Where is your starport?

[Icosahedron]

Where do you tend to locate your downports? Most OTU material I recall indicates them somewhere on a major landmass, ringfenced by a 360 degree extrality zone, but as I see it, that's strategically unsound.

Occasionally, if you're adopting a starport that was built by a former independent world to save the expense of building a new one, it might be located in a 'historical' spot (though even then, if it had any sort of military origin, I think it would have a more defensible location.

To me, the archetypal starport and extrality zone is Gibraltar or Ascension Island, and I cannot see anyone scratch-building a starport anywhere other than a peninsular or island. In which case a good 99% of starports should be in such locations rather than the middle of a continent.

Admittedly, the advent of grav vehicles would make islands and peninsulas less defensible from a concerted military attack than the position they enjoy at TL7, but these locations still make access more difficult for mavericks, citzens, criminals, etc, and would therefore still have value at higher tech levels.

What do you think? Where are your starports located?

 

[far-trader]

Depends on the world. Size, atmo, hydro, pop, gov, law, and TL will all factor. Some I've imagined over the years...

Low tech on an equatorial landmass with nearby large water, for some of the same reasons we do on Earth circa now.

High tech floating (air and water) and submerged.

High law restrictive gov on a remote arctic island.

Asteroid/Planetoid underground.

...just about anything could be done if it can be imagined

 

[rancke]

In most cases I put it on the world's prime meridian (the line going down the middle of the map) on the theory that the map will be established by the original settlers with their settlement as the center, and that the original starport will be right next to the first settlement.

That's unless the history I work out for the world has the politcal center move to some other part of the world, that is. And if I get a map made by someone else where the main starport is already marked, I often put the first settlement on the prime meridian and then manipulate the history to make another part of the world become more important.



Hans

 

[nyrath]

It does reduce the liftoff/landing energy requirements if the starport is near the world's equator.

And it does make sense to have the surrounding city be separated from the starport by an empty buffer zone. Just in case a starship sets down, you know, a might bit hard...

 

[Captain Midnight]

I never worried too much about downport defense -- if someone wants to attack, you're going to count on mobile defenses or the deep meson guns to defend against anything serious, and anyone NOT serious who blunders into the face of port defenses is quickly introduced to the wonders of evolution in action.

You're going to have to balance whatever possible military advantages are gained by putting your port someplace complicated with the economic disadvantages of putting it close to where people need it, with easy connections to the world's travel networks, whatever those may be. While advanced technologies can certainly ease the economics of transport, there are still issues of time to consider. If the usual pattern for arriving passengers is "descend to planet's surface, go through customs, then arrange for a two-hour (or more) shuttle ride to anyplace you're interested in going", then convenience will become a major factor for your port. Unless, or course, your port is so flush with cash that there are always shuttles on call to go to any particular destination.

If someone's going to have to take a shuttle to his final destination after he lands, why is he bothering with a downport? Why doesn't he just berth at the highport and take a shuttle down? Very few ships crash into cities due to a botched landing at the highport, after all. IMTU, most ships discharge passengers at the highport to avoid the need for duplication of facilities at a downport; while there are certainly cases where ships can and will bypass the highport, unless they have a specific reason to do so, it's somewhat unusual -- the example I give my players is "tractor-trailers on residential streets".

You have to define what traffic goes to downports, and why. If there's no highport, then the question is self-evident, but if you're dealing with a major world (Prometheus, Jewell, or suchlike), give some thought to the distribution. If downports are there for convenience, then it's unlikely that locational defensive considerations will be given much weight; if defense is important enough (and other factors are minor enough) to require putting a downport someplace distant, think about the complications that will provide. You'll make it hard for staff to commute to the port, for instance, and you'll need a lot of transport specifically dedicated to traffic to and from the port.

 

[Peter Schutze]

>To me, the archetypal starport and extrality zone is Gibraltar or Ascension Island,

Poor choice of examples .... Hong Kong, Singapore .... near but not actually part of a huge market would be better

>and I cannot see anyone scratch-building a starport anywhere other than a peninsular or island. In which case a good 99% of starports should be in such locations rather than the middle of a continent.

Hmmm horizontal defensible terrain matters to someone coming from orbit ? to grav tanks ? Meson sleds ?

Ive always asssumed the starport on the map was also the capital city unless indicated otherwise. That usually makes sense from a passenger / small packet economic trade ie adventurer Pov

Sure "hickville agricultural superport" might fill a 100,000dton freighter every hour with jumba fruit from the surrounding megacorp farms but unless its a low tech world relying on human muscle, thats going to be about as relevant and important to the adventurers as the train marshalling yards are to most city people these days

 

[by_the_sword]

To me, it makes sense to have orbital facilities, this way you don't have irradiated space craft polluting your planet. Also you can accommodate those ships that don't fare too well in atmospheres or on surfaces of worlds (dispersed structures, partially streamlined ships, etc.).

If I were a world government and had to have a downport, I would have it in a flat arid desert region. I'd disallow dipping into our oceans because too much water leaving the planet could have a serious impact on the ecology. The setup would be huge slabs of concrete (ferrocrete or whatever) with clamshell like doors to act a s a dome to cover ships once they land. This would require them to pay their docking fees before departure.

Of course not every world in my TU would be like this.

 

[Icosahedron]

Hong Kong, Singapore .... near but not actually part of a huge market would be better.

Ive always asssumed the starport on the map was also the capital city unless indicated otherwise. That usually makes sense from a passenger / small packet economic trade ie adventurer Pov

Hmmm horizontal defensible terrain matters to someone coming from orbit ? to grav tanks ? Meson sleds ?

Those are good examples too. Perhaps Ascension Island was too remote for an example - an offshore island would be better.

Yes, the city and market would spring up around the starport, wherever it is located, so there should be few commuter problems and it would probably define your Prime Meridian too, and you might choose a location on or near the equator.

But still, your extrality zone fulfills a purpose - to keep the local citizenry seperate from the port for customs purposes - not to keep interstellar invaders at bay - and a peninsula or island is a good and cheap way to do that. A desert might, too, and I can appreciate not wanting to give your water away, but I think your own refuelling convenience would outweigh anything else and make a nearby near-inexhaustible water supply (eg ocean) a prime design factor.

Even if you have a highport, your downport still has the same requirements.

Note that from the original post, I'm talking about a colony from scratch, where you have a totally free choice about where to place your starport, and I still say:

I cannot see anyone scratch-building a starport anywhere other than a peninsular or island. In which case a good 99% of starports should be in such locations rather than the middle of a continent.

eg. If Earth was an uninhabited (or TL-0) garden world ripe for colonising, you might choose to place your starport at Singapore on the equator, make that your Prime Meridian, and build up a city and first nation on the Malaysian peninsula, but no starfarer in his right mind would decide to build a starport on the banks of the Volga and create Moscow...

 

[mbrinkhues]

Looking at modern day airports in germany:

+ Most are ocated outside the city for noise reduction(1)
+ Logistics companies have yards/storehouses near them
+ Regular tram/bus lines to the city running at 5-15min intervalls(2)
+ HUGE parking lots(3)

The same goes for many other installations like harbors/shipyards. They are noisy/smelly/high traffic and people don't want them near residential areas. Sometimes the city has grown to the point where the harbor is "in the city" (i.e Duisburg) but then the area around it is "low income housing" or catering to the needs of the sailors (bars, hotels, bordellos). Even in Hamburg the harbor installations are either "over the Elbe" or have moved outside the old harbor(4)


So a starport well away from the city but with a good traffic link makes a lot of sense

(1) The ones in/near a city are elderly like Tempelhof
(2) And yes, it can take up to an hour to get to the city
(3) And in Traveller throwing an air/raft in the hold is no big deal, Scout and Far Trader already have
(4) The old harbor is now a commercial district with mostly white-collar jobs

 

[bromdenlong]

With fusion reactors, energy is cheap. Streamlining adds to the cost of your ship, but saves the time and expense of hiring others to haul goods to and from the surface.

The downport will be near the biggest source of export goods desired offplanet, or near the largest market for imports, or some compromise between the two.

 

[bromdenlong]

I suspect there would often be more than one downport, unless the Imps just thought it was too much hassle, or the locals wanted all the Imps in one place where they could keep an eye on them and perhaps limit Imperial interference or espionage...

 

[kafka47]

Funny, I have always viewed Starports as a cross between a major international airport and a Carribean port town with a big fence around it. Local populations are happy to get a starport - they could build their own but in the Imperium that would be called a spaceport or secondary starport. Essentially, the Starport listed in the UWP is the interface between the Imperium and the planetary government. While relations might sour...they are still bound by treaty to pay tribute...the benefits for the planetary government is non interference and the bounties of other worlds through a common financial mechanism - the Credit.

True, as a world integrates more...the more the Imperium becomes part of everyday life. Sometimes, this for benign reasons and sometimes helpful and other times - more powerful players within the Imperium have interests and ask for a renegotiation of treaties. Against that are the nobility. Whose role is balance commercial and planetary concerns.

 

[NW_Paul]

High law restrictive gov on a remote arctic island.

In this instance, assuming the TL supports, I'd go so far as to say High Port only - landing on-planet prohibited, w/ strictly controlled shuttle access to the Down Port.

 

[Icosahedron]

The downport will be near the biggest source of export goods desired offplanet, or near the largest market for imports, or some compromise between the two.

Good point. If the world is being colonised for its mother-lode of Unobtainium, which happens to be in the middle of a continental land mass, that might be a valid reason for building the starport there rather than on the nearest coast or offshore island. Depends how relevant surface transport costs are to the total cost of the operation, I suppose.

 

[Captain Midnight]

Good point. If the world is being colonised for its mother-lode of Unobtainium, which happens to be in the middle of a continental land mass, that might be a valid reason for building the starport there rather than on the nearest coast or offshore island. Depends how relevant surface transport costs are to the total cost of the operation, I suppose.

There are also bodies of water other than oceans -- a good-sized lake would work, if you decide you must have ships landing in water. Depth considerations will come into play; I still have my doubts about wet operations being a normal mode of operation for most starships, and grounding sure wouldn't help the issue.

There are a lot of factors to be considered. Typical loads, distribution of resources and people, economic factors... the list goes on.

 

[rancke]

I suspect there would often be more than one downport, unless the Imps just thought it was too much hassle, or the locals wanted all the Imps in one place where they could keep an eye on them and perhaps limit Imperial interference or espionage...

Technically, there would be only one Imperial starport downport, and that would tend to be located near the biggest source of passengers, which would often be the world/system capital. The rest would be spaceports, passenger or cargo-oriented as conditions dictated. There are canonical exeptions. The capitals of Arden, Alell, and Zila are all (by an inexplicable coincidence )located six hours travel by monorail north of the starport. But it's a good rule of thumb, I think.


Hans

 

[fredofmars]

Technically, there would be only one Imperial starport downport, <snip> There are canonical exeptions. <snip>

Tureded/Lanth/Spinward Marches is another exception. That's specified as having four (4) starports.

 

[rancke]

Tureded/Lanth/Spinward Marches is another exception. That's specified as having four (4) starports.

I don't quite see how that would work. Is it four Imperial starports? Or one Imperial starport and three non-Imperial starports? And if it is, just what is the difference between a non-Imperial starport[*] and a spaceport? Tureded is not even a balkanized, and the population is in the 100,000s. What do they need four spaceports for, let alone four starports?

It's a pretty early reference. I'd go with making it one starport and three spaceports, despite what the reference says. Though I'd have to think it over to come up with a reason for having four ports of any kind on a world with a population level 5.

[*] On an Imperial member world, I mean.​

Hans

 

[Captain Midnight]

Though I'd have to think it over to come up with a reason for having four ports of any kind on a world with a population level 5.

I could see four not-very-big ports spread out to handle population groupings in widely separated areas, especially if fairly bulky resources are being collected there. You might have a port at the equivalents of Sydney, Tokyo, New York, and Buenos Aires; I leave it up to you to determine what resource is bulky enough (and in enough demand) to make it more economical to put up a small port instead of just shuttling it to a specific location.

I could also see smallish ports to accommodate limited numbers of tourists who might be coming in for something very specific (natural wonders, or a cultural festival). Combined with the others, maybe you have two ports principally serving passengers (one for a beautiful cavern complex, and one for a regular music festival), and two cargo ports (one for animal hides harvested from a savanna dweller on a northern continent, and one for mildly-alcoholic beverages made from a specific plant on a string of islands in the southern hemisphere).

None of these will be big enough to get an "F" rating. It also seems likely to me that goods would be collected at these subsidiary ports and sent up to the highport to meet starships, rather than aggregating down at some other surface facility. However, others may have different interpretations of the economics of the situation.

 

[Icosahedron]

Technically, there would be only one Imperial starport downport, and that would tend to be located near the biggest source of passengers, which would often be the world/system capital. The rest would be spaceports, passenger or cargo-oriented as conditions dictated. There are canonical exeptions. The capitals of Arden, Alell, and Zila are all (by an inexplicable coincidence )located six hours travel by monorail north of the starport. But it's a good rule of thumb, I think.
Hans

It seems you're assuming that the starport is built to service a pre-existing population, where I'm assuming the starport is built as a frontier base and the population grows around the starport. This would have significant effects on the choice of location. Maybe it's an OTU/ATU thing.

If your 'Ancients' seeded planets with millions or billions of people and the Jump-inventors simply co-opted those people into an empire (as in most historical empires), you'd have a completely different situation from that in which humanity expanded into a universe populated only by animals and possibly a handful of primitives (as in the colonisation of America & Australia).

I can't cite Britain, because London was founded by a Roman colony, but look at Spain as an example. Madrid is in the centre of the country, the control hub of an existing population, but the capitals of most of the Spanish conquests in South America are on the coast, where the colony transports found the safe harbour and supplies they needed - and the populations grew around the ports.