Evolution of a Starport

[far-trader]

Haven't gotten to see much of the new BSG That sounds like a very cool scene though, I like desperation insanity tactics

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

 

[Mickazoid]

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).

 

[far-trader]

I like your reasoning and analogy Micki

 

[ravells]

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).

Ravs

 

[Hyphen]

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

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

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]

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.

 

[Mickazoid]

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:



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]

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).

 

[far-trader]

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

Case in point...

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]

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.

So could we say, large streamlined ship can land on a dirtside but regulary do not ?

regards,

TE

 

[ravells]

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

 

[kaladorn]

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]

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
...(though clearly I'm going to have to counter-cite vs. Dan shortly... *grin*).

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

 

[far-trader]

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

And a monorail! And...

 

[far-trader]

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.

 

[ravells]

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

Ravs

 

[kaladorn]

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.

 

[Valarian]

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

 

[Mickazoid]

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.

And once again - killer work, Ravs!

 

[ravells]

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