Highports
- Thread starter BytePro
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Though another possible explanation is that said shuttle service exists to link to unstreamlined or otherwise not landing starships in the absence of a highport, rather than to traffic between the downport and highport.
The terms low-port and down-port both imply an opposite, as well - axiomatically, a high port or up-port.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yes, but it does not mean that both are always paired or present.
Thanks!
Ran across some scanned notes from 1987 where I labeled a station 'Illishneer Highport', but hadn't, at the time, encountered any other Traveller material than a few LBBs and seen a few modules. Probably picked it up from a novel (or Star Frontiers?).
Don't have the TTA - curious if anyone could confirm whether it's downport refers to the starport as 'Downport' by name or as a downport, or does it refer to a city/starport combination (ala Downbelow Station from C. J. Cherryh - which, IIRC, would have been early 80's - maybe that is my original source)?
So basically no mention of Highport is recollected... starports could be either, with no rules to support determination (corrosive atmo worlds seem a likely candidate for defacto highports and shuttles to surface).
Regards the implication that A/B/C starports have shuttles, that seems reasonable for many stations, but unusual, for reason of a highport, for atmo 0 worlds (though they could also be for space stations, habitats, factories, etc. for any atmo).
Also, starports have no minimum dton capabilities listed anywhere, aside from implication by design rules that type A's must support over 100 dtons for jump capable ships?
Ran across some scanned notes from 1987 where I labeled a station 'Illishneer Highport', but hadn't, at the time, encountered any other Traveller material than a few LBBs and seen a few modules. Probably picked it up from a novel (or Star Frontiers?).
Don't have the TTA - curious if anyone could confirm whether it's downport refers to the starport as 'Downport' by name or as a downport, or does it refer to a city/starport combination (ala Downbelow Station from C. J. Cherryh - which, IIRC, would have been early 80's - maybe that is my original source)?
So basically no mention of Highport is recollected... starports could be either, with no rules to support determination (corrosive atmo worlds seem a likely candidate for defacto highports and shuttles to surface).
Regards the implication that A/B/C starports have shuttles, that seems reasonable for many stations, but unusual, for reason of a highport, for atmo 0 worlds (though they could also be for space stations, habitats, factories, etc. for any atmo).
Also, starports have no minimum dton capabilities listed anywhere, aside from implication by design rules that type A's must support over 100 dtons for jump capable ships?
TTA uses downport several ways.
• As a name for the port, appended to the world name or city name.
• As a city name for the city that has the port on one world.
Page 18 mentions an orbital based "population" on heguz
Page 19 mentions an entirely orbital population on Rugbird
Page 45 mentions trojan colonies for the GG in the Patinir system (itself a belt)
Page 63 has an orbital port facility around Aramanx; page 71 notes that the population is planetside, and p 73 notes that there is no official port planetside, but there is shuttle service.
Page 66 has the following:
• As a name for the port, appended to the world name or city name.
• As a city name for the city that has the port on one world.
Page 18 mentions an orbital based "population" on heguz
Page 19 mentions an entirely orbital population on Rugbird
Page 45 mentions trojan colonies for the GG in the Patinir system (itself a belt)
Page 63 has an orbital port facility around Aramanx; page 71 notes that the population is planetside, and p 73 notes that there is no official port planetside, but there is shuttle service.
Page 66 has the following:
Throw 8 + for the ship to be inspected in orbit on arrival at the starport. But the inspector seems more intent
on getting a bribe than on looking too hard. The patron will Pay.
(emphasis mine)
on getting a bribe than on looking too hard. The patron will Pay.
(emphasis mine)
One Highport could serve multiple downports as well, in theory; plus no pesky noise ordinances or zoning laws in space.
madmike
SOC-12
I remember when refereeing my last campaign some 20 odd years ago, I used to tether the highport to a Class A downport with an elevator or "beanstalk"
This allowed economic transfer of planetside passengers to starships docked at the highport and visa versa.
Incoming and outgoing cargo could be transferred as well.
Plenty of SF fiction now use the space elevator concept lately as well.
This allowed economic transfer of planetside passengers to starships docked at the highport and visa versa.
Incoming and outgoing cargo could be transferred as well.
Plenty of SF fiction now use the space elevator concept lately as well.
I first encountered space elevators back in 1980... in a book called "A Tour of the Universe"...
They've featured on major pop worlds of TL12+ along with the orbital ring stations like in that book.
They've featured on major pop worlds of TL12+ along with the orbital ring stations like in that book.
Starviking
SOC-13
That was just an aspirational statement by a Japanese construction company, don't expect to see any hardware soon.
Have to check that one out... first recollection for me is Clarke's Fountains of Paradise, ~'79, IIRC, which focused on the elevator. Heinlein had a prominent one in the early '80s around the same time as Niven (Fallen Angels or Anansi Down or some such). More recently Alastair Reynolds with Chasm City I think.
Tried centering an adventure around one once, but didn't pull it off well. With ubiquitous gravitics, it loses a lot of appeal, but I've still thrown them in as background - generally describing them as 'antiques' and using them on 'back water' planets that do not allow ships to land.
A ship downbound from orbit, and with the amount of PE and KE it has, is like an enormous bomb just waiting to be used in the hands of the wrong person.
I actually believe that sophisticated planets will have beanstalk elevators in abundance, and good planetary defenses to prevent intentional and unintentional catastrophes from occurring at the habitable surface.
Backwater planets is where you will see atmospheric entry vessels. Streamlined ships, and ships with shuttle and landers.
You know, player vessels...
I actually believe that sophisticated planets will have beanstalk elevators in abundance, and good planetary defenses to prevent intentional and unintentional catastrophes from occurring at the habitable surface.
Backwater planets is where you will see atmospheric entry vessels. Streamlined ships, and ships with shuttle and landers.
You know, player vessels...
That was one of my rationales for having them IMTU, but then I figured Commerce typically trumps sanity... 
With accidents as well as overt acts, the situation with starships is no different, except potentially in dramatic scale, to what goes on today - with LNG shipping (there the scale is even questionable), commercial aircraft, refineries, even railcars. Not to mention military transports , notably tankers and ordinance bearing (aircraft and ships -> reference Texas City disaster). One needn't look farther than many of the world's most populous cities - situated in the shadow of volcanoes, active fault zones, affronting oceans, etc. - to see how commerce and economics overrides logic.
Space elevators and beanstalks also have their own vulnerabilities and inherent risks. With gravitics thrown in, its hard to justify such on an economic basis, and on a security basis most planets would rely on planetary defenses, interstellar peace (OTU certainly), and just ignoring the potential for catastrophe (with typical coverups when things do go awry...).
With accidents as well as overt acts, the situation with starships is no different, except potentially in dramatic scale, to what goes on today - with LNG shipping (there the scale is even questionable), commercial aircraft, refineries, even railcars. Not to mention military transports , notably tankers and ordinance bearing (aircraft and ships -> reference Texas City disaster). One needn't look farther than many of the world's most populous cities - situated in the shadow of volcanoes, active fault zones, affronting oceans, etc. - to see how commerce and economics overrides logic.
Space elevators and beanstalks also have their own vulnerabilities and inherent risks. With gravitics thrown in, its hard to justify such on an economic basis, and on a security basis most planets would rely on planetary defenses, interstellar peace (OTU certainly), and just ignoring the potential for catastrophe (with typical coverups when things do go awry...).
madmike
SOC-12
Oh I am not. But the fact that their is even consideration to build one in the now, shows that by higher TL's, they would certainly be commonplace should the requirement be there to use them.
For movement of passengers to large liners that would not require or desire the expense of landing downbelow, they would be most economical.
There was a published Trav adventure called "Tower Terror" (some early White Dwarf?) that centred on a terrorist plot to blow up/sever Earth's space elevator...
It's pretty cheap on Amazon... as low as $0.35 per copy, plus shipping.
Madmike:
The problem with elevators NOW is that we literally don't have materials capable of the stress by a safe margin... We're only just starting the nanotube cable tech that might make it feasible to have a beanstalk on earth.
One of the scarier bits from Tour is the sheer volume of the orbital hab around earth. It's at geosync, several km wide, and is a complete ring.
Last edited:
There's a similar event in the Heavy Gear timeline... the beanstalk falling wipes out several colonies.
