P
Pickles
Guest
Gypsy - have you just hit on the secret reason for all those Hi Pop pinhead rockballs?
Evolution of a Starport
- Thread starter ravells
- Start date
Plankowner
SOC-13
Maybe, but that doesn't explain the rockballs with the Class E Starports and the HI population.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
The Adminator
I'd rate Mos Eisley as a D, or even a good E - no terminal buildings, ATC, repair yards etc, and not much traffic.
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
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...
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited:
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dear Folks -
*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...
"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...
