• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Rationale Needed...

tbeard1999

SOC-14 1K
For dramatic reasons, I need a couple of facts for MTU rationalized. As I'm running dry in that department of late, I decided to solicit help. I can think of no better group than the CT grognards of COTI. So I need a plausible rationale for this fact:

Starships larger than (say) 200 tons must land at dedicated facilities (i.e., starports). (I need this to stage dramatic "amphibious invasions" where small dropships land troops in hostile territory; where a world's starport is a major strategic objective.)

So...any ideas on how to rationalize this?

MTU is a CT "small ship" universe. The main technological difference is that gravitic manupulation has not been harnessed for widespread planetary transport. My TL13 high tech troops ride fusion powered tiltrotor troop carriers or air cushion vehicles into battles. Main battle tanks are still largely tracked, as God intended.

Ships have artificial gravity, but the technology requires 2 plates (floor and ceiling). So no propulsion (thanks Aramis).
 
Motherships containing multiple 100ton landers? Soften the target area with missile ortillery from destroyers, the landers go in at high speed with ablative shields and firing off chaff and ECM like crazy while the Marines hang on.

Final time on target ortillery second before the landers touch down to provide obscuration and suppression while the troops debus from the landers. Gunships can provide overhead cover.

I recall you had drop ships with pods...I think I suggested a temporary hardpoint pod with VRF GG's, ammo, and commo for dropping at an LZ to provide a bunker and rally point?


The smaller drop ships may work for most situations, but a full scale "amphibious assault" brings to mind Normandy and the Pacific front where larger LST's were needed to get a lot of guys on the beach as fast as possible. I think this sort of situation would need similar thinking to sound plausible. unless the starport is something a smaller commando could take control of first, while the larger column comes in shortly after to hold it against a reaction force?

But again, I think as in any invasion the key is to swarm the LZ as fast as possible while using artillery to keep the bad guy's heads down. And I doubt your regular dropships would be enough. Its not the same thing, but I have a small ship game, too, and I use a 4000 ton transport that carries 6 200 ton landers and would be like a big WW2 transport dropping off the landing craft to head for the "beach".
 
Typically, anything much bigger than 200 Td is going to have ground pressures measure in dozens of tons per square meter.

Keep in mind: a 747-400 is about 100Td tons payload, at 111.6 Tons metric maximum payload. It's dropping 14 KG/cm2, or about 140 Tm per m2
(She's about 125-150Td overall.)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/747.htm

A human exerts less than 2kg/cm2 typically. Ice skates push up to 50x that...

Ground pressure alone is pretty much the important thing.

Surface area of landing gear is probably going to go up as the square of the cube root of the tonnage... but the loaded mass is linear... past a certain point, it's counter productive to increase the area linearly to mass, and it's going to hit a point where the ground won't accept the ground pressure.

Note that I used 4m2 on my recent design for a Type S... that results in about 250 tons/m2, or about 25kg/cm2...
 
From my TU...

Starships larger than (say) 200 tons must land at dedicated facilities (i.e., starports).

...any ideas on how to rationalize this?

See how this suits ya...

-------

Most ships, especially civilian ships but also military ships not expected to land at other than prepared Downport Fields, do not go to a lot of expense and at the loss of volume and added mass, to install other than standard landing struts. Commercial and civilian ships because they prefer to put the budget, volume and mass towards revenue and/or comfort. Military ships because they prefer to design for combat and concentrate on arms, armor and sensors.

Therefore most ships rely on specially hardened and leveled Downport fields to support their weight on the minimal standard landing struts. Some larger ships even require special cradles to support them. On surfaces not suited to these minimums the ship may settle unevenly collapsing a strut or struts causing serious damage, or simply sink deeply into the surface also causing serious damage. And that's not counting ships with surfaces that would impact the surface before the minimal landing struts would even make contact.

Smaller ships due to their lower load on even the minimal landing struts generally do not fare as badly and may routinely land on less suitable surfaces with little worry.

The standard IISS Type S Scout/Courier is 100tons for this very reason. A much larger ship would be more capable but less able to make wilderness landings nearly anywhere.

The typical Free Trader ship is also small, generally not over 200tons, to allow landings at less than ideal locations to conduct business. It is right on the threshold though, especially when fully loaded, of being too massive for it's minimal standard landing struts when away from prepared fields and caution is the watchword.

Many ships utilize landing craft to avoid the problems.

Naturally local gravity below 1G will help offset some of the load limit and allow some slightly larger ships to land. As well water landings are not subject to this limit, but come with their own circumstances requiring caution.

-------

...of course in my TU the contra-grav would allow hovering long enough to unload, but you don't have that tech. In my TU the CG lifters are not intended to be run at full power continuously. They are meant just for landing and take off. Running them for too long leads to overheating and trouble.

And for what it's worth, a quick Wilderness Landings table of hull size limitations by world size (based on gravity) outlining the above. Totally off the cuff I figure maybe a roll 2D6 8+ to not have a problem with a DM of -1 for fully loaded and DMs of +2 per world size over hull limitation. Problems being broken landing gear (no landing at all, anywhere, until fixed - i.e. a Highport repair job - 1 week and Cr10 (2D6 x hull size) at a minimum.

Code:
World Size    Maximum Ship

    1           800tons
    2           400tons
    3           [COLOR=Gray]266tons[/COLOR]
    4           200tons
    5           [COLOR=Gray]160tons[/COLOR]
    6           [COLOR=Gray]133tons[/COLOR]
    7           [COLOR=Gray]114tons[/COLOR]
    8           100tons
    9            [COLOR=Gray]88tons[/COLOR]
    A            [COLOR=Gray]80tons[/COLOR]

This is just a landing gear support test for unknown ground conditions (i.e. anywhere but a Starport Class E or better).
 
Last edited:
Oh sorry, now I get it. My blood sugar must be low.

The Co-Dominum universe used water landings like Far-Trader pointed out for landing craft. One reason you could limit ship size is just the way they have to enter and maneuver in atmosphere.

If the ship is too large it has too much trouble landing without all the handwaving of gravitic drives and so it has to come in as a lifting body kinda fast. So it needs a long, well prepped runway. Then it needs to not break in half when it sits on the ground on heavier than 1g worlds.
 
The propellant used to land and take off may be an issue. On some worlds this can really play havoc with the atmosphere. Possibly native lifeforms give off a lot of methane, and this spaceport is the only place that is kept clear of it.

Andrew Morris (Argleton, UK)
 
Ground pressure is the first thing that comes to mind, and the additional space that would be required to handle non-level landing zones on unevenly extensible strut packages for the landing legs.

What's your M-drive? If there's any chance that there's a radiation or chemical hazard created by the drive, the ships would need to land and be moved to gates a la modern airports, and possibly decontaminated prior to that.

Finally, IMTU, starship cargoes are handled in standard, fairly large shipping containers. While CG units could handle them (if they were available), it's much more efficient to use the automated equipment built into the ship to off load them onto a conveyer-style system for delivery to the customs, warehousing and sorting area for match up to what ever local transport is needed to get the good delivered to the final destination. This is even more vital for ships in the bulk non-containerized business (fluids, bulk dry chemicals, bulk foods and grains), which pretty much absolutely require the services of a regularized port.

Smaller ships do land and trade in non port settings because they are small. Small holds may mean non-containerized shipping, smaller containers, and a reasonable hand/forklift off load capability (imagine a bulk container ship having to be offloaded by opening each container and moving pallet quantities off the ship). Even modern semi trailers in the 48-55' range are generally loaded and off loaded using forklifts and electric pallet jacks. Loading and unloading anything much larger than that by hand becomes tedious and time-consuming, and the labor and time wasted on the on and off loading of cargo is money burning to a containerized and bulk shipper. The little guys, who may be involved in speculative trade anyway, and who likely have that time to spare, are OK with it.
 
Starships larger than (say) 200 tons must land at dedicated facilities (i.e., starports).

I'd say the reason is simple. Expense. Economics.

It has to be more expensive to send shuttles to orbit than it is to have the ship land. Simple as that. Most worlds don't have surface to orbit carries for that reason. It is technologically possible--just as it is technologically possible in the real world to send a rocket or a shuttle to the space station. We just don't see rockets and space shuttles at every airport because of the expense. We're not there yet.

I'd say this reason would hold true in YTU as well.

Military spending, well, that's another issue, isn't it?

And, in YTU, you prolly don't have large, established High Ports, not because they're not possible technologically, but because of the same reason world starports don't have fleets of surface-to-orbit transports.

The all-mighty credit.

It's cheaper, and therefore the status quo, for ships to land on worlds.
 
Pretty much what the others have said:
Ground Pressure
Drive Exhaust
Runway Length
Loading Facilities
Legal Requirements
Nuclear Phobia
They make pretty big targets if you don't land em somewhere safe
 
Ty,

Everyone has come up with all the rationales I would have. Ground pressure is the biggest, IMHO, followed by drive exhaust issues.

I can't count the number of industrial sites I've visited where new flooring and/or foundations are being poured and/or prepared for heavier machinery. It's not only load bearing concerns, vibration and work cycles are an issue too. You could pour a slab that would easily support a static landed spacecraft that could still be too "thin" to withstand repeated landing and takeoff cycles.

Preparing the ground beneath a poured foundation is critical also. I once visited a client in Florida who found part of their digestor building canted on day when the earth beneath the building's foundation shifted. Having a structure containing a dozen 4-story, 10 meter wide, stainless steel cylinders plus all their associated piping suddenly shift and sag a few inches, especially when those cylinders are what provide the primary precursor material to a huge industrial process, can be quite frightening.

The Baen Free Library has a book by David Drake called Paying The Piper set in the Slammer's universe. The locations of the world's spaceport figures prominently in the story and that location is wholly predicated on the need for load supporting slabs. While the starships in Drake's novel are larger than in your TU, the idea remains the same. The book is divided into linked short stories, the first and last specifically address spaceport siting issues.


Regards,
Bill
 
Thanks for the help, gents.

The winner is...ground presure and serious vibration. Larger ships require very thick, reinforced concrete aprons to land on. These aprons require maintenance.

As a practical matter, this limits frontier landings to 200 ton ships or smaller (for typical worlds of size 5+). A world may have flat expanses of bedrock that can support a ship, but these are seldom close enough to anything to make this a useful option. The airports of most TL8+ worlds can support smaller starships as well (though without cargo handling).

Regional airports can accomodate 400 ton ships. International caliber airports can accomodate 600 ton ships.

In addition, starports have extensive cargo handling machinery which make cargo far easier to debark.

The military has experimented with "dump-ships" -- larger ships that can land anywhere, but can't takeoff. These have not impressed anyone (yet).

In my Commonwealth campaign, the archetypal orbital invasion campaign goes something like this:

1. Jump troops sieze the starport.

2. Medium weight marine forces reinforce and secure the bridgehead.

3. Heavy armor and mechanized forces build up inside the bridgehead.

4. Forces in the bridgehead break out.

Sometimes, marine landing forces replace jump troops. Jump troops may be used instead for diversions, raids on critical targets, etc. Sometimes, marines aren't available and Army light infantry units are used in step 2.

Note that while starports are key objectives, this is well-known by defenders. With time to prepare, a starport can be heavily fortified. So many campaigns have *not* featured the early seizure of the starport. Instead, the bridgehead is established in a reasonably defensible area (say, between two rivers). It is then supplied with small craft (200 tons-) until the breakout forces are ready to move. Then, the starport is seized in a normal land campaign. It typically takes a lot longer for this kind of bridgehead to reach step 4, but this can be offset by the fact that defending forces are usually far away. This allows the bridgehead to be fully established before the enemy can launch serious counterattacks. And note that the Commonwealth has a very high percentage of airmobile forces. A remote bridgehead will not be a serious hindrance for an airmobile force.

The standard insertion ship is the 30 ton D-7 dropship (aka the LBB2 slow boat). 19.9 dton capacity (80 metric tons); has 3 modules. "The passenger module has seating for 39 men. Seats can be folded down to provide up to 9 ad-hoc medical beds (4 seats per bed). The cargo module has cargo fittings for 19.9 tons of cargo or 15 tons of combat loaded cargo. In an emergency, the cargo module can carry about 30 passengers, but it will be a very uncomfortable ride and most will suffer bruises and scrapes. The medical module has medical fittings for 12 casualties. A gunship module with 2 VRF gauss guns and a huge ammunition load has been tested but is not in service."

The D-20 Sparrowhawk DST (dropship, tank), aka the LBB2 95 ton shuttle, carries 71 dtons (285 metric tons) of cargo. Has a passenger module, a cargo module and a mixed passenger/cargo module. Typical armament is a VRF Gauss Gun and 2 plug-in weapons modules. Weapon options are missile launchers, 10cm mass drivers, or disposable MRL pods (400 6cm rockets each).

Passenger module carries 142 men in couches. Seats can be converted into beds at the rate of 4 to 1 for ad-hoc medical transport. Cargo module carries 70 dtons (285 metric tons) of cargo; there's sufficient room for a platoon of 4 main battle tanks. Mixed module has 60 seats for passengers and 40 dtons (160 metric tons) of cargo space.

The D-20 is popular with the Army; it has 3.5 times the capacity of the D-7 at twice the cost. And the crew size is the same, so it's a more efficient transport. The Marines prefer the D-7 because it provides redundancy and can be carried by smaller starships.
 
Last edited:
The winner is...ground presure and serious vibration. Larger ships require very thick, reinforced concrete aprons to land on. These aprons require maintenance.


Ty,

That's the "solution" IMTU also and, unlike YTU, MTU has still has contra-grav.

IMTU, and for a whole host of reasons, it's damn rare for any ship over 1000 dTon to land regularly or to even be designed to land at all.


Regards,
Bill
 
Ty,

That's the "solution" IMTU also and, unlike YTU, MTU has still has contra-grav.

IMTU, and for a whole host of reasons, it's damn rare for any ship over 1000 dTon to land regularly or to even be designed to land at all.

For dramatic reasons -- players being able to explore primitive planets -- I wanted small ships to be able to land. But dramatic reasons also required the exclusion of big ships. I just needed some help on the rationale... :D
 
For dramatic reasons -- players being able to explore primitive planets -- I wanted small ships to be able to land. But dramatic reasons also required the exclusion of big ships. I just needed some help on the rationale... :D


Ty,

Like you, I always imposed landing restrictions on my players. Cap'n Blackie and the boys could nearly always find someplace to set the Running Boil down on some primitive world and it was nearly always not very close to where they needed to go!

A common complaint in my games ran "@%##&&@! We crossed eleven parsecs getting here and now we've got an eleven klick yomp through this stinking jungle too?" @%##&&@!


Regards,
Bill
 
In My Upcoming Traveller Universe (IMUTU) I have been thinking about the very same issues when it comes to landing. As I use the TNE rules starships will soon sett things a blaze if they try to land anywhere outside designated areas.

Small crafts may be fitted with ducted fans with CG-drives for landing and take off in the wilderness.
 
In my Traveller-1942 campaign notes, all the ships are Book-2 small craft design (no Jump Drive). They can land pretty much wherever they want.

But the rockets do tend to start up fires on the landscape.
 
After reading some responses, I went back and re-read the OP. Did I miss something?

I did.

Sorry for my "sorry" reply, Ty. I did read the OP...I just didn't read it as closely as I should have. Missed the critical part of the question.





On a tangental note...

I sure like the original Traveller idea (an idea that was evidently dropped from Classic Traveller) of ships with M-1 drives not being able to make escape velocity from worlds Size 8+.

Kinda like what you're doing here, it is a tool to make worlds different from each other. It may indicate why a major jump route (tip of the hat to Hans) with a lower tech or lower class starport has more traffic than a close world with better facilities. It makes up for some of the "other factors" that spacers have to deal with.

For example, a world that is Size 8 with little atmosphere is a tough place for a M-1 Tramp Trader. Unless that world has a High Port, the Tramp is stuck making orbit and using shuttles from the downport to ferry cargo down. This could add another whole day to the ship's stay at the world (usually 1 day for refuel, unload, restock, and repair to 2 days). No downport shuttles means the ship has to use it's own ship's vehicles.

"How many trips will it take in the air/raft to unload the ship?"

"What do you mean it's an open-top air/raft?"

"What do you mean the ship doesn't have an air/raft?"





The GM can get creative with different worlds, respecting that world's tech level, of course.

"Remember that world we made oribit on...that used the solid rocket fuel boosters, strapped to the hull, to make escape velocity? I think the place was rated TL 5. And, only streamlined vessles with M-1 drives could safely land on the planet anyway, glidig to the surface."



Another thing I like about this rule (or...way of looking at Traveller...you can find some old articles about this sort of thing in early fan magazines. White Dwarf has an article or two about this.) is that it's just enough to not be bothersome for the GM. It's just enough to bring a little detail and character to the places Travellers go.

The only time there's an issue is when the ship's M drive is rated at M-1, and the world in question is Size 8+. When this occurs, the GM need look at the world's tech level. The Starport class. The atmosphere type. And make some assumptions about how things are run on that word.

Maybe ships with M-1 drives are serviced only by the High Port?

Maybe a high tech world uses a large ferry ship, not unlike Dune, where the small ships dock with it, and this large craft ferry the vessels to surface.

Maybe shuttles run ground-to-orbit.

Maybe orbit-to-surface tugs are used.

Maybe the GM can come up with some other colorful idea.



I like how, playing Traveller this way, it makes worlds memorable--not just another planet that is only a set of stats to the players.
 
Last edited:
Andy Slack wrote some articles for WD that had something on this subject. He pointed out that since worlds 8+ prohibited M-drives of 1G from taking off, but not landing assuming streamlining included wings or a lifting body design, that worlds of that size with type A & B starports would have reusable boosters available for ships.

They were 100-400 tons in size and had a drive sufficient to boost a ship to orbit, then were jettisoned and retrieved for another customer later. You'd have to work out the drive sizes to get the numbers right, but I've used them IMTU for years. Its another way to spend the players' money and adds flavor.

I have the collected articles of Andy Slack if anyone wants them I can email them.
 
Well to be honest, there's little or no need for boosters on a world with Class A or B (even C iirc) Starports as they have Highports canonically I seem to recall. So if you can't land at the Downport you just use the Highport, and if a delivery or other business requires a trip to the Downport you pay for the shuttle trip or charter a small craft.

Or, an article in Dragon magazine iirc (might have been Tavonii Downport, or not) mentioned high tech worlds with Downports utilizing a gravity glide path deal for both landing and takeoff of all ships. No free flights, you were totally under ground control via the tractor beam like gravitic device from orbit to ground and ground to orbit. For safety and security reasons. You still operated your own drive as an emergency backup (idled but ready) with the Pilot at the helm (but hands off unless needed).

I never much went for that idea either. Several reasons. Among them:

Few worlds are size 8+ since the average roll is 5 (so it's not often a worry)
Few of those don't have a Highport (and options exist anyway...)

I wanted the players to have to use the services provided at least sometimes, as an avenue to adventure. "Sorry, the gees are too much for your Free Trader to land at the Downport here, too bad you took on that cargo that has to be delivered to the Downport. Will you be sub-contracting the delivery or renting a small craft and doing it yourself?"

Or at least think about it a little. "Hmm, if we land at the Downport any cargo and pax we pick up will have to be deliverd to the Downport at the destination, and we don't have the maneuver to be able to land there. Maybe we should use the Highport here?"
 
Back
Top