Starports and Downports and freight

[whartung]

When most people think of Starports, visions of something like LAX pop into your head, but instead of rubber scarred runways and 747s, you have fusion rocket seared landing pads and a random assortment of Free Traders and what not.

But, more importantly, there is this concept not often discussed of basically only ONE Starport on each planet, rather than, perhaps several. Or, even more interesting, COMPETING Starports (notably for freight traffic).

Now, I guess it's easy to simply assume that a planet has a single Starport, at least if you consider the orbital facilities designed to manage and handle large volumes of freight traffic and ship them dirtside.

But I'd like to think that save the most underpopulated of worlds, there would be several downports for ships to land at, perhaps with different facilities (like there's a single A class Star/Downport on the main continent, but there's a couple of B class Downports on the other major continents).

This brings up another question. I would think that a vast majority of freight traffic would simply be freight container traffic, rather than "loose", at least for generic freight vs specialized bulk carriers. The detail of course is that a typical modern container ~(20'x8'x9') is ~10 DTons, and it can make the smaller freighters a little bit coarse in the their payload load outs.

And what about intermodal traffic. What happens to the freight when it hits the ground. With grav technology, roads are (almost) meaningless, at least as an interconnect between cities (you want roads in the cities because folks don't care to walk in the mud). Do you think that something like a rail network would form on a high tech world, or would there simply be large streamlined, perhaps suborbital freighters to move freight longer distances across the planet, and finally down to local "trucks"?

 

[Blue Ghost]

This was always an issue with me, and the way I resolved it in my immagination (though I never implimented it in a game) was that there simply were multiple ports on more developed worlds to allow easy delivery of cargo.

A fast rail system would make sense as well, and after reading the GT/AR2 modual, and reading up on the K'Kree, I found out that they have an orbital ring with elevators on their homeworld. This kind of setup would be ideal (assuming the system in question could afford one), because an incoming freighter could, literally, dock almost anywhere above his target destination, dump off his load, and leave.

For myself multiple downports (and probably, or possibly, multiple orbital facilities) makes sense. But the development factor, and government(s) and other world data would dictate the likliness.

On another note, one that's really never been addressed by any of Trav's rulesets (maybe GURPS... not really sure) are space colonies, or large artificial cities in space. Such a complex would probably be like an orbital ring (itself a colossal metroplex), and perhaps have several "ports" or docking facilities in designated areas.

So far the strict canon, from what I gather, is usually one port per world, but this is part of the magic of Traveller because as writers, refs, and players we can brush that aside and institute our own rules for our own Traveller realities

Just my thoughts.

 

[grendelttroll]

There have been some thoughts about this in the OTU over the years. I remember reading in Traveller magazines 15 or so years ago about it.

Most worlds actually have several starports. The higher the population, the more likely they exist. The one listed in the UWP represents the highest class you will expect to find at the world.

When travelling to a system, there is, usually, one main starport in which you initially check in. Traffic control can redirect you to another port if the situation warrants(i.e. heavy traffic) or upon request by the ship or cargo recepients. Certain private companies will have their own private starports for their own use as well.

This assumes the usual one-government world. On balkanized planets (Gvt. 7), each nation will probably have their own starport, with perhapse several of them handling traffic control.

As was said before, do your own thing. Whatever is logical to you is good enough. I tend to use the philosophy above in my Traveller campaigns.

 

[aramis]

Invasion Earth clearly shows TWO class A starports AECO and Phoenix.

IMTU, and in WBH, lesser starports can and do exist.

 

[womble]

There's a definition somewhere that the 'Starport' is the Imperial facility (complete with extrality line) and there's very rarely more than one of these on a planet. Other ports often exist, known as 'Spaceports', sponsored by local Government(s) or Corporations, but these are not Imperial territory, so lack extrality lines.

I would imagine that in almost all cases the Imperial Starport will be of higher class than the locally-backed ones, but there are bound to be exceptions. I think the UPP Starport class refers to the Imperial facility, regardless.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Starports would also be VERY expensive and difficult to build. You're not just laying out a parking lot. Airports that can handle airliners take a lot of money and time to build, and they are only handling objects that weigh 350 tons, tops. Building the runways takes a lot of excavation to make it thick enough to handle the load.

And, take a look at Cape Canaveral! The launch pad there is incredible. The road from the assembly building to the launch pad has to handle the weight of the shuttle, the boosters/fuel tank, AND the tractor that hauls the thing to the launch pad. And, as it is deteriorating, there is some squawking about just how much it is going to cost to rebuild.

I can easily see just one downport on most planets.

(Oh yeah, and I wouldn't try to land a ship just anywhere. Think of what ultimately happened to Luke's X-wing on Degobah. And, it would take a lot of psi points to lift a type-S out of quicksand or a swamp....)

 

[whartung]

Oh, I don't know about that. Concrete is pretty cheap to pour, all things considered. We pour a heck of a lot of it around the world everyday.

A simple example is to consider a modern airport and the 747 or the new Airbus 380. The 380 maximum rated takeoff weight is ~560K kilos, and the Shuttle is ~2000K kilos (3.5 times). And the Shuttle is basically a static structure.

Landing weight of the 380 is 386K kilos. So, the runway of a modern airport needs to withstand the forces of a 386K kilo plane landing at, what, a few meters per second?

Modern runways are only 18" thick of concrete. Lot of concrete most certainly, but not overwhelming.

A downport doesn't need to handle ships "dropping" out of the sky like a runway, as most ships simply "float" down using gravitics. Of course, this all depends on ship configuration as well, the number of landing skids and such to distribute the weight, but I don't see the downport being particularly arduous to build.

Here in Orange County I'm near John Wayne, LAX, Ontario, and Long Beach airports plus the military El Toro, Tustin, and March Field and Norton Air force base. And those are all within, ~30 miles.

Not all of those can handle something like the 380, but they're not far off I'm sure.

Also note, the surface quality needs not be as high as for an airport, simply because the ships don't "roll" around.

And this also is talking TL 7-8 concrete building material technology. Who knows what they'll think up in the future.

I think a country like the US would easily support and build at least 6 downports for freight (2 on each coast, and 2 in the middle), as well as many smaller passenger facilities for lighter craft.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Originally posted by womble:
There's a definition somewhere that the 'Starport' is the Imperial facility (complete with extrality line) and there's very rarely more than one of these on a planet. Other ports often exist, known as 'Spaceports', sponsored by local Government(s) or Corporations, but these are not Imperial territory, so lack extrality lines.

I would imagine that in almost all cases the Imperial Starport will be of higher class than the locally-backed ones, but there are bound to be exceptions. I think the UPP Starport class refers to the Imperial facility, regardless.

Ah, but a spaceport, in Traveller that is, is a facility that only accomodates shuttles, pinaces, boats, and the like. I think starships can land there, but they cannot get the full services of a starport.

Myself, I always preferred the term "spaceport" to "starport." Call me finicky

 

[Fritz_Brown]

The runway is not just 18 inches of concrete, though. It has a couple of feet of prep underneath. And, it has to drain properly, and not settle unevenly, etc. Those bumps in the highway that jar your teeth will snap landing gear off some aircraft if in a runway. And, the issue isn't just weight hitting the landing zone. That takeoff weight (I hadn't realized the 380 was that monstrous) is also the weight it places on any part of the tarmac on which it sits. And, yes, an aircraft will sink into asphalt or concrete that is not rated for that weight. One of our guys got in major trouble for parking in an unrated area at an airfield - towing that plane was not easy.

You should also consider space availability. In YTU, there may not be that many ships at a downport. But, I think the OTU envisions a little livelier place.

You have to consider the upkeep, though, as well. It isn't just pouring plasticrete. It is tearing it up and relaying it every few years. It is the drainage system for keeping oil/wastes/etc. from draining into the local groundwater. The traffic control system - keeping ground vehicles from being crushed by departing ship's forces, landing and departing ships vectors separated, so forth.

Yeah, there may be some backwater level downports on some worlds, but I know I would never take my own aircraft into some of the airfields to which I have been.

 

[robject]

Many moons ago, I guesstimated the cost of a barebones Class D starport at around MCr250, a run-of-the-mill Scout Base at MCr150, a Way Station at just under BCr1, a minimal Class A with an orbital component also at just under BCr1 (half of that cost is the orbital component, by the way), and a Naval base at around BCr20.

 

[whartung]

I never suggested that a downport would be maintenance free, just suggesting that that laying one out and building one isn't, well, rocket science. It's just basic work. If you have the wherewithal to dam a large river with a concrete dam, I think it's pretty easy to build a down port of reasonable size.

The key is finding an area that can support the load of the ship without burying the undercarriage. You can have reinforced pads rated for various loads without having to have the entire downport rated for larger ships, because the ships simply don't move once they're parked (unlike airplanes).

On our little rock, we have over 200 airports that can support the 747. They say only 30 of them can support the new Airbus, but then they weren't built with the Airbus in mind. And this may be for all sorts of reasons (layout, runway length, etc.), vs just the actual load bearing capacity of the runway.

So, it's truly a market issue whether the economy can support a downport. It's a large construction project, but hardly planetary in its scale.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"Invasion Earth clearly shows TWO class A starports AECO and Phoenix."

IIRC there's La Grange in Australia, too.

 

[Theo D Lite]

Each to his or her own I suppose, but I've always been a bit dubious about the amount of starship traffic that actually occurs at an earthside facility.

IMTU I have always assumed that the majority of commercial ships would use an orbital facility as it would be that much closer to the jump point (usually 100 stellar diameters). The orbital facility can be reached sooner at lower g's of acceleration and therefore the time between arrival and departure can be used more productivelt in R&R, cargo hunting, passenger hunting etc.

We all know how marginal ship operation without speculative trade is and anything that increases the time between jumps and therefore reduces the number of jumps that can be made per year would be avoided.

There would probably be a number of shuttle operators competing to take passegers and cargo between the orbital facility and the various spaceports eartside or elsewhere in system.

Now this gives me an idea - must wander off and do some scribbling.

 

[robject]

I always assumed that ships over 1000 tons couldn't or wouldn't land. Makes sense that Highports are preferred when schedules are important. It also makes sense that Highports will charge more for services.

And there must be a direct relationship between the volume of weekly freight and passengers through the system, and the number of shuttles working at the downport.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

IMO Speculative trade for Frieghters would be greatly reduced if they never landed on the surface.

This could be offset if they asked around for what people were in the market for so they could load up with it next time. This would then no longer be speculative trade would it?

Of course having speculative trade restricted in this manner does give the GM more control of what profit margine he wants the PC's to operate under.

 

[Blue Ghost]

It may be that landing pad "technology" is fairly advanced, and that as such down ports are plentiful, allowing ships of all sorts to land.

Also, not all vessels use landing skids/gear. I think the Far Trader lands its entire belley on the tarmac, distributing its weight more evenly.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Interesting discussion! Some of my thoughts:

1. If vessels use some kind of contragrav technology to maneuver in a gravity well, then I see no reason why such vessels need to be turned off when they land. They can weigh nothing, as far as the concrete underfoot is concerned. Alternately, contragrav plates on the pads might "loft" a landed vessel, although that might make dis/embarkation a tricky procedure. "Hey, where did Bob go? He stepped out the airlock just a second ago ..."

2. I've always assumed that the starport type referred to facilites in general, not neccessarily a specific installation. On older and/or high-pop planets, it might be the case that there are multiple downports and two or three highports, some of which get a lot of traffic and some which are simply historical leftovers, though functioning ones. On more recently-inhabited worlds, they might have jumped straight to the single, large high-tech starport facility.

3. It seems like the same idea would be true for cargo distribution systems: worlds that had been inhabited at low tech levels, but which had since progressed in tech level, might still have roads, railways etc. But worlds more recently colonized might just skip the wheels and go straight to contragrav.

4. Thus the nature of the world itself probably dictates what sort of port facilities it has. An "old" world with a sprawled population would have diverse facilities while a "new" world with concentrated population centers could afford to have more centralised port facilities.

5. I think that governments or corporations might decide to construct starports (and scout bases etc) at worlds with populations that don't exactly need them, based on the "and they will come" principle. That is, perhaps the purpose of putting a Class A facility on a given world is not to support that world but to facilitate trade and commerce (not to mention the extension of Imperial power) between two other populated areas: ie, it's a valuable link.

Cheers!

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Excellent points, Flt Cdr! I think the idea of keeping the CG on continuously is a little utopic, though. You gotta turn off the power sometime to do maintenance. And, what happens in the second instance when a rebel group cuts power to the downport? A lot of bonded superdense eating dirt is what!

Besides, I would think CG would ... well, mess with stuff if it was on for long periods of time in one spot. But, that's just a gut feel.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

Hmm ... well, I didn't mean have the vessels floating 30 meters off the ground, I just meant have them on the pads, with contragrav reducing their weight to reasonable levels. If the power was cut, ok: so they sink into the concrete a few feet This would only apply to vessels over a certain weight anyway. But it was just an idea ...

 

[Blue Ghost]

Or how about this; it could be that there're special construction ships, weighing many thousands of tons, who sole purpose is to land and pack down freshly laid concrete (or substance of your choice). Or, it could be that said ships themselves are light (compared to other vessels that is), but that there's a special grav generator that presses down a freshly laid landing surface, allowing it to take on the extra weight of starships once the port opens.

I think also on waterworlds most ships (those capable of landing) are bouyant anyway, negating the need for a landing surface.

Just some random thoughts.