Pondering starship evolution

[Spinward Flow]

So you would open the door to building at TL=G?

I would do the converse.
I would stop denying that TL=G is possible ... or exists at all ...

But hey, that's just me.

This is CT '81 and CT tech tables

LBB2 (77 and 81) both stop the progression of computer models with 7 (at TL=D) ... and don't include fib options either (which makes sense in a small ship universe that doesn't have to worry about Radiation Hits to craft).

Hence why the (supposedly) TL=F Kinunir class of 1200 ton starships has only a model/7 (+model/3 backup) computer installed in it, rather than a "proper" model/9fib computer. You can't build (yourself) what the rules don't include ... and the Kinunir class of LBB A1 was very obviously designed using LBB2 as the foundation (with bits of LBB5 "pirated" into the design specs as a patch update), rather than being a "clean sheet" LBB5.80 design spec sheet (which then later cause "version problems" with the LBB S9 data entry that required LBB5.80 paradigm changes).



At most I'm saying that there was "a better way" to handle some of the details provided in LBB2, thanks to the benefits of hindsight.
I'm NOT saying that LBB2-3 (as is) ought to be chucked in the bin because they aren't "perfect enough" to play with.

 

[Rupert]

This is CT '81 and CT tech tables, not MT. The dead give away are the letter drives and letter drive TLs.

In CT TL charts disintegrators are TL16, as they are in LBB:4, and matter transport is also available.

MT changed a lot of the technology, maneuver drives being a prime example, then there was jump fuel requirements and then...

My mistake - I didn't recall the CT tables mentioning them, so I didn't check them.

And yes, MT did some very strange things that resulted in a whole bunch of designs having to be done at TL15 for them to work.

 

[aramis]

My mistake - I didn't recall the CT tables mentioning them, so I didn't check them.

And yes, MT did some very strange things that resulted in a whole bunch of designs having to be done at TL15 for them to work.

Most of MT's weirdness on ships is replacing bridges with control panels and porting HG-80 over to Striker... Most.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Most of MT's weirdness on ships is replacing bridges with control panels and porting HG-80 over to Striker... Most.

This was almost 40 years ago, but ...

I remember our Referee trying to work up a "not OTU" setting where the highest TL was B ... and used MT rules to spec out a J2 starship.
It needed over 200 control panels and was something of a conceptual nightmare to keep track of.
We joked that the Engineering skill did nothing more than "inform" crew which control panel out of hundreds did what.

Ironically, that ship didn't last very long in that campaign ...

 

[whartung]

Task: To find the correct control panel
Difficult, Engineering, End, 10 min (hazardous)

Referee: Keep rolling as if the player make succeed until they give up in frustration then say "oh, here it is."

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I was toying around with the idea of sticking with the TL=9 J2+2/2G merchant objective, but wondering if I could (somehow) "downgrade" the drives from D/D/D down to C/C/C drives ... and all of the downstream effects that flow from that decision.

The trick is that as stuff gets "shrunk" ... not everything "shrinks" as drives and hull displacements get smaller.

So in the interest of "keep checking your assumptions" ... I tried asking a not entirely tangential question.

What if I modulated the 24 ton Box "foundation" back into being a 20 ton Box "foundation" for the modular system?
What kind of cascading reshuffle effects might result from that decision?
Break out the calculator ... and ... ... suddenly, the C/C/C drives option becomes more plausible.

Which then brings up the all important question ... okay ... what happened?

---

Well, long and short of it is that I started with the (24 ton) Fighter Decoy-9.

I had been relying on a 24 ton small craft in order to be able to make everything "fit" while also being able to afford the EP required to power up a laser turret AND have a top of the line computer model installed + bridge, combined with 6G/Agility=6 combat performance. At TL=9, that meant a model/3 computer (EP=1) and a triple beam laser turret (code: 3, battery: 1, EP=3) and a 24 ton form factor requires 24/100*6=1.44 EP to produce Agility=6.

• 1+3+1.44 = 5.44 EP demand = Power Plant-C standard drive which can produce up to EP=6

If I was going to "shrink" the Fighter, the only real option ... was to notch down from Power Plant-C (EP=6) to a Power Plant-B (EP=4) ... which would save 3 tons right there, right off the top.

Additionally, reducing tonnage from 24 to 20 would also involve "shrinking" the bridge from 4.8 to 4 tons, which would also mean dropping the 0.2 tons of Jump Capacitors I'd installed into the 24 ton version (for lack of anything better to do with the tonnage) as an emergency reserve in the event of a Empty Fuel condition.

• -(3+0.8+0.2) = -4 tons = 24 --> 20

At TL=9 a model/3 computer would still be demanding EP=1 ... and at 20 tons, Agility=6 requires 20/100*6=1.2 EP.

• Power Plant-B produces EP=4 ... -1 for model/3 computer ... -1 for Agility=6 ... leaves 1.8 EP available for weaponry (basically lasers)
• 1.8 EP is sufficient for 1 laser (pulse or beam)

So, bare minimum, I'd be dropping from a triple laser (EP=3) down to a single laser (EP=1) ... in which case (in a LBB5.80 code/battery context) there was no "advantage" to be had by choosing a beam laser over a pulse laser. A code: 1, battery: 1 (pulse) laser isn't going to be a massive "threat" in space combat ... but for a "You Shall Not Pass!" type of screening partner for a parent (carrier) craft, it gets the job done, because unless the fuel+power plant+laser combo is disrupted the "magazine is bottomless" and the Fighter can endure for an extended duration with offensive capability.

However, if a triple turret is installed and one of the weapons is a (single) pulse laser, that leaves the remaining weapon loadout "slots" with the options of either missile or sandcaster (at TL=9), because they're both EP=0, but have limited magazine capacity (I know that LBB5.80 doesn't pay attention to this, but *I* do for reasons of Intellectual Honesty). Thing is, any combination of code+relative computer size that can achieve a to hit roll of 12+ after subtracting -6DM for Agility=6 and -2DM for Hull: 0 Size is just going to blow right through any kind of (single) sandcaster code: 2 (because TL=9) without even trying ... so a sandcaster is basically a "waste" of a weapon slot.

What I came up with then for the 20 ton Fighter Decoy-9 mounting a Power Plant-B (EP=4 max output) with model/3 computer (EP=1) and Agility=6 (EP=1.2) was a triple turret mounting a missile/pulse laser/missile combination.
This weapon mix enables "offensive threat" (from the laser) without requiring the launching of missiles, in order to "save ordnance" when circumstances are more of a "keep away while breaking off by acceleration" (while screening parent craft in the reserve) condition holds true ... in which the order of the day is to escape rather than cause (crippling) damage to a persistent adversary.

---

If the Fighter was moving from 24 tons to 20 tons (by reducing offensive capability), that would then mean that the Boxes should also shift from 24 tons to 20 tons.

Thing is, the 24 ton Boxes had a really "sweet" set of volumetric dimensions.

• 15m x 7.5m x 3m = 337.5m³ / 14 = 24.10714286 tons ≈ 24 tons (10:5:2 dimensions ratio)
• 10 x 5 deck squares area, 1 deck

Shifting to 20 ton Boxes would require shifting that balance.

• 12m x 7.8m x 3m = 280.8m³ / 14 = 20.05714286 tons ≈ 20 tons (60:39:15 dimensions ratio)
• 8 x 5.2 deck squares area, 1 deck

Okay, that works!

That 8x5.2 deck squares formulation lets me divide up the interior into either 6 or 8 compartments on either side of a central access corridor (single axis) running through the spine of the 20 ton Box.

• 3+3=6 compartments ... 5 staterooms + 1 common area
• 4+4=8 compartments ... 5 staterooms + 3 common areas

Can then reuse the 12m x 7.8m x 3m = 20 tons form factor for the Fighter Decoy-9, so the form factor is interchangeable with the 20 ton Box.

---

But then, where this gets REALLY interesting is what happens when "downshifting" into a starship equipped with C/C/C drives.
Because of the 20 ton form factor, rather than a 24 ton form factor, certain things start "stacking more neatly" overall in the final design calculus. However, rather than just continue to describe things in the abstract, it's probably best to start posting the Naval Architect's Office spec sheet.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Rule of Man Long Trader (Type-AP, TL=9)
220 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr26.4)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=20cm)
35 tons for LBB2.81 standard C/C/C drives (codes: 2/2/2, TL=9, EP=6) (MCr66)
64.4 tons of total fuel: 220 tons @ J2 = 44 tons jump fuel + 20 tons power plant fuel

• Basic Power (280 combined tons) + 0 EP = 0.14 tons of fuel consumption per 7d
• Basic Power (280 combined tons) + 6 EP = 2.24 tons of fuel consumption per 7d
• Basic Power (580 combined tons) + 0 EP = 0.29 tons of fuel consumption per 7d
• Basic Power (580 combined tons) + 6 EP = 2.39 tons of fuel consumption per 7d

0 tons for fuel scoops (MCr0.22)
9 tons for TL=9 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum) (MCr0.038)
20 tons for bridge (600 ton rating, MCr3)
2 ton for model/2 computer (EP=0, TL=7) (MCr9)
80.6 tons for hangar capacity (MCr0.161.2)

1. Fighter Decoy-9 (Type-FQ, TL=9) = 20 tons
2. 20Sta Box = 20 tons (pilot/gunner, pilot/gunner, navigator, engineer, medic) (5x single occupancy staterooms)
3. 20Lab Box = 20 tons (laboratory: regenerative biome life support V-c for 12)
4. 20Sta Box = 20 tons (steward/steward, ship's troop, 3x high passengers) (3x single occupancy staterooms)

• 0.6 tons for 60 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank storage (MCr0.03)

* External Docking: 380 tons capacity (MCr0.76)

1. 20Env Box = 20 tons (environmentally controlled cargo hold)
2. 20Env Box = 20 tons (environmentally controlled cargo hold)
3. 20Car Box = 20 tons (cargo hold)
4. 20Car Box = 20 tons (cargo hold)

4 tons for vehicle berth: Air/Raft (TL=9) (MCr0.6)
5 tons for cargo hold (Mail Vault conversion ready)

= 0+35+64.4+9+20+2+80.6+4+5 = 220 tons
= 26.4+66+0.22+0.038+3+9+0.1612+0.03+0.76+0.6 = MCr106.2092

= MCr106.2092+(45.71)+(3.86*1.8)+(5.36)+(3.36*1.8)+(1.36*1.8) = MCr172.7232 single production
= MCr106.2092+(45.71)+(3.86*2)+(5.36)+(3.36*2)+(1.36*2) = MCr174.4392 * 0.8 = MCr139.55136 volume production

Crew = 7 (Cr33,255 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-1 = (4000*1.0) = Cr4000
5. Steward-1/Steward-1 = (3000*1.1)+(3000*1.1/2) = Cr4950
6. Medical-3 = (2000*1.2) = Cr2400
7. Ship's Troop (corporal) = (450*3) = Cr1350 (LBB4, p19)

• J2, 2G, Agility=2: 220 + 80 = 300 combined tons (4x 20 ton Boxes)
• J1, 1G, Agility=1: 220 + 380 = 600 combined tons (19x 24 ton Boxes)

---

Revenue Tonnage @ J2/2G = 300 combined tons

• Fighter Decoy-9 docked internally
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 5 tons internal cargo capacity (mail vault ready)
• 40 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, external)
• 40 tons owned cargo capacity (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, external)
• 0 tons collapsible fuel tank in internal hangar
  • Jump Fuel Consumption: 64.4-300*0.2 = 4.4 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J1/1G = 600 combined tons

• Fighter Decoy-9 docked internally
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 5 tons internal cargo capacity (mail vault ready)
• 40 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, external)
• 40 tons owned cargo capacity (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, external)
• 300 tons chartered third party external cargo capacity (15x 20 ton Boxes)
  • Jump Fuel Consumption: 64.4-600*0.1 = 4.4 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+2/2+2G = 300 combined tons/300 combined tons

• Fighter Decoy-9 docked externally/Fighter Decoy-9 docked externally
• 2x 20Sta, 1x Lab Boxes docked externally/2x 20Sta, 1x Lab Boxes docked externally
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 5 tons internal cargo capacity (mail vault ready)
• 20 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, internal)
• 0 tons owned cargo capacity loaded internally (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, internal)
• 60 tons collapsible fuel tank in internal hangar (occupies 3 of 4x Boxes loaded internal)
  • Jump Fuel Consumption: 64.4+60-300*0.2-300*0.2 = 4.4 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J1+1/1+1G = 600 combined tons/600 combined tons

• Fighter Decoy-9 docked externally/Fighter Decoy-9 docked externally
• 2x 20Sta, 1x Lab Boxes docked externally/2x 20Sta, 1x Lab Boxes docked externally
• 3x high passengers
• 0x low passengers
• 5 tons internal cargo capacity (mail vault ready)
• 20 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity loaded internally (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, internal)
• 0 tons owned cargo capacity loaded internally (2x 20 ton Boxes, owned, internal)
• 60 tons collapsible fuel tank in internal hangar (occupies 3 of 4x Boxes loaded internal)
• 300 tons chartered third party external cargo capacity (15x 20 ton Boxes)
  • Jump Fuel Consumption: 64.4+60-600*0.1-600*0.1 = 4.4 tons remaining

---

Fighter Decoy-9 (Type-FQ, TL=9)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.4, integral fuel scoops)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=20cm)
1 ton for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-A (Agility=6 requires 1.2 EP) (MCr4)
7 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-C (EP=6) (MCr16)
1 ton for fuel

• Basic Power + 0.00 EP= 0.01 tons of fuel consumption per 7d (700d 00h 00m endurance)
• Basic Power + 1.2 EP = 0.43 tons of fuel consumption per 7d (16d 06h 41m endurance)
• Basic Power + 2.2 EP = 0.78 tons of fuel consumption per 7d (8d 23h 23m endurance)
• Basic Power + 3.2 EP = 1.13 tons of fuel consumption per 7d (6d 04h 40m endurance)

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)
2 tons for 1x hardpoint + pop up triple turret: missile, pulse laser, missle (laser code: 1, laser batteries: 1, EP: 1) (missile code: 1, missile batteries: 2, EP: 0) (MCr3.2) (LBB2.81, p23) (JTAS #25, p15)
* External Docking: 980 tons capacity (MCr1.96)
2 tons for 1x Small Craft Cabin (MCr0.05, 2 person/weeks life support endurance)
0 tons for cargo hold (MCr0)

= 0+1+7+1+4+3+2+2+0 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+4+16+0.1+18+3.2+1.96+0.05+0 = MCr45.71 single production

• 0.20G, Agility=0: 1000 - 20 = 980 tons external load (880 tons Big Craft * 1.1 = 968 tons)
• 0.33G, Agility=0: 600 - 20 = 580 tons external load (220 ton Big Craft + 15x 20 ton Boxes = 520*1.1 = 572 tons)
• 0.57G, Agility=0: 350 - 20 = 330 tons external load (220 ton Big Craft + 4x 20 ton Boxes = 300*1.1 = 330 tons)
• 1G, Agility=1: 200 - 20 = 180 tons external load (9x 20 ton Boxes)
• 2G, Agility=2: 100 - 20 = 80 tons external load (4x 20 ton Boxes)
• 3G, Agility=3: 66 - 20 = 46 tons external load (2x 20 ton Box)
• 4G, Agility=4: 50 - 20 = 30 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5: 40 - 20 = 20 tons external load (1x 20 ton Box)
• 6G, Agility=6: 33 - 20 = 13 tons external load

---

12m x 7.8m x 3m = 280.8m³ / 14 = 20.05714286 tons ≈ 20 tons (60:39:15 dimensions ratio)
8 x 5.2 deck squares area, 1 deck

---

20Lab Box (Type-LU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft custom hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=20cm)
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 single production

---

20Sta Box (Type-RU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft custom hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=20cm)
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 single production

---

20Env Box (Type-LU, TL=9)
20 ton small craft custom hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.2)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=20cm)
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 single production

---

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

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

 

[Spinward Flow]

As you can see from the above, this is functionally a 300 ton J2+2/2G starship (220+4*20=300) using C/C/C drives, but which is capable of "swapping around" up to 80 tons of displacement (inside to outside) via use of the 20 ton Box form factor + hangar support (internal and external) in order to modulate its transport capacity depending on the range that needs to be jumped.

• J2 = 3x high passengers + 85 tons cargo capacity (owned)
• J1 = 3x high passengers + 85 tons cargo capacity (owned) + 300 tons cargo capacity (external charter)
• J2+2 = 3x high passengers + 25 tons cargo capacity (owned)
• J1+1 = 3x high passengers + 25 tons cargo capacity (owned) + 300 tons cargo capacity (external charter)

The starship also has an Air/Raft to make marshaling of cargoes+passengers practical at austere locations with minimal (to no) shore support services available, such as wilderness landing zones away from downports. I consider the inclusion of a (grav) vehicle berth in the design spec sheet to be a mark of a "frontier" starship class intended to be capable of operating on the fringes of civilization without needing to be overly concerned with logistical challenges that could otherwise be potentially problematic (in the day to day sense).

The Fighter Decoy-9 (Type-FQ, TL=9) has a (hidden) pop up turret installed in it (costing an additional +1 ton and MCr0.1), so that to most (long range) sensor scans it will appear to be unarmed (before revealing otherwise if forced to fight). This is basically a system defense redesign of the 20 ton Jolly Boat small craft, an interplanetary light runabout/transport class that can be repurposed for a wide variety of assignments.

---

Jolly Boat (Type-QT, TL=9)
20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.4, integral fuel scoops)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=18cm)
1 ton for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-A (Agility=6 requires 1.2 EP) (MCr4)
4 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-A (EP=2) (MCr8)
1 ton for fuel

• Basic Power + 0.00 EP= 0.01 tons of fuel consumption per 7d (700d 00h 00m endurance)
• Basic Power + 1.2 EP = 0.43 tons of fuel consumption per 7d (16d 06h 41m endurance)

4 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1)
0 tons for no computer (MCr0)
0 tons for 1x hardpoint: no fire control reserved, no turret, no weapons (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p23)
* External Docking: 80 tons capacity (MCr0.16)
2 tons for 1x Small Craft Cabin (MCr0.05, 2 person/weeks life support endurance)
8 tons for cargo hold: multi-purpose refit ready (MCr0)

= 0+1+4+1+4+0+0+2+8 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+4+8+0.1+0.1+0.16+0.05+0 = MCr14.81 single production

• 2G, Agility=2: 100 - 20 = 80 tons external load (4x 20 ton Boxes)
• 3G, Agility=3: 66 - 20 = 46 tons external load (2x 20 ton Boxes)
• 4G, Agility=4: 50 - 20 = 30 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5: 40 - 20 = 20 tons external load (1x 20 ton Box)
• 6G, Agility=6: 33 - 20 = 13 tons external load

12m x 7.8m x 3m = 280.8m³ / 14 = 20.05714286 tons ≈ 20 tons (60:39:15 dimensions ratio)
8 x 5.2 deck squares area, 1 deck

---

The way I see it, the RoM Long Trader is intended to operate with a Fighter Decoy-9 ... but when "your reputation precedes you Mr. Bond" there is the opportunity to skimp on costs by substituting a Jolly Boat instead as the small craft. Although less capable, a Jolly Boat can "suffice" in a lot of circumstances (so long an no one pays too much attention ) ... at least until a combat situation happens.

Warning: Shave credits at own risk!

However, this is also what makes the Fighter Decoy-9 a "viable option" for system defense forces looking to add "under cover patrols" of interplanetary routes to their jurisdiction. So the Fighter Decoy-9 isn't just a "nice to have" for interstellar merchant starships, but also a useful asset for policing of (normal) space lanes without necessarily tipping off the criminal element about what resources are deployed where (barring intel leaks).

As technology advances beyond TL=9, this kind of solution gets rapidly outclassed in the 20 ton form factor ... pushing things closer to the 30 ton form factor in order to accommodate the EP demand of model/4-5 computers (EP=2-3). So the development of this particular "solution" definitely has a "shelf life" to it in the face of technological advancements. However, in terms of a civilian/paramilitary option, it hits something of a "sweet spot" on its own.



This particular iteration of the concept has definitely settled into a highly agreeable "sweet spot" for my design and economic potential sensibilities. Although 3x high passengers capacity seems like a case of "what's your point?" ... it's not an amount that will be hard to fill outside of highly populated origin star systems. In this case, the low capacity for high passengers makes the design better suited for operating as a tramp free trader along the fringes of civilization (which competitors would tend to avoid due to mismatch of supply to demand). Conversely, the 3x high passengers capacity is enough for clients who need to accompany important cargoes to destinations to be able to book passage.

At the same time, I was able to reserve 5 tons for an internal cargo hold, which can be converted into a Mail Vault (generating Cr25,000 upon delivery to final destinations), which can be used to generate a RELIABLE "baseline revenue" stream that can make it reasonable to travel to "economic basket case" mainworlds which would otherwise be avoided by competitors (as profit margin destroyers). Simply delivering Mail 2x per month will cover operational overhead expenses (crew salaries, berthing fees, annual overhaul expense share), leaving any cargo+passengers tickets in the "profit/bonus" category. At the same time, speculative goods arbitrage remains an option on a catch as catch can basis.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Been doing some more "intensive Analysis of Alternatives" approaches to the 20 ton Box modular system and stumbled onto some intriguing possibilities.

1. 220 ton J(2+)2/(2+)2G starship (TL=9) using C/C/C drives only slightly modified from what's posted above (MCr134.6884 in volume production)
2. 280 ton J(2+)3/(2+)3G starship (TL=A) using E/E/E drives (MCr186.1348 in volume production)

• 186.1348 - 134.6884 = +MCr51.4464 (in volume production cost) price differential to upgrade
• 186.1348 / 134.6884 = x1.38196608 ≈ +38.2% price differential to upgrade

Those capabilities at those price points are actually compelling enough to seriously consider, when looking at economic use cases in terms of Range Architecture of products. In this instance, Range Architecture isn't referring to "parsecs" that starships can transit, but rather the differentiation of products by capabilities and cost which can then address different segments of customer demand without cannibalizing each other.

Range Architecture is the structure of your sub-brands and price points.
A well designed Range Architecture will help your customers to pick the right product at the right price.

In this iteration of the Long Trader (J2/2G) and the Clipper (J3/3G), there are multiple constraints which combine to produce the class designs that I've (re)worked up in parallel, with the intention to "share as much commonality as possible" between the two classes. And after doing some navigation modeling on sector maps, I've been able to convince myself that increasing single jump range by +50% (from 2 parsecs to 3) at an upgrade premium of +38.2% actually makes for a reasonably compelling argument in places where it makes sense to need the longer range of 3 parsecs in a single jump. Because although J1+2 can transit 3 parsecs just like J3 can, it takes longer to do so (2 weeks instead of 1 week) ... and in a merchant business where TIME IS MONEY ... needing to 2x jump instead of 1x jump to transit 3 parsec distances can create a kind of "profit generator friction" that becomes an unwanted bottleneck to operations and opportunities.

In the Speculative Goods Arbitrage "game" ... the name of the game is to move as quickly as possible from buy low to sell high, in order to keep rolling over the opportunities at the fastest rate that you can manage per annual cycle. If you're jumping 24 times per year, there's a big different between 24 opportunities for Speculative Goods Arbitrage per year ... and 12 opportunities for Speculative Goods Arbitrage per year (because you're 2x jumping all the time, instead of single jumping). Being "able" to move as quickly as possible from buy low to sell high puts a premium on 1x jump and 2x jump transit ranges ... and how "far apart" different world markets might be for those arbitrage opportunities.



Technically speaking, what I'm looking at now is certainly a "downgrade" from what I was doing earlier in this thread.

• Previously: D/D/D = J2+2+2 ... H/H/H = J3+3 ... 24 ton Box modules
• Currently: C/C/C = J2+2 ... E/E/E = J2+3 ... 20 ton Box modules

However, the D/D/D and H/H/H drive designs were pretty heavily over-engineered. They were basically "hot rods" first and foremost and you were definitely getting a Premium Product™ at a Premium Price™.

The C/C/C and E/E/E drive designs are not as (wastefully) over-engineered ... and thus can deliver comparable (slightly downgraded, but not by much) performance on a less demanding commitment of capital to get started. This puts the C/C/C and E/E/E drive designs into a "sweeter" spot as far as "bang per buck" is concerned. The lower price point on construction (and maintenance!) will also make it easier for more parties to get interested in what these classes have to offer a tramp merchant who wants to do more than collect ticket revenues for the rest of their lives in business.

Yes, you have to spend money to make money.
But you don't want to have to go broke/bankrupt before you can start making money at all.



In terms of competition, I'm liking how these numbers stack up against each other.

Type R Subsidized Merchant (C/C/C drives, J1, unarmed) (LBB S7, p47)

• 400 tons (starship) @ TL=9
• MCr100.035 (starship) + MCr14 (launch) = MCr114.035 in volume production
• No fuel purification in stock configuration
• 8x High Passengers
• 9x Low Passengers
• 200 tons cargo capacity

Rule of Man Long Trader-9 (C/C/C drives, J2, armed fighter escort)

• 220 tons (starship), 380 tons external load capacity @ TL=9
• MCr134.6884 (starship + fighter + boxes) in volume production
• Fuel purification included in stock configuration
• 3x High Passengers
• 0x Low Passengers
• 20 tons environmentally controlled cargo capacity
• 65 tons standard cargo capacity (including 5 ton mail vault)

Yes, the Type R Subsidized Merchant has a higher passenger capacity (high/mid/low) and more than double the internal cargo capacity (200 tons vs 20+65=85 tons) ... but it's a J1 starship that is unarmed.

By contrast, if the Rule of Man Long Trader-9 takes on third party external loading charters ... @ J1 the maximum cargo loadout increases to 20+85+280=385 tons (and if the Type R Subsidized Merchant were "redesigned" to do the same trick with external loading charters, it could have a maximum cargo capacity of 200+200=400 tons, so pretty comparable).

The difference is that the Type R Subsidized Merchant is a J1 starship that can only ever BE a J1 starship (although it can multi-jump with auxiliary fuel tankage installed into the cargo hold). By contrast, the Rule of Man Long Trader-9 is a J2 starship that can reversibly convert into a J1 starship when circumstances warrant the choice.

Another difference is that the Type R Subsidized Merchant will "prefer" to run routes between Population: 8+ worlds, due to its "bulk" capacity in passengers and cargo for tickets.

By contrast, the Rule of Man Long Trader-9 can "survive" (and even turn a profit!) by running routes in Population: 0+ locations due to low operational overhead expenses (fuel purification and regenerative biome life support laboratory mitigate a LOT from the bottom line!) while being "right sized" for smaller Non-industrial world markets. Furthermore, the class is natively designed to be capable of 2x jumping, which can "shorten" transits via intermediate destinations in "empty hex" deep space, allowing for more direct navigation between points of origin and final destination. Moving less, further ... can be an advantage when dealing with less developed world markets, when viewed in terms of supply and demand of transport services.

Point being that the prices for the two classes are relatively close to each other in their stock configurations (MCr114.035 vs MCr134.6884) ... but the capabilities you get for that investment and the range/reach of world markets that can be accessed profitably/securely has a very different mix/profile between the two options.


And just in case anyone is curious, arming the Type R Subsidized Merchant would "cost extra" to buy the weaponry, require "more crew" to man that weaponry (up to 2 turrets) ... and overall "harm" the profit potential of the operator, due to higher crew salary expenses and the lower maximum of high/mid passenger ticket revenues. This would reduce the ~MCr20.6 higher price point differential with the Rule of Man Long Trader-9 ... but unfortunately, without a computer upgrade (which will cost even more!) the Type R Subsidized Merchant will remain a "wallowing scow" with its model/1 computer in any ship to ship combat encounter, barely capable of mounting a credible offense or defense.

If I had to worry about the occasional (and unwanted!) encounter ... I'd much rather pay a few extra MCr to be flying a Rule of Man Long Trader-9, rather than plodding along in a Type R Subsidized Merchant (with a "KICK ME!" sign included in the transponder signal).

At that point, you might as well ask ... "At what price, security?"

The Amontillado Brickworks Company™
The Finest Walls Anywhere For The Next 100 Years!
We Know.
We've Tested. ​

 

[Silverhawk]

Just a quick thought that 20 ton containers are not necessarily going to remain the defacto size as tech levels advance. The original containers that were built for Malcolm McLean's Sealand were 35 feet in length. Now we have 20 foot, 40 foot, 45 foot, 48 foot, and 53 foot lengths depending on service lane since some of these are for US domestic use only.

Advances in tech would make things once thought impossible to become reality.

 

[Condottiere]

Autonomous, self propelled containers.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Just a quick thought that 20 ton containers are not necessarily going to remain the defacto size as tech levels advance.

I agree ... although probably not for the exact rationales that most people will be thinking of.

The original containers that were built for Malcolm McLean's Sealand were 35 feet in length. Now we have 20 foot, 40 foot, 45 foot, 48 foot, and 53 foot lengths depending on service lane since some of these are for US domestic use only.

The TEU standard that made intermodal containerization possible was something constrained by land transport (by road and rail) dimensional practicality (bridge heights, lane widths, turning radius, etc.).

Advances in tech would make things once thought impossible to become reality.

Especially once fusion power, gravitics and maneuver+jump drives become practical "everyday" technologies.

For reference, the TEU baseline standard is effectively a 6.1m(L) x 2.4m(W) x 2.6m(H) = 38.064m³ / 14 = 2.71885714 dimensional tons (configuration: 4 ) form factor.

Three guesses as to how "useful" those dimensions would be for interplanetary/interstellar transport (and the first two don't count! ).

Fun fact:
If you make an array of TEUs that is 2x long and 3x wide (so basically 6 of them in a flat pack), you get:

• 2*6.2 * 3*2.4 * 2.6 = 232.128m³ / 14 = 16.58057143 dimensional tons

If you switch to the 2.9m High Cube standard ...

• 2*6.2 * 3*2.4 * 2.9 = 258.912m³ / 14 = 18.49371429 dimensional tons

So not that far off 20 dimensional tons ...
Problem is that's 12.4m(L) x 7.2m(W) x 2.6-2.9m(H) ... which computes out to being 8.27 x 4.8 deck squares ... so CLOSE to "useful" numbers, but not quite what we'd really want for starship deck plans.

One of the things I've been wrestling with is whether or not the "standard 20 ton box" ought to be single deck height or double deck height. A "double decker" yields a more "square but not quite cube like" shape with 2 deck levels in it, so you can have the access corridors oriented 90º from each other on the 2 levels (fore/aft below, port/starboard above). That then makes it easy to stack arrays of "blocks" which can then access communicate with each other very simply (just spin to match up the airlocks, up or down).
The problem with that plan is that with a 6m tall form factor ...

• 6.8m(L) x 6.8m(W) x 6m(H) = 277.44m³ / 14 = 19.81714286 dimensional tons ... 4.53 x 4.53 deck squares
• 6.9m(L) x 6.9m(W) x 5.9m(H) = 280.899m³ / 14 = 20.06421429 dimensional tons ... 4.6 x 4.6 deck squares
• 6.95m(L) x 6.95m(W) x 5.8m(H) = 280.1545m³ / 14 = 20.01103571 dimensional tons ... 4.63 x 4.63 deck squares
• 7.0m(L) x 7.0m(W) x 5.7m(H) = 279.3m³ / 14 = 19.95 dimensional tons ... 4.67 x 4.67 deck squares
• 7.05m(L) x 7.05m(W) x 5.6m(H) = 278.334m³ / 14 = 19.881 dimensional tons ... 4.7 x 4.7 deck squares
• { ... }
• 7.5m(L) x 7.5m(W) x 5.0m(H) = 281.25m³ / 14 = 20.08928571 dimensional tons ... 5 x 5 deck squares

The problem with this plan is ... there are too many vehicles that are "longer" (in one dimension) than a mere 7.5m.
Although ... according to LBB DA2 Across the Bright Face, p21 ... an ATV is 7.5m(L)x4.5m(W)x3.0-4.5m(H).

• 7.5*4.5*4.5 = 151.875m³ / 14 = 10.84821429 dimensional tons ... 5 x 3 deck squares

Unfortunately, that's NOT the dimensional silhouette of the Wheeled ATV that appears in the Geomorphs iconography, which basically needs 10m(L)x5m(W)x2.8m(H) = 140m³ / 14 = 10 dimensional tons ... when including minimal accessibility on 2 sides of the vehicle for ingress/egress (ala vehicle berth). The problem is that 10m x 5m is 6.67x3.33 deck squares (for 10 dimensional tons).

You can put 2 of those side by side, to create a 10m x 10m x 2.8m = 280m³ / 14 = 20 dimensional tons "single deck square" form factor, but then you're looking at 6.67x6.67 deck squares for dimensions. Ironically, this means that it becomes possible to do a "tic-tac-toe" arrangement of 2 corridors (fore/aft) and 2 corridors (port/starboard), but then you've spent so much deck area on access corridors that you wind up with 9 room compartments of 1.5x1.5 deck squares (2.25m x 2.25m) each, which are all basically broom closets with barely enough space to put a bed in.

Reverting back to a single axis access corridor (1.5m wide) with rooms on both sides, you wind up with a pair of 10m x 4.25m wide spaces to subdivide on either side of the central corridor (6.67x2.83 deck squares).

• Divide by 3 (for 6 rooms total) ... each room is 2.2x2.8 deck squares, access on the "narrow" end
• Divide by 4 (for 8 rooms total) ... reach room is 1.65x2.8 deck squares, access on the "narrow" end

As you can see, I'm kind of conflicted about which dimensions to choose for the 20 ton Box modular format.

 

[kilemall]

To your point about container dimensions, practical road/rail/wet ship considerations would still impinge on trade especially if a lot of business still gets conducted with pre-gravitic worlds. High ratio of length to width would still be a consideration for small craft and smaller ACS with streamlining and packages that need to fit in. Might still be an issue for grav vehicles moving containers in a high density narrow ‘grav way’ in cities.

Where this consideration breaks down is non-planetary atmo traffic. No need to worry about a hull that narrows down to a landing form factor and containers have to match, or worry about ground modes when the point to point is highport to highport.

So perhaps containers as we conceive of them are either 5-ton/10-ton containers or equivalent to RL 20/40 foot containers normally loaded internally, and much larger containers are strapped to mounts on big megacorps liners.

The big containers would be starship hull quality build to allow for external carry, and larger in the same way RL NA domestic 48/53 foot containers serve a role economically carrying larger loads.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The ... liberation ... from the dimensional demands of ground transport modalities that comes with widespread adoption of gravitic mobility @ TL=9+ is the factor that I figure winds up making the interstellar "transport box" something that isn't just a mere extension/evolution of the TEU intermodal containerization system for ground+maritime transport networks. When you don't have to be constrained by legacy infrastructure (lane widths, bridge heights, underground tunnels, etc.) you can move to new paradigms of containerization for mobility. With gravitics, you just need a "large enough" (downport) area to land containers, sky crane style ... because there's plenty of room to move around in when you go UP.

My current thinking is moving in the direction (once again) of the basic 20 ton Box module being a rectilinear "slab" with a L:W ratio of 2:1.
The 2:1 ratio then makes it possible to "flat pack" modules vertically in a cross-laminated fashion:

1. 2x Boxes aligned fore/aft == side by side
2. 2x Boxes aligned port/starboard || side by side

From that, you get an 80 ton combination of 4x 20 ton Boxes which all cross-link with each other via vertical access between Boxes and horizontal access within boxes. The whole thing "packs up nicely" into a square area and you can stack vertically however you need to ... because The Fine Art Of Packing™ matters.

This would also mean that instead of 4x 20 ton Boxes, there would probably be 40 ton "double height" and 80 ton "double height and width" Boxes that could occupy the same external dimension form factor without the same interior division(s), allowing larger "oversized" cargoes to be loaded. I figure that the "double and quad" Boxes at 40 and 80 tons would be less common, but useful for the interplanetary/interstellar transport of larger cargoes that cannot be disassembled "small enough" for transport in the basic 20 ton Box form factor.

• 14.4m(L) x 7.2m(W) x 2.7m(H) = 279.936m³ / 14 = 19.99542857 dimensional tons ... 9.6 x 4.8 deck squares
• 16:8:3 dimensional ratio form factor

If running the 1.5m wide access corridor along the central axis of the 14.4m(L) ... not including wall thicknesses (for convenience of napkin math), that would leave 14.4m(L) x 2.85m(W) side compartments on either side to be subdivided into stateroom spaces.

• 3 rooms per side compartment = 4.8m(L) x 2.85m(W) per room (3.2x1.9 deck squares)
• 4 rooms per side compartment = 3.6m(L) x 2.85m(W) per room (2.4x1.9 deck squares)

That would give me 8 rooms per 20Sta Box.

• 5 single (double at need) occupancy staterooms
• 1 infirmary room
• 1 common lounge
• 1 galley/stores+laundry services room

The 14.4m(L) x 7.2m(W) deck area is sufficient to accommodate the footprint area of most vehicle types with sufficient access space around to permit ingress/egress while loaded into a 20Car Box (let alone a properly done vehicle berth parking spot). The "low" height of the interior ceiling does give me pause.

• 13.8m(L) x 6.9m(W) x 2.95m(H) = 280.899m³ / 14 = 20.06421429 dimensional tons ... 9.2 x 4.6 deck squares
• 276:138:59 dimensional ratio form factor

If running the 1.5m wide access corridor along the central axis of the 13.8m(L) ... not including wall thicknesses (for convenience of napkin math), that would leave 13.8m(L) x 2.7m(W) side compartments on either side to be subdivided into stateroom spaces.

• 3 rooms per side compartment = 4.6m(L) x 2.7m(W) per room (3..067x1.8 deck squares)
• 4 rooms per side compartment = 3.45m(L) x 2.7m(W) per room (2.3x1.8 deck squares)

That would (again) give me 8 rooms per 20Sta Box.

• 5 single (double at need) occupancy staterooms
• 1 infirmary room
• 1 common lounge
• 1 galley/stores+laundry services room

The 13.8m(L) x 6.9m(W) deck area is sufficient to accommodate the footprint area of most vehicle types with sufficient access space around to permit ingress/egress while loaded into a 20Car Box (let alone a properly done vehicle berth parking spot). The height increase (from 2.7m to 2.95m) for the exterior dimensions would be "less restrictive" when it comes to being able to make vehicles "fit" within the confines of the interior volume.

It would mean that cargo/hangar bays to accommodate 13.8m(L) x 6.9m(W) x 2.95m(H) Boxes would need to be "slightly taller than just 3m per deck" (from center of bulkhead to center of bulkhead, ventral deck to dorsal deck) in order to have enough clearance space for docking/parking ... but if you figure that the "standard deck height" is 3m not including the thickness of the deck bulkhead materials themselves (3m of "air space" between deck bulkheads) then everything works out pretty nicely with standard Traveller deck height spacing.

Yeah, I think I'll go with that explanation.

 

[Spinward Flow]

New bulkhead thickness by TL paradigm!

CT Striker B4, p25:

Book 2: In Rule 75, Naval Vessels, the Striker armor rating corresponding to a High Guard armor rating of zero should be 40, not 60.

CT Striker B4, p5:

• Armor Rating 40: 33.6cm
• Armor Rating 41: 36.7cm

CT Striker B4, p3:

Armor Type Table

TL	Description	Toughness	Weight (1000kg/m3)	Price (Cr1000/m3)
5	Soft Steel	x0.8	8	1.6
6	Hard Steel	x1	8	2
7-9	Composite Laminates	x2	7	7
A-B	Crystaliron	x4	10	9
C-D	Superdense	x7	15	14
E-F	Bonded Superdense	x14	15	28

Point that I'm wanting to make here is that an (Armor Thickness x Toughness) = 34-35cm falls right into the gap between Armor Rating: 40-41 @ 33.6-36.7cm of armor thickness (round down to Armor Rating: 40, effectively).

If working in increments of 5mm/0.5cm of thickness for hull bulkheads rated Armor: 0 in High Guard at various tech levels, the answer you get back is this:

• TL=7-9 ... Bulkhead Thickness: 17cm ... Composite Laminates (equivalent to 34cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)
• TL=A-B ... Bulkhead Thickness: 8.5cm ... Crystaliron (equivalent to 34cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)
• TL=C-D ... Bulkhead Thickness: 5cm ... Superdense (equivalent to 35cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)
• TL=E-F ... Bulkhead Thickness: 2.5cm ... Bonded Superdense (equivalent to 35cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)

That means that if I adjust my 20 ton Box dimensions ever so slightly ...

• 13.8m(L) x 6.9m(W) x 2.94m(H) = 279.9468m³ / 14 = 19.9962 dimensional tons ... 9.2 x 4.6 deck squares
• 230:115:49 dimensional ratio form factor

Therefore ...

• 294cm height - 17cm dorsal bulkhead - 17cm ventral bulkhead = 2.6m (8.5ft) high interior "air space" between vertical bulkheads inside 20 ton Box form factor @ TL=9 using Composite Laminates for hull material

 

[coliver988]

guess you then also factor in the costs, and though weight is not an issue in Traveller, it *may* be for ground transport. Though "only" a 20-ton box, bonded superdense costs 4x as much as composites and weighs 2x as much. So, more things to plug into the analysis possibly.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Though "only" a 20-ton box, bonded superdense costs 4x as much as composites and weighs 2x as much.

The thing you need to be calculating as far as mass/weight goes is the Toughness per m³.
That's because what you're really looking at is how much mass penalty needs to be paid per unit of thickness.

• TL=7-9 ... Bulkhead Thickness: 17cm ... Composite Laminates (equivalent to 34cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)
• TL=A-B ... Bulkhead Thickness: 8.5cm ... Crystaliron (equivalent to 34cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)
• TL=C-D ... Bulkhead Thickness: 5cm ... Superdense (equivalent to 35cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)
• TL=E-F ... Bulkhead Thickness: 2.5cm ... Bonded Superdense (equivalent to 35cm hard steel, Armor Rating: 40)

So let's do a simple calculation for a single 1m² of "bulkhead thick" materials at different tech levels to see how much mass/weight is required to achieve Armor Rating: 40 (space hull bulkhead).

• TL=7-9 ... Composite Laminates Bulkhead Thickness: 17cm ... 1m x 1m x 0.17m = 0.17m³ * 7 = 1190kg
• TL=A-B ... Crystaliron Bulkhead Thickness: 8.5cm ... 1m x 1m x 0.085m = 0.085m³ * 10 = 850kg
• TL=C-D ... Superdense Bulkhead Thickness: 5cm ... 1m x 1m x 0.05m = 0.05m³ * 15 = 750kg
• TL=E-F ... Bonded Superdense Bulkhead Thickness: 2.5cm ... 1m x 1m x 0.025m = 0.025m³ * 15 = 375kg

Yes, the materials get denser (kg/m³) from 7 to 10 to 15 at higher tech levels ... but you need so much less BULK of material as the technology advances (17cm to 8.5cm to 5cm to 2.5cm) that at each step change in tech level the mass required for an equivalent amount of armor rating goes down. So at higher tech levels, equivalent "stuff" gets lighter and lighter/less massive, even though the density of the material used for bulkheads goes up.

Or to put it another way ...

• TL=5 ... Soft Steel ... 8 tons for x0.8 Toughness = 8/0.8 = 10x multiplier
• TL=6 ... Hard Steel ... 8 tons for x1 Toughness = 8/1 = 8x multiplier
• TL=7-9 ... Composite Laminates ... 7 tons for x2 Toughness = 7/2 = 3.5x multiplier
• TL=A-B ... Crystaliron ... 10 tons for x4 Toughness = 10/4 = 2.5x multiplier
• TL=C-D ... Superdense ... 15 tons for x7 Toughness = 15/7 = 2.14285714x multiplier
• TL=E-F ... Bonded Superdense ... 15 tons for x14 Toughness = 15/14 = 1.07142857x multiplier

In this calculation, a lower multiplier is "more efficient" at delivering strength per mass/weight ... so for an equivalent amount of protection, you need less mass/weight.

• TL=5 Soft Steel = worst
• TL=E-F Bonded Superdense = best

Though "only" a 20-ton box, bonded superdense costs 4x as much as composites and weighs 2x as much.

Well, since I'm working in the TL=9-A range ... TL=E-F Bonded Superdense isn't really in the menu of options available.

But, if I take the dimensions I'd given earlier for a 20 (dimensional) tons Box and just add up the area of the 6 sides, I get this:

• 13.8m(L) x 6.9m(W) x 2.94m(H) = 279.9468m³ / 14 = 19.9962 dimensional tons
  • (13.8*6.9+6.9*2.94+2.94*13.8)*2 = 312.156m²
    • 312.156m² * 1190kg per m² = 371,465.64kg for 20 ton Box hull of Composite Laminate materials

So basically, an (empty) 20 ton Box with nothing in the interior (not even air!) would weigh in at close to 371.5 metric tons for a Box that is ...

• 13.8m(L) x 6.9m(W) x 2.94m(H) = 279.9468m³

371465.64 / 279.9468 = 1326.91511387kg/m³

Call it 1327kg/m³ overall ... just to make an "empty hole to put stuff into" which is rated for interplanetary normal space as well as interstellar jump space.
Put Stuffs™ into the Box ... and the mass only goes up.

Higher technology levels would reduce both the thickness and mass of the bulkhead walls around the interior, so those mass numbers would go down while the dimensions remain the same (and in fact, the interior volume would increase marginally due to the thinner bulkhead walls!). However, neither of those concerns becomes an issue until MegaTraveller ... but I'm sticking with CT (LBB2.81 and LBB5.80), so those kinds of issues are Somebody Else's Problem.



As far as Intellectual Consistency With Concept is concerned, I'm wanting to make what I'm doing "work" at TL=9+ ... which effectively means that I need to get things "functional" at TL=9 as a baseline. Because if things work at TL=9, then there's "no problem" (other than backwards compatibility) with doing the exact same thing at TL=A+ ... except that the higher tech levels have "nicer" fit and finish specs than were possible at TL=9. Not enough to change any spec sheet details (except the Code: +1 DM @ TL=D for lasers and missiles under LBB5.80), therefore "commonality" can be maintained through a range of tech levels.

From a Fluff Text™ perspective, this means that the TL=9 technology used for the Rule of Man Long Trader-9, the Fighter Decoy-9 and the 20 ton Boxes have as wide of a supply system for parts and spares as possible, making them extremely easy to maintain in any region with type: A or B starports, Population: 7+ and TL=9+ using locally sources industries ... which isn't that difficult a combination to achieve or be based out of in an interstellar polity, even when operating on the fringes of civilization.

That kind of ... flexible supportability ... can potentially mean the difference between profitability and bankruptcy when Hard Times™ (such as the Long Night! ) come along and there's an interstellar economic downturn that starts pulling everyone under. High tech is GREAT ... when you can afford to support it ... but when you can't, high tech is going to be the first thing to suffer a disruption in the supply chain. When high tech CAN'T be supported ... it tends to not be replaced when something breaks down. We call high tech of that type abandonware for a reason. It might work for now, but it's not going to work forever ... and you can't replace it when it finally does break down, once and for all.