Pondering starship evolution

[bookwyrm]

So 100% for one and 50% for the other instead of 75% for both.

I like that it's an easy 'fix' to use. Checking it out soon.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I was wanting to take another Analysis of Alternatives look a 6G Fighter small craft intended to be able to tow external loads as a "utility factor" when not engaging in combat. In this analysis, I've stripped the small craft down to their "mandatory minimums" of installed equipment, intentionally leaving any "spare tonnage" in the form of a cargo hold (which can then be obviously refitted/repurposed as needed for specialized roles).

The important thing to note, in terms of "upgrades" is:

• Replace model/2 computer with model/3 computer @ TL=9 requires the allocation of +4 tons (+1 ton for computer, +3 tons for power plant generating +1 EP).
• Replace model/2 computer with model/4 computer @ TL=A requires the allocation of +8 tons (+2 tons for computer, +6 tons for power plant generating +2 EP).
• Replace model/2 computer with model/5 computer @ TL=B requires the allocation of +12 tons (+3 tons for computer, +9 tons for power plant generating +3 EP).
• Replace model/2 computer with model/6 computer @ TL=C requires the allocation of +20 tons (+5 tons for computer, +15 tons for power plant generating +5 EP).
• Replace 1 missile launcher with 1 laser (pulse or beam) requires the allocation of +3 tons for power plant to generate the +1 EP *IF* the laser is intended to be used in combat. However, if the laser is meant to be used for utility/mining purposes only (and is routinely powered down in combat) when reduced agility shouldn't be an issue, no additional tonnage for increased EP generation need be necessary.
• Single occupancy small craft staterooms cost 2 tons, each.
• Single occupancy starship staterooms cost 4 tons, each.
• Vehicle berths for an air/raft or prospecting buggy cost 4 tons, each.

So with those "upgrade" factors in mind, what are the base bones baselines for 6G small craft with a bridge+computer+turret in the 20, 30, 40 and 50 ton displacement classes when using LBB5.80 design paradigm criteria?

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
20 tons small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.4)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
3.4 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 1.2 EP) (MCr1.7)
3.6 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=1.2) (MCr10.8)
1 ton for fuel (16d 06h 41m endurance @ 1.2 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.01 tons of fuel per 7d)
4 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1)
2 tons for model/2 computer (EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 150 tons capacity (MCr0.3)
5 tons for cargo hold

= 0+3.4+3.6+1+4+2+1+5 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+1.7+10.8+0.1+9+3.35+0.3 = MCr27.65 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 170 - 20 = 150 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 120 - 20 = 100 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 68 - 20 = 48 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 60 - 20 = 40 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=2: 42 - 20 = 22 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 40 - 20 = 20 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=4: 30 - 20 = 10 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5: 24 - 20 = 4 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 20 - 20 = 0 tons external load

=====

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 tons small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.36)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5.1 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 1.8 EP) (MCr2.55)
5.4 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=1.8) (MCr16.2)
1 ton for fuel (10d 20h 27m endurance @ 1.8 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.015 tons of fuel per 7d)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.15)
2 tons for model/2 computer (EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 225 tons capacity (MCr0.45)
9.5 tons for cargo hold

= 0+5.1+5.4+1+6+2+1+9.5 = 30 tons
= 2.4+0+2.55+16.2+0.15+9+3.35+0.45 = MCr34.1 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 255 - 30 = 225 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 180 - 30 = 150 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 102 - 30 = 72 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 90 - 30 = 60 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=2: 63 - 30 = 33 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 60 - 30 = 30 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=3: 46 - 30 = 16 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=4: 45 - 30 = 15 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5: 36 - 30 = 4 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 30 - 30 = 0 tons external load

=====

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
40 tons small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr4.8)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
6.8 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 2.4 EP) (MCr3.4)
7.2 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=2.4) (MCr21.6)
1 ton for fuel (8d 03h 20m endurance @ 2.4 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.02 tons of fuel per 7d)
8 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.2)
2 tons for model/2 computer (EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 300 tons capacity (MCr0.6)
14 tons for cargo hold

= 0+6.8+7.2+1+8+2+1+14 = 30 tons
= 4.8+0+3.5+21.6+0.2+9+3.35+0.6 = MCr43.05 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 340 - 40 = 300 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 240 - 40 = 200 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 136 - 40 = 96 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 120 - 40 = 80 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=2: 85 - 40 = 45 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 80 - 40 = 40 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=3: 61 - 40 = 21 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=4: 60 - 40 = 20 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5: 48 - 40 = 8 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 40 - 40 = 0 tons external load

=====

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
50 tons small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
8.5 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 3 EP) (MCr4.25)
9 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=3) (MCr27)
1 ton for fuel (6d 12h 16m endurance @ 3 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.025 tons of fuel per 7d)
10 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.25)
2 tons for model/2 computer (EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 375 tons capacity (MCr0.75)
18.5 tons for cargo hold

= 0+8.5+9+1+10+2+1+18.5 = 30 tons
= 6+0+4.25+27+0.25+9+3.35+0.75 = MCr50.6 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 425 - 50 = 375 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 300 - 50 = 250 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 170 - 50 = 120 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 150 - 50 = 100 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=2: 106 - 50 = 56 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 100 - 50 = 50 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=3: 77 - 50 = 27 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=4: 75 - 50 = 25 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5: 60 - 50 = 10 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 50 - 50 = 0 tons external load

---

Because of the ... fungibility ... of cargo hold tonnage, these three designs make it rather apparent that the overall pattern is:

• Add +10 tons of hull, get +4.5 tons of cargo hold capacity

Which makes sense, because @ TL=9-B ... 6G maneuver costs 17% of the hull displacement, power plant-6 costs 18% of the hull displacement (@TL=9-C) and the bridge costs 20% of the hull displacement. Add those together and you get 17+18+20=55% of the hull ... so naturally if you increase the hull size by 10 tons, you gain a net 4.5 tons to allocate elsewhere to internal systems other than drives and bridge (which for the purposes of this Analysis of Alternatives defaults to cargo hold).

Incidentally, for anyone "playing the home game" with this kind of analysis, using the LBB5.80 design paradigm for small craft ... a 4G maneuver drive costs 11% of the hull displacement, power plant-4 costs 12% of the hull displacement (@TL=9-C) and the bridge costs 20% of the hull displacement. Add those together and you get 11+12+20=43% of the hull ... which in the context of a 50 ton Modular Cutter means that you're 3% short of being able to squeeze a 30 ton Modular Cutter Module "internally" into the design (since that would cost 60% of the 50 tons total displacement). And that's not even including the necessary "extra" tonnage for fuel (minimum 1 ton), computer (minimum 1 ton if the craft is to be armed) and turret (minimum 1 ton for fire control).

So ... yeah ... the LBB2.77/81 small craft have some "explaining to do" with regards to their design parameters.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What I'm noticing from this Analysis of Alternatives is that, from a military standpoint:

• In terms of TL=9, the 20 tons Fighter is "all you need" with its 5 tons of (multi-purpose) cargo hold payload fraction.
  • This is sufficient to upgrade to a computer model/3 (top of the line for TL=9) and still have 1 ton remaining for cargo hold payload fraction, if you want a short range (12-24 hour life support endurance) small craft. For longer life support endurance absent a support parent craft, 1-2x small craft staterooms or 1x starship stateroom will be required, precluding the option of an upgrade to a model/3 computer.
• In terms of TL=A, the most broadly flexible option is actually the 30 tons Fighter with its 9.5 tons of (multi-purpose) cargo hold payload fraction.
  • This is sufficient to upgrade to a computer model/4 (top of the line for TL=A) and still have 1.5 tons remaining for cargo hold payload fraction, if you want a short range (12-24 hour life support endurance) small craft. For longer life support endurance absent a support parent craft, 1-2x small craft staterooms or 1x starship stateroom will be required, which is compatible with an upgrade to a model/3 computer, but not a model/4.
• In terms of TL=B, the most broadly flexible option is actually the 40 tons Fighter with its 14 tons of (multi-purpose) cargo hold payload fraction.
  • This is sufficient to upgrade to a computer model/5 (top of the line for TL=B) and still have 2 tons remaining for cargo hold payload fraction. The remaining 2 tons could then be spent on a small craft stateroom to be used by a crew of 1 (pilot/gunner) or a crew of 2 (pilot, gunner) or (pilot/gunner, pilot/gunner) in either single or double occupancy.

This means that the TL=9-B range is more or less the "heyday" for small craft fighters, when they're able to (somewhat) economically mount computers that put them at parity with all competitors in their tech level range. By TL=C+ you're starting to need "heavier" (and heavier!) fighter tonnages in order to keep pace with the advancements in computer models. Eventually, it is no longer possible to mount "current TL" computer models into small craft (the computer tonnage and EP requirements are too large to fit within a small craft hull), so "fighters" have to move into the realm of Big Craft (100+ tons) in order to keep pace with increasing computer model numbers.

From a "minimalist" perspective, the 20 ton Fighter @ TL=9 can do "everything you need" in a combatant, but will be rapidly outclassed by tech level advancements (in computers, especially, since model/2-3 do not remain "competitive" for long).

However, in terms of a "kinetics per credit" perspective, the 30 ton Fighter @ TL=9-A has a large enough (multi-purpose) cargo hold/payload fraction to be broadly useful in a remarkably wide variety of roles, ranging from (mere) utility to direct combat, up to and including a variety of Q-craft options, as well as long endurance shuttle mission roles (depending on accommodations outfitting).

The 40 ton Fighter @ TL=B, however, looks like an extremely compelling option for a system defense patrol (small) craft. With a model/5 computer and a stateroom (1) for the crew, such small craft would be able to undertake multi-day patrols, widening the defensive perimeter around parent craft/support bases these 40 ton Fighters would return to for replenishment of life support supplies, expended ordnance, fuel and (of course) crew rotations.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Some interpolation required ... but ...

This video by Mentour Now! on youtube was interesting enough in its own right for what it says about Low Cost Carrier (LCC) airlines in the US market.

But then, as I was listening to the points that were being made, I mentally made the transition of "what if he wasn't talking about airplanes and airports, but instead talking about starships and starports?"

And it was at that point that a LOT of similarities with the themes and rationales that I've been exploring in the realm of "starship class design research" over the last few years started coming into focus. The parallels were CLEAR (at least to me), even if they weren't perfect.

The analogy to be paying attention to here, in the Free Trader relevancy to economics way, is that "competition" is not going to be evenly spread around everywhere on the map (whether continental for airplanes or sector for starships). The "larger" markets (better starports, higher population) are going to be served by "the major carriers" (especially by the megacorporations), particularly on the major trade routes. However, the "smaller" interstellar markets (lower quality starports, lower population) are still going to want to be serviced by interstellar transport ... but because their planetary markets are "smaller" you need a "smaller starship" than one of the big bulk carriers in order to be able to service those markets efficiently enough to sustain a business model.

So there is an advantage in "right sizing" the performance and transport capacity of starship classes such that they are "best" able to service lower end planetary markets and still be able to turn a profit while doing so. I know it goes without saying that this should be TRUE, but sometimes it needs to be pointed out before that truth can be recognized as being relevant to the topic at hand.

Because one of the "traps" that both Players and Referees are prone to falling into in "adventuring" Traveller campaigns in which "commercial viability" between adventures via merchant operations is a necessity can be ... that the starship class you're using is actually somewhat ill suited for the job you're asking it to perform. Not exactly "square peg, round hole" but certainly trending in that direction. The economics of starship operations (particularly with J1 Free Trader and J2 Far Trader classes) are remarkably "unforgiving" when trying to break even on ticket prices alone. The stock J2 Far Trader economics basically REQUIRE windfall profits from speculative goods trading in order to be able to break even (for example).



The thing that I really want to translate from this video by Mentour Now! is that there are going to be circumstances and contexts in which Bigger Is NOT Better when it comes to commercial viability ... and when it comes to starship classes, it will often times be the case that Smaller Is Better for ACS type free trader merchant Traveller starships, provided you can manage to make the books balance when working routes through "lower end" planetary world markets on the sector map. This is actually a pretty significant challenge when it comes to design engineering the "best" solution for "austere" world delivery conditions which can still turn a useful/marginal profit in between speculative goods arbitrage windfalls.

 

[Condottiere]

It tends to come down to economics, and off the shelf availability.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I was wanting to take another Analysis of Alternatives look a 6G Fighter small craft intended to be able to tow external loads as a "utility factor" when not engaging in combat.

Finally (... finally ...) decided to circle back to the question of "What Do?" when it comes to the question of high performance small craft in small packages that ought to be "conversion-able" from low tech (TL=9-10) system defense asset into being an organic convoy merchant escort type of asset. I also decided to "stop turning up my nose" at the idea of putting LBB2.81 standard drives into hulls smaller than 100 tons.

Here's what popped out of that analysis.

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
16 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr1.92)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
1 ton for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-A (Agility=6 requires 0.96 EP) (MCr4)
4 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-A (EP=2) (MCr8)
1 ton for fuel (10d 02h 04m endurance @ 1.96 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.008 tons of fuel per 7d)
4 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1)
3 tons for model/3 computer (EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per launcher, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 180 tons capacity (MCr0.36)
2 tons for small craft stateroom (MCr0.05)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+1+4+1+4+3+1+2+0 = 16 tons
= 1.92+0+4+8+0.1+18+3.35+0.36+0.05 = MCr35.78 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 200 - 16 = 184 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 100 - 16 = 84 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=1: 66 - 16 = 50 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=2: 50 - 16 = 34 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=2: 40 - 16 = 24 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=3: 33 - 16 = 17 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=4: 25 - 16 = 9 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=5: 20 - 16 = 4 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 16 - 16 = 0 tons external load

=====

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=A)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.4)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=A)
3 tons for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-B (Agility=6 requires 1.2 EP) (MCr8)
7 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-B (EP=4) (MCr16)
1 ton for fuel (6d 04h 40m endurance @ 3.2 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.01 tons of fuel per 7d)
4 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1)
4 tons for model/4 computer (EP: 2) (MCr30)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per launcher, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 380 tons capacity (MCr0.76)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+3+7+1+4+4+1+0 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+8+16+0.1+30+3.35+0.76 = MCr60.61 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 400 - 20 = 380 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 200 - 20 = 180 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=1: 133 - 20 = 113 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=2: 100 - 20 = 70 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=2: 80 - 20 = 60 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=3: 66 - 20 = 46 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=4: 50 - 20 = 30 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=5: 40 - 20 = 20 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 33 - 20 = 13 tons external load

---

I personally find this to be a very interesting confluence of small craft design factors.
The most interesting difference is (of all things) the demands of the computer (model/3 vs model/4), which then drives the +69.4% increase in construction cost (among other things).

The TL=A version is obviously a much more capable combatant fighter (individually), but due to the loss of the small craft stateroom (in order to fit inside the 20 ton form factor), the TL=A fighter has a much shorter crew endurance (acceleration couches only means 12-24 hours of life support) which then translates into a much more limited radius of action for patrols and deployments.

By contrast, the TL=9 version isn't as capable as the follow on TL=A version, but the inclusion of a small craft stateroom dramatically improves crew endurance (I'm thinking 1-2 weeks, with 7 days of deployment radius being "nominal" so as to have sufficient reserve margin for any return to base transits). This would mean that the TL=9 version would be capable of interplanetary patrol ranges, simply due to the increase in crew endurance afforded by the small craft stateroom.

So in the end, the tradeoff becomes high(er) technology/shorter patrol range versus low(er) technology/longer patrol range, in terms of day to day operational capabilities. The TL=A fighter CAN perform longer range missions if paired with a (mobile) parent/carrier craft, while the TL=9 fighter is "better" for long range/long endurance patrols between widely separated bases/carriers.



However, where things start to get REALLY interesting, from a Frontier Merchant Trader standpoint is the fact that:

• LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 1 @ 800 tons ... because 1*800=800
• LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 2 @ 400 tons ... because 2*400=800
• LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 3 @ 266 tons ... because 3*266=798, but 3*267=801 (which is "too big" by 1 ton)
• LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 4 @ 200 tons ... because 4*200=800
• LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 5 @ 160 tons ... because 5*160=800
• LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 6 @ 133 tons ... because 6*133=798, but 6*134=804 (which is "too big" by 4 tons)

What makes this interesting is that a 250 ton starship (TL=9) with a 16 ton fighter (TL=9) docked externally adds up to being ... 266 combined tons, meaning that D/D/D drives yield a performance profile of code: 3/3/3 during jump (and maneuver), which puts it into (ACS) Clipper territory when operating in a "clean" unencumbered by external loads configuration. Internal revenue tonnage is miniscule when operated that way (D/D/D drives and fuel ALONE consume 45+75+30=150 tons of internal displacement in a 250 ton hull!), but the important factor is the external load capacity that such an arrangement makes possible.

Sticking with a TL=9 Clipper merchant base design, it became possible to transport 3x high passengers plus 3 tons of cargo plus 5 tons of x-mail when maximum range in the shortest amount of travel time was required with no external loading. However, by adding 20 ton Boxes externally, it became possible to move 60-120 tons of cargo capacity @ J2+2 (60 tons) or @ J2 (120 tons), opening up a wide swath of transport opportunities for a speculative goods merchant trader, in addition to the (modest) high passenger service supplement.

Comparing to a (stock, unarmed) J2 Far Trader (MCr59.56) in volume production to my version of a 250 ton Clipper with Fighter (armed!) and regenerative biome life support yielded a construction cost of MCr152.32 (before adding any additional/external Boxes for increased cargo capacity) in volume production ... so any kind of external load towing starship following the design philosophies of this thread was already starting at a MUCH higher construction cost ... +155.74% higher to "start" relative to the competition (and you'll need to tack on another MCr3.264 if you want to buy 3x 20 ton Cargo Boxes for an external towing load capacity that you OWN as an operator). But once you make that investment, the odds are EXTREMELY HIGH that an operator will be able to fend off "most" unwanted/hostile attackers (read: ) with relatively little difficulty, making deliveries remarkably secure. Additionally, with 3x 20 ton Cargo Boxes, the 250 ton Clipper can operate as a J2+2 speculative goods transport in order to REALLY clean up on the windfall profit margins.

So although you're PAYING more (up front) in construction costs, you're also GETTING more capability (and peace of mind) over the long term due to the greater range of operating "modes" (due to external load capacity) which allow the starship to "reconfigure" itself more easily to whatever market conditions will bear and/or demands are placed upon the hull. For a TL=9 starship design, it's remarkably capable of performing at a high level across a remarkably wide swath of mission profiles (both commercial and non-commercial, although the latter will require other revenue streams to finance operations).

So without further ado or preamble, here is the (simplified) "napkin math" parameters for a 250 ton Clipper @ TL=9 ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Rule of Man Clipper (Type-AP, TL=9)
250 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr30)
45 tons for LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives (codes: 3/3/3, TL=9, EP=8) (MCr88)
105 tons of total fuel: 250 tons @ J3 = 75 tons jump fuel + 30 tons power plant fuel
0 tons for fuel scoops (MCr0.25)
9 tons for TL=9 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum) (MCr0.038)
20 tons for bridge (800 ton rating, MCr4)
2 tons for model/2bis computer (EP:0, TL=8) (MCr18)
60 tons for hangar berths capacity (MCr0.12)

1. Stateroom Box = 20 tons (pilot/gunner, pilot/gunner, navigator, engineer/engineer, medic) (5x staterooms)
2. Laboratory Box = 20 tons (V-c life support for 10)
3. Stateroom Box = 20 tons (purser/purser, steward/steward, 3x high passengers) (5x staterooms)

* External Docking: 550 tons capacity (MCr1.1)

1. Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9) = 16 tons
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   

9 tons for cargo hold

• 5 tons allocated to Mail Vault
• 3.36 tons available for internal cargo
• 0.64 tons for 64 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank storage (MCr0.032)

= 45+105+9+20+2+60+9 = 250 tons
= 30+88+0.25+0.038+4+18+0.12+1.1+0.032 = MCr141.54

Single Production: MCr141.54+(35.78)+(3.86*1.8)+(5.36) = MCr189.628 * 1.0 = MCr189.628 single production
Volume Production: MCr141.54+(35.78)+(3.86*2)+(5.36) = MCr190.4 * 0.8 = MCr152.32 volume production
3x Cargo Boxes (external) = MCr1.36*3 * 0.8 = MCr3.264 volume production
3x Environment Boxes (external) = MCr3.36*3 * 0.8 = MCr8.064 volume production

Crew = 7 (Cr40,895 per 4 weeks crew salaries)

1. Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 (chief) = (6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1/2)*1.1 = Cr7805
2. Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 = (6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1/2) = Cr7750
3. Navigator-1 = (5000*1.0) = Cr5000
4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = (4000*1.1)+(4000*1.1/2) = Cr6600
5. Steward-2 (purser)/Steward-2 (purser) = (3000*1.2)*1.1+(3000*1.2/2)*1.1 = Cr5940
6. Steward-2/Steward-2 = (3000*1.2)+(3000*1.2/2) = Cr5400
7. Medical-3 = (2000*1.2) = Cr2400

• J3, 3G, Agility=3: 250 + 16 = 266 combined tons
• J2, 2G, Agility=2: 250 + 150 = 400 combined tons
• J1, 1G, Agility=1: 250 + 550 = 800 combined tons

Revenue Tonnage @ J3/3G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity

Revenue Tonnage @ J2/2G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity
• 120 tons charter external cargo capacity (w/ 6x 20 ton Boxes)

Revenue Tonnage @ J1/1G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity
• 520 tons owned external cargo capacity (w/ 26x 20 ton Boxes)

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+3/2+3G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity
• 60 tons owned external cargo capacity (w/ 3x 20 ton Boxes)
• 60 tons collapsible fuel

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+2/2+2G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity
• 60 tons owned external cargo capacity (w/ 3x 20 ton Boxes)
• 60 tons charter external cargo capacity (w/ 3x 20 ton Boxes)
• 60 tons collapsible fuel

Revenue Tonnage @ J1+2/1+2G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity
• 60 tons owned external cargo capacity (w/ 3x 20 ton Boxes)
• 120 tons charter external cargo capacity (w/ 6x 20 ton Boxes)
• 60 tons collapsible fuel

Revenue Tonnage @ J1+1/1+1G
• Fighter Provincial docked externally (16 tons)
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 3.4 tons owned internal cargo capacity
• 60 tons owned external cargo capacity (w/ 3x 20 ton Boxes)
• 460 tons charter external cargo capacity (w/ 23x 20 ton Boxes)
• 60 tons collapsible fuel

=====

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
16 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr1.92)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
1 ton for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-A (Agility=6 requires 0.96 EP) (MCr4)
4 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-A (EP=2) (MCr8)
1 ton for fuel (10d 02h 04m endurance @ 1.96 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.008 tons of fuel per 7d)
4 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1)
3 tons for model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 180 tons capacity (MCr0.36)
2 tons for 1x small craft stateroom (MCr0.05)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+1+4+1+4+3+1+2+0 = 16 tons
= 1.92+0+4+8+0.1+18+3.35+0.36+0.05 = MCr35.78 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)

• 1G, Agility=0: 200 - 16 = 184 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 100 - 16 = 84 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=1: 66 - 16 = 50 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=2: 50 - 16 = 34 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=2: 40 - 16 = 24 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=3: 33 - 16 = 17 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=4: 25 - 16 = 9 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=5: 20 - 16 = 4 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6: 16 - 16 = 0 tons external load

=====

Stateroom Box (Type-RU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
20 tons for 5x single occupancy starship staterooms (MCr2.5)
* External Docking: 4x 20 = 80 tons capacity (MCr0.16)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+20+0 = 20 tons
= 1.2+2.5+0.16 = MCr3.86

=====

Laboratory Box (Type-LU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
20 tons for laboratory (MCr4)
* External Docking: 4x 20 = 80 tons capacity (MCr0.16)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+20+0 = 20 tons
= 1.2+4+0.16 = MCr5.36

=====

Environment Box (Type-LU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
20 tons for environment tank (MCr2)
* External Docking: 4x 20 = 80 tons capacity (MCr0.16)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+20+0 = 20 tons
= 1.2+2+0.16 = MCr3.36

=====

Cargo Box (Type-AU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
* External Docking: 4x 20 = 80 tons capacity (MCr0.16)
20 tons for cargo hold

= 0+20 = 20 tons
= 1.2+0.16 = MCr1.36

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I tried doing another Analysis of Alternatives to the 250 ton starship design plan detailed above.
I tried switching back from a 20 ton Box foundation to a 16 ton Box foundation (because the TL=9 fighter weighs in at 16 tons) ... and no matter what I did fiddling about in the 240-266 tons hull for the starship range, it didn't "balance out" as well as the 250 ton starship loaded with 20 ton Boxes design plan detailed above.

The big sticking point was that the 3x 20 ton Boxes was the only practical way to transport passengers (with regenerative biome life support laboratory!) without needing to resort to external loading, which then meant that J2+3/2-3G drive performance as a courier (or even an "expensive clipper yacht" for nobility).

Another point is that the 250 ton hull has D/D/D drives installed, which are good for code: 1/1/1 @ 800 tons.

• 800-250 = 550 / 1.1 = 500 tons of big craft can be towed externally

The Fighter Provincial cannot (externally) dock with the starship while that is happening, but under such emergency circumstances that's not something to quibble to much about. It does however mean that the "largest big craft" that can be externally towed while the 16 ton Fighter Provincial is externally docked becomes ...

• 800-250-16 = 534 / 1.1 ≈ 485 tons of big craft can be towed externally

In "most" small ship (ACS) universe settings, being able to externally dock with and tow a 400 ton big craft (such as a J1/1G Type-R Fat Trader or a J3/4G Type-T Patrol Cruiser, for example) @ J1/1G could be extremely useful ... especially if you hoist a ).



As is always the case, operating the starship at the lower end of the available displacement range reduces revenue tonnage capacity, meaning "the less you're hauling, the less you're earning" on the economics. However, when making a MCr for MCr comparison with a 400 ton J1/1G Type-R Fat Trader ... the Rule of Man Clipper (with all its added complexity) starts weighing in at around +60% more expensive to construct (for a 250 ton starship + 16 ton fighter + boxes compared to a 400 ton starship), but the Rule of Man Clipper can "load up" externally in order to operate in the 400 tons (combined) range @ J2 (or even J2+2) or go all the way up to the 800 tons (combined) range @ J1 (or even J1+1). It then becomes possible to secure "more than double the tranport capacity" of a J1/1G Type-R Fat Trader at "less than double the construction cost" using the Rule of Man Clipper modularized box transport system.

Additionally, the J1+1 capability becomes extremely valuable as a micro-jumper for interplanetary transits that would take longer than 8 days @ 1G continuous acceleration. This is one of the "heaviest" external loading configurations for the Rule of Man Clipper design, which is capable of transporting 26x 20 ton Boxes (minimum 3 of which are owned and used by the operator), leaving up to 23x 20 ton Boxes = 460 tons of potential cargo transport capacity in a J1+1 micro-jumper. The advantage here being that the J1+1 micro-jump capacity means that wilderness refueling only needs to happen on one end of the round trip rather than at both ends, allowing for an "in-system" shuttle service between planetary orbits (and far companion stars!) which only need to wilderness refuel at the mainworld or a gas giant, which would presumably be the home port of operations.