!" I'll tend to agree, at least until out of range of any further "communication" ;)
Originally posted by ravs:
Do you think Gerry Anderson made the eagle landing pads out of bottle tops? Very striking similarity!
I'd never made that connection to the eagle pads, though now that you point it out it could very well be.
Liam Devlin
February 5th, 2007, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Au contraire mon frere! IN bases can also be found at C-class Starports as well: check the Imperial naval Depot systems out--quite a few of these are C-class graemlins/file_22.gif And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. :D Agreed about the IISS Bases.
Interesting, but I'd have to classify them all as mistakes ;) I was only looking at CT system generation rules (maybe it was changed in some version but I can't remember it being different) which are crystal clear on the matter "Navy Base: Do not roll if starport C, D, E, or X."
I can't really imagine a Naval Depot being less than Class B either. No ability to build, no refined fuel, and limited repair facilities (Class C) doesn't strike me as being able to "supply entire fleets, provide construction and repair, and produce new prototypes". I'd say that sounds more like Class A.In case you missed this part Far Tarder, the project involves bridging all variants/ versions of Traveller's starport, & some things like the A & B-class only early CT rule stand in minority against later versions. ;)
Not everyone remained in CT-rules, and some TL adaptations occurred or were better defined in the predecessor rule editions. The C-class for Naval Bases as a minimum was one of them appearing in MegaTraveller first, repeated in GT, TNE, T4, & T20. Thats 5 versions to 1, so our project includes that as *a needed change*.
Likewise, GT brought this out, refined fuel is a matter of Tech level. After all FT--a fuel purifier for a starship comes in at TL9, and whose to say a C-class+ Port cannot have one hooked up to their raw tanks for selling refined fuel?
Likewise, a lot of A & B as well as C-class ports lie along the J-3/4 routes of the X-web lines, and Tukera LIC's freighters follow them--many are USL no refined fuel purified carrying ships--so those C-class ports along those canon routes have top have it for them to jump out don't they?
Of course maybe it is a case of there being two seperate facilities, but that isn't the implication of the (CT at least) system creation rules. There you roll to determine the type of starport and then see if the Imperium is interested in basing there. And the inference I always made was that the Imperium then relied on the local starport for support, backed up by the old "Imperial Navy... also procures vessels at tech levels 10 through 14". FT, :D we aren't *rolling up* new subsectors, & systems but trying to find a way to allow GM & Player alike make sense of the ones already in existence!
It has always seemed to me the Imperial Navy (and presumably IISS) don't operate their own starports (outside of Naval Depots and perhaps Way Stations) but simply use the local starport to center their bases on where they deem them worthy. In peacetime the function of the starport is mostly civilian/trade oriented, with some support of the IN/IISS if there is a base. Preferential support no doubt. And in wartime they become Umm Far Tarder, From the printed material versions the *Imperial Naval Base has been a spearate facility insystem, thus our team on this project interprets that as another (military only) starport in and of itself, not part of a commercial starport.
I can see your point on this as far as IISS Bases go, but I remain convinced even though they are informal and carry no open rank system, they too would have separate but smaller & equal facilities than those listed--unless the IISS were the sole population of the world itself!
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Au contraire mon frere! IN bases can also be found at C-class Starports as well: check the Imperial naval Depot systems out--quite a few of these are C-class graemlins/file_22.gif And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. :D Agreed about the IISS Bases.
Interesting, but I'd have to classify them all as mistakes ;) I was only looking at CT system generation rules (maybe it was changed in some version but I can't remember it being different) which are crystal clear on the matter "Navy Base: Do not roll if starport C, D, E, or X."
I can't really imagine a Naval Depot being less than Class B either. No ability to build, no refined fuel, and limited repair facilities (Class C) doesn't strike me as being able to "supply entire fleets, provide construction and repair, and produce new prototypes". I'd say that sounds more like Class A.In case you missed this part Far Tarder, the project involves bridging all variants/ versions of Traveller's starport, & some things like the A & B-class only early CT rule stand in minority against later versions. ;)
Not everyone remained in CT-rules, and some TL adaptations occurred or were better defined in the predecessor rule editions. The C-class for Naval Bases as a minimum was one of them appearing in MegaTraveller first, repeated in GT, TNE, T4, & T20. Thats 5 versions to 1, so our project includes that as *a needed change*.
Likewise, GT brought this out, refined fuel is a matter of Tech level. After all FT--a fuel purifier for a starship comes in at TL9, and whose to say a C-class+ Port cannot have one hooked up to their raw tanks for selling refined fuel?
Likewise, a lot of A & B as well as C-class ports lie along the J-3/4 routes of the X-web lines, and Tukera LIC's freighters follow them--many are USL no refined fuel purified carrying ships--so those C-class ports along those canon routes have top have it for them to jump out don't they?
Of course maybe it is a case of there being two seperate facilities, but that isn't the implication of the (CT at least) system creation rules. There you roll to determine the type of starport and then see if the Imperium is interested in basing there. And the inference I always made was that the Imperium then relied on the local starport for support, backed up by the old "Imperial Navy... also procures vessels at tech levels 10 through 14". FT, :D we aren't *rolling up* new subsectors, & systems but trying to find a way to allow GM & Player alike make sense of the ones already in existence!
It has always seemed to me the Imperial Navy (and presumably IISS) don't operate their own starports (outside of Naval Depots and perhaps Way Stations) but simply use the local starport to center their bases on where they deem them worthy. In peacetime the function of the starport is mostly civilian/trade oriented, with some support of the IN/IISS if there is a base. Preferential support no doubt. And in wartime they become Umm Far Tarder, From the printed material versions the *Imperial Naval Base has been a spearate facility insystem, thus our team on this project interprets that as another (military only) starport in and of itself, not part of a commercial starport.
I can see your point on this as far as IISS Bases go, but I remain convinced even though they are informal and carry no open rank system, they too would have separate but smaller & equal facilities than those listed--unless the IISS were the sole population of the world itself!
Hemdian
February 5th, 2007, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
I can see your point on this as far as IISS Bases go, but I remain convinced even though they are informal and carry no open rank system, they too would have separate but smaller & equal facilities than those listed--unless the IISS were the sole population of the world itself!I don't have it in front of me but didn't the Champa starport in one of the early JTAS (#7 ?) have a separate Scout Base facility? Attached but separated by a fence?
Regards PLST
I can see your point on this as far as IISS Bases go, but I remain convinced even though they are informal and carry no open rank system, they too would have separate but smaller & equal facilities than those listed--unless the IISS were the sole population of the world itself!I don't have it in front of me but didn't the Champa starport in one of the early JTAS (#7 ?) have a separate Scout Base facility? Attached but separated by a fence?
Regards PLST
Hemdian
February 5th, 2007, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Do you think Gerry Anderson made the eagle landing pads out of bottle tops? Very striking similarity!I think the effect is magnified by errors in the mesh. The sides should angle out more and they should be half sunk into the ground. Also, when the elevator is at the top it should be flush with the rest of the pad but the mesh has it raised slightly. (And if I was being picky I'd consider spacing them out a bit more. tongue.gif )
Regards PLST
Do you think Gerry Anderson made the eagle landing pads out of bottle tops? Very striking similarity!I think the effect is magnified by errors in the mesh. The sides should angle out more and they should be half sunk into the ground. Also, when the elevator is at the top it should be flush with the rest of the pad but the mesh has it raised slightly. (And if I was being picky I'd consider spacing them out a bit more. tongue.gif )
Regards PLST
Hemdian
February 5th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
I've moved the power plant / observation refinery and put a shipyard in its place.
I think we can now say it's a class C starport - it has 48 starship berths.
Well if the shipyard is for "reasonable repair facilities" then fair enough, but if they're laying down new hulls then this is a class B starport.
Regardless, I think the startown is really going to mushroom now. You'll want an industrial park dominated by light engineering (spaceship component manufacture, etc). And "Bates Motel" style facilities wont cut it anymore, you'll want a couple of proper hotels. Residents of the startown will want shops and entertainment (probably a colonial-style "downtown" commercial district). They'll also want a hospital, schools, police and fire service. And these will also mean a need for more housing as the startown becomes an entity in its own right with its own economy, not just an add-on to the starport. Transportation (both inside the startown and to the rest of the planet) will need upgrading. (Ever play SimCity?)
Summary: To the startown add a road network, industrial estate, commercial district, larger buildings round the middle, double or triple the size of the suburbs.
Regards PLST
I've moved the power plant / observation refinery and put a shipyard in its place.
I think we can now say it's a class C starport - it has 48 starship berths.
Well if the shipyard is for "reasonable repair facilities" then fair enough, but if they're laying down new hulls then this is a class B starport.
Regardless, I think the startown is really going to mushroom now. You'll want an industrial park dominated by light engineering (spaceship component manufacture, etc). And "Bates Motel" style facilities wont cut it anymore, you'll want a couple of proper hotels. Residents of the startown will want shops and entertainment (probably a colonial-style "downtown" commercial district). They'll also want a hospital, schools, police and fire service. And these will also mean a need for more housing as the startown becomes an entity in its own right with its own economy, not just an add-on to the starport. Transportation (both inside the startown and to the rest of the planet) will need upgrading. (Ever play SimCity?)
Summary: To the startown add a road network, industrial estate, commercial district, larger buildings round the middle, double or triple the size of the suburbs.
Regards PLST
Hemdian
February 5th, 2007, 10:45 AM
The pictures look good but any chance of another top-down view so we can see what's what? :D
Regards PLST
Regards PLST
ravells
February 5th, 2007, 11:15 AM
Residents of the startown will want shops and entertainment (probably a colonial-style "downtown" commercial district). They'll also want a hospital, schools, police and fire service. And these will also mean a need for more housing as the startown becomes an entity in its own right with its own economy, not just an add-on to the starport. Transportation (both inside the startown and to the rest of the planet) will need upgrading. Oh, not much then, and I suppose you also want a house with 'Hemedian' modelled on the door? ;)
It's not all that clear from the pictures but startown now has sky-scraper like buildings, but in doing that the scale's gone out of sync, I'm going to have to rescale startown so it's at least the size of the spaceport or bigger. That's going to increase the rendering time by a hellish amount, so startown will remain, essentially a load of cubes plonked in the ground as this is primarily about the starport rather than startown.
Defining Roads will be important, I think I have a cheeky way to uv map a road network and lots of buildings quickly and to make the town / city look a lot more organic than it is at present. I'll have a play and see.
I'll pop up a top down view tonight.
Ravs
It's not all that clear from the pictures but startown now has sky-scraper like buildings, but in doing that the scale's gone out of sync, I'm going to have to rescale startown so it's at least the size of the spaceport or bigger. That's going to increase the rendering time by a hellish amount, so startown will remain, essentially a load of cubes plonked in the ground as this is primarily about the starport rather than startown.
Defining Roads will be important, I think I have a cheeky way to uv map a road network and lots of buildings quickly and to make the town / city look a lot more organic than it is at present. I'll have a play and see.
I'll pop up a top down view tonight.
Ravs
Andrew Boulton
February 5th, 2007, 12:21 PM
Looking very impressive.
Gadrin
February 5th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Its a tad trendy, being TL-15 though.
boo! hiss! ;) sorry, my GURPS Traveller books, Ground Forces p106 put it at GTL 9 which translates roughly to TTL 9 thru 11, in their eyes.
"Two Dimensional Explosive" is the full name and I think TDX appears in an original JTAS. I've got it in the "Best of JTAS" Vol 1, on p22.
Its a tad trendy, being TL-15 though.
boo! hiss! ;) sorry, my GURPS Traveller books, Ground Forces p106 put it at GTL 9 which translates roughly to TTL 9 thru 11, in their eyes.
"Two Dimensional Explosive" is the full name and I think TDX appears in an original JTAS. I've got it in the "Best of JTAS" Vol 1, on p22.
ravells
February 5th, 2007, 04:30 PM
Here is the plan view.
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13di.jpg
Ravs
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_13di.jpg
Gadrin
February 5th, 2007, 04:39 PM
very nice. two thumbs up on your efforts.
ravells
February 5th, 2007, 06:35 PM
Beanstalk:
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10e.jpg
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c217/ravells/Main%20Album/stage_10e.jpg
Liam Devlin
February 5th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Hemdian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
I can see your point on this as far as IISS Bases go, but I remain convinced even though they are informal and carry no open rank system, they too would have separate but smaller & equal facilities than those listed--unless the IISS were the sole population of the world itself!I don't have it in front of me but didn't the Champa starport in one of the early JTAS (#7 ?) have a separate Scout Base facility? Attached but separated by a fence?
Regards PLST </font>[/QUOTE]yes, Champa's was, and thus seperate--whether by a fence, 1m, 10m, 1km, or 10km--whatever, its a seperate facility Hemdian.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
I can see your point on this as far as IISS Bases go, but I remain convinced even though they are informal and carry no open rank system, they too would have separate but smaller & equal facilities than those listed--unless the IISS were the sole population of the world itself!I don't have it in front of me but didn't the Champa starport in one of the early JTAS (#7 ?) have a separate Scout Base facility? Attached but separated by a fence?
Regards PLST </font>[/QUOTE]yes, Champa's was, and thus seperate--whether by a fence, 1m, 10m, 1km, or 10km--whatever, its a seperate facility Hemdian.
Liam Devlin
February 5th, 2007, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by Gadrin:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Its a tad trendy, being TL-15 though.
boo! hiss! ;) sorry, my GURPS Traveller books, Ground Forces p106 put it at GTL 9 which translates roughly to TTL 9 thru 11, in their eyes.
"Two Dimensional Explosive" is the full name and I think TDX appears in an original JTAS. I've got it in the "Best of JTAS" Vol 1, on p22. </font>[/QUOTE]Alas, CT, MT, TNE, T20 disagree with GT there with ya Gadrin. thats where we try to 'abridge' the various systems--where they all agree no trouble/ where they disgaree, how many stand for & against weighs the issue.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Its a tad trendy, being TL-15 though.
boo! hiss! ;) sorry, my GURPS Traveller books, Ground Forces p106 put it at GTL 9 which translates roughly to TTL 9 thru 11, in their eyes.
"Two Dimensional Explosive" is the full name and I think TDX appears in an original JTAS. I've got it in the "Best of JTAS" Vol 1, on p22. </font>[/QUOTE]Alas, CT, MT, TNE, T20 disagree with GT there with ya Gadrin. thats where we try to 'abridge' the various systems--where they all agree no trouble/ where they disgaree, how many stand for & against weighs the issue.
Gadrin
February 5th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
Alas, CT, MT, TNE, T20 disagree with GT there with ya Gadrin. thats where we try to 'abridge' the various systems--where they all agree no trouble/ where they disgaree, how many stand for & against weighs the issue.
well, not CT anyway. according to the CT CDrom I just got it shows TDX as available as of TTL 9
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Level Conv. Shaped TDX
5-6 10 - -
7-8 15 60 -
9-10 20 80 10
11-12 25 100 15
13+ 30 120 25 </pre>[/QUOTE]That's Striker Book 3. I don't know about the other incarnations of Traveller.
Alas, CT, MT, TNE, T20 disagree with GT there with ya Gadrin. thats where we try to 'abridge' the various systems--where they all agree no trouble/ where they disgaree, how many stand for & against weighs the issue.
well, not CT anyway. according to the CT CDrom I just got it shows TDX as available as of TTL 9
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Level Conv. Shaped TDX
5-6 10 - -
7-8 15 60 -
9-10 20 80 10
11-12 25 100 15
13+ 30 120 25 </pre>[/QUOTE]That's Striker Book 3. I don't know about the other incarnations of Traveller.
Liam Devlin
February 6th, 2007, 04:06 AM
Really?
kewlness. See, I learned something new today afterall! thanks Gadrin!
kewlness. See, I learned something new today afterall! thanks Gadrin!
Scarecrow
February 6th, 2007, 04:12 AM
Can I just say that whilst I haven't read every post (mainly due to the BSG spoilers - GRRR!) this is one of the most interesting threads I've read on CotI in absolutely ages and the illustrations are fantastic, Ravs!
Nice one!
Crow
Nice one!
Crow
Scarecrow
February 6th, 2007, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by far-trader:
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model? Sorry! I missed this when it was originally posted (page 9).
The height was 8.3m which is still not far off 3 decks.
The width is 22.6m though I've noticed that the plan shape varies between the deckplans and the GT plan illustration - the 'nose' is much narrower.
Y'know it'd be interesting to see if you could fit 200 dTons worth of gear into a streamlined hull that was exactly 200 dTons displacement. I'm betting not. Again, it's not relevant to gameplay but pfffff.....
Crow
I'm curious Crow, what overall height did you get for your model? Sorry! I missed this when it was originally posted (page 9).
The height was 8.3m which is still not far off 3 decks.
The width is 22.6m though I've noticed that the plan shape varies between the deckplans and the GT plan illustration - the 'nose' is much narrower.
Y'know it'd be interesting to see if you could fit 200 dTons worth of gear into a streamlined hull that was exactly 200 dTons displacement. I'm betting not. Again, it's not relevant to gameplay but pfffff.....
Crow
Hemdian
February 6th, 2007, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Oh, not much then, and I suppose you also want a house with 'Hemedian' modelled on the door? ;)
That would be nice. Oh, or ... how about one of those sky-scraper like buildings: "Hemdian Towers". I could have a penthouse, and change my first name to "Donald", and ... tongue.gif
Meanwhile, if you were going to landscape around the pond ("Tranquility Lake"?) where visitors can relax how about a tea room and concessionary (or something culturally equivalent)?
The monorail's starting to bother me a bit. Through the town would be fine but once inside the port it just gets in the way now. How about an all-underground travel system (which you wouldn't actually have to model)? Now that we've been talking about Space:1999 I was remembering the travel tube system they used ... the travel pods look a lot like standard Traveller modular cutter pods. I could see a cutter dropping off a cargo pod that is then whisked away into a warehouse without having to unload it. Could be the basis of a containerised cargo system. And passenger pods would get sent to the Arrivals area of the Concourse building.
Also, as traffic increases you might want separate passenger and cargo entrances to the port. Probably with a road leading to Custom's bonded warehouse (is that the building next to the SPA?).
How big did you want to grow this thing?
Regards PLST
Oh, not much then, and I suppose you also want a house with 'Hemedian' modelled on the door? ;)
That would be nice. Oh, or ... how about one of those sky-scraper like buildings: "Hemdian Towers". I could have a penthouse, and change my first name to "Donald", and ... tongue.gif
Meanwhile, if you were going to landscape around the pond ("Tranquility Lake"?) where visitors can relax how about a tea room and concessionary (or something culturally equivalent)?
The monorail's starting to bother me a bit. Through the town would be fine but once inside the port it just gets in the way now. How about an all-underground travel system (which you wouldn't actually have to model)? Now that we've been talking about Space:1999 I was remembering the travel tube system they used ... the travel pods look a lot like standard Traveller modular cutter pods. I could see a cutter dropping off a cargo pod that is then whisked away into a warehouse without having to unload it. Could be the basis of a containerised cargo system. And passenger pods would get sent to the Arrivals area of the Concourse building.
Also, as traffic increases you might want separate passenger and cargo entrances to the port. Probably with a road leading to Custom's bonded warehouse (is that the building next to the SPA?).
How big did you want to grow this thing?
Regards PLST
Scarecrow
February 6th, 2007, 05:27 AM
Something's bothering me about 'Startown'. It's too square. I think initially you would have buildings scattered randomly around the X or E class ports and the more rigid lines of streets would come in later. Like a lot of major cities on Earth, the centre tends to be a spider web of streets from a time when it was just a village or hamlet and then order comes in as you move further out and building work becomes more recent.
Crow
Crow
Liam Devlin
February 6th, 2007, 05:36 AM
'Crow has a point ravs, perhaps something radial, like a spider's web of streets that fills up as services and those who provide them become available--not a true circular spiderweb of streets, but something say, fan-shaped, with tiers of linking streets between them as buildings are provided/ arrive and are assembled?
just some stray cobwebs from my brain... ;)
just some stray cobwebs from my brain... ;)
ravells
February 6th, 2007, 06:24 AM
Crow, Liam: I agree. These were just retangular blocks set in a square I plopped in - initially they were just there for use in the perspective view at about eye level, so the squareness wouldn't show. With a plan view it's too obvious. Las night I looked at a quick way to greeble in the town buildings in locations and heights where I want them. I found a greeble plug-in for blender and tried it, but not being used to the blender interface it's going to take longer than I thought, so I abandoned that idea for the present. What I'm going to have to do is model the city within Bryce terrain editor. This should be fairly simple (but time consuming)as I can use grey values to determine the location and height of buildings (essentially a bump map), draw the plan in psp and then import it into Bryce.
Thanks for the compliments Crow and Andrew - compliments from the masters do wonders for my hat size! None of these pictures has any post production, and many of the models are placeholders. The main aim here is to stimulate discussion about function rather than form. Once we have the function sorted out I can revisit the form. I then plan to do proper renders with human figures, post production, proper composition and use of colour etc.
One of the challenges in this whole project is scale. If you are making a scene and have have in mind exactly how you want to frame it, you can 'cheat' with scale by making things bigger and smaller to simulate size and distance. The problem is that this doesn't work here, particularly in the top down shots.
I was thinking the city proper some distance away with a main road towards the starport and startown developing around the gates, with both growing in tune with the starport. The city would be circular/radial and startown would just be a jumble by the starport gates which slowly begins to self organise.
Hemdian: I was thinking of making a park around the pond with trees and gardens - after all what more would a starship crew want after being in space surrounded by metal for long periods of time.
The whole process of transport of cargo containers to warehousing and out to the city needs more thought. When we play traveller we just talk about using grav pallets to move cargo from A to B. With the smaller ships we normally play with, the cargo gets sold straight out of the berth and it's the buyer who takes it away. Suggestions?
I don't want to make this starport too underground dependant as I wanted to save that for a starport which would have a strong environmental driver to have it underground, e.g. vacuum. This planet has an earthlike atmosphere. For the same reason I've been avoiding the use of domes, also because they're a bit hackneyed.
The monorail will definitely be moved, it just looks odd where it is but I still want to keep it because I think a monorail gives the place a sense of activity on the ground and it's a good indicator of scale. At the scale in which most of the pictures are, trucks and cars would be too small to see.
The idea is to get up to an 'A' Class starport and then the project will be complete.
Beanstalks: Doesn't this suffer from the same problem as the powerplant? Isn't it just downright dangerous having a beanstalk so close to air traffic? Suggestions?
Cheers!
Ravs
Thanks for the compliments Crow and Andrew - compliments from the masters do wonders for my hat size! None of these pictures has any post production, and many of the models are placeholders. The main aim here is to stimulate discussion about function rather than form. Once we have the function sorted out I can revisit the form. I then plan to do proper renders with human figures, post production, proper composition and use of colour etc.
One of the challenges in this whole project is scale. If you are making a scene and have have in mind exactly how you want to frame it, you can 'cheat' with scale by making things bigger and smaller to simulate size and distance. The problem is that this doesn't work here, particularly in the top down shots.
I was thinking the city proper some distance away with a main road towards the starport and startown developing around the gates, with both growing in tune with the starport. The city would be circular/radial and startown would just be a jumble by the starport gates which slowly begins to self organise.
Hemdian: I was thinking of making a park around the pond with trees and gardens - after all what more would a starship crew want after being in space surrounded by metal for long periods of time.
The whole process of transport of cargo containers to warehousing and out to the city needs more thought. When we play traveller we just talk about using grav pallets to move cargo from A to B. With the smaller ships we normally play with, the cargo gets sold straight out of the berth and it's the buyer who takes it away. Suggestions?
I don't want to make this starport too underground dependant as I wanted to save that for a starport which would have a strong environmental driver to have it underground, e.g. vacuum. This planet has an earthlike atmosphere. For the same reason I've been avoiding the use of domes, also because they're a bit hackneyed.
The monorail will definitely be moved, it just looks odd where it is but I still want to keep it because I think a monorail gives the place a sense of activity on the ground and it's a good indicator of scale. At the scale in which most of the pictures are, trucks and cars would be too small to see.
The idea is to get up to an 'A' Class starport and then the project will be complete.
Beanstalks: Doesn't this suffer from the same problem as the powerplant? Isn't it just downright dangerous having a beanstalk so close to air traffic? Suggestions?
Cheers!
Ravs
Pickles
February 6th, 2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Crow, Liam: I agree. These were just retangular blocks set in a square I plopped in - initially they were just there for use in the perspective view at about eye level, so the squareness wouldn't show. With a plan view it's too obvious.Huh. And I was just about to compliment you on your commendable adherence to geomantic town planning principles. That startown looks like it has great feng shui. ;)
Crow, Liam: I agree. These were just retangular blocks set in a square I plopped in - initially they were just there for use in the perspective view at about eye level, so the squareness wouldn't show. With a plan view it's too obvious.Huh. And I was just about to compliment you on your commendable adherence to geomantic town planning principles. That startown looks like it has great feng shui. ;)
far-trader
February 6th, 2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by ravs:
Beanstalks: Doesn't this suffer from the same problem as the powerplant? Isn't it just downright dangerous having a beanstalk so close to air traffic? Suggestions?
Dang the memory. Can't recall the author or title and the book isn't accessible (really need to build those shelves ;) ) but there was a very good story concerning a beanstalk, from early planning through failure. I don't recall or see any particular air-traffic concerns but a no fly zone might be reasonable so it could be some distance from the starport, connected by underground train.
I seem to recall something about:
1 - It having to be built quite close to the equator for spin reasons.
2 - Being built on an island or sea coast so that if it did fall it would land (mostly) in the sea.
3 - When it did fall, where it did hit land, the devastation was quite wide, a couple kilometers or so.
But then the whole thing is so unclear in my mind that I'm really not sure it's not bits stolen from a few sources :rolleyes:
All in all, the more I think about it putting all your best eggs (Main Starport and Beanstalk) in one basket might not be good planning.
And I'm not too sure a beanstalk makes a lot of sense once you have Traveller's cheap and safe gravitics for space flight. Beanstalks are good for climbing out of gravity cheaply but that only works where the usual way to orbit is our current rocket technology. And even then only IF we somehow manage to make the materials that can actually do it. I think we're theoretically and even experimentally* there, but nowhere near practicality or politically willing.
* Based on a news item a year or so back where they'd managed to make less than a meter of a single strand, and we need several kilometers of seriously multistrand cable.
Beanstalks: Doesn't this suffer from the same problem as the powerplant? Isn't it just downright dangerous having a beanstalk so close to air traffic? Suggestions?
Dang the memory. Can't recall the author or title and the book isn't accessible (really need to build those shelves ;) ) but there was a very good story concerning a beanstalk, from early planning through failure. I don't recall or see any particular air-traffic concerns but a no fly zone might be reasonable so it could be some distance from the starport, connected by underground train.
I seem to recall something about:
1 - It having to be built quite close to the equator for spin reasons.
2 - Being built on an island or sea coast so that if it did fall it would land (mostly) in the sea.
3 - When it did fall, where it did hit land, the devastation was quite wide, a couple kilometers or so.
But then the whole thing is so unclear in my mind that I'm really not sure it's not bits stolen from a few sources :rolleyes:
All in all, the more I think about it putting all your best eggs (Main Starport and Beanstalk) in one basket might not be good planning.
And I'm not too sure a beanstalk makes a lot of sense once you have Traveller's cheap and safe gravitics for space flight. Beanstalks are good for climbing out of gravity cheaply but that only works where the usual way to orbit is our current rocket technology. And even then only IF we somehow manage to make the materials that can actually do it. I think we're theoretically and even experimentally* there, but nowhere near practicality or politically willing.
* Based on a news item a year or so back where they'd managed to make less than a meter of a single strand, and we need several kilometers of seriously multistrand cable.
Hemdian
February 6th, 2007, 12:04 PM
Looking at the current plan view something's just dawned on me: there is a large customs/warehouse structure directly in line with the end of the runway. Given that occasionally aircraft fail to stop after landing, or conversely fail to gain significant altitude after take-off, this doesn't look safe. Has the potential to turn an accident into a disaster.
Regards PLST
Regards PLST
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét