Starports, Mains, and Big Time Shipping (TM)

[GypsyComet]

From another topic (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=38764)

Getting back to the costs for distance, I guess what I had in mind was using 20% if the nearest A starport is 1-2 pc away, and isolated if its further away. Even at the higher tech levels, at least in MTU, most trade vessels are still using Jump 1 or 2, unless they are specialized for long-range or exploratory trade. I tend to think in my head of interstellar trade more in terms of age of sail cargo economies, rather then the age of the super container ship reaching all corners of the Imperium.

I tend to think in the latter terms, of course 8)

For certain definitions of "corners", certainly. Some worlds simply won't do enough *regular* business to call for the infrastructure to deal with super-freighters. Others will use the excuse of having a mega-port right nearby to NOT build their own.

I'll use the local big multi-port body of water as an example. The San Francisco Bay Area, stretching navigably from Redwood City to Stockton and Sacramento, has six commercial ports capable of container or bulk shipping (Redwood City, SF, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and Stockton), plus two military ports similarly capable (Alameda and Concord NWS). It also has a near-continuous chain of yacht-scale marinas running the shores of SF and San Pablo Bays, with more scattered all the way up both rivers.

So that's seven A and B ports (one with a Navy Base) and one Naval Depot, and a Main of C and D ports connecting them. Do the big ships stop at San Leandro Marina? Certainly not, nor are they going to wander down to the tiny slips in Isleton or Lathrop. Those smaller ports have no interest in building a huge facility because they A) only have a couple hundred people locally, and B) have a megaport just down the road, to which they can send a Subsidized Freighter (a local in a pickup), or send an order to and get a smaller Liner (UPS) or free trader (the out of town relative and HIS pickup truck) to bring it to them.

(Yes, I could stretch the analogy further by granting Vallejo a "small B-class" status and working my way around the shores for other examples, but this gets the idea across).

 

[GypsyComet]

So that's seven A and B ports (one with a Navy Base) and one Naval Depot, and a Main of C and D ports connecting them.

I like the example, although in game terms I would think this is a single A port. I don't think having Starport A means there is one megaport on the planet, it's a summation of a wide range of facilities. But your overall point remains valid nonetheless!

If I were in a ship coming from off-planet, yes, that's one big sprawly A port.

From the POV of an ocean-going ship of some sort, these are all separate ports. Some are non-trivial to get to, and if you are one of the little guys, there is a day's sailing difference between between the small slips along the Alameda Estuary and the far off recreational docks at King Island (a small fishing and recreation colony off the Main that a big super-freighter would not ever consider visiting due to there being a total of 240 people, no facilities for anything bigger than a Yacht, and a dangerous system or two that must be traversed to get there; they do most of their off-world commerce with Stockton via the previously defined smaller lines and subsidized freighters).

 

[GypsyComet]

That SF Bay area analogy is pretty good. As someone who was stationed on the tug boats at Mare Island, I can really appreciate the subtleties you can get from that analogy - like Suisun City and Rio Vista's marinas being on their own channels, off of the "main".

I'm sure there are other areas around the world that could serve as similar analogies - Sydney, New York, etc..

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, as most of the larger ports in the SF Bay Area are not trading with each other *via the super-freighters*. Most of that commerce is happening one step down (via semi truck) or smaller.

If you picture the Bay Area as a cluster or small main dominated by three Pop 6 and a large number of Pop 5, 4, and 3 worlds, all feeding a Pop 9 located J4 out the Golden Gate, that model can make sense. While there is commerce going on within the cluster, the big flying iron is headed out-cluster to feed the Pop 9.

 

[GypsyComet]

Perfect? No. But as someone who tends to think in analogies, it works great for me. In fact, it has me wanting to take a map of the SF bay area, overlay it with a hex grid, and create a star map based on the area.

For people who aren't familiar with the SF Bay area, they can create similar analogies with ports they are familiar with - Great Lakes, Sydney, Seattle, etc, or even overland transportation in the cities around them. Heck, even a mass transit system could works as a decent analogy to explain things in simpler to understand terms.

I too liked GypsyComet's analogy.

But consider this for the reason for all the Class A starports.
Each A port is specialized or mainly handles certain types of material/trade. In extreme active areas this might well be true.

Or each port handles only certain shipping companies/manufacturers due to ownership(s) issues, mergers, contracts, etc.

So, I can see a place were high levels of traffic or trade might cause more than one Class A or B ports being built in the same system or neighboring systems.

Dave Chase

So, I can see a place were high levels of traffic or trade might cause more than one Class A or B ports being built in the same system or neighboring systems.

I can't see this in the *same* system, at least not in the vanilla Traveller rules, because to me 'A' is an abstract measurement of the port facilities available to a system; it is not a description of a specific starport facility at which all spacecraft must dock. And this is particularly true if it's a balkanised government. YMMV

Sort of. The port rating indicates overall capability, but that capability might well be spread out quite a bit. Under older editions that addressed whole-system details, only one world in a system has a "starport" with the customs facilities. All other facilities in a system are called "spaceports". Even this might not apply to a balkanized mainworld/system, so you might find several fully rated A or B ports in one system.

From the POV of an incoming starship with no particular ties to the system, the UWP starport rating indicates what is available to the "general public" of starship operators. There have been a few examples of ports that exceeded the public rating if you happened to be a Scout, or work for a specific company, or were in a Navy ship.

 

[GypsyComet]

The SF Bay Area analogy actually works fairly well on two levels - one is the comparisons of a bunch of different systems as GypseyComet laid out, but the other is to look at it as a star system itself, with the Golden Gate bridge being the "jump entry point" into the system.

Overall, the SF Bay Area could be called an A "starport", but exactly what those facilities are and where in the "system" they are depends on who you are, how big your ship is, and what you need from the port. Oil tankers will tend to head for Richmond, container ships to Oakland, Stockton or Sacramento, while smaller private vessels will head for one of the smaller marinas scattered around the bay. There are some more inaccessible "specialty" facilities that are akin to outlying planets, like Suisun or Rio Vista, and the more "mainworld" ones like Alameda and San Francisco itself. There are Naval facilities at Concord that would correspond to a Naval base, and drydock/shipbuilding facilities scattered through out the bay.

I imagine most systems will be somewhat similar. Ships that arrive/depart in certain areas will be rubberstamped through customs remotely, or boarded enroute for their customs inspections. Other ships will be directed to port facilities with customs stations appropriate for their cargo. Once they've passed through customs, they're free to dock at any facility in-system that's capable of supporting them.

On worlds with an average or higher TL, and a median or lower law level, there are likely to be one or more large port complexes on-planet that are considered "main" starports - these are the biggest, busiest facilities, and comparable to a modern shipyard and/or major airport. There will often be many (possibly scores) of smaller port facilities that are the equivilent of private/municipal marinas or regional airports. Many companies will likely have their own private landing pads for loading/unloading cargo to either their own ships, or ones who've contracted with them in some form.

Really large companies, particularly frieght haulers like Tukera, will likely have their own terminals at the main facilities, much like FedEx and UPS do at many airports today.

Worlds with higher law levels or restrictive/isolationist cultures will tend to try concentrate the ship facilities into a central starport facility.

 

[GypsyComet]

Worlds with higher law levels or restrictive/isolationist cultures will tend to try concentrate the ship facilities into a central starport facility.

And in some cases will push the starport right off the surface, or off of land. I suspect most (in the OTU) are chagrined to find that this slows down the Imperium not at all. The Imperial Port Authority is used to orbital ports and oceanic ports, and as long as you tell them what you don't want imported, they'll even help with that...

 

[phild]

Worlds with higher law levels or restrictive/isolationist cultures will tend to try concentrate the ship facilities into a central starport facility.

And in some cases will push the starport right off the surface, or off of land. I suspect most (in the OTU) are chagrined to find that this slows down the Imperium not at all. The Imperial Port Authority is used to orbital ports and oceanic ports, and as long as you tell them what you don't want imported, they'll even help with that...

I would've thought this would be the norm. Either docking in space, or bellying down your free trader into the ocean has got to be an easier way of getting your cargo out there than putting it down on solid earth?

 

[GypsyComet]

It's likely a developmental thing. Worlds that are being colonized during an active Imperium will probably put the port where it will do the most good. Barring a convenient bay, that's going to be on land where the rest of the colonial infrastructure has good access.

On a world that has an older culture that is being recontacted, all of the good land may well be taken, or there may be cultural isolation issues. In these cases, having a far oceanic port that is, for most of thew worlds populace, just another source for ocean-going vessels to fill their cargo capacity from is probably not a bad idea. Recall that the smallest starships are not all that much smaller than the biggest aircraft we operate today, so port space could easily be at a premium, and having something three times the size of a 747 arrive at an airport could cause a stir that the world leaders want to avoid.

 

[phild]

Just strikes me that it's far cheaper and easier to dump a starport out in space. You literally get a couple of mega freighters, they open their bow doors and - boom! - instant starport, ready to be swung into orbit and joined by a necklace of substations orbitting the world all linked together by a flexible carbon nanotube chain. Then from this position, you drop down a few more carbon nanotubes to form the basis of a rudimentary space elevator, and then you start dumping stuff down on the surface.

The only reason I think you would have a port on the ground is if it was hostile space, or if there was a native planetary intelligence that had developed separately from the imperium who had this thing about being on the ground.

Much cheaper to use heavy freighters and modular cutters than apply streamlining to your transports. At least on your mainworlds. I guess the sorts of worlds interested in trading with dodgy Traveller PCs might well be the sort of worlds that couldn't be bothered with one of them weird space station thingies....

 

[GypsyComet]

That depends on which direction you are building. If you are stuck at the bottom of a gravity well, orbital construction is NOT cheap. Conversely, an incoming construction concern is still likely to want a ground facility if any serious trans-shipping is planned. Isolated and unsupported landing fields are acceptable if there are no ground shipping concerns due to low volume, but any serious volume at all, in either direction, means warehousing, good roads (or a lot of landing stages for grav), possibly an adjacent airfield, and lots and lots of offices. The trans-shipping concerns for those going to other systems can largely be handled in orbit, but even if most of a "starport" is in orbit, it still needs one or more trans-shipping downports, and to move a decent amount of material those are going to be BIG.

 

[DCAnsell]

Just strikes me that it's far cheaper and easier to dump a starport out in space. You literally get a couple of mega freighters, they open their bow doors and - boom! - instant starport, ready to be swung into orbit and joined by a necklace of substations orbitting the world all linked together by a flexible carbon nanotube chain. Then from this position, you drop down a few more carbon nanotubes to form the basis of a rudimentary space elevator, and then you start dumping stuff down on the surface.

The only reason I think you would have a port on the ground is if it was hostile space, or if there was a native planetary intelligence that had developed separately from the imperium who had this thing about being on the ground.

Much cheaper to use heavy freighters and modular cutters than apply streamlining to your transports. At least on your mainworlds. I guess the sorts of worlds interested in trading with dodgy Traveller PCs might well be the sort of worlds that couldn't be bothered with one of them weird space station thingies....

I don't know that I completely subscribe to this notion of quick and easy starports. It presupposes a lot of infrastructure dedicated to running about and planting starports, which doesn't really seem to be the case in much of the published material.

Even during the most active phase of expansion, its unlikely that the Imperium was doing things like this except on the most central and strategic worlds.

It gets back to the basic mindset of the Imperium, at least as I understand it. The Imperium governs the space between stars, except for such planet-based installations as are necessary for defense or other critical Imperial interests, like prison worlds and research stations.

Largely, the Imperium doesn't build Starports. Planetary governments do that, or corporations do that, or other interests do that. Every mainworld has one facility designated as its starport, and that location is its 'official' interface with the larger universe, as represented by the Imperium.

In most cases, that facility is the best of the lot available, but that isn't necessarily always so.

The Imperial Starport Authority exists largely to make sure that the interface between planet and Imperium remains as free of friction as possible, while ensuring that the Imperium's interests are looked after. Officially, a starport is Imperial territory, and in legal terms, Imperial law trumps local law within a starport. Generally speaking the ISA doesn't make too big a point of this, but it does come up, from time to time.

The point, though is that most starports are built locally, from the planet, not down from space, unless the planet has the resources, or the reason, to build a highport. Gravitic drives have been around for a very long time, and unlike rockets, it's not especially more expensive moving things up out a gravity well.

That's not to say that the Imperium NEVER builds starports, or helps build them, because certainly they do, but most often its not the Imperium's responsibility to build them.

 

[GypsyComet]

I don't know that I completely subscribe to this notion of quick and easy starports. It presupposes a lot of infrastructure dedicated to running about and planting starports, which doesn't really seem to be the case in much of the published material.

...

The point, though is that most starports are built locally, from the planet, not down from space, unless the planet has the resources, or the reason, to build a highport. Gravitic drives have been around for a very long time, and unlike rockets, it's not especially more expensive moving things up out a gravity well.

That's not to say that the Imperium NEVER builds starports, or helps build them, because certainly they do, but most often its not the Imperium's responsibility to build them.

More properly, a starport is built with the planet's money or on speculation of the planet's ability to make money. An outside agency may well do the construction (in an "Imperial" setting at least).

If a big pod-dropper freighter (like the 10kton model from MegaTraveller) is handy, the construction of a preliminary high port can easily be done elsewhere and freighted in. A 5kton cylinder station is, all things considered, going to cost about the same as a ship that size, trading the cost and volume of a jump drive for additional cargo, quarters, and external docking clamps. Add a little in-place construction if more reach is needed, or bring in a ring to attach around it, and an orbital can come together pretty quickly. All it takes is money.

A world trying to build in isolation is going to have a tougher time of it until fusion and gravitic lift-and-drive become available. For them, a large ground installation and/or an oceanic installation are going to be much simpler.

 

[simonh]

Regarding the SF bay area analogy, for me this realy is one port. As has been pointed out how much trade do you have, via ship, between these ports? They all serve the same local economy, so at any practical level we can abstract them as a single port.

If a world's population is mainly planet-bound then I think the main port facilities are going to be planet bound. Even if there is an orbital facility, it's purpose will mainly be to act as transfer station for cargoes that are ultimately planet bound. There will need to be such a station because some ships will either not be capable of landing on their own, or will be in a hurry and want to turn around as quickly as possible, but for any vessel capable of landing on the surface that's where the main facilities are going to be because that's where the people and the economy are. Why bother unloading cargo at the orbital station, loading it on a shuttle, fly it down to the surface, then unload it again if you don't have to? Why not just fly down there and unload in one go?

On the other hand if the system has a more distributed population and economic infrastructure on multiple planets, moons or orbital facilities in the same system, then a full-on space-based starport makes plenty of sense.

Best regards,

Simon Hibbs

 

[GypsyComet]

Regarding the SF bay area analogy, for me this realy is one port. As has been pointed out how much trade do you have, via ship, between these ports? They all serve the same local economy, so at any practical level we can abstract them as a single port.

Keep in mind that the Traveller setting can and does have significant clusters of worlds with less aggregate population than the Bay Area (defined as the San Jose-SF-Sacramento-Stockton waterway). Aside from the travel time and communications differences, those clusters and the overall commerce structure of the Bay Area are very similar. The waterways are an analogy for the paths of the superfreighters, not necessarily for all commerce taking place.

 

[kristof65]

Both GypsyComet's original analogy, and my later one really are really using it to show how the various ports, docks and marinas within are interrelated to each other, and how those relations scale up on a system-wide or interstellar basis.

Neither of us was suggesting that much, if any commerce between the cities around the bay was going by water - other than the passenger ferries, that is.

One could just as easily take all the ports in the Pacific to make the same analogy. That analogy would probably be more accurate, but more people are familiar with a single port than an ocean's worth.

 

[phild]

Yes, I think there are a number of separate points here now:

1. Most starports will not be a single entity but a range of facilities representing the capacity available in a system (or on a world, with extended Sys Gen)

2. The relationship and trading patterns between proximal systems might well be similar to the patterns exhibited by the cluster of ports around areas like the San Francisco bay, with large freight limiting itself to a small number of larger ports and relying on local traffic to more efficiently distribute further thereafter.

3. Starports may well be orbital, planetary or water-based - my error was, of course, forgetting that with grav-drives and fusion power, the efficiency advantage of the Orbital/Space elevator model no longer need apply. In which case, it will indeed be easier to take freight through the smallest number of distribution nodes possible.

 

[BP]

... 3. Starports may well be orbital, planetary or water-based - my error was, of course, forgetting that with grav-drives and fusion power, ...

Not sure the 'details' of anti-grav in Traveller, but in S&P 57 there is an adventure on a planet whose seasonal weather causes 2 starports to exists with only one being primarily active.
How about the starport 'floating' above a distribution hub and thus moveable when seasons or weather demanded (and hub could even be floating on surface of water) or based on market demands.

Seems like certain situations - geographical, cultural, political - could demand muliple starports to service a planet's (or multiple planets') needs. Such as foods being delivered on multiple continents, or continent specific goods and resources. Or religious/political differences which deny commerce between societies.

 

[GypsyComet]

... 3. Starports may well be orbital, planetary or water-based - my error was, of course, forgetting that with grav-drives and fusion power, ...

Not sure the 'details' of anti-grav in Traveller, but in S&P 57 there is an adventure on a planet whose seasonal weather causes 2 starports to exists with only one being primarily active.
How about the starport 'floating' above a distribution hub and thus moveable when seasons or weather demanded (and hub could even be floating on surface of water) or based on market demands.

Seems like certain situations - geographical, cultural, political - could demand muliple starports to service a planet's (or multiple planets') needs. Such as foods being delivered on multiple continents, or continent specific goods and resources. Or religious/political differences which deny commerce between societies.

The port code in the UWP is an indicator of publically available facilities. Beyond that is up to the guy running the game.

 

[ColHut]

Not sure a space port could use a space elevator. Not sure its possible even in traveller. It makes my brain hurt thinking about it. The start (top) would ned to be in a geo-stationary orbit, and the line and cargo mass nothing at all. If the line had any mass at all, unless counteracted, it would pull the top anchor down as its orbital velocity would be insufficient to keep it up. Placing a mass on the line travelling faster than free fall would make it worse. And free fall would leave it where it was. On earth a geo-stationary orbit is 30 000km away anyway!.

 

[GypsyComet]

Not sure a space port could use a space elevator. Not sure its possible even in traveller. It makes my brain hurt thinking about it. The start (top) would ned to be in a geo-stationary orbit, and the line and cargo mass nothing at all. If the line had any mass at all, unless counteracted, it would pull the top anchor down as its orbital velocity would be insufficient to keep it up. Placing a mass on the line travelling faster than free fall would make it worse. And free fall would leave it where it was. On earth a geo-stationary orbit is 30 000km away anyway!.

Space elevators (aka beanstalks) are possible with the right materials. The trick is to keep the center of mass at geosync.

What keeps beanstalks from being common or even seriously considered in the OTU is the ubiquitous presence for thousands of years of cheap and reliable anti-gravity drives. The mega-engineering feats required for a beanstalk are simply not needed.