Starport Landing Pads

[rancke]

Modifying an existing design would make training and maintenance easier (it's effectively the same ship, just with longer legs).

Effectively the same ship except different drives, power plant, hull (engineering section, remember?), controls, and crew composition (more engineers, more support personnel).

No offense, but this sounds like a huge handwave to me. The sort of thing I might come up with if there had been a canonical statement about X-boat tenders being the only sort of ship the Scouts used other than Scout/Couriers. If your theory had any validity, how come the survey ships aren't modified tenders too? You could stuff all the survey equipment you need into a 1000T hull. Indeed, you can stuff a lot more survey equipment than you need into a 1000T hull, which seems a pretty good reason to build a dedicated class of survey ships. But the same argument applies equally to transports and any other sort of support vessel.

And, to go meta for a moment, it seems an unnessecary restriction on the game universe. If a referee want's to run a scout campaign, shouldn't he have a bigger choice of ships to give to his PCs? "I can't give you a Fat Trader, guys, the Scouts only use Scouts, Donosevs, and X-boat tenders. Oh, and AHLs..."


Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

What about temporary bases? You know, the Scouts decides to do a survey on a world with a lowish population (so practically no logistical support from the locals are possible) and expects it to take a couple of years, so they set up a base for a couple of hundred people on an empty continent. They expect to be there for several years, but not forever. But while they're there, they'll need considerable facilities.


Hans

I've always seen those types of scenarios covered solely by ships. A Donosev (or several - or other types) with supplies run out by Couriers. Rotating out for R&R and annual maintenance. No need to build a base of any significant support on some back of beyond rock just while studying it. At best the world might rate a Class E investment, which if not supported after the survey will quickly revert to a Class X.

Precisely... this is the "wet-Navy" "destroyer tender/submarine tender" concept.


These were both converted surplus/obsolete ships and purpose-built vessels, designed to provide support and maintenance for a squadron/flotilla of small ships in a forward area away from regular ports/bases.

Here is a photo of a USN monitor acting as a tender for submarines in harbor in the Azores during WW1 (USS Tonopah, ex-Nevada):
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/nevada.htm

Operational and Building Data: Built by Bath Iron Works, ME. Laid down 17 April 1899, launched as Connecticut on 24 November 1900, renamed Nevada 1, 1901, commissioned 5 March 1903. Renamed Tonopah on 2 March 1909. Operated as a submarine tender, probably starting circa 1913-1914; was based at Bermuda, Azores and Lisbon, Portugal at various times. Decommissioned for disposal 1/1919.

Ship: Melville (AD 2)
Type: Destroyer Tender
Date: 10 November 1932
View: Port bow, overhead, with destroyers
Photo ID: 80-G-416393

 

[rancke]

I've always seen those types of scenarios covered solely by ships. A Donosev (or several - or other types) with supplies run out by Couriers. Rotating out for R&R and annual maintenance.

A Donosev would be a poor base for surveying a planet. You need something that is capable of landing on the surface. Couriers are a bad choice for ferrying supplies, being slow and with very low capacity.

No need to build a base of any significant support on some back of beyond rock just while studying it. At best the world might rate a Class E investment, which if not supported after the survey will quickly revert to a Class X.

Parking a ship on (or in orbit around) a world for a couple of years is wasteful. Jump drives are expensive and wasteful to keep idle. And the size of ship needed to house a couple of hundred people makes it worse. A load of prefab huts takes up much less capacity for much less time. And the only reason (apart from the total absence of water) why such a temporary base wouldn't have a small fuel purifier plant to provide fuel for visiting supply ships would be a desperate (and incomprehensible) attempt to avoid resembling a Class D facility.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Effectively the same ship except different drives, power plant, hull (engineering section, remember?), controls, and crew composition (more engineers, more support personnel).

MD is identical, ditto controls and most of the hull (all mods are internal). Crews can vary anyway.

IRL it's normal to modify an existing design whenever possible, for the reasons I gave.

And, to go meta for a moment, it seems an unnessecary restriction on the game universe. If a referee want's to run a scout campaign, shouldn't he have a bigger choice of ships to give to his PCs? "I can't give you a Fat Trader, guys, the Scouts only use Scouts, Donosevs, and X-boat tenders. Oh, and AHLs..."

I never said they don't use anything else, only that they don't *need* to.

And if brand new designs are preferable, why recycle those AHLs?

 

[rancke]

IRL it's normal to modify an existing design whenever possible, for the reasons I gave.

Only if the gains outweight the countervailing factors. Which they don't. Come to that, the Scouts were supplying bases long before they serviced X-boats, so while a new design was necessary for the new purpose, they would have had good old tried and true designs for everything else. No need to make jackass conversions of X-boat tenders.

I never said they don't use anything else, only that they don't *need* to.

Ah, I see. You've been discussing whether the Scouts could make do with what has been described if forced to, while I've veen discussing how likely it is that they would be forced to. Well, they could make do if they had to or wanted to, and it's highly unlikely that they would have to or want to.

And if brand new designs are preferable, why recycle those AHLs?

Who said anything about NEW designs? See above.

As for the AHLs, as far as the Scouts are concerned, they would be new designs. And they probably got them dirt cheap or possibly even for free.


Hans

 

[aramis]

It's frequently impractical to modify existing designs, even when it's possible.

The donosev isn't a bad survey design, since it carries landing-capable small craft.

The Bk2 Type S is poor as a delivery craft, but a Bk5 Type S isn't bad at all...

100 12.00 Hull 11 (100Td Wedge)
_20 _0.50 Bridge
__1 _4.00 Model 1bis
__3 12.00 JD J2
__5 _3.50 MD M2
__2 _6.00 PP P2
_20 _0.00 JFuel
__2 _0.00 PFuel
__1 _1.10 Triple Turret and HP
_16 _2.00 SR x4
__4 _0.60 Air Raft
_26 ___0.0 Cargo
===============================
100 41.70 Subtotal
__0 -4.17 Standard Discount
===============================
100 37.53 totals

26 tons cargo; 4 of which is fluffed as a mission pallet bay

 

[rancke]

The Bk2 Type S is poor as a delivery craft, but a Bk5 Type S isn't bad at all...26 tons cargo; 4 of which is fluffed as a mission pallet bay

Yes, 26 tons of cargo is quite decent. But does the Type S "really" have 26 tons of cargo? Or even the Bk5 Type S, assuming for purposes of argument that there is a difference. Perhaps the Type S "really" has enough fuel for two jumps?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

bah and fiddlesticks

You don't need more than the original 3tons (and no, imo the active service Type S even under Book 5 is only 3tons of cargo and J2 etc. )*

Just enough to ferry out some extra LS supplies, a bit of mail (cookies from mom), the latest dispatches (electronic form in compy), maybe swap in some personnel riding in the ample staterooms...

...on the trip back return some specimens, letters home (thanks for the cookies mom), reports (electronic form in compy again), and the personnel being swapped out.

* EDIT: well, maybe. I think I've done a Type S Book 5 "Scout" that retains the 3tons of cargo (for extended operation supplies or whatever) and a Type S Book 5 "Courier" that swaps out a bunch of the "Scout" advanced electronics for cargo space (hence the "Courier" role). Exact same ship in every way except modular units for the different duties. I think I even had a "Survey" version which wasn't much different from the "Scout" version really. Not to wander too far off topic but to me the proper way to recreate the Type S in Book 5 has to stick to the lowest TL. So the powerplant and fuel purifier are big, which fills up the space saved by the lower fuel requirements. It actually works out quite well for most B2 to B5 "translations" of lower TL ships.

 

[aramis]

Yes, 26 tons of cargo is quite decent. But does the Type S "really" have 26 tons of cargo? Or even the Bk5 Type S, assuming for purposes of argument that there is a difference. Perhaps the Type S "really" has enough fuel for two jumps?


Hans

2 jumps would be unlike every other canonical naval craft we've seen. Further, it would fundamentally alter the functionality far more than increased cargo space does, which is still "quite a lot."

It would reduce also the cargo space to a still spacious 16 Tons, 4 of them the mission bay opposite the air raft.

Note: the classic deck plans as drawn have many areas that are not the standard 3m clearance decktop to ceiling... because if they were, they'd extend outside the hull shell. Plus, the illo and the deckplans don't match (S7: T&G, p.17) Oh, and there is a SECOND set of CT deckplans for the standard wedge... in Snapshot. They don't fit the illustrated profiles, either. (Bangs head against wall.) But at least the snapshot deckplan doesn't have a non-matching exterior illo with it... but the lines on the drawing in T&G look a lot more like the plans from Snapshot... (Banging of head continues.)

 

[rancke]

2 jumps would be unlike every other canonical naval craft we've seen. Further, it would fundamentally alter the functionality far more than increased cargo space does, which is still "quite a lot."

Very true. It would make it more suited for scout and courier missions than for transportation. I don't see much of a downside to that.

It would reduce also the cargo space to a still spacious 16 Tons, 4 of them the mission bay opposite the air raft.

26 tons minus 20 extra tons of fuel would by my calculations make 6 tons. For my own purposes I would squeeze use 4T for the air/raft and squeeze an extra dT out of the rest of the accomodations, probably by making the bridge 19T. Sure, it would be an illegal design by the ship construction rules, but I'm a roleplayer, not a wargamer, so that wouldn't worry me one little bit.

Note: the classic deck plans as drawn have many areas that are not the standard 3m clearance decktop to ceiling... because if they were, they'd extend outside the hull shell. Plus, the illo and the deckplans don't match (S7: T&G, p.17) Oh, and there is a SECOND set of CT deckplans for the standard wedge... in Snapshot. They don't fit the illustrated profiles, either. (Bangs head against wall.) But at least the snapshot deckplan doesn't have a non-matching exterior illo with it... but the lines on the drawing in T&G look a lot more like the plans from Snapshot... (Banging of head continues.)

Yeah, that's one design TPTB ought to retcon extensively. Sadly, that's not likely to happen with all the illustrations that has been made over the years.


Hans

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Come to that, the Scouts were supplying bases long before they serviced X-boats, so while a new design was necessary for the new purpose, they would have had good old tried and true designs for everything else. No need to make jackass conversions of X-boat tenders.

Maybe the XBT is a conversion of an older design...

 

[far-trader]

FWIW, my Cr2 is that the X-Boat Tender is wrong anyway.

It should have J4 capability simply to get to the systems it has to service the X-Boats in. My "corrected" design includes J4 drives and uses the massive service bay for demountable tanks (300tons) to enable J4 range to this end, and still has room for one X-Boat inside (the other 300tons) for recovery purposes. Not often but on occasion an XBT will be off-station for recovery. Other times they are using the J4 range in transit to/from annual maintenance. They even make fair transports (about 300tons cargo iirc) and the J4 range allows them to keep up with standard Navy jumps.

 

[Gray Pennell]

I guess the answer to the original question has already been answered just use air port or even sea port maps and modified them. Another source of good inspiration would be city guide books and architectural magazines. Architectural Digest often covers hotels and resorts if you want inspiration.

As for scouts ships two things come to mind. First a jump 4 in all put the largest voids/rifts should get you anywhere you need to go and explore. Those places you cant reach would be mapped and forwarded to the navy or maybe a better equipped Scout ships. Second, we are forgetting the drop tank. According to TNS X-boats were to be equipped with these to speed things up. Why couldn't other scout ships have drop tanks? This would allow the Scouts to do their mission and keep J6 restricted to Navy and uber secret operations. Scout bases exist to keep the scouts moving and to monitor plants. I have my PCs dropping by several poor bases. I am seeing them basically as fuel depots and in the case of amber zones as watching trafic to report to Navel or Scout superiors.

 

[rancke]

As for scouts ships [...] we are forgetting the drop tank. According to TNS X-boats were to be equipped with these to speed things up. Why couldn't other scout ships have drop tanks? This would allow the Scouts to do their mission and keep J6 restricted to Navy and uber secret operations.

Drop tanks are a recent invention. The Scouts may be introducing them slowly or they may still be evaluating them. The rumor about the X-boats would seem to suggest the latter.

If you believe CT, J5 is in civilian use (Oberlindes has some J5 couriers). If you believe that all CT rules apply to the Imperium, J6 is freely available to civilians (No restrictions on what sort of jump drive PCs can have installed in any ship they have constructed as long as they have the money). If you accept GT as canon, the Scouts and (some) civilians are using J6 couriers by 1120 at the latest. So whatever might keep the Scouts from using J5 and J6, would be practical considerations (or prejudice ), not Navy secrets.


Hans

 

[MCEvans]

I've put this out in a couple other threads but one of my favorite ships was from an old White Dwarf issue.

Explorer Class Scout
300dT, 5J, 1G, Crew 4-6, 2 A/R and 14 ton cargo (6 Strms)

from the same issue

Hugin Class Scout
200dT, 3J, 3M, Crew 4ish, 1 A/R and 17 ton cargo (8 Strms, 8 LB)

Both for PCs just enough cargo for speculation and the Hugin can carry passengers.


Just comments from the peanut gallery.

 

[Mithras]

I have that issue, with the scenario, but ripped out the scenario years ago

I've put this out in a couple other threads but one of my favorite ships was from an old White Dwarf issue.

Explorer Class Scout
300dT, 5J, 1G, Crew 4-6, 2 A/R and 14 ton cargo (6 Strms)

from the same issue

Hugin Class Scout
200dT, 3J, 3M, Crew 4ish, 1 A/R and 17 ton cargo (8 Strms, 8 LB)

Both for PCs just enough cargo for speculation and the Hugin can carry passengers.


Just comments from the peanut gallery.

 

[MCEvans]

I have that issue, with the scenario, but ripped out the scenario years ago

There was a scenario??

 

[Mithras]

Unless I'm misremembering.... I thought that ship was part of a scenario about a noble wanting to harvest gems from a red zone world, 'Dragon something'. Sounds like I got the wrong issue ...

 

[Andrew Boulton]

#40 had the ship (one of my faves, too), #41 had the scenario, "The Snowbird Mystery".

 

[madmike]

Way back when I had no grey hairs and was still in school, some 30 years ago now, I designed a class A starport complete with 2xA3 plans. I even detailed the star system it was in, notes and hotel floor plans et al.

There was two components to the design, a down port and a high Port. The high port carried fuel, maintenance facilities, passenger terminus, freight/cargo warehouses and a retail/commercial sector.

Regular cargo and passenger shuttles provided access to the down port. The down port had landing berths, retail/commercial/residential blocks (startown) and other facilities. I had even included military facilities as well.

Now resplendent in grey hair, a lot older and perhaps wiser, I now know that the Class A starport I designed is probably more like a Class B starport but I feel the general principles are rather sound. I even did some mod work way back then to tether the high port to the down port, but cannot find the notes for that.

Would anyone like to see this at all?