Pondering starship evolution

[Spinward Flow]

And here's an example of what happens when you do an Analysis of Alternatives centering around the original premise.

---

Rule of Man Long Trader (Type-AP, TL=9)
280 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr33.6)
45 tons for LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives (codes: 2/2/2, TL=9, EP=8) (MCr88)
82 tons of total fuel: 280 tons @ J2 = 56 tons jump fuel + 20 tons power plant fuel
0 tons for fuel scoops (MCr0.28)
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/2 computer (MCr9)
120 tons for hangar berths capacity (MCr0.24)

1. Fighter Provincial = 30 tons
2. Stateroom Box = 30 tons (5x high passengers) (5x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 5)
3. Stateroom Box = 30 tons (starship pilot, small craft pilot, navigator, engineer/engineer, gunner) (5x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 5)
4. Stateroom Box = 30 tons (purser/purser, steward/steward, medic, 2x high passengers) (5x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 5)

* External Docking: 520 tons capacity (MCr1.04)

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   

2 tons for cargo hold

• 121 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank = 1.21 tons (MCr0.0605)
• 6 person/weeks life support consumables reserves = 0.04 tons

= 45+82+0+9+20+2+120+2 = 280 tons
= 33.6+88+0.28+0.038+4+9+0.24+1.04+0.0605 = MCr136.2585

• 1G = 800 - 280 = 520 tons external load
• 2G = 400 - 280 = 120 tons external load

=====

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5.1 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 1.8 EP) (MCr2.55)
11.4 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-A (EP=3.8) (MCr34.2)
0.23 tons for LBB5.80 jump capacitors (EP=8.28 capacity) (MCr0.92)
1.25 tons for fuel (6d 12h 8m endurance @ 3.8 EP output continuous)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.15)
3 tons for model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for mixed triple turret: missile, pulse laser, missile (TL=A, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 1, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 225 tons capacity (MCr0.45)
2 tons for 1x single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
0.02 tons for cargo hold

• 3 person/weeks life support consumables reserves = 0.02 tons

= 0+5.1+11.4+0.23+1.25+6+3+1+2+0.02 = 30 tons
= 3.6+2.55+34.2+0.92+0.15+18+3.35+0.45+0.1 = MCr63.32 (18x HE Missiles = MCr0.09, bought after completing construction)

• 1G = 255 - 30 = 225 tons external load
• 2G = 102 - 30 = 72 tons external load
• 3G = 63.75 - 30 ≈ 33 tons external load
• 4G = 46.36 - 30 ≈ 16 tons external load
• 5G = 36.428 - 30 ≈ 6 tons external load
• 6G = 30 - 30 = 0 tons external load

=====

Stateroom Box (Type-RU, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.8)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
20 tons for 5x single occupancy starship staterooms (MCr2.5)
10 tons for laboratory: V-c regenerative biome life support for 5 persons) (MCr2)
* External Docking: 6x 30 = 180 tons capacity (MCr0.36)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+20+10+0 = 30 tons
= 1.8+2.5+2+0.36 = MCr6.66

=====

Laboratory Box (Type-LU, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.8)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
30 tons for laboratory (MCr6)
* External Docking: 6x 30 = 180 tons capacity (MCr0.36)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+30+0 = 30 tons
= 1.8+6+0.36 = MCr8.16

=====

Environment Box (Type-LU, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.8)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
30 tons for environment tank (MCr3)
* External Docking: 6x 30 = 180 tons capacity (MCr0.36)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+30+0 = 30 tons
= 1.8+3+0.36 = MCr5.16

=====

Cargo Box (Type-AU, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.8)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
* External Docking: 6x 30 = 180 tons capacity (MCr0.36)
30 tons for cargo hold

= 0+30 = 30 tons
= 1.8+0.36 = MCr2.16

=====

Crew = 8 (Cr37,350 per 4 weeks crew salaries)

1. Pilot-1 = Cr6000
2. Ship's Boat-1 = Cr6000
3. Navigator-1 = Cr5000
4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = Cr6600
5. Steward-1/Steward-1 (purser) = Cr5400
6. Steward-1/Steward-1 = Cr4950
7. Medical-3 = Cr2400
8. Gunnery-1 = Cr1000

=====

Single Production (100% construction cost): starship + fighter escort + 4x stateroom boxes + (18x HE Missiles)

• 136.2585 + 63.32 + 6.66 + 2*6.66*0.8 = MCr216.8945 + (0.09) = MCr216.9845

Volume production (80% construction cost): starship + fighter escort + 4x stateroom boxes + (18x HE Missiles)

• 136.2585*0.8 + 63.32*0.8 + 3*6.66*0.8 = MCr175.6468 + (0.09) = MCr175.7368

---

So the obvious difference here is the foundational unit of standardization for modularized container shipping ... 30 tons (this post) vs 24 tons (post #640). Some interesting differences that emerge are:

1. The 30 ton Fighter Provincial is significantly more expensive to construct/maintain because the 30 ton version drops 1 missile battery in favor of 1 pulse laser battery (which can be used both offensively and defensively against missiles). The +1 EP budget requirement in order to power the pulse laser then translates into +3 tons of TL=9 power plant required, which then in turn increases construction costs by +MCr9 in order to support the power demand of the pulse laser ... so not a "cheap" upgrade by any means. However, arming the fighter with a laser means that "deep magazine" capacity becomes a factor in terms of combat longevity.
2. The 30 ton Fighter does something which I haven't done in previous small craft designs (so this is entirely new!) ... it adds a limited jump capacity "battery reserve" to the capabilities. The EP reserve is sufficient for 2 combat rounds @ 3.8 EP expenditure (full combat power demand for agility, computer and pulse laser) in the event of a fuel hit and/or a power plant shutdown. In MOST combat situations, this won't be terribly relevant (since you can't "spend" more EP per combat round than you power plant can generate at max power) ... but this kind of 2 combat rounds on jump capacitor "battery" EP onlycreates some unexpected edge cases.
   • For "blockade runner" situations, it means that it's possible to fly into sensor range without emitting neutrinos from a fusion power plant (effectively, "silent running"). Neutrino sensors are a TL=10 development, so a small craft of 30 tons that has no active fusion reactor may be easily misidentified as a "non-hostile transient object" rather than as a threat, since MOST combatant craft will be generating plentiful neutrinos from their fusion reactor(s) onboard. This then makes all kinds of "inertial drifting past sensor nets" while operating on backup power a possibility, creating (roleplaying) opportunities for surprise maneuvers and feints. It also makes it possible to launch from a surface and climb up a gravity well without without emitting neutrinos that can be picked up on sensors controlled by adversaries. This means that all kinds of "cleverness" by fighter crews can yield unexpectedly decisive outcomes.
     
   • For emergency/disaster situations (no fuel!), it means that there is limited endurance maneuvering power available. This can be used to avoid hazards (unwanted orbital impact intercepts) or escape from gravity wells on (jump capacitor) "battery power" only. Being able to stabilize the small craft following a loss of all fuel and assume a course towards rescue/recovery has some significant value.
   • For scuttling/suicide situations, the inclusion of jump capacitors into the design makes for an extremely reliable means of scuttling the small craft ... simply overcharge the jump capacitors beyond their limit and
     
   • For routine jump operations, the starship's Jump-D drives will need 16 EP in order to initiate J2. The starship's Power Plant-D drives can supply 8 EP per combat round (LBB5.80), so on starship power alone it will take 2 combat rounds of generating 8 EPs dedicated exclusively to the jump drives in order to J2 (only 1 combat round in order to J1). However, if the fighter's jump capacitor "battery" remains unused and holds 8 EP of charge reserve, those 8 EP can be transferred/made available to the starship ... which along with the 8 EP of the starship's power plant generation would be the 16 EP needed to initiate J2 in 1 combat round, rather than 2. Whether or not this would "work" would be at the Referee's discretion (I would argue that hangar bay vs cargo hold would be a deciding factor here for these kinds of power links/transfers, particularly if the craft in question are designed to enable this).
3. The 24 ton form factor made it possible to have 8x high passengers, while the 30 ton form factor means that only 7x high passengers can be carried.
4. 1G small craft drive performance under external loads limitation:
   • 22.5 ton Fighter Escort = 168 tons external load limit = 7x 24 tons ... or 152 ton big craft @ 110%
   • 30 ton Fighter Provincial = 225 tons external load limit = 7x 30 tons ... or 204 ton big craft @ 110%
     • Of these two options, in a Search & Rescue/Salvage & Recovery context, the higher external load capacity of the 30 ton Fighter Provincial is likely to be more useful in a wider array of circumstances, because there are "plenty" of 200 ton (or less) big craft in operation.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So although the 30 ton Fighter Provincial variant has a higher construction (and therefore, maintenance) cost, to the tune of +MCr11.4462 per "complete" copy of the starship plus sub-craft, you're actually getting some significant upgrades to overall mission flexibility with that investment ... including the option to use a pulse laser for any kind of "shot across the bow" warning fire that might be necessary (from time to time). It also means that the 30 ton Fighter Provincial "works better" as an option for conversion to Seeker type prospecting roles, where the pulse laser needs to be used for mining operations. It also means that the offensive missile capability is reduced (2 batteries of code: 1, instead of 3 batteries of code: 1), but in a commercial escort "deterrent to pirates" role, that is an acceptable tradeoff ... while in a strictly military role (destroy adversaries as fast as possible!) it probably would not be.



Of the two alternatives, although the 24 ton form factor baseline "checks all the boxes" that I'd want it to check from a strictly game mechanical and min/max mentality perspective ... the 30 ton form factor baseline "does all of that and more" with an acceptable tradeoff (slightly higher overall construction cost, -1 high passenger capacity) in a way that is (in my estimation) "worth" the added expense for the broader range of capabilities (mainly in the details of the fighter).



Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Been working on Other Stuffs™ for the last 6+ weeks and haven't really been spending a whole lot of time on this research project (hence the lack of updates in the thread. Been doing yet more Analysis of Alternatives work from time to time in order to keep pounding away at the theorycrafting whenever I had the time (or my internet connection went down).

And wouldn't you know it ... I've circled right back into the 16 ton modular form factor after trying to get away from it.

One of the "constraints" on the 16 ton form factor was the "almost but not quite" suitability as a potential prospector/seeker application with the small craft. The 16 ton form factor meant that Agility=6 required (only) 16*0.06=0.96 EP ... so a power plant sized to produce (exactly) 0.96 EP would NOT be able to power a (modified for mining) pulse laser, which would require 1 EP of output from a power plant. This meant that there was an "almost, but NOT QUITE" factor going on with my first draft of the 16 ton form factor small craft fighter design.

After letting the details "rest" in my memory for a little over a month, when I came back to the design spreadsheet and started tinkering again, I got this result:

=====

Fighter Escort (Type-FE, TL=9)
16 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr1.92, integral fuel scoops)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
2.72 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 0.96 EP) (MCr1.36)
3 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=1) (MCr9)
0.24 tons for LBB5.80 jump capacitors (8.64 EP capacity=9 combat rounds/3 hours @ 0.96 EP output continuous) (MCr0.96)
1 ton for fuel (20d 08h 22m endurance @ 0.96 EP output continuous)
4 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1)
2 tons for model/2 computer (TL=7, 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: 120 tons capacity (MCr0.24)
2 tons for 1x double occupancy small craft stateroom (life support endurance: 4 person/weeks) (MCr0.1)
0.04 tons for cargo hold

• 6 person/week life support consumables reserves = 0.04 tons

= 0+2.72+3+0.24+1+4+2+1+2+0.04 = 16 tons
= 1.92+0+1.36+9+0.96+0.1+9+3.35+0.24+0.1 = MCr26.03 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, bought after completing construction)

• 1G, Agility=0 : 136 - 16 = 120 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1 : 96 - 16 = 80 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1 : 54.4 - 16 ≈ 38 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2 : 48 - 16 = 32 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=2 : 34 - 16 ≈ 18 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3 : 32 - 16 = 16 tons external load
• 4G, Agility=4 : 24 - 16 = 8 tons external load
• 5G, Agility=5 : 19.2 - 16 ≈ 3 tons external load
• 6G, Agility=6 : 16 - 16 = 0 tons external load

=====

Now what's interesting about this specific set of details is that in order to "convert" the small craft from a fighter role to a prospecting/seeker role, all you have to do is replace one of the missile launchers in the triple turret with a (mining) pulse laser. The power plant is sized/rated for EP=1 output (explicitly and deliberately) in order to support the power distribution bus "load" of a pulse laser.

While the laser is "energized" for use, the craft is Agility=0 (because all of the EP output of the power plant is going into the pulse laser, not the maneuver drive). In space combat against other craft, the pulse laser would be intentionally powered OFF in order to devote 96% of the power plant output to the maneuver drive in order to yield Agility=6 (highly desirable when getting shot at). This would mean that a prospecting/seeker variant of the fighter craft would have only 2x missile code: 1 batteries to shoot with, instead of 3x missile code: 1 batteries to shoot with, but that would be an acceptable tradeoff.

Additional "make the numbers SCREAM " tweaking of the jump capacitor backup option wound up settling into a sweet spot in which so long as the power plant hasn't been damaged, the small craft is capable of 9 combat rounds of combat maneuvering @ 0.96 EP demand with zero fuel. This means that a fuel hit damage result is not (yet) a mission kill.

The capacitor backup power also has interesting roleplay implications for blockade runners and smugglers. It means that the fusion power plant (an easily detectable neutrino source) can be "shut down" for up to 3 hours worth of high agility maneuvering endurance, which potentially makes it possible to inertial drift past sensor nets keyed to detect neutrino emissions from fusion power plants (so as to flag them for more intensive active scanning). This then opens up all kinds of potential "run silent on battery power" type scenarios to slip past system defense assets and outposts, potentially unnoticed (which is different from undetected), "camouflaged" as something with no (active) fusion reaction happening while in sensor range (so more of a "spoofing" behavioral move than a "stealth" type of invisibility/undetectable).

Needless to say, such a capability makes ALL KINDS of "surprise!" options possible (on both sides of the sensor nets and weapon battery arrays).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Been working on Other Stuffs™ for the last 6+ weeks and haven't really been spending a whole lot of time on this research project (hence the lack of updates in the thread. Been doing yet more Analysis of Alternatives work from time to time in order to keep pounding away at the theorycrafting whenever I had the time (or my internet connection went down).

After another break of 3 weeks (to deal with other priorities again), I came back to this little research project of mine ... and fumbled my way back into a 20 ton modular block unit size (which I've done before, abandoned, and am now coming back around to).

In this case, the key to "shifting the parameters" back to a 20 ton modular block was the fighter/auxiliary small craft.

Basic idea is that TL=9 star systems really NEED some sort of indigenous (armed) system defense patrol capability, which boils down to "fighter" boats, preferably small craft (to keep the budget down), capable of long(er) loiter times before needing to return to base for replenishment & rotation (R&R).



This, then, becomes the original system defense patrol fighter concept:

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
20 ton 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)
3.9 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=1.3) (MCr11.7)
0.3 tons for LBB5.80 jump capacitors (EP=10.8 capacity, 9 turns/3 hours @ EP=1.2 continuous output) (MCr1.2)
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)
4 tons for 2x single occupancy small craft staterooms (2 person/weeks life support endurance, each) (MCr0.2)
0.4 tons for cargo hold

• 0.2 tons for consumable life support reserves (30 person/weeks)
• 0.2 tons for demountable fuel tank (MCr0.0002) (3d 06h 08m endurance @ 1.2 EP output continuous)

= 0+3.4+3.9+0.3+1+4+2+1+4+0.4 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+1.7+11.7+1.2+0.1+9+3.35+0.3+0.2+0.0002 = MCr29.9502

(21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)​

(2+2+30=34 person/weeks life support consumables = MCr0.034, post-construction)​

• 1G, Agility=0: 170 - 20 = 150 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 130 - 20 = 110 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 68 - 20 = 48 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 65 - 20 = 45 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 42 - 20 = 22 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

The reason for the "slightly oversized" power plant spec is there to provide sufficient EP to the maneuver drive to achieve 1G/Agility=1 performance output when externally towing a 100 ton Big Craft (such as a Type-S Scout/Courier), which would require 100*1.1=110 tons of external load capacity when hard docked to enable 1G/Agility=1 maneuvering.

Note that when external loads are being towed, there "isn't enough bridge" (a mere 4 tons) to support the combined tonnage (properly). Therefore, the computer model is downgraded by -1 (in addition to the reduction in drive performance) as if the Fighter Provincial had no bridge installed.

The jump capacitors are included to enable "limited duration" silent running, enabling a variety of drift/maneuver past sensor net sweeps and other skirmish/ambush enabling maneuver tactics that could be extremely valuable in a system defense patrol small craft intended to have long duration loiter times along assigned routes and zones within a star system.

And speaking of loiter times, the 2+2+30=34 person/weeks of life support reserves (for 2 people) means that these fighters need to return to base for replenishment & rotation within 17 weeks of deployment. Under nominal circumstances, crews would be deployed for ~12-13 weeks per deployment before returning to base, meaning that each fighter will rotate through 4 crews per year between annual overhaul maintenance cycles.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The first follow on development of a variant of the above was to abandon the long duration loiter endurance (in order to "export" those services to a nearby parent craft/mothership) in order to produce a short range (still armed) small craft that could transport a grav vehicle (such as an air/raft or a prospecting buggy) for use in prospecting and/or mining industrial uses ... so more of a "civilian" use variant than an explicitly system defense oriented military/policing/rescue asset.

Here's how that turned out:

Gig Vehicle (Type-GV, TL=9)
20 ton 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)
3.9 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-6 (EP=1.3) (MCr11.7)
0.3 tons for LBB5.80 jump capacitors (EP=10.8 capacity, 9 turns/3 hours @ EP=1.2 continuous output) (MCr1.2)
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 (TL=7, EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for mixed triple turret: missile, pulse laser, missile (TL=9, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 1, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.1)
* External Docking: 150 tons capacity (MCr0.3)
4 tons for grav vehicle berth: Air/Raft or Prospector's Buggy
0.4 tons for cargo hold

= 0+3.4+3.9+0.3+1+4+2+1+4+0.4 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+1.7+11.7+1.2+0.1+9+3.1+0.3 = MCr29.5

(18x HE Missiles = MCr0.9, post-construction)​

(Prospector's Buggy = MCr0.75 or Air/Raft = MCr0.6, post-construction)​

• 1G, Agility=0: 170 - 20 = 150 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 130 - 20 = 110 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 68 - 20 = 48 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 65 - 20 = 45 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 42 - 20 = 22 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

The main differences are the removal of the 2x small craft staterooms to make room for a vehicle berth ... and the removal and replacement of one of the missile launchers with a (mining enabled) pulse laser in the turret.

This version is slightly cheaper to construct (the small craft itself), but once you include the cost of a grav vehicle to load into the berth it's basically a wash. Under (hostile) craft vs craft combat conditions (which require defensive agility), the pulse laser is left powered off so as to not compromise agility under fire. During (controlled) mining operations, where defensive agility is not as important, while the pulse laser is energized agility is reduced from 6 to 1 (which is enough to "dodge" mining debris).

I figure that this variant would most commonly be seen in use by Seekers (who have a parent/mothership to retire to after each 6-12 shift for rest and recovery). In addition to the prospecting/mining industry, such a variant could find uses as organic fighter escorts for interstellar merchants (for whom the grav vehicle berth "solves" a LOT of world surface logistical challenges).



Which then led to a third variant, based on the previous 2 iterations ... but this time, the intent was to maximize the computer model for the tech level.

Here's how that turned out:

Fighter Decoy (Type-FQ, TL=9)
20 ton 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)
6.9 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-B (EP=2.3) (MCr20.7)
0.55 tons for LBB5.80 jump capacitors (EP=19.8 capacity, 9 turns/3 hours @ EP=2.2 continuous output) (MCr2.2)
1 ton for fuel (8d 23h 23m endurance @ 2.2 EP output continuous+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)
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: 150 tons capacity (MCr0.3)
0.15 tons for cargo hold

= 0+3.4+6.9+0.55+1+4+3+1+0.15 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+1.7+20.7+2.2+0.1+18+3.35+0.3 = MCr48.75

(21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)​

• 1G, Agility=0: 170 - 20 = 150 tons external load
• 1G, Agility=1: 130 - 20 = 110 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=1: 68 - 20 = 48 tons external load
• 2G, Agility=2: 65 - 20 = 45 tons external load
• 3G, Agility=3: 42 - 20 = 22 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

Substantially the same as the Type-FP and Type-GV above, except now the 4 ton vehicle berth has been exchanged for an additional +3 tons/+1EP of power plant output and +1 ton of computer model (upgrading from 2 to 3). The tonnage (and construction cost) allocated to the jump capacitors needed to be increased in order to manage the higher demand load of EP needed for Agility=6 @ 20 tons plus the requirement of the model/3 computer. The result is more of a "short range" fighter small craft, more closely tethered to a base or carrier craft, due to the limited life support endurance (12-24 hours per person).

The upgrade to a model/3 computer + bridge makes this combination "state of the art" @ TL=9 for a small craft fighter. It can also present a bit of a "rude awakening" to anyone expecting to be dogfighting a Type-FP or Type-GV variant instead of the Type-FQ, thanks to the improved avionics suite enabled by the model/3 computer.

 

[AlHazred]

I'm trying to stat up the 1,800-dton Type F2 Hector-class Module Transporter for my game, as I think it's exactly the kind of weird-but-surprisingly-effective vessel the PCs might find in the Sword Worlds -- different but fulfilling the same function as equivalent Imperial vessels. Is something like this feasible under LBB2.77 or LBB5.80 terms? Or do you need the handwavium of Traveller Hero (which I'm using) to make it work?

 

[Spinward Flow]

The two different paradigms are going to yield very different answers.

LBB2 (77 or 81) standard drives in the "2000 ton" hull rating are all going to be code: 1 from TL=11-14. Only @ TL=15 do code: 2+ performance outputs become possible.
Spoiler Alert: you aren't going to find that many TL=15 starships that are "native" to the Sword Worlds around the 1105 era.

So from a practicality standpoint, an 1800 ton hull done using LBB2 is ... kind of sub-optimal ... unless if you're looking for some sort of J1/1G/PP1 starship, in which case it works just fine. If all you're interested in is J1 trading among the Sword Worlds exclusively, LBB2 standard drives will "get the job done" (barely) ... but you'll be something of a "wallowing scow" under impulse maneuver drive @ 1G acceleration and probably no more than a model/2 computer.

LBB2.80 would "allow" J2 @ TL=11 (which a LOT of Sword Worlds have available), with J3 @ TL=12 being the upper limit in the 1105 era. Maneuver drives can go up to 6G by TL=9 and power plants can be "as big as you need" (although, at 3 tons and MCr9 per EP, power plants in the TL=9-12 range get EXPENSIVE really fast with high drive performance specs).

For any sort of "big bulk/barge" type interstellar transporter, having enough hull to "invest in lots of hardpoints/turrets" instead of needing to invest in maneuver drive+power plant can become a viable strategy. To be honest, I'm thinking that a 100 ton particle bay (code: 7 @ TL=11) would probably make for the best "keep away" gun on a transport like that, to ward off "unwanted advances" from would be pirates ... because there are NO DEFENSES against particle accelerators in LBB5.80 combat (so no sandcasters, no screens short of a black globe, even short/long range doesn't apply a DM).

My personal sense is that an 1800 ton freight hauler is probably going to want to be leaving something on the order of 1000 tons for (internal, spreadsheet accounting-wise) cargo load capacity ... so more than 50% cargo. As a point of reference, the Subsidized Merchant of LBB2 is a 400 ton starship with a 200 ton cargo capacity, so a higher cargo capacity fraction at 4.5x the tonnage would seem reasonable.

However, the crew factor is going to make things "interesting" because you will have crossed over the 1000 threshold.
According to LBB2 ... craft over 1000 tons require 1 crew position per 100 tons. So an 1800 ton hull is going to require a crew of 18 people (minimum). LBB5.80 crew requirements might be able to lower that number, but either way you're looking at needing a LOT of staterooms for the crew (nevermind passengers, if any).

I think it's exactly the kind of weird-but-surprisingly-effective vessel the PCs might find in the Sword Worlds -- different but fulfilling the same function as equivalent Imperial vessels.

The key point that I would take with such a merchant ship is that it's not really "sized" for being able to play Tramp Freighter. The crew is too large and the cargo capacity is ALSO too large for being able to just "go with the flow" of whatever's on the spot market at each starport. At 1800 tons you're dealing with enough of a "bulk freighter" that it's going to need business contracts/relationships with "outside businesses" to fill up the manifest capacity on a reliable basis at each port of call. That means you're looking at more of a "reliable route circulator" type of merchant starship, rather than any kind free trader (that can go off route whenever the opportunity arises).

You're talking about some seriously hefty capital investment (which then begs for a rate on return), which then in turn means that such a starship would have to be operating in the "Big Boys League" of merchant operations (even if it's just at the entry level, compared to even larger craft), so they would be operating in a completely different market segment from anything PCs might be able to manage in a "free trader capable" type of lower end (smaller tonnage) starship class.

 

[AlHazred]

The key point that I would take with such a merchant ship is that it's not really "sized" for being able to play Tramp Freighter.

Oh, yeah, I was not meaning for this to be a PC ship by any means.

The Sword Worlds have some great benefits for Tramp Freighters. Most of the Confederation can be accessed by cheap J-1 ships. But by the same token, I'd be surprised if some family didn't decide to try to maximize the amount of cargo they could push along the mains. I see these as being potentially extremely profitable for a clan, where you can fill most crew positions from kin -- who may be willing to work at slim wages to make the family's venture profitable.

And J-3 at TL12 means something like this might be feasible for the eventual drive to expand spinward.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Oh, yeah, I was not meaning for this to be a PC ship by any means.

For starships in the "backdrop" of your campaign setting, being owned and operated by "Big Companies" with deeper pockets than the PCs will ever be able to manage, it works just fine.

The Sword Worlds have some great benefits for Tramp Freighters. Most of the Confederation can be accessed by cheap J-1 ships.

This is where we start running into problems of assumptions.

ALL of the Sword Worlds (even Enos and the Metal Worlds) are all easily accessed via J1 on the Spinward Main. So from a very simplistic "look at the map" a J1 starship is the entry level option. However, it's at this point that I think looking at the segment of the Spinward Main required to access all of those worlds @ J1 using my own portolan chart recoloring of Travellermap becomes very useful (because it shows trade codes at a glance, if you know what the colors and font changes mean).

Let's say you're wanting to transport goods to Mjolnir/Sword Worlds, to take advantage of the trade codes: Desert. Non-industrial. Poor.

• If you've got a J1 starship, you're either going to Gungnir (Agricultural) ... or ... Hrunting (Rich) via Margesi/Vilis (Agricultural. Non-industrial. Imperial. Amber Zone). Depending on the details of your business model/clientele, that may not be optimal.

Or lets say you've got a contract to transport goods from Narsil and Anduril to Enos.

• With J2+2, you can make a direct transit between Narsil, Anduril or Orcrist to Enos directly. It's a bit of a haul, but it's doable in a starship with collapsible fuel tanks in the cargo hold enabling double jumping.
• If you're limited to J1 ... the J1 route from Narsil to Enos is ... 19J1 ... with quite a few of the "stops along the way" being HIGHLY uneconomical destinations (I'm looking at you, Iron, Bronze, Mithril, Steel and Nirton, along with Gunn and Bowman for good measure!).

Point being, even a 4J1 starship transit from Narsil to Enos makes A LOT MORE SENSE than "going the long way 'round" through the Metal Worlds on J1 alone. Even better yet, Narsil (Industrial) and Anduril (Rich) make for pretty decent trading counterparties for Enos (Desert, Non-industrial, Poor) in terms of speculative goods arbitrage (in both directions!).

Even something as simple as 2J1 or 1J2 makes a LOT of difference in terms of "routing options" relative to being stuck with just 1J1 and needing to "ride the rails" of the Spinward Main. Yes, 1J1 CAN be made to work (for merchant operations), but it also creates a LOT of limitations on "where you can go" (and how quickly you can get there). Being unable to "skip over" any intermediate destinations along the way can create its own headaches and financial pitfalls.

The REAL thing to watch out for as a Sword Worlds trader is the potential for piracy.
If you're plying your trade among the "main" Sword Worlds exclusively ... those are all type A/B starports, so you're unlikely to encounter opportunistic piracy (policing patrols are sufficient deterrent). But outside the "main" Sword Worlds ... where you're looking at type C/D/E/X starports, you aren't necessarily going to be able to "outsource" your security to system defense forces and may need to fend for yourself against "predatory parties" ... at which point a 1G drive and a model/1 computer simply aren't going to cut it if you need to defend yourself.

Suffice it to say, a 12J1 "long haul" from Biter/Sword Worlds to Enos/Sword Worlds is going to have LOTS of opportunities for potentially "undesirable encounters" with armed opposition, so best to be prepared if you're planning to make the Enos run in 12 parsecs (or words to that effect) ... and if you've got a collapsible fuel tank in your cargo hold, you could make the Enos run in less than 12 parsecs (by avoiding Nirton, Walston, Bowman and Faldor, completely and taking a 9J1 route).

So the point I'm trying to make here is that just because something CAN be done ... doesn't mean it is PREFERRABLE to do things that way.

This is why I'm (still) so interested in designing Free (speculative) Trader starships that are capable of double jumping (J2+2 or J3+2) in order to be able to "marry up" distant markets in order to make otherwise "impractical" routes both possible and profitable.

 

[AlHazred]

Those are all very good points. One of the ideas I like about the Hector is that you have 26x 30-dton cutter modules making up your cargo capacity. You could easily designate, say, 10 for "long run" profits further up the line, while still having more than enough cargo capacity to carry "short term" profits. I've got to sit down with the trade math to see what's the least number of modules you'd need to reserve for short-term profits to at least pay for salaries/fuel/life support. Like I said, I suspect the Sword Worlder model lends itself to slightly cheaper salaries (or, at least, the potential to defer the full payout for a later time, "coasting" a few jumps to generate operating revenue before selling the "long-term" cargo for maximum profit.

I imagine in the Traveller universe, that's basically a complex computer program. Although... Sword Worlders are also far less likely than Imperials to let a computer tell the merchant captain what contracts he should take!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Those are all very good points.

We make every pretense of competency around here ... ^_~

One of the ideas I like about the Hector is that you have 26x 30-dton cutter modules making up your cargo capacity.

26 * 30 = 780 tons
For an 1800 ton craft, that feels a bit low as fraction of 1800 tons.

780 / 1800 = 43.333%

You could easily designate, say, 10 for "long run" profits further up the line, while still having more than enough cargo capacity to carry "short term" profits. I've got to sit down with the trade math to see what's the least number of modules you'd need to reserve for short-term profits to at least pay for salaries/fuel/life support.

I'm going to point out something that might not have been obvious before I mention it.

You could reserve a portion of your load capacity to be chartered by third parties (and potentially supply their own 30 ton cutter modules to occupy that capacity). That chartered capacity is sold out to those third parties, so it's THEIR responsibility to fill it ... and the crew just has to "stay on course" along their pre-planned route. Think containership hauling TEUs across the ocean for an analogous equivalent.

The remaining portion of the load capacity is "retained" by the operator and used for speculative goods dealing (when favorable) and/or spot market freight tickets (when speculative goods aren't favorable).

That way, you don't need to (personally) "fill the manifest" at each and every single port of call. You only need to concern yourself with "your share" of the load capacity. This is then what allows an operator to "run large" (or larger than the spot market on any particular world would tend to make profitable) in terms of starship tonnage and revenue tonnage fraction. You basically "farm out" a portion of your load capacity to third parties (via charters) and only need to concern yourself with the speculative/spot market end of things.

Like I said, I suspect the Sword Worlder model lends itself to slightly cheaper salaries (or, at least, the potential to defer the full payout for a later time, "coasting" a few jumps to generate operating revenue before selling the "long-term" cargo for maximum profit.

That's more of a "crew compensation" model issue (deferred payment of salaries).
For reasons of intellectual honesty, I would prefer to retain the "standard" crew salaries used elsewhere (as detailed in LBB2). Part of the reason for doing that is because of sheer competition.

If a Navigator can be paid Cr5000 per 4 weeks in Imperial space, but only earns Cr3500 per 4 weeks in Sword Worlder space ... guess where all the skilled Navigators are going to go?
Duh ... they're going to leave the Confederation for better pay "elsewhere" ...

 

[Silverhawk]

You could reserve a portion of your load capacity to be chartered by third parties (and potentially supply their own 30 ton cutter modules to occupy that capacity). That chartered capacity is sold out to those third parties, so it's THEIR responsibility to fill it ... and the crew just has to "stay on course" along their pre-planned route. Think containership hauling TEUs across the ocean for an analogous equivalent.

The remaining portion of the load capacity is "retained" by the operator and used for speculative goods dealing (when favorable) and/or spot market freight tickets (when speculative goods aren't favorable).

That way, you don't need to (personally) "fill the manifest" at each and every single port of call. You only need to concern yourself with "your share" of the load capacity. This is then what allows an operator to "run large" (or larger than the spot market on any particular world would tend to make profitable) in terms of starship tonnage and revenue tonnage fraction. You basically "farm out" a portion of your load capacity to third parties (via charters) and only need to concern yourself with the speculative/spot market end of things.

So @Spinward Flow here then is my question, when we are looking at your pondering (excellent work BTW )are you including the cost for the modules. Some are obvious like the Armed Escort and Passenger modules. I'm wondering because for some shippers it is going to make sense to have their own modules that they control. It would be bad to have a shipment ready and there are no modules for loading or the module is there but unsuitable for loading.

The other concept is a company that just owns and leases modules for shipments. The more capacity that you carry that isn't necessarily owned by you would affect the initial cost vs. earnings as I see it. This is partially why the railroads (in RL) have left some of the cars types used (particularly tank cars) to private companies that are either the shipper or are leasing the car to a shipper.

This is something that I had been noodling around with for a while but the discussion always turned away before I could post.

 

[AlHazred]

are you including the cost for the modules.

Most likely the lease would be for the "slot" rather than an actual module, I'd think? And the lessee would need to make arrangements to either provide one of their own modules or lease one from a rental agency; that is how I understand it go work todayon cargo ships. Hmm... Insurance could be tricky...

Are we assuming the GURPS Traveller Cr700/dton/parsec model for freight or the flat LBB7.85 rate of KCr1/dton? (I always remembered the CT rate was /dton/parsec, but checking the book i find no wording specifying that.) Likely there be a standard minimum lease duration, like, say, 6 months or 1 year.

The other concept is a company that just owns and leases modules for shipments.

I think it remember there being some talk about this in the GURPS Modular Cutter book.

 

[Rupert]

If a Navigator can be paid Cr5000 per 4 weeks in Imperial space, but only earns Cr3500 per 4 weeks in Sword Worlder space ... guess where all the skilled Navigators are going to go?
Duh ... they're going to leave the Confederation for better pay "elsewhere" ...

That does depend somewhat on living costs relative to income, and also on whether Sword Worlders, trained at TL10-11 (TL12 if they're lucky), count as 'skilled' in the Imperium. But yes, in general if the SW pays less than the Imperium there'll be a 'brain drain' even if it costs less to live in the SW - if it does, many of those that leave will come home once they've saved a decent nest egg, but a fair number won't as they'll find partners in the Imperium and settle down there.

By the way, this is possibly one reason small, poor, low population worlds stay that way - anybody with prospects leaves, and too few return for the 'leavers' to be bringing back significant wealth and skills. Like small towns today when that one industry that employed everyone closes.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So @Spinward Flow here then is my question, when we are looking at your pondering (excellent work BTW )

We make every pretense of competency around here ...
Even if it is just me "pontificating in public" (or words to that effect).
What I'm really aiming for is being able to share the thought PROCESS behind the "shapes of ideas" that I'm advancing, so as to make the "creative assembly of those ideas" add up in ways that are coherent and consistent, when you reach the final end product.
Even though I'm "striking out on my own into new territory" here, I hope I'm at least leaving enough bread crumbs/trail blaze signs that others can follow where my footsteps have led me to, so that others can "see" the same vistas from similar perspectives once I've found them.

Knowledge Shared Is Knowledge Multiplied, after all.

are you including the cost for the modules. Some are obvious like the Armed Escort and Passenger modules. I'm wondering because for some shippers it is going to make sense to have their own modules that they control. It would be bad to have a shipment ready and there are no modules for loading or the module is there but unsuitable for loading.

Most likely the lease would be for the "slot" rather than an actual module, I'd think? And the lessee would need to make arrangements to either provide one of their own modules or lease one from a rental agency; that is how I understand it go work todayon cargo ships.

The other concept is a company that just owns and leases modules for shipments. The more capacity that you carry that isn't necessarily owned by you would affect the initial cost vs. earnings as I see it. This is partially why the railroads (in RL) have left some of the cars types used (particularly tank cars) to private companies that are either the shipper or are leasing the car to a shipper.

This is something that I had been noodling around with for a while but the discussion always turned away before I could post.

This may possibly be an answer that is "unsatisfying" in the immediacy, but the bigger picture implications are highly clarifying.

Short answer: ... it depends.
Slightly longer answer: It actually depends on the kind of interstellar merchant business you want to engage in.

Why do I say that?
Because the True Answer™ isn't a mutually exclusive one, from a starship design standpoint.

Let me see if I can untangle the thoughts behind why I say that in order to lay bare the continuum of alternatives that are involved.



When you modularize transport into standard containers ... WHO OWNS the containers becomes ... fungible. From a gaming (and Referee) point of view, it's less a matter of attribution of ownership (company A vs company B) and more a matter of availability (can space in one/several be obtained: Y/N?).

For the individual starship operator of a modular transport ... whether the standard containers are "your own property" or belong to third parties starts turning into something of an accounting gimmick. There IS a meaningful difference, but how "important" that difference is depends on the business model you're pursuing.



The way that I account for this in my own bookkeeping of revenue generation is that any containers that the operator OWNS will be able to bill ticket prices at 100%. Any containers that a third party owns, which are being transported, will be billed at charter price (90%) for the tonnage of each standard container.

This means that if, as a starship operator, I own a 20 ton Cargo Box ... I can sell tickets for that cargo capacity @ Cr1000/ton of freight, per jump (not per parsec, per jump). So 20 tons of freight would yield Cr20,000 in revenue, per jump, if transported in a Cargo Box that I own, whether that Cargo Box winds up located inside (in the hangar bay/cargo hold) or outside (docked to the hull) of my starship.

If, as a starship operator, I contract with a third party to transport their 20 ton Cargo Box (that they own) ... I can sell tickets for that transport capacity as an interstellar charter @ Cr900/ton in revenue, per jump, of the standard container, regardless of whether that standard container actually has anything in it or not. So that 20 ton Cargo Box, owned by a third party (who then doesn't need to buy a whole starship, just a share of the transport capacity aboard one), would yield Cr18,000 in revenue, per jump, whether that Cargo Box winds up located inside (in the hangar bay/cargo hold) or outside (docked to the hull) of my starship.

So from a starship design perspective, it kind of doesn't matter ... because the starship is just hauling "however many modules it can" to whatever destination the starship is bound for. The starship doesn't CARE what kind of module is being transported ... it only cares if it's an "interchangeable standard form factor" that can be racked and stacked (internally and/or externally, as needed).



What this all means is that some operators of these modular transport starships will own the minimum number of module "slots" themselves, leaving everything else available to third parties for charter contract hire. The third parties who charter tonnage can determine where the starship "is going to go" if they don't mind chartering the starship's ENTIRE revenue tonnage capacity ... or they can join a "going my way?" opportunity if they want to transport Stuffs™ to wherever the starship is declared to be going to. In the latter instance, the starship operator retains "control" of the itinerary of destinations and the third party only needs to charter the tonnage for the load capacity they want to use.

This then allows flexibility in operational terms for both operators and third parties alike, in terms of logistics of operations and ticket revenues.
From a starship design standpoint, there's basically no difference (because Load Capacity is load capacity).

Note that the flexibility I'm talking about here could extend all the way out to a third party long term charter that gets renewed annually. The operator just "runs the starship" and the entire (remaining) load capacity is the responsibility of a third party business to fill. The third party charters the entire starship "for a year" and gets to pick the route the starship will take during that year. The result is guaranteed income for the starship operator (so long as they keep jumping) while the third party takes on all of the risks (and potential profits/losses) on the joint venture.

You can even do a "charter the entire starship" arrangement, where the third party controls the itinerary ... but the starship operator decides to reserve a share of the starship's load capacity for themself (so as to be able to engage in speculative trading along the pre-planned route). That way the third party doesn't have to pay for a share of the revenue tonnage capacity that the operator wants to keep to themselves. Presumably the dividing line for this kind of arrangement would be if the third party charter is for a majority (50% + 1 ton, or more) of the starship's load capacity over the duration of the charter, if the third party wants to control the itinerary (and if the operator agrees to the terms of the charter).



In my own design sequencing for the Rule of Man Long Trader (J2/2G, range: up to 4 parsecs) and the Rule of Man Clipper (J3/3G, range: up to 5 parsecs), the idea is that when operating at "max drive performance" the entire load capacity available is owned by the starship operator. However, if there are loadouts possible (particularly at reduced drive performance due to external loading) which would require/call for significant "buy in" from a third party (or potentially, multiple third parties) to charter the available external load capacity ... in which case the third parties would be chartering the external load capacity that they're "using" rather than requiring them to charter the "entirety" of the external load capacity (whether they fill it or not). However, if a third party wants to charter "the whole shebang" in order to choose the destination the starship will jump to ... they can do that, so long as the operator agrees to the arrangement.



What this all means (in practice) is that starship operators aren't obliged to be the exclusive buyers/users of the modular standard containers involved. The starship operators can be a portion of the market for those modular containers, but they don't have to be 100% of it. Instead, third party companies can get into the modular standard container business too ... and then just call upon the starship operators to serve as transporters. This then creates an interstellar arbitrage opportunity for the third parties, in which they themselves are not obliged to own (or operate) a starship in order to ply their business. Therefore, you can wind up with "more modular containers" in circulation than the total tonnage of starships can move per week ... because those modular standard containers can be put to more uses than (just, mere) interstellar transport.

They can be used for interplanetary transport (for example), not just interstellar transport.
They can be used as modular base camp installations for expeditions.
So on and so forth ...

That's "useful" in a way that the cargo hold of a J1 Free Trader can't.
The load capacity of a J1 Free Trader "can only go where the starship goes" ... while a modular standardized container can have a LOT more use cases than just "put it in a starship and jump with it" ... if you aren't afraid to get creative.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This is why I'm (still) so interested in designing Free (speculative) Trader starships that are capable of double jumping (J2+2 or J3+2) in order to be able to "marry up" distant markets in order to make otherwise "impractical" routes both possible and profitable.

Let me give another example of the kind of thing I'm talking about here.
Take a look at this slice of the Vilis subsector plus a portion of the neighboring subsector to spinward.

If I'm operating as a merchant out of Vilis/Vilis as my home port and I want to engage in (primarily) speculative goods arbitrage, the most important thing is being able to access a variety of trade codes.

1. Dekalb: Rich. Water World.
2. Thanber: Non-industrial. Poor.
3. Zeta 2: Desert. Non-industrial. Red Zone. (and no refueling opportunity, so don't jump here!)
4. Choleosti: Non-industrial.
5. Margesi: Agricultural. Non-industrial. Amber Zone.
6. Frenzie: Non-industrial.
7. Garda-Vilis: no trade codes.
8. Vilis: Industrial.
9. Stellatio: Non-industrial.
10. Arkadia: no trade codes.
11. Saurus: Agricultural. Non-industrial.

To be able to access ALL of those trade codes, without entering Sword Worlds territory (for whatever reason), you basically want a J2+2 capability ... which @ TL=10 means you'll need to be using LBB2 standard drives (and a J2 Far Trader, even with modifications, is going to be "a poor fit" for your needs).

• Dekalb (Rich, Water World) <-> Thanber (Non-industrial, Poor) = J2
• Dekalb (Rich, Water World) <-> Choleosti (Non-industrial) or Margesi (Agricultural, Non-industrial, Amber) = J2+2
• Thanber (Non-industrial, Poor) <-> Vilis (Industrial) = J2+2
• Margsi (Agricultural, Non-industrial, Amber) <-> Vilis (Industrial) = J2
• Vilis (Industrial) <-> Saurus (Agricultural, Non-industrial) = J2

So with sufficient RANGE built into your starship class, you can engage in some pretty lucrative tramp trading in speculative goods within this region of space, without ever needing to enter the Sword Worlds. However only 4 of the 11 star systems in this region have type A/B starports, so the risk of piracy is something that will need to be accounted for ... so even a modified J2 Far Trader really won't be able to "survive" (long term) if trading in this region. However, the opportunities ARE THERE ... you just need the "right" kind of starship class (and transport capabilities) to be able to "make a go of it" and start exploiting the opportunities.

But the biggest challenge is the "tyranny of distance" ... and needing J2+2 in order to overcome those challenges, so as to widen the number of trade codes that are "within reach" from your home port base out of Vilis. That means you need "something bigger than a J2 Far Trader" in order to make things work out to your own advantage ... but not TOO MUCH BIGGER, because you don't want something that is "oversized" for the region you're trying work. More tonnage = more expenses, so "staying small" but also "big enough" (to get the job of speculative goods arbitrage done) becomes quite the balancing act.

The whole business model revolves around the Feast Or Famine set of outcomes, but so long as you can stack the deck in such a way that the Feasts can easily outweigh the Famines, you can make the entire enterprise work out in your favor. The trick is that J2+2 with a 4 parsec range before needing to (wilderness) refuel makes it SO MUCH EASIER to bias opportunities in your favor, which is really the name of the game.

 

[AlHazred]

We make every pretense of competency around here ... ^_~

26 * 30 = 780 tons
For an 1800 ton craft, that feels a bit low as fraction of 1800 tons.

780 / 1800 = 43.333%

I'm going to point out something that might not have been obvious before I mention it.

You could reserve a portion of your load capacity to be chartered by third parties (and potentially supply their own 30 ton cutter modules to occupy that capacity). That chartered capacity is sold out to those third parties, so it's THEIR responsibility to fill it ... and the crew just has to "stay on course" along their pre-planned route. Think containership hauling TEUs across the ocean for an analogous equivalent.

The remaining portion of the load capacity is "retained" by the operator and used for speculative goods dealing (when favorable) and/or spot market freight tickets (when speculative goods aren't favorable).

That way, you don't need to (personally) "fill the manifest" at each and every single port of call. You only need to concern yourself with "your share" of the load capacity. This is then what allows an operator to "run large" (or larger than the spot market on any particular world would tend to make profitable) in terms of starship tonnage and revenue tonnage fraction. You basically "farm out" a portion of your load capacity to third parties (via charters) and only need to concern yourself with the speculative/spot market end of things.

That's more of a "crew compensation" model issue (deferred payment of salaries).
For reasons of intellectual honesty, I would prefer to retain the "standard" crew salaries used elsewhere (as detailed in LBB2). Part of the reason for doing that is because of sheer competition.

If a Navigator can be paid Cr5000 per 4 weeks in Imperial space, but only earns Cr3500 per 4 weeks in Sword Worlder space ... guess where all the skilled Navigators are going to go?
Duh ... they're going to leave the Confederation for better pay "elsewhere" ...

Hmmm... then I need to look into indentures in the Sword Worlds. You don't have to worry about workers going to another company of they don't have the freedom to do so!

 

[Spinward Flow]

I need to look into indentures in the Sword Worlds. You don't have to worry about workers going to another company of they don't have the freedom to do so!

Once a marine, always a marine ...?

 

[kilemall]

IMO your Cr100 container remit doesn’t work as it doesn’t even pay off an external container built to starship hull specs after 40 years. If you posit an internal only hull then maybe.

I would tend to go with full fee for ton-parsecs and a separate cost the shipper is paying for packaging. Containers probably work out to be more than break bulk alone but break bulk costs more for the port loading/unloading and transport to/from planet destinations.

Therefore it’s another higher profit opportunity for the merchant operator, but more liability to manage for the cargo riding safely.

 

[Spinward Flow]

IMO your Cr100 container remit doesn’t work as it doesn’t even pay off an external container built to starship hull specs after 40 years.

A bold claim.
Let's see if there's any validity to the assertion being made ... by doing math.

=====

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

Single Production Cost: MCr1.36 (100%)
Volume Production Cost: MCr1.088 (80%)

=====

Arbitrage yielding Cr100 per ton, per jump, in terms of differential between charter and non-charter pricing ... would mean that a third party owner of a 20 ton Cargo Box would be paying Cr18,000 at the interstellar charter price to a starship operator to transport the 20 ton load (per Cargo Box). The third party would then be able to sell freight tickets to customers for the 20 ton transport capacity at Cr1000 per ton ... so if a customer wanted all 20 tons, the third party operator would be earning Cr20,000 on the contract.

20,000 - 18,000 = Cr2000 per jump, net profit (best case scenario)

At MCr0.002 profit yield per jump ... how many jumps would a (volume production) Cargo Box owned by a third party need to make in order to recoup the cost of construction via arbitrage pricing of charter vs non-charter tickets?

Let's also assume that a Cargo Box needs annual overhaul maintenance (just like every starship does), which is going to cost Cr1088 (and 2 weeks downtime) to perform.

Question: How many jumps would such a Cargo Box need to make in order to break even on the costs of construction + annual maintenance, assuming an in-service lifespan of 40 years?

(1.088 + 0.001088*40) / 0.002 = 565.76 ≈ 566 jumps over 40 years

566 / 40 = 14.15 jumps per year to break even on construction + annual maintenance expenses



If a 20 ton Cargo Box owned by a third party jumps 15+ times per year ... the third party company that bought the Cargo Box is likely to turn a profit, just on selling cargo freight tickets to customers and then negotiating interstellar charter tickets to transport the Cargo Box with starship operators. Note that the third party could EASILY dabble in speculative goods arbitrage itself, which could potentially recoup the capital investment for a single Cargo Box in as little as a single jump!

Obviously, the more times a specific Cargo Box owned by a third party jumps per year, the more profit can be generated (go figure, eh? ) ... and unlike starships, the "turnaround time" at starports for individual Cargo Boxes (unloading and then reloading at ports of call) can be far less than the "business week" of most (individual) Free/Tramp Traders. And since the Cargo Boxes do not need to be "tethered" to particular starships, they can be "mobilized" to jump more often than a single starship operator typically would (just "change horses starships" at each starport).

If a Cargo Box jumps every 10 days (on different starships), it could jump up to 35 times per year (and still allow 2 weeks for annual overhaul maintenance during that year).
If a Starship jumps every 14 days, it can jump up to 25 times per year.



A third party business operation could probably find ways to keep each Cargo Box jumping 15-35 times per year (parsecs make no difference in CT for ticket revenues accounting) in order to turn a profit on their capital investment (MCr1.088 cash on delivery from the shipyard, minus the down payment to initiate construction, plus annual overhaul maintenance expenses) ... just if they were selling cargo freight tickets for the 20 ton capacity of each Cargo Box.

Even better yet, the (humble? ) 20 ton Cargo Box is technically a small craft ... meaning that it can be constructed at ANY type B+ starport. Therefore, the modular transport starship built to jump/maneuver tug the Cargo Boxes will need to be built at a type A starport, but any type B starport (TL=9+) can construct the 20 ton Cargo Boxes that "make the laws of supply & demand operate profitably" for everyone concerned. In other words, not all of the tonnage in circulation for interstellar trade needs to come from type A starports exclusively (some of it does, but not all of it). This then makes it a LOT easier for type B starport worlds to "buy in" to the modular standardized container business model of interstellar trade, enlarging the pool of capital that can be invested and thus increasing the overall supply AND demand for interstellar trade capacity services.



If this were a "real world" defense contract, we would call that kind of "spread the wealth around" type of subcontracting (for the 20 ton Boxes) a form of Political Engineering™ ... because when more parties have "stakes" in the success of a program, there are more "interested parties" wanting it to succeed (so they can receive their "cut" of the benefits and proceeds).

In the setting of Traveller ... it means that it becomes possible for greater interstellar cooperation agreements to be signed.
For example, Grote/Glisten (type A starport) builds the starships ... and Caladbolg/Sword Worlds (type B starport) builds (all of) the small craft to supply the demand from the starship operators and the third party businesses that want to "expand their reach" and establish an economic hegemony for their products on an interstellar scale. That kind of mutually beneficial relationship winds up having all kinds of cultural, diplomatic, economic and military implications, for both Grote and Caladbolg ... and all of the star systems in the region where the starship operators ply their trade (under subsidy or as private enterprises).