Re: [TML] Starports
Thomas Jones-Low
(18 Aug 2020 21:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Phil Pugliese
(19 Aug 2020 00:08 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Thomas Jones-Low
(19 Aug 2020 00:15 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Phil Pugliese
(19 Aug 2020 09:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports Rupert Boleyn (19 Aug 2020 00:50 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
kaladorn@xxxxxx
(19 Aug 2020 04:24 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Rupert Boleyn
(19 Aug 2020 06:11 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
kaladorn@xxxxxx
(19 Aug 2020 07:25 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Phil Pugliese
(19 Aug 2020 10:17 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Rupert Boleyn
(19 Aug 2020 11:48 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Thomas Jones-Low
(19 Aug 2020 11:56 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Thomas Jones-Low
(19 Aug 2020 09:38 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Rupert Boleyn
(19 Aug 2020 11:53 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
kaladorn@xxxxxx
(19 Aug 2020 13:52 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Phil Pugliese
(19 Aug 2020 14:24 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Bruce Johnson
(19 Aug 2020 17:31 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Starports
Phil Pugliese
(19 Aug 2020 10:12 UTC)
|
On 19Aug2020 0950, Thomas Jones-Low wrote: > You are not very far off. > > Class X port has always meant there is no port and no facilities > available for landing. Not even a beacon to indicate a landing spot > may be available. > > What has happened over the years is people have pointed out just > how fast and easy it is to construct a Class E port. A flat space and > a radio beacon. A single cargo container can contain all the parts > required. Even a Class D port could be containerized into a dozen or > so, and built on site. > > Which begs the question of why, if it's so simple to create a > Class E port, does the world not have one? And the simple explanation > is the world is interdicted and forbidden to land there. According to MT (and TNE), an E type Starport has no repair facilities and no fuel available for sale to normal civilian traffic. Pretty much all else is up to the referee. Compared to an X type we can probably assume it's marked in some way, and has at least a radio beacon and radar reflector, and that the landing zone is clear and flat and you can be assured it's hard and strong enough to handle at least the maximum tonnages listed in its full IISS or TAS entry. It's also most likely reasonably close to a settlement of some local significance, will have a customs facility and the other paraphernalia of a port of entry if the locals care about such things, and enough transport infrastructure to handle whatever trade comes through it. While the 'port' itself fits in a shipping container, the infrastructure and improvements do not. A type X has none of the things above - you land at your own risk of damage from the landing site being unsuitable, the locals billing you huge and unmentioned fees for use of their land, and for stealing their water, and so on. That said, I would expect most type X starport systems within the Imperium to be interdicted, but not by the IN or IISS. Rather, travel to them is effectively banned by the locals (otherwise they'd have a port). A type D port must have at least some fuel tanks (probably for water) or sit by a lake or large river. It also needs pumps and all the standard fuel transfer equipment - it's selling (unrefined) fuel, and that means it needs the facilities to refuel a ship that's designed to only be refuelled at and by a port. It also is able to repair minor damage to a starship, and that means a workshop and at least some standard parts, if only for things that see a lot of wear or are regularly broken by careless pilots, and technicians to do the work (though they could well be part-time and normally work on local vehicles and machinery rather than spaceships). It also needs all the stuff a type E requires. Again, while the port equipment itself might fit in a few containers, the infrastructure won't. Thus, while one can (and I have myself) flippantly dismiss a type E as 'a bit of flat rock and a radio beacon', what that assures a ship of is a fair step up from a 'type X'. -- Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>