In your games what is the largest ship that can land on a planet.

[Nathan Brazil]

IMTY, I simply have an arbitrary limit of 5000 dTons to keep the idea of Adventure Class Ships and a homage to CT. While larger tonnages exist and might be designed to land, they are warships or the huge cargo ships we rarely see in game.

Larger ships I rationalize are wasteful costwise to land. They have all that tonnage for the jump drives and jump fuel that serve no useful purpose in the process of getting cargo on or off planet. It would be cheaper to have smaller non-starships load up from the various spaceports/downports to the "warehouse" ship in orbit. Later in the destination system, the larger craft becomes the distrubution point for the receiving planet's non-starships to pick up cargo from. Smaller docking fees from more expensive planetside downport pads compared to larger orbital "real estate".

 

[chipla]

So the landing pad is built to the same standards as the building foundations. If the building stays up so would an AHL.

Yes, which goes back to my point that infrastructure is the limiting force as to what can land where.

It's also worth noting that all skyscrapers have significant issues related to wind forces due to their height. A Ghalalk class Armored Cruiser is what several hundred metres long? While it's said in the recent element class cruiser book from Mongoose to specifically be unable to land, if it did land as a tail sitter there needs to be infrastructure in place to deal with the fact the front of the ship would be swaying due to the force of the wind.

 

[mike wightman]

An armoured ship is 15 to 20 metric tons per displacement ton.

If the wind can make that sway your settlement buildings will be found in Oz.

 

[Condottiere]

I thought we had inertial compensation fields.

A little bit of wind is nothing compared to nine gees.

 

[mike wightman]

Depends if it is driven by curry or tacos...

 

[Condottiere]

I'll take biological warfare for two hundred, Alex.

 

[MichaelSTee]

I think I would probably have a 1000dt limit for an A port. BUT, other ports would have lower limits. After all, some rules say an E port is just an area of cleared bedrock. I also think ports built by lower TL societies would have to have lower limits. So maybe max size depends on port class and TL.

 

[vargr1]

The Imperial Palace is 4250 (or 4750 in some sources) meters from the Moot Spire and is a sphere 1 km in diameter with a base that is floating 500 m over the ground (Digest 9).

So, any ship that size or small can 'land', but they'd have to keep their antigrav on.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The Imperial Palace is 4250 (or 4750 in some sources) meters from the Moot Spire and is a sphere 1 km in diameter with a base that is floating 500 m over the ground (Digest 9).

So, any ship that size or small can 'land', but they'd have to keep their antigrav on.

Properly, the Palace is not a spaceship as it has no motive drives of its own. IIRC it or the "satellite" palaces are held aloft by ground based anti-grav beams. But you have unlocked an interesting idea I did not consider. What if the space/starport does the piloting in?:

"This Regina Downport. Your identity has been verified. We will fly you in to the next available 50K berth. Grav beams are already locked. Awaiting release of ship's controls to Port Authorty.
Releasing control ... now. Thanks. Do you still have that bar in Startown that makes Darrian Flames?
Yes indeed we do. Sorry, cant talk more. Busy day today. Welcome to Regina!"

 

[vegas]

CT gives an answer:

S9 p6 "Surface support of ships is generally limited to vessels displacing 1,000 tons or less"

NB: this is specifically in reference to naval bases, but I assume the same limit applies to commercial port support.

And yes, I use that rule.

 

[Condottiere]

How about flying saucers?

Those appear to spread out their weight.

 

[Grav_Moped]

How about flying saucers?

Those appear to spread out their weight.

You'd think so, but most of them have spindly legs in the movies. Then again, they often are landing at Vasquez Rocks near Los Angeles, CA (Wikipedia) so the dirt is pretty solid once you get below the surface layer of sand in the designated parking area.

 

[Condottiere]

Funny how certain areas are more active.

In theory, the weight would allow the underside to flatten out uneven terrain.

The cargo hatch would be closer to the ground.

 

[Enoki]

Depends if it is driven by curry or tacos...

I don't think they're talking about that kind of 'wind.'

 

[Rupert]

I thought we had inertial compensation fields.

A little bit of wind is nothing compared to nine gees.

9G acceleration from the base is a quite different thing to the sideways force of the wind on your ship over 200-300 metres of height. Modern high-rise buildings have a lot of foundation, often extending over quite a large area, and they are firmly anchored into that foundation. A landing pad for a large tail-sitter would need to be just as extensive and it would need fairly hefty docking arms and gantries to hold the ship steady if the world its one has much wind.

This makes a case for belly-landers - while they need more area, the landing pad doesn't need to be as strong at any point and it needs less in the way of supports and access towers, and the ships would be less affected by wind.

 

[Dragoner]

Anything that can be streamlined, I suppose the biggest IMTU would be like the Colonial III from TTA:

 

[mike wightman]

Ahh the good old TTA books, I still have my full set.

It's hanging there just like a brick...
doesn't. (to paraphrase the great one)

 

[Condottiere]

It's a question of practicality.

If you're landing a really big spacecraft dirtside, you probably have to have a valid reason.

 

[bookwyrm]

If you're landing a really big spacecraft dirtside, you probably have to have a valid reason.

Taking enough damage to be forced to land at the bottom of a gravity well?

 

[casquilho]

Ahh the good old TTA books, I still have my full set.

I lost somehow a box of books and my TTA books were in the box. I can't afford to replace them, but I do miss them.