Evolution of a Starport

[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

 

[Liam Devlin]

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!

 

[far-trader]

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

And then there's a few worlds with them like C686A88-E N too now.. 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]

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

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

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]

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.

 

[ravells]

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.

 

[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.

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]

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.

 

[GypsyComet]

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.

 

[GypsyComet]

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.

 

[far-trader]

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

* But reappeared in a JTAS maybe? I have a vague recollection of it somewhere else. Maybe just a ghost memory though

 

[sgbrown]

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.)

 

[kaladorn]

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.

 

[kaladorn]

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(

 

[far-trader]

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 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...

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by ravs:

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]

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.

Regards PLST

 

[ravells]

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

 

[ravells]

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

 

[kaladorn]

Space 1999 Meshes (Landing Pad among them)

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.