• 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.

Starports

Originally posted by Liam Devlin:
SSU conclusion:

Imperial Escort Squadron (stargrid number of world)/ Fleet #, composing of the flag Ship 1kton Fer-de-Lance class Destroyer escort 'ISS Mamba' J4/6G, the 600dtn Naval SDB/Salvage Jump tug (J4(J2)/1G) 'ISS Grappler', and 400dt Shukugan-class SDB's 101 & 102 (base and systenm security patrols) and the 400dtn J4/4G escorts 4x Type T-Patrol Cruisers ISS Valiant, ISS Valor, Valhalla, * ISS 'Vigilant' are supported locally here at Marnie (insert UWP), a small but influential base, and a prosperous Small shipyard, producing 2x S-class starships a year.

How's that non-robot take on the place?
Very cool! Bonus points for "showing your work" - I'm saving that post in my worldbuilding folder.

Do you mind if I use this for the article (possibly modified), assuming you get credit? If so, do you prefer Liam Devlin or Daniel Hammersley?

Thanks again,

John
 
Very cool! Bonus points for "showing your work" - I'm saving that post in my worldbuilding folder.

Do you mind if I use this for the article (possibly modified), assuming you get credit? If so, do you prefer Liam Devlin or Daniel Hammersley?

Thanks again,
Thank you, and you may do so. Credit? Sounds like banking, payment..let me check my TAS card account...

:eek: OOps, sorry the CoTI nom de guerre isn't on the account, so the real name will just have to do. ;) :cool:
 
I am just trying to get a feel for what a naval/scout base on a world with a UPP population of 0 or 1 (less than 100 people) COULD be. Most Real-world examples do not make sense in space. How far can you listen/monitor? What is the space equivalent of a weather station?

I am also wondering if the "starport" could be tied to the base more than the civilian population on such low level worlds. Liam's example was very good, but there can only be so many automated, mega-corporation class A starports in the universe. I was searching for more options.

I like the refueling station (especially for a scout base).
A number of the bases in my (non-canon) TU are 'havens', essentially a filling-station/workshop/diner affair with fuel and/or parts brought in by supply ships and hence largely independent of local population. A large robot workforce is available in the well-equipped workshops to assist an incoming ship's _own_engineers_ to effect repairs, refuelling, etc with the aid of the (small) base personnel if necessary.
At the larger ones, a dry dock may even be available for the building (or more likely re-building) of a ship, but again, you import your own builders and charter a supply ship to bring you materials that are not normally stocked. The base is _capable_ of building a ship if absolutely necessary, but ships aren't built there as a matter of course.
 
Atpollard, ravs, Michael Brinkhues:

There is considerable room within canon for such a low populated spare parts or mothball facility--without it being a Depot-class naval installation.

A Canon example is Trin, wherein there is a mainworld of high population, but the Mothball fleet installation in system has at tops two 50dt Gunboats for patrolling the "yards", and a small detachment of Naval personnel.

It is from this location the ISS Arrival Vengeance was quietly "stolen/ borrowed" for its famous trek across the Shattered Imperium on Archduke Norris' orders.

Another example can be seen in Reft Sector, Subsector P (Cyril), in the Stockyard & Rampart systems. Both of these were small backwater Naval installations. The name of the former gives credence to a mothballed spare parts Naval facility in my mind, and the latter a Naval Gunnery range test-bed, weapons proving grounds system.

The refueling outpost idea, especially along the Great Reft has definite merit. Good thinking--all three of you!
 
Hi. Just noticed this thread ...

IMTU the size of an Imperial navy base is unconnected with the host world's population size. It might have its own military and/or COAAC base, but in Imperial space all Navy bases must meet the demands of Imperial and Colonial needs. I use this rule. (Independant worlds are another matter.)

Regards PLST
 
According to Marc's notes, bases will have a port facility for support and maintenance of particular vessels -- so the Scout base can support Scout ships, and the Naval base can support navy ships.

Additionally, the Scout base can have its own repository of "library data" about the world or asteroid belt it's located on, which may or may not be generally available to non-Scouts.

As for the naval base, it also has an administrative center, one or more provisions and supply warehouse, and its own security. It's quite possible for a naval base to dwarf the starport proper.

I'd be tempted to have cookie-cutter bases, with the Scout base sort of like a small starport, and the Naval base sort of like a medium starport.
 
TNAS Starship Construction

Apparently, many (how many?) Imperial starports

...subscribe to the TNAS (Quality Ship Design Scheme): a set of standard component specifications which are manufactured on worlds with the appropriate tech level and industrial capacity, but which can be assembled and maintained at any starport of the appropriate type, regardless of local tech level or industrial capacity.
Additionally:

Most shipyards specialize in the construction of a specific assembly (which local industry has shown itself capable of producing) such as jump drives,
avionics, detectors, or even stateroom modules. Other components are purchased from other shipyards and imported as part of the TNAS-certified parts system.
 
Originally posted by atpollard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Brinkhues:
(1) The (urban legend?) is that a navy tried an all female crew in a nuclear submarine. The test was abandoned after 90 days. Turns out females synchronize their menstrual period given some time without exterior influence. At some times of the month it was not sure whether an alert would result in an attack on the enemy or the home-base for disturbing them.
I have no idea what the Navy does or does not do, but women living together (like a sorority or college dorm) do tend to synchronize menstrual cycles. </font>[/QUOTE]After researching this 'urban legend', I have found no corroboration for this alleged 'all-female sub crew' test.

Women in close quarters do tend to unconsciously synchronize their menstruation, but I fail to see how that would affect shipboard operations or military conduct. And that smartass comment about 'an alert would result in an attack on the enemy or the home-base for disturbing them.' is right out!

Before people feel enabled by this perceived 'male-dominated community' to drop more sexist PMS crap, they should think twice.

Women are incredible warriors.
 
Waaaaaaay of topic, maybe a new threat on the stuff (not the PMS, the rest) is sensibel

That is why I put the (urban legend?) disclaimer in there.

As for the rest: In a modern army they have the same potential as man to become good soldiers. If the system allows for it (i.e the current german does not(1)) Great Warriors they make not since at the peak of performance woman are outperformed by man(2). And Warriors (unlike Soldiers(3)) are peak performers by necessity.


(1) Making it too easy
(2) If you do not believe me look at the Olympic games, even more during the Cold War. It would have been THE COUP for a Woman from one block to outperform the man from the other
(3) Soldiers fight as a group (i.e the "Miles Marius" Legions of Rome, Brits at Agincourt) and can use numbers. Warriors fight alone (i.e French Knight at Agincourt, Celts against Caesar) and normally die if they meet Soldiers.
 
Re: (2) A soldier is not the same as a wrestler - physical strength / mass / size is not the sole determinant of a warrior or a soldier. From infantry to cavalry, female warriors / soldiers (I use the term here interchangeably) have been devastatingly effective in those societies not crippled by sexism.

EVERYBODY knows that the gap in physical performance between male and female athletes is rapidly narrowing. In fact, in an opinion poll just before the 1996 Olympics, 66 per cent agreed that "the day is coming when top female athletes will beat top males at the highest competitive levels." The most highly publicized scientific study supporting this belief appeared in Nature in 1992: "Will Women Soon Outrun Men?" Physiologists Susan Ward and Brian Whipp pointed out that since the Twenties women's world records in running had been falling faster than men's. Assuming these trends continued, men's and women's records would equalize by 1998 for marathons, and during the early twenty-first century for all other distances.

This is not sports trivia. Whether the gender gap in athletic performance stems from biological differences between men and women or is simply a social construct imposed by the Male Power Structure is highly relevant both to fundamental debates about the malleability of human nature and to current political controversies such as the role of women in the military.

http://www.isteve.com/gendrgap.htm
Again - I'd drop the sexism entirely if you want this thread to remain civil. It's not acceptable to me at all.
 
Well said Ms Kaufman. I commanded/supervised the UK's first all female artillery command post and they (as soldiers) performed as well as any male CP. Pity the experiment was shelved.

Back on thread?
 
Originally posted by mickazoid:
Re: (2) A soldier is not the same as a wrestler - physical strength / mass / size is not the sole determinant of a warrior or a soldier. From infantry to cavalry, female warriors / soldiers (I use the term here interchangeably) have been devastatingly effective in those societies not crippled by sexism.
Physical capability is not the sole determiner of a soldier's abilities. However, it is not a meaningless measure either and whenever particular fitness standards have been applied (primarily infantry recruitment), women have (on average) managed to pass fewer recruits through the systems. Capable individuals, yes. Some very capable as soldiers, no doubt about that. But averages have not been equally split by gender.

When I wore the uniform, the people most likely to be behind on runs were the women in my unit. They could not execute some manouvers like the fireman's carry and other sorts of things as well, generally. Now, I daresay that a soldier is a composite of abilities and for some trades in the military, raw physical power isn't all that relevant.

But for other trades, especially those going directly into harms way, often on foot, lugging a boatload of kit and possibly expected to move wounded comrades under fire, it still matters and the average (not all examples, just average) female doesn't score as well as the average male (bandying about stats about olympic athletes is meaningless as to the general population's capabilities and I'll bet the vast body of recruits falls closer to societal averages than to olympic athletic levels).

Military recruitment standards should not be built around male or female capabilities, but around the understood requirements of the job. Anyone of either sex who can manage those requirements should be allowed to do the job. But expecting both sexes to perform equally well in meeting requirements for any trade is pointless. Yes, individuals of either sex may well meet any given job req, but overall averages will show each sex (at a guess) better qualified for certain types of trade. (This assumes that recruiting standards are reasonable, well-thought out, and the needs of the job are correctly assessed, which is by no means a given). The job's needs should determine the requirement and we should not expect any particular job to have a 50/50 ratio by sex of candidates able to meet the requirements - it will be dependent on requirements and average capabilities of members of either gender.

There is no sexism inherent in the above assertion about how we should be filling our military trades (similarly, our first responders should follow similar policies). But to ignore relevant differences in capability by gender would be inducing unnecessary risk into an already hazardous profession. Let individuals prove they can meet a req without respect to gender, but don't assume that the gender distribution for any job is or even should be 50/50.

But this is getting way off topic for this thread.
This was a discussion about starports. If we want a 'random static' discussion about the merits of female soldiers, that's fine, but it is another topic. This thread should focus back on starports...
 
I didn't bring up the issue of women in combat first, I didn't bring up the Olympics first and I damn well didn't try to perpetuate the looney and misogynistic idea that menstruation would adversely impact womens' ability to get along, to remain loyal or to participate and even lead in combat.

I agree it's the wrong topic for this thread and the topic should stop now - as it should have stopped before it ever began.

Sexism isn't any funnier than racism and should therefore be avoided wherever possible.
 
Where are the mods when you need them?


Can we get back to the starport thing.

Modular or not?

Standard or Bespoke?

SPA in canon/IYTU?
 
Low level starports on a Imperial-Colonised world: Modular (Cutter Modules/Cargo Modules)

Low level starports on a World with a local population: Non Modular

High level starport/Downport: Non Modular

High level starport/Highport: Modular (Large standard blocks)


SPA IMTU: Exists but is far from the "perfect and un-bribabel" concept of GT:Starports. A lot are on the take, even more in the remote regions

SPA rules more than one port in most systems:

+ One Downport per setteled planet
+ One Highport over the major world
+ Another over any world with say 10 Million+
+ Another at the gas giant
 
There are three things that always cause argument: Sex, Politics, & religion.

This thread involves none of the above, am I clear?

Everyone has their own privately held opinions on subjects, and we all steer off topic (I myself am well known to digress) from time to time.

Mr. Brinkhues, I removed your post 01 Feb 2007 concerning "needing only seconds" & so forth & so on. Its out of line, offensive, and has no part of what we are trying to accomplish here.
 
Back on topic:

Population & technology dictate location of starports--

JTAS sources, issue #23 circa 1111 TI, "Orbital habitats"
Worlds of Pop 6 (millions), TL8 +, Starports A, B, & C-class can build orbital facilities:

Meaning worlds of Pop 5 (hundreds of thousands)or less; TL7 or less, have downside/ planetside facilities (Asteroidal systems the exception).

This is our baseline of data, team. These OH stations mentioned are stationary, and come in two primary shapes: Cylindrical & Spherical.--ala Babylon 5 & smaller, & IImi Station (DGP's Flaming Eye MT-era). These run from TL8 to TL-13, and use primarily rotational thrust in their stationary orbits for gravity.

Where I have disagreement with the author is on the sheer SIZE of them (article was dated 1985) & his rule of thumb of construction. I spent four days poring over and computing them into dtons, and his rule within of Pop 9 world (1 Billion) making 100million dtns of OH station/ year falls flat when comparing his largest sized one was well over 131 trillion dtons(Cylindrical, 251Km long, with radius of 50Km/ or 100km across)--such a world would have started that station during the 1st Imperium, survived the 2nd, & 7200 yr Long Night to have been built at that rate of speed.

No provisions for basic industrial robotic labor saving devices are figured into this.

We can do better, even using HG/ T20.

Ground side facilities I have reviewed from various versions of Traveller (CT-T20) are each laid out differently.

Modular buildings predominate for rapid expansion as a rule, & earlier downports (Types E & D).

Some, as Ravs has suggested in the Evo. thread, even placed between hills and such like terrain features (Knightfall-MT has one such).

Now for designers Like yourself Ms Mickazoid , the cylindrical stations can be the pure B5 cylinder rotating, or the main hub, wheel, & spokes kind.

What it did not cover, were orbital gravitic stations--which later versions of Traveller allow for.

His article omitted also TL-14 worlds entirely, saying such TL-15+ gravitic stations existed rarely, or at Capital/Core.

Gravitic stations can look like flat disks, or anything else we imagine them to be.Domes/ hemipsheres, or-- Mr Boulton's illus a few pages back resembles the SW Bespin sky city--and that certainly is a viable shape for such a station.

At TL-13, Gravitic cities become viable, so our Gravitic Orbital stations should originate there in TL. Plenty of TL-14 worlds into the mix as well.

Numbers of starports:

Worlds with bases, as robject has pointed out, have additional starports for the base type.

We have canon examples of Pop 8 Worlds with 2 ports, one dirtside, one orbital (and no bases).

We have examples of Balkanized worlds (Govt 7) with either 1 orbital Imperial port, and 1x local downport each, to 1 starport per planetary super power.

We have a JTAS article, issue #22 1985, (1111 TI) "Port to Jump Point" that gives us an idea how heavily trafficked the Imperium's space ways are, & alludes to numbers of ports per world with high pop worlds (9-A) in particular at 1 per 5 billion.

This clashes with the later versions of Traveller & number of starports/ world, but does include that the numbers of ports need not always be the same kind as listed in the UWP, they could be lesser classed ports; or conversely interpreted as the average: Like a world with Two major B-class ports (and so listed on the UWP as such) but with a smaller A-class civilian commercial Shipyard/ port--along with orbital Naval& B-class downside ports & Sufren/Diaspora is the example here.

reconciling these opposing formulae is part of task.
 
Another exceptional post by the project manager


An interesting question arises in my mind re: gravitic stations (I don't have my JTAS reprints handy so excuse me if I misunderstand the term 'gravitic')... since one can build and keep a non-gravitic starport in orbit at relatively low TLs, a Gravitic starport (kept in place by antigrav) would be most desirable when you wanted to build a starport in partial or near-sea-level atmospheres, where you couldn't reasonably maintain an orbit.

Are there other reasons for a gravitic, rather than an orbiting station? One can set up in a geosyncronous orbit without antigrav.

This is good - now I'm inspired to start doodling up some station structure ideas. Thanks all!
 
Sorry, I'm being thick - I don't understand why you can't you maintain a reasonable orbit in partial or near sea-level atmospheres?

Just as a complete flight of fancy, maybe you might use a gravitic 'floating city' type of starport on a hydro planet where the seas were very corrosive or where the land is subject to sudden and unpredictable earthquakes.

I'm also thinking about the Kevin Anderson books where they used orbiting refineries in the atmospheres of gas giants. You might need gravitics there if to be in the atmosphere to refine the atmospheric gas the platform in near enough get pulled in.
 
Back
Top