Some stuff lacking details in the OTU

While I think there is often way too much comparison of spaceships to water going vessels - I grew up on coast near commercial and military ports.

I've seen a lot more dock traffic with supertankers and super-freighters than small ships.

Regardless of anything else - they are cool to watch - especially the shoreline 'waves' generated by their displacement within a channel as water is 'sucked out' from a beach and then comes crashing back in all after the ship has passed.

Picturing thousands of dtons of spaceship swinging around in a landing pattern (especially in an emergency avoidance of another craft) is easier to do when one sees aircraft carriers turning at 'full speed'. Speaking of hull stresses and size - nuclear carriers are capable of outpacing almost any normal displacement hull - because of their waterline length and extreme power. And it is truely awesome!
 
I have also found nothing that goes beyond page 42 of MegaTraveller's
Imperial Encyclopedia, and that is far from clear, for example whether
"space between the worlds" means "space between systems" only, or
also "space between planets in a system", and so on.
 
Somebody said:
Wouldn't it be even better to station such a port at 100D?
It could depend somewhat on the technology and economics of the avai-
lable shuttles, 100D is much further out from the planetary surface than
10D and requires more time and probably also a different type of shutt-
le ?
 
Somebody said:
I could see something along the 800dton Lighters used in GT for their LASH tender (IIRC in GT:Starships) as travelling between 100D and the planet. This would be a nice solution for systems with more than one "world of interest"
Yes, indeed, although I think the tenders (called lighters in Far Trader)
could do with more powerful drives, about 1 G loaded could be a bit slow
for the 100D distance and interplanetary distances, especially if passen-
gers are carried.
 
Somebody said:
And maintenance will have to be done totally by off-worlders making this extremly expensive and problematic(1) so it will likely skip it.
They only have to be offworlder's in the sense they're stationed at the highport, which is off-world. :lol:

Seriously, as TL increases, there can often be a disparity between the tech and skill levels needed to build an item versus those needed in maintaining it. In the real world, we're increasingly moving towards what I like to call black box techs - that is techs/repair people who don't necessarily understand the inner workings of the components they're replacing, they only know enough to isolate the bad module and replace it. Sometimes they don't even know that, they're being directed by someone who does have the knowledge or they simply guess and replace parts.

I know this from personal experience - for the last 11 years I've been doing tech support in an industry where the owners/operators of increasingly high tech industrial equipment are quite often Construction contractors, Doctors, Accountants, Pilots and Lawyers, most of whom are either not making enough money to or are just too cheap to hire properly trained technicians and are doing the work themselves. The company I contract for now deliberately designed it's latest generation of equipment so that it can be maintained by non-experts and it's helped the bottom line overall - ten years ago they had five people handling tech support for half the customers that two of us handle now.

Furthermore, a lot of equipment these days are attempting to become self-diagnosing - as TL and computing power increase, I expect that trend to increase.

So IMO I see no problems with lower tech level worlds maintaining higher tech level equipment in a high port, assuming they have been trained in the routine maintenance and troubleshooting techniques, and have ample spare parts on hand. The bulk of maintenance on a lot of equipment is low tech tedious stuff anyway - checking to make sure hoses/pipes aren't leaking/warn, that filters are replaced/cleaned as needed, that lubrication/fluids are replaced/relubed as necessary, and so on.

Depending on the size of a highport, the offworld experts needed to maintain it would likely be a single person supported by a staff of people with basic troubleshooting skills. The bigger the highport, the more of these offworld experts a port might have - but the ratio of maintenance personnel to experts could be anywhere from 10:1 to 100:1, depending on the exact technologies involved.

(1) I remember the cursing of our mechanics working on the M48A2GA2. Nice mix between german and us parts. Some metric, some inch, some 12V, some 24, some 48 etc. And that was at least "same TL"
Mixing of parts and the areas where two different systems interface is actually more of a problem than low tech people being able to work on high tech equipment. This is something else I see daily - the equipment I do tech support for is all computer boards talking to each other over a network, but the interface between our system and the equipment we control is often very low-tech - relays and voltage inputs.

Most of my customers can easily troubleshoot problems with our equipment - swapping out a board, replacing a display or keypad, but if the problem relies in the interface wiring, that's when they have problems or have to call an expert.

So the world that decides to save money by building their own high port shell and populating it with high tech equipment from a variety of vendors is likely going to have higher maintenance costs and spend more overall than the world who spent a little bit more buying a turnkey solution from a single vendor.
 
rinku said:
captainjack23 said:
Unless you actually have some references, I really doubt that that is the case:

Well, I'll right backatcha on that. There is no real world data on 2000 ton spaceships that use gravity manipulation to maneuver, so it's all speculative. My assertion that reentry stresses would be more acute than an oceanic storm is matched by your assertion that a Traveller spaceship would be more fragile than a seagoing ship of the same size would have to be because there are no oceanic storms in space.

Fair enough, and well said. Shall we call it a tie ?
8)

Main point: there are plenty good (if speculative) reasons for spaceships not to land, even if they can.
Do we agree on that ?
 
Somebody said:
The idea of low tech "trained" maintenance helpers replacing black box components according to a written down (with pictures) schedule and doing regular maintenance "because the book says so" reminds me of a certain "religious order" from another SciFi universe.
That's certainly one possibility. But it doesn't have to be that way. Really depends on the training given and the person doing the oversight and/or training, as well as the cultures involved.

I should point out that I'm assuming that any low tech world using higher tech off world technology for something like this probably wants to expand their tech level. A world that is deliberately keeping a lower tech for reasons such as "getting back to nature" or "wants to make it on their own" probably wouldn't spend the money.

There are other reasons high tech orbitals could wind up orbiting low tech worlds. Corporations running higher tech orbital stations while exploiting the natives below, resort planets, interdicted worlds on main trade routes.


+ The stuff is designed right
Ideally, yes - but it could merely be a side effect of different manufacturing processes rather than an intentional design decision. FREX, real world technology for electronics has evolved to the point where it's often more cost effective to design circuit boards to be thrown away rather than for repair. I've faced this frustration quite a bit - from my electronics background I often know that it's likely a $0.02 part that's causing the problem on a bad board, but actually troubleshooting down to that part is going to waste more of my time and cost the company more than simply replacing the $100 board. We could spend more to make the boards more field repairable, but in the end that means having to have more knowledgable people in the field to make those board level repairs.

So you don't necessarily have to design with the intention of something being more maintainable by the untrained/unskilled - sometimes it's just a side effect of the manufacturing processes.

+ You pay the poor off-world technician supervising the group good enough
Depends on how you define pay. If you're talking strictly monetary compensation, I disagree. There are a lot of other factors involved depending on the individual - some may take it for the autonomy it represents, others may take it to get away from family pressures, quality of life, etc, etc. Even monetary compensation depends on local economy - I'll take my pay where I am now any day over a 150 to 200% of that pay for a job in Los Angeles, New York or San Francisco, and there are various areas of the world where 50% of my current pay could more than double or triple my current standard of living.

So I can certainly see some tech turning down a 250KCr/year job workign at the starport on Rhylanor where he'll barely be able to afford a 2 br apartment and have to work in a huge beauracracy for a 50KCr a year job as chief engineer on a new orbital port at a place like Vanejen, where he'll live like a king, and be in charge to boot.

After all chances are the space station (or the maintenance crew quarters at least) end up looking "like home".
That's as much cultural as it is tech level, perhaps more so.
 
One way, and a potentially interesting one, to get the high tech expert in-
to the orbital station of a low tech system would be a development pro-
ject financed by some government or non-governmental organization.

In our real world there are thousands of highly qualified specialists who
decided to take a badly (or even not at all) paid job with some develop-
ment agency, sometimes out of idealism, sometimes as a kind of adven-
ture.

Overseeing the technological side of a newly established orbital station
designed to open up a backwater system for interstellar trade and trai-
ning the locals is just the kind of task that would fit well into such a the-
me, especially if the orbital station was a gift, for example from the Im-
perium.
 
rust said:
especially if the orbital station was a gift, for example from the Imperium.
That's an awesome point. Governments, organizations and corporations will often "give" things to lower tech areas (or in this case, planets), usually in exchange for something.

- a high TL Government from another system might agree to build and maintain a facility in exchange for something like being able to establish a defensive perimeter, or the rights to perform military exercises in the outlying areas of the system, or get fuel from the local gas giant - a TL5-6 world might happily exchange rights like that in order to open their world to development and tourism.

- a charitable social orginization might operate such a facility in order to provide a base of operations to provide the world with badly needed healthcare.

- a corporation might build a facility in exchange for mineral rights or some other profitable enterprise.


The more we discuss this, the more I think the person who suggested the 101 Organizations book is right on track - that would really help define the 3I.
 
captainjack23 said:
Fair enough, and well said. Shall we call it a tie ?
8)

Main point: there are plenty good (if speculative) reasons for spaceships not to land, even if they can.
Do we agree on that ?

We shall. It's been a good discussion.
 
rust said:
... you referred to the Mongoose Traveller Spinward Marches supplement,
which is neither original material nor decades old.

And I would still like to know which original, decades old Traveller material
includes details of the treaties between the Imperium and its member pla-
nets ... 8)
Ahemm.. {clears throat}

If I may speak on this point as just another forum member but one who has been, since the MGT core book released, reading through ALL of the CT material from GDW and then going through the MGT books which directly replicate/update those original LBBs:

As far as I can tell through all my reading of the two sets of books (CT & MGT), the folks at MG have gone to great lengths to find and bring together ALL the GDW/CT material as the starting point for the updated book.

In reading through the MGT book 'Spinward Marches' I was pleasantly surprised to find incorporated in that book pretty much everything mentioned about the Marches in every LBB and Adventure. Did they expound on it at length, well that's a mixed bag. Yes there is a great deal of new information on things that affect the entirety of the Marches (in general) but I have yet to read a section and thing "now how did they miss the info on the 'goombah system' from the adventure 'To Pluck a Mockingbird'?" (I made both up).

Anyone reading the MGT books who is familiar with the breath and depth of the entirety of the GDW/CT material has been fairly faithfully included. It most definitely is not some "ok, here's the LBB on the Spinward Marches, now lets load it up with a ton of stuff we made up."
 
GamerDude said:
As far as I can tell through all my reading of the two sets of books (CT & MGT), the folks at MG have gone to great lengths to find and bring together ALL the GDW/CT material as the starting point for the updated book.

I agree, they're doing a great job of sifting and collecting the data. It'll really
be a boon to newer players like rust. In a way they are lucky. They won't have to read dozens of publication to answer core, basic questions.
 
Somebody said:
Guess Mongoose should start firing a cannon shot once per month to check if the members are just dozing will reading the Sylean Times or have silently died or old age. ;)
With old age comes deafness, and so I am not sure that I would hear that
cannon ... :lol:
 
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Yeah, Rust and I are old farts around here (I started playing in the Fall of 1977...)

Pffft. NooBz. :D

I started with CT in the SUMMER of 77 -D&D in 75 (4th print IIRC), and hard core wargaming in....1971 ? (Panzerblitz)

I'm much more farty than thou all..... :mrgreen:



....wait..... :(
 
Lemme see. Wargaming/SF Fandom, 1969-70 ... Panzerblitz followed by a subscription to Strategy & Tactics (which was somewhat difficult back in the dark ages as you had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get a US$ Bank Draft before the whole thing was deregulated in the 80's or so) ... followed by first edition DnD, 3 LBB (Little Buff Books) edition as soon as they hit the shelves here in Sydney at "The Tin Soldier" which would be some time in late 74 or early 75.

Followed by Empire of the Petal Throne (ordered direct from T$R in Lake Geneva, airmail ... also difficult to do way back in the Dark Ages before globalisation) in 1975 ... which is why I am pretty sure I started playing DnD in 1974!

Traveller, likewise, from 1977 ... first edition, first release when first released ... which, of course, inspired (we could surely do better :wink: ) the co-writing of Space Opera in 1979 or so (for release in 1980).

So I guess that officially makes me an old fart ... and why the setting off of cannon to see whether I'm dozing over the Sylean Times?

Surely the setting off of a canon argument would do the same thing much more effectively :shock:

Phil
 
Back
Top