• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Pondering starship evolution

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

The important thing to note, in terms of "upgrades" is:
  • Replace model/2 computer with model/3 computer @ TL=9 requires the allocation of +4 tons (+1 ton for computer, +3 tons for power plant generating +1 EP).
  • Replace model/2 computer with model/4 computer @ TL=A requires the allocation of +8 tons (+2 tons for computer, +6 tons for power plant generating +2 EP).
  • Replace model/2 computer with model/5 computer @ TL=B requires the allocation of +12 tons (+3 tons for computer, +9 tons for power plant generating +3 EP).
  • Replace model/2 computer with model/6 computer @ TL=C requires the allocation of +20 tons (+5 tons for computer, +15 tons for power plant generating +5 EP).
  • Replace 1 missile launcher with 1 laser (pulse or beam) requires the allocation of +3 tons for power plant to generate the +1 EP *IF* the laser is intended to be used in combat. However, if the laser is meant to be used for utility/mining purposes only (and is routinely powered down in combat) when reduced agility shouldn't be an issue, no additional tonnage for increased EP generation need be necessary.
  • Single occupancy small craft staterooms cost 2 tons, each.
  • Single occupancy starship staterooms cost 4 tons, each.
  • Vehicle berths for an air/raft or prospecting buggy cost 4 tons, each.
So with those "upgrade" factors in mind, what are the base bones baselines for 6G small craft with a bridge+computer+turret in the 20, 30, 40 and 50 ton displacement classes when using LBB5.80 design paradigm criteria? :unsure:


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

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

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

=====

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

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

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

=====

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

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

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

=====

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

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

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


Because of the ... fungibility ... of cargo hold tonnage, these three designs make it rather apparent that the overall pattern is:
  • Add +10 tons of hull, get +4.5 tons of cargo hold capacity
Which makes sense, because @ TL=9-B ... 6G maneuver costs 17% of the hull displacement, power plant-6 costs 18% of the hull displacement (@TL=9-C) and the bridge costs 20% of the hull displacement. Add those together and you get 17+18+20=55% of the hull ... so naturally if you increase the hull size by 10 tons, you gain a net 4.5 tons to allocate elsewhere to internal systems other than drives and bridge (which for the purposes of this Analysis of Alternatives defaults to cargo hold).

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

So ... yeah ... the LBB2.77/81 small craft have some "explaining to do" with regards to their design parameters. :rolleyes:
 
What I'm noticing from this Analysis of Alternatives is that, from a military standpoint:
  • In terms of TL=9, the 20 tons Fighter is "all you need" with its 5 tons of (multi-purpose) cargo hold payload fraction.
    • This is sufficient to upgrade to a computer model/3 (top of the line for TL=9) and still have 1 ton remaining for cargo hold payload fraction, if you want a short range (12-24 hour life support endurance) small craft. For longer life support endurance absent a support parent craft, 1-2x small craft staterooms or 1x starship stateroom will be required, precluding the option of an upgrade to a model/3 computer.
  • In terms of TL=A, the most broadly flexible option is actually the 30 tons Fighter with its 9.5 tons of (multi-purpose) cargo hold payload fraction.
    • This is sufficient to upgrade to a computer model/4 (top of the line for TL=A) and still have 1.5 tons remaining for cargo hold payload fraction, if you want a short range (12-24 hour life support endurance) small craft. For longer life support endurance absent a support parent craft, 1-2x small craft staterooms or 1x starship stateroom will be required, which is compatible with an upgrade to a model/3 computer, but not a model/4.
  • In terms of TL=B, the most broadly flexible option is actually the 40 tons Fighter with its 14 tons of (multi-purpose) cargo hold payload fraction.
    • This is sufficient to upgrade to a computer model/5 (top of the line for TL=B) and still have 2 tons remaining for cargo hold payload fraction. The remaining 2 tons could then be spent on a small craft stateroom to be used by a crew of 1 (pilot/gunner) or a crew of 2 (pilot, gunner) or (pilot/gunner, pilot/gunner) in either single or double occupancy.
This means that the TL=9-B range is more or less the "heyday" for small craft fighters, when they're able to (somewhat) economically mount computers that put them at parity with all competitors in their tech level range. By TL=C+ you're starting to need "heavier" (and heavier!) fighter tonnages in order to keep pace with the advancements in computer models. Eventually, it is no longer possible to mount "current TL" computer models into small craft (the computer tonnage and EP requirements are too large to fit within a small craft hull), so "fighters" have to move into the realm of Big Craft (100+ tons) in order to keep pace with increasing computer model numbers.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



The thing that I really want to translate from this video by Mentour Now! is that there are going to be circumstances and contexts in which Bigger Is NOT Better when it comes to commercial viability ... and when it comes to starship classes, it will often times be the case that Smaller Is Better for ACS type free trader merchant Traveller starships, provided you can manage to make the books balance when working routes through "lower end" planetary world markets on the sector map. This is actually a pretty significant challenge when it comes to design engineering the "best" solution for "austere" world delivery conditions which can still turn a useful/marginal profit in between speculative goods arbitrage windfalls.
 
Spinward Flow said:
So I was wanting to take another Analysis of Alternatives look a 6G Fighter small craft intended to be able to tow external loads as a "utility factor" when not engaging in combat.
Click to expand...
Finally (... finally ...) decided to circle back to the question of "What Do?" when it comes to the question of high performance small craft in small packages that ought to be "conversion-able" from low tech (TL=9-10) system defense asset into being an organic convoy merchant escort type of asset. I also decided to "stop turning up my nose" at the idea of putting LBB2.81 standard drives into hulls smaller than 100 tons.

Here's what popped out of that analysis.


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

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

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

=====

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



However, where things start to get REALLY interesting, from a Frontier Merchant Trader standpoint is the fact that:
  • LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 1 @ 800 tons ... because 1*800=800
  • LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 2 @ 400 tons ... because 2*400=800
  • LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 3 @ 266 tons ... because 3*266=798, but 3*267=801 (which is "too big" by 1 ton)
  • LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 4 @ 200 tons ... because 4*200=800
  • LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 5 @ 160 tons ... because 5*160=800
  • LBB2.81 Drive-D (TL=9) = code: 6 @ 133 tons ... because 6*133=798, but 6*134=804 (which is "too big" by 4 tons)
What makes this interesting is that a 250 ton starship (TL=9) with a 16 ton fighter (TL=9) docked externally adds up to being ... 266 combined tons, meaning that D/D/D drives yield a performance profile of code: 3/3/3 during jump (and maneuver), which puts it into (ACS) Clipper territory when operating in a "clean" unencumbered by external loads configuration. Internal revenue tonnage is miniscule when operated that way (D/D/D drives and fuel ALONE consume 45+75+30=150 tons of internal displacement in a 250 ton hull!), but the important factor is the external load capacity that such an arrangement makes possible.

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

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

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

So without further ado or preamble, here is the (simplified) "napkin math" parameters for a 250 ton Clipper @ TL=9 ... 🥁
 
Rule of Man Clipper (Type-AP, TL=9)
250 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr30)
45 tons for LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives (codes: 3/3/3, TL=9, EP=8) (MCr88)
105 tons of total fuel: 250 tons @ J3 = 75 tons jump fuel + 30 tons power plant fuel
0 tons for fuel scoops (MCr0.25)
9 tons for TL=9 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum) (MCr0.038)
20 tons for bridge (800 ton rating, MCr4)
2 tons for model/2bis computer (EP:0, TL=8) (MCr18)
60 tons for hangar berths capacity (MCr0.12)
  1. Stateroom Box = 20 tons (pilot/gunner, pilot/gunner, navigator, engineer/engineer, medic) (5x staterooms)
  2. Laboratory Box = 20 tons (V-c life support for 10)
  3. Stateroom Box = 20 tons (purser/purser, steward/steward, 3x high passengers) (5x staterooms)
* External Docking: 550 tons capacity (MCr1.1)
  1. Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9) = 16 tons





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

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

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

Crew = 7 (Cr40,895 per 4 weeks crew salaries)
  1. Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 (chief) = (6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1/2)*1.1 = Cr7805
  2. Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 = (6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1/2) = Cr7750
  3. Navigator-1 = (5000*1.0) = Cr5000
  4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = (4000*1.1)+(4000*1.1/2) = Cr6600
  5. Steward-2 (purser)/Steward-2 (purser) = (3000*1.2)*1.1+(3000*1.2/2)*1.1 = Cr5940
  6. Steward-2/Steward-2 = (3000*1.2)+(3000*1.2/2) = Cr5400
  7. Medical-3 = (2000*1.2) = Cr2400

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=====

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

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

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

=====

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

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

=====

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

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

=====

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

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

=====

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

= 0+20 = 20 tons
= 1.2+0.16 = MCr1.36
 
So I tried doing another Analysis of Alternatives to the 250 ton starship design plan detailed above.
I tried switching back from a 20 ton Box foundation to a 16 ton Box foundation (because the TL=9 fighter weighs in at 16 tons) ... and no matter what I did fiddling about in the 240-266 tons hull for the starship range, it didn't "balance out" as well as the 250 ton starship loaded with 20 ton Boxes design plan detailed above.

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

Another point is that the 250 ton hull has D/D/D drives installed, which are good for code: 1/1/1 @ 800 tons.
  • 800-250 = 550 / 1.1 = 500 tons of big craft can be towed externally
The Fighter Provincial cannot (externally) dock with the starship while that is happening, but under such emergency circumstances that's not something to quibble to much about. It does however mean that the "largest big craft" that can be externally towed while the 16 ton Fighter Provincial is externally docked becomes ...
  • 800-250-16 = 534 / 1.1 ≈ 485 tons of big craft can be towed externally
In "most" small ship (ACS) universe settings, being able to externally dock with and tow a 400 ton big craft (such as a J1/1G Type-R Fat Trader or a J3/4G Type-T Patrol Cruiser, for example) @ J1/1G could be extremely useful ... especially if you hoist a 🏴‍☠️).



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

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


Rule of Man Clipper (Type-AF, TL=A)
280 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr33.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=A, Crystaliron, bulkhead thickness=9cm)
55 tons for LBB2.81 standard E/E/E drives (codes: 3/3/3, TL=A, EP=10) (MCr110)
114 tons of total fuel: 280 tons @ J3 = 84 tons jump fuel + 30 tons power plant fuel
0 tons for fuel scoops (MCr0.28)
8 tons for TL=A fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum) (MCr0.036)
20 tons for bridge (1000 ton rating, MCr5)
2 tons for model/2bis computer (MCr18)
80 tons for hangar capacity (MCr0.16)
  1. Fighter Escort (Type-FE, TL=A) = 20 tons
  2. Stateroom Box = 20 tons (5x staterooms)
    • pilot/gunner (chief)
    • pilot/gunner
    • navigator
    • engineer/engineer
    • medic
  3. Laboratory Box = 20 tons (Type: V-c regenerative biome life support for 10 persons)
  4. Stateroom Box = 20 tons (5x staterooms)
    • purser/purser
    • steward/steward
    • high passenger
    • high passenger
    • high passenger
* External Docking: 720 tons capacity (MCr1.44)
  1. Environment Box = 20 tons
  2. Environment Box = 20 tons
1 ton for cargo hold
  • 0.81 tons for 81 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank storage (MCr0.0405)

= 0+55+114+8+20+2+81+0 = 280 tons
= 33.6+110+0.28+0.036+5+18+0.16+1.44+0.0405 = MCr168.5565

= MCr168.5565+(60.61)+(5.36)+(3.86*1.8)+(3.36*1.8) = MCr247.5225 * 1.0 = MCr247.5225 single production
= MCr168.5565+(60.61)+(3.86*2)+(5.36)+(3.36*2) = MCr248.9665 * 0.8 = MCr199.1732 volume production

4x Cargo Boxes (external) = MCr1.36*4 * 0.8 = MCr4.352 volume production
4x Environment Boxes (external) = MCr3.36*4 * 0.8 = MCr10.752 volume production

Crew = 7 (Cr40,895 per 4 weeks crew salaries)
  1. Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 (chief) = (6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1/2)*1.1 = Cr7805
  2. Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 = (6000*1.2)+(1000*1.1/2) = Cr7750
  3. Navigator-1 = (5000*1.0) = Cr5000
  4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = (4000*1.1)+(4000*1.1/2) = Cr6600
  5. Steward-2 (purser)/Steward-2 (purser) = (3000*1.2)*1.1+(3000*1.2/2)*1.1 = Cr5940
  6. Steward-2/Steward-2 = (3000*1.2)+(3000*1.2/2) = Cr5400
  7. Medical-3 = (2000*1.2) = Cr2400
  • J3, 3G, Agility=3: 300 + 33 = 333 combined tons
  • J2, 2G, Agility=2: 300 + 200 = 500 combined tons
  • J1, 1G, Agility=1: 300 + 700 = 1000 combined tons

Revenue Tonnage @ J3/3G = 320 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked internally (20 tons)
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.19 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 40 tons owned external environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 0 tons charter external cargo capacity (w/ 0x 20 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 114-320*0.3 = 18 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J2/2G = 500 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked internally (20 tons)
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.19 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 40 tons owned external environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 180 tons charter external cargo capacity (w/ 9x 20 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 114-500*0.2 = 14 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J1/1G = 1000 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked internally (20 tons)
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.19 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 40 tons owned external environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 680 tons owned external cargo capacity (w/ 34x 20 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 114-1000*0.1 = 14 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+3/2+3G = 400 combined tons/320 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally/moved internal (20 tons)
  • 3x Boxes docked externally/moved internal
  • 81 tons collapsible fuel/moved to internal fuel tankage
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 40 tons owned external environmentally controlled cargo capacity
Fuel Consumption: 114+81–400*0.2-320*0.3 = 19 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+2/2+2G = 500 combined tons/420 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally/moved internal (20 tons)
  • 3x Boxes docked externally/moved internal
  • 81 tons collapsible fuel/moved to internal fuel tankage
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0 tons owned internal cargo capacity
  • 100 tons chartered external cargo capacity (w/ 5x 20 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 114+81–500*0.2-420*0.2 = 11 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J1+2/1+2G = 560 combined tons/500 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked internally (20 tons)
  • 3x Boxes docked externally/moved internal
  • 56 tons collapsible fuel/moved to internal fuel tankage
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.44 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 220 tons chartered external cargo capacity (w/ 11x 20 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 114+56–560*0.1-500*0.2 = 14 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J1+1/1+1G = 1000 combined tons/920 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally/moved internal (20 tons)
  • 3x Boxes docked externally/moved internal
  • 81 tons collapsible fuel/moved to internal fuel tankage
  • 3x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 40 tons owned external environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 600 tons chartered external cargo capacity (w/ 30x 20 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 114+81–1000*0.1-920*0.1 = 3 tons remaining


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

= 0+3+7+1+4+4+1+0 = 20 tons
= 2.4+0+8+16+0.1+30+3.35+0.76 = MCr60.61 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, post-construction)
  • 1G, Agility=0: 400 - 20 = 380 tons external load
  • 2G, Agility=1: 200 - 20 = 180 tons external load
  • 3G, Agility=1: 133 - 20 = 113 tons external load
  • 4G, Agility=2: 100 - 20 = 70 tons external load
  • 5G, Agility=2: 80 - 20 = 60 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=3: 66 - 20 = 46 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=4: 50 - 20 = 30 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=5: 40 - 20 = 20 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=6: 33 - 20 = 13 tons external load

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


20 ton Box form factor: 12m L x 4.8m W x 4.8m H = 276.48m³ / 14 = 19.74857143 tons @ 2.5:1:1 dimensional ratios
 
Last edited:
Spinward Flow said:
20 ton Box form factor: 12m L x 4.8m W x 4.8m H = 276.48m³ / 14 = 19.74857143 tons @ 2.5:1:1 dimensional ratios
Click to expand...
So I was doing some "extra noodling around" with the tonnage/dimensions form factors and decided to expand the scope of my Analysis of Alternatives just a little bit. When I did so, something that I was NOT expecting to see "fell out of the math" when poking around a bit more.
  • 24 ton Box form factor: 7.5m L x 7.5m W x 6m H = 337.5m³ / 14 = 24.10714286 tons ≈ 24 tons @ 5:5:4 dimensional ratios
What this means, in terms of deck plans, is 5x5 deck squares stacked onto 2 decks worth of volume.
This then had multiple knock on effects when moving to this specific form factor.

  • 4 x 24 tons = 96 tons
  • 4x 4 ton staterooms + 8 tons of Laboratory: Regenerative Biome Life Support for 4 persons (Type: V-c) = 16+8 = 24 tons
  • 3x 4 ton staterooms + 12 tons of Laboratory: Regenerative Biome Life Support for 3 persons (Type: V-d) = 12+12 = 24 tons
  • 24 ton Fighter small craft can install Maneuver-B and Power Plant-C (LBB2.81 standard drives) yielding sufficient EP for Agility=6, model/4 computer and twin beam lasers (1 battery, code: 2)
The fighter small craft gets EXPENSIVE at that point (MCr69.152 single production cost), because just the drives and computer add up to 8+24+30=MCr62 before adding hull, bridge, weaponry, etc. ... but in the long run, I'm thinking that the expense increase winds up being worth it. The deciding factor here being the fact that ordnance armed small craft have "supply chain issues" due to expendable ammunition (missiles, sandcasters) stocks. This puts an upper limit on the combat endurance of such weaponry, imposing a "hit and run" type of skirmisher strategy because once the turret(s) run out of ordnance to launch/throw, that's it ... you have to retreat to rearm. So ordnance weapons have both a combat endurance limit and a supply chain logistics factor to worry about before/after each combat engagement.

Likewise, missiles are not going to be available "everywhere" for sale (if you've got the credits).
  • LBB S3 (revised) stipulates that TL=6+, Population: 7+ and Law Level 7- (HE) or Law Level 3- (nuclear) are required to purchase missiles
If you're operating out on the frontier, there aren't going to be that many locations that will meet those constraints, which means that as an independent operator/free trader, any missile armament you put on your craft (big or small) will necessarily "tether" you to your supply chain for reloads. If you never get into combat/have to fire a shot in anger ... that's no big deal ... but if you're needing to expend ordnance "frequently" in order to protect yourself (or dabble in a bit of opportunistic 🏴‍☠️ yourself as an attacker ...), that's a supply line dependency that could come back to bite you.

Additionally, think about the forensic "evidence" left behind by missiles that fail to hit their target ... or even about the forensic evidence of missiles that DO hit their target(s)! :unsure:

If you're a "less than completely reputable" starship operator, do you REALLY want to be "littering" evidence (missiles) around the areas where you "have seen action" ... which an investigator can come along later and FIND so as to be able to start tracing you (and your operation)? And that's not even including the fact that launched ordnance (missiles and sand!) basically become "navigational hazards" until someone goes out there and "cleans them up" so that STUFF doesn't remain in orbit somewhere ... just waiting to be a problem for someone else later on?

Compare all of those "leftover waste" externality issues associated with ordnance expenditure (which Traveller usually ignores, game mechanically, mainly for simplicity) with what you get out of using lasers as your weapon of choice. First off, there's only a debris field from a hit, rather than a miss (in the event a missile self-destructs after a miss, but that creates a debris field) ... or an INTENTIONAL debris field (sandcaster) created. Additionally, the laser damage isn't going to be "as easily traceable" to a supply chain that is needed for ongoing logistics required for rearmament after ordnance gets expended. Lasers that miss their target(s) are also a lot less likely to be a recurring navigational hazard, unlike orbiting debris fields.

So basically, laser weapons are "cleaner" combat weapons while also having better "deep magazine" characteristics (just need EP) which yield superior persistence in sustained combat with no need to resupply (aside from refueling the fusion power plant). Lasers are "more expensive" in terms of construction cost, especially at lower tech levels, due to the increased construction cost for a power plant that can generate the necessary margin of EPs needed to power laser weapons, but that's the price you have to pay relative to missile weapons. A more "self-contained"/closed type of weapon supply loop is going to cost more to build than a "limited shots"/open type of weapon supply loop that externalizes some of the costs of arming (and rearming).



However, where things started to get FUN with the 24 ton form factor (that I started with above) was what it did in the context of starships built for external loading transport capacity.
  • 304 ton E/E/E drives starship + 1x 24 ton Box = 328 combined tons ... code: 3/3/3 drive performance
  • 304 ton E/E/E drives starship + 8x 24 ton Boxes = 496 combined tons ... code: 2/2/2 drive performance
  • 304 ton E/E/E drives starship + 29x 24 ton Boxes = 1000 combined tons ... code: 1/1/1 drive performance
I was able to wrestle the starship design parameters such that it had a 96 ton hangar bay for 4x 24 ton Boxes, which then makes for a "useful multiple" when needing to use the starship hangar bay to shuttle payloads of Boxes between surface and orbital staging points through atmosphere.

Whole thing (starship, fighter, boxes) weighs in at MCr208.266 in volume production, which SEEMS like a lot ... especially when compared to a J1/1G Fat Trader that's "half the price" (unarmed!) ... but a Fat Trader is J1/1G ONLY and has "limited options" for reconfiguration, within a 400 (combined) tons form factor.

By contrast, what I'm doing here can operate anywhere from 328-1000 (combined) tons in form factor, varying drive performance as load factors increase ... which ironically does a better job of leveraging "crew workload" factors (right-sizing the ship to what the crew can support/maintain) while at the same time improving the Quality of Life factors relative to the competition. And that's not even including the "wider pool of capitalization" access that the modularized shipping container (Box) business model brings to the table with this.

Better Mousetrap™ vs Door ... and all that jazz. 😅

Hopefully, the 24 ton modular form factor is the "final key" puzzle piece that I needed in order to unlock everything and make all the parts and pieces fall into place. :cool:(y)
 
:unsure:

Fighter Gunned (Type-FG, TL=A)
24 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.88, integral fuel scoops)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=A, Crystaliron, bulkhead thickness=9cm)
3 tons for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-B (Agility=6 requires 1.44 EP) (MCr8)
10 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-C (EP=6) (MCr24)
0.2 tons for Jump Capacitors (7.2 EP storage) (MCr0.8)
1 ton for fuel (5d 18h 09m endurance @ 3.44 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.012 tons of fuel per 7d)
4.8 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.12)
4 tons for model/4 computer (EP: 2) (MCr30)
1 ton for dual turret: beam laser, beam laser (TL=9, batteries: 1, code: 2, EP: 2) (MCr2.6)
* External Docking: 376 tons capacity (MCr0.752)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+3+10+0.2+1+4.8+4+1+0 = 24 tons
= 2.88+0+8+24+0.8+0.12+30+2.6+0.752 = MCr69.152
  • 1G, Agility=1: 400 - 24 = 376 tons external load
  • 2G, Agility=2: 200 - 24 = 176 tons external load
  • 3G, Agility=3: 133 - 24 = 109 tons external load
  • 4G, Agility=4: 100 - 24 = 76 tons external load
  • 5G, Agility=5: 80 - 24 = 56 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=6: 66 - 24 = 42 tons external load
:unsure:

Fighter Gunned (Type-FG, TL=9)
24 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.88, integral fuel scoops)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=18cm)
3 tons for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-B (Agility=6 requires 1.44 EP) (MCr8)
10 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-C (EP=6) (MCr24)
0.2 tons for Jump Capacitors (7.2 EP storage) (MCr0.8)
1 ton for fuel (5d 18h 09m endurance @ 3.44 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.012 tons of fuel per 7d)
4.8 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.12)
3 tons for model/3 computer (EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: pulse laser, pulse laser, pulse laser (TL=9, batteries: 1, code: 2, EP: 3) (MCr2.6)
* External Docking: 376 tons capacity (MCr0.752)
1 ton for cargo hold
  • 1 ton capacity segregated reserve internal demountable fuel tank (MCr0.001)

= 0+3+10+1.2+1+4.8+3+1+1 = 24 tons
= 2.88+0+8+24+0.8+0.12+18+2.6+0.752+0.001 = MCr57.153
  • 1G, Agility=1: 400 - 24 = 376 tons external load
  • 2G, Agility=2: 200 - 24 = 176 tons external load
  • 3G, Agility=3: 133 - 24 = 109 tons external load
  • 4G, Agility=4: 100 - 24 = 76 tons external load
  • 5G, Agility=5: 80 - 24 = 56 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=6: 66 - 24 = 42 tons external load
:unsure:

:unsure:

I know I can make a 304 ton starship mounting E/E/E drives (codes: 3/3/3) "work" @ TL=A with a maximum combined load capacity of 1000 tons (J1/1G).

I might need to take another look to see if I can make a starship mounting D/D/D drives "work" @ TL=9 with a maximum combined load capacity of 800 tons (J1/1G). Can probably only make it work above the 266 ton hull threshold, which would force the drive performance into the codes: 2/2/2 range (because ... TL=9 instead of TL=A), which ironically would make the overall design "more economical" in a variety of ways (albeit "slower" with unrefueled 5 parsec transits).

This possibility is prompting further investigation ... :unsure:
 
I think I might have the TL=9 answer to the above question ... :unsure:


Rule of Man Long Trader (Type-AP, TL=9)
280 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr33.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=18cm)
45 tons for LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives (codes: 2/2/2, TL=9, EP=8) (MCr88)
82.8 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 capacity (MCr0.24)
  1. Fighter Escort (Type-FG, TL=A) = 24 tons
  2. Stateroom+ Box = 24 tons (starship pilot, fighter pilot, navigator, engineer/engineer, medic) (4x staterooms, V-c life support for 4)
  3. Stateroom+ Box = 24 tons (purser/purser, steward/steward, medic, fighter gunner) (4x staterooms, V-c life support for 4)
  4. Stateroom+ Box = 24 tons (4x high passengers) (4x staterooms, V-c life support for 4)
  5. Environment Box = 24 tons
* External Docking: 520 tons capacity (MCr1.04)




1.2 tons for cargo hold
• 1.2 tons for 120 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank storage (MCr0.06)

= 0+45+82.8+9+20+2+120+1.2 = 280 tons
= 33.6+88+0.28+0.038+4+9+0.24+1.04+0.06 = MCr136.258

= MCr136.258+(57.153)+(5.232*2.6)+(4.032) = MCr211.0462 * 1.0 = MCr211.0462 single production
= MCr136.258+(57.153)+(5.232*3)+(4.032) = MCr213.139 * 0.8 = MCr170.5112 volume production

Crew = 8 (Cr38,340 per 4 weeks crew salaries)
  1. Pilot-1 = (6000*1.0) = Cr6000
  2. Ship's Boat-1 = (6000*1.0) = Cr6000
  3. Navigator-1 = (5000*1.0) = Cr5000
  4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = (4000*1.1)+(4000*1.1/2) = Cr6600
  5. Steward-2 (purser)/Steward-2 (purser) = (3000*1.2)*1.1+(3000*1.2/2)*1.1 = Cr5940
  6. Steward-2/Steward-2 = (3000*1.2)+(3000*1.2/2) = Cr5400
  7. Medical-3 = (2000*1.2) = Cr2400
  8. Gunnery-1 = (1000*1.0) = Cr1000
  • J2, 2G, Agility=2: 280 + 120 = 400 combined tons
  • J1, 1G, Agility=1: 280 + 520 = 800 combined tons


Fighter Gunned (Type-FG, TL=9)
24 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.88, integral fuel scoops)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9, Composite Laminates, bulkhead thickness=18cm)
3 tons for LBB2.81 standard Maneuver-B (Agility=6 requires 1.44 EP) (MCr8)
10 tons for LBB2.81 standard Power Plant-C (EP=6) (MCr24)
0.2 tons for Jump Capacitors (7.2 EP storage) (MCr0.8)
1 ton for fuel (5d 18h 09m endurance @ 3.44 EP output+basic power continuous) (basic power only consumes 0.012 tons of fuel per 7d)
4.8 tons for bridge (2 crew acceleration couches, life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.12)
3 tons for model/3 computer (EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: pulse laser, pulse laser, pulse laser (TL=9, batteries: 1, code: 2, EP: 3) (MCr2.6)
* External Docking: 376 tons capacity (MCr0.752)
1 ton for cargo hold
  • 1 ton capacity segregated reserve internal demountable fuel tank (MCr0.001)

= 0+3+10+1.2+1+4.8+3+1+1 = 24 tons
= 2.88+0+8+24+0.8+0.12+18+2.6+0.752+0.001 = MCr57.153

  • 1G, Agility=0: 400 - 24 = 376 tons external load (15x 24 ton Boxes)
  • 2G, Agility=1: 200 - 24 = 176 tons external load (7x 24 ton Boxes)
  • 3G, Agility=1: 133 - 24 = 109 tons external load (4x 24 ton Boxes)
  • 4G, Agility=2: 100 - 24 = 76 tons external load (3x 24 ton Boxes)
  • 5G, Agility=2: 80 - 24 = 56 tons external load (2x 24 ton Boxes)
  • 6G, Agility=3: 66 - 24 = 42 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=4: 50 - 24 = 26 tons external load (1x 24 ton Box)
  • 6G, Agility=5: 40 - 24 = 16 tons external load
  • 6G, Agility=6: 33 - 24 = 8 tons external load


By way of cross-comparison, the TL=A 304 ton E/E/E drives starship+fighter combo weighs in at:

= MCr171.4525+(69.152)+(5.232*2.6)+(4.032) = MCr258.2397 * 1.0 = MCr258.2397 single production
= MCr171.4525+(69.152)+(5.232*3)+(4.032) = MCr260.3325 * 0.8 = MCr208.266 volume production

258.2397 / 211.0462 = 122.36169142%
208.266 / 170.5112 = 122.14212322%

So, basically a +22% price increase to go from D/D/D drives (TL=9, code: 1/1/1 @ 800 tons combined) to E/E/E drives (TL=A, code: 1/1/1 @ 1000 tons combined) ... meaning a +25% increase in max load capacity costs +22% more in construction (at +1 TL), so everything would seem to be in (properly scaling) order, from a purely "game mechanics" standpoint. 🧐

However, I strongly suspect that this 280 ton TL=9 variation on the theme may wind up being more economical on "most" trade routes that require (merely) J2 or J2+2.
  • 304 ton TL=A E/E/E drives ... 96 ton internal hangar bay = 4x 24 ton Boxes + 24 ton Fighter external
  • 280 ton TL=9 D/D/D drives ... 120 ton internal hangar bay = 4x 24 ton Boxes + 24 ton Fighter internal
Point being that there's better "load balancing symmetry" going on with the TL=9 variant between internal/external load capacity options, in terms of owner/operator control of resources.
  • 304 ton TL=A E/E/E drives @ J2/2G
    • 4x 24 ton Boxes (owned) + 24 ton Fighter (owned) external
    • 4x 24 ton Boxes (third party charter) external
    • 96 ton hangar bay (internal) which can be loaded with cargo
    • = 4x high passengers (owned), 120 tons cargo capacity (owned), 0 tons cargo capacity (charter) = Cr160,000 per jump (maximum)
    • = 4x high passengers (owned), 120 tons cargo capacity (owned), 96 tons cargo capacity (charter) = Cr246,400 per jump (maximum)
  • 280 ton TL=9 D/D/D drives @ J2/2G
    • 4x 24 ton Boxes (owned) + 24 ton Fighter (owned) external
    • 120 ton hangar bay (internal) which can be loaded with cargo
    • = 4x high passengers (owned), 144 tons cargo capacity (owned) = Cr184,000 per jump (maximum)
The TL=A Clipper has the potential for greater revenues per 2 parsec jump, but that's only true if there are third parties who want to charter a portion of the external load capacity to move "their" Boxes via your starship to your next destination(s). Point being that in the absence of a "third party top up" on shipping manifests chartering some portion of the external load capacity, the TL=A Clipper variation would have a lower maximum revenue potential per jump than the TL=9 Long Trader variation.

It's not a HUGE difference ... but it's one that could be important for grinding out profits on the margins over a 40+ year career in service for a volume production copy of the class. I figure that such "spreadsheet advantages" would probably be important to "credit shaving merchant types" who need every advantage they can muster in order to remain a viable business operator. 💸

The other advantage of the TL=9 Long Trader is the fact that due to its "low technology" requirements for construction and maintenance that the availability of logistics (parts, spares, repairs, etc.) would functionally be something of a non-issue in "most" frontier locations. Even in the most backwater subsectors, there's going to be a TL=9+ type A/B starport SOMEWHERE within range of the "free-est of the free" tramp merchant traders. Additionally, TL=9 is hardly going to be considered "cutting edge" technology that needs to be classified as a "state secret" almost anywhere in Charted Space (although there will, of course, be highly localized exceptions based on government type and law level of individual mainworlds). Point being that any operators of the TL=9 Long Trader will have plenty of options with regards to "where to go" for any maintenance, repairs and logistical support needs. :cool:
 
So I finally had time to "run the numbers" on fuel consumption for multi-jumping (without refueling) on internal fuel ONLY (no L-Hyd Drop Tanks added) for the 280 ton J2/2G TL=9 Rule of Man Long Trader.
Spinward Flow said:
However, I strongly suspect that this 280 ton TL=9 variation on the theme may wind up being more economical on "most" trade routes that require (merely) J2 or J2+2.
Click to expand...
What I was NOT expecting to see be possible was ... J2+2+2 = 6 parsecs range.

MeIKSgV.gif

This has prompted a slight redesign of the fuel tankage (internal + collapsible) allocations in order to add slightly more (+1.2 tons more) fuel margin reserve on extremely long transits through multiple jumps, unrefueled.

Revenue Tonnage @ J2/2G = 400 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally (24 tons)
  • 4x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.087 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 24 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 120 tons internal hangar cargo capacity
Fuel Consumption: 82.7-400*0.2 = 2.7 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J1/1G = 784 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally (24 tons)
  • 4x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.087 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 24 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 120 tons internal hangar cargo capacity
  • 384 tons chartered third party external cargo capacity (w/ 16x 24 ton Boxes)
Fuel Consumption: 82.7-784*0.1 = 4.3 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+2/2+2G = 400 combined tons/328 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally (24 tons)
  • 4x Boxes docked external/3x Boxes loaded internal
  • 4x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0.087 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 24 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 48 tons internal hangar cargo capacity
  • 72 tons collapsible fuel tank in internal hangar
Fuel Consumption: 82.7+72–400*0.2-328*0.2 = 9.1 tons remaining

Revenue Tonnage @ J2+2+2/2+2+2G = 400 combined tons/328 combined tons/280 combined tons
  • Fighter Escort docked externally (24 tons)/Fighter Escort docked externally (24 tons)/Fighter Escort docked internally (24 tons)
  • 4x Boxes docked external/1x Box docked external, 3x Boxes loaded internal/4x Boxes loaded internal
  • 4x high passengers
  • 0x low passengers
  • 0 tons internal cargo capacity
  • 24 tons owned environmentally controlled cargo capacity
  • 0 tons internal hangar cargo capacity
  • 120 tons collapsible fuel tank in internal hangar
Fuel Consumption: 82.7+121.3-400*0.2-328*0.2-280*0.2 = 2.4 tons remaining



And that's not including any kind of L-Hyd Drop Tanks for range extension beyond internal fuel tank(s) only. 🤯

If you pile ON TOP of the above ⬆️ another 10x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tanks (+400 tons of additional fuel capacity) and "systematically drop tanks" along the way at J1 until all drop tank fuel is consumed, you wind up with something like this:
  1. J1/1G drive performance @ 800 combined tons (maneuver to jump point)
    • Drop 2x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank immediately prior to jump
    • J1 @ 720 combined tons = consume 72 tons of fuel
  2. J1/1G drive performance @ 720 combined tons (post-breakout from jump)
    • Drop 2x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank immediately prior to jump
    • J1 @ 640 combined tons = consume 64 tons of fuel
  3. J1/1G drive performance @ 640 combined tons (post-breakout from jump)
    • Drop 1x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank immediately prior to jump
    • J1 @ 600 combined tons = consume 60 tons of fuel
  4. J1/1G drive performance @ 600 combined tons (post-breakout from jump)
    • Drop 1x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank immediately prior to jump
    • J1 @ 560 combined tons = consume 56 tons of fuel
  5. J1/1G drive performance @ 560 combined tons (post-breakout from jump)
    • Drop 2x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank immediately prior to jump
    • J1 @ 480 combined tons = consume 48 tons of fuel
  6. J1/1G drive performance @ 480 combined tons (post-breakout from jump)
    • Drop 2x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank immediately prior to jump
    • J2 @ 400 combined tons = consume 80 tons of fuel
72+64+60+56+48+80 = 380 tons jump fuel consumed = 20 ton surplus "wasted"

:unsure: ... so should probably switch to using 20 ton L-Hyd Drop Tank multiples instead ... but it's good enough for now. :rolleyes:

So theoretically ... with 10x 40 ton L-Hyd Drop Tanks ... a maximum range of J(1+1+1+1+1+2+)2+2+2 = 13 parsecs over 9 jumps (unrefueled while en route) is theoretically possible to achieve.

Basic Power "housekeeping" fuel consumption for the TL=9 280 ton Rule of Man Long Trader + 4x (unpowered) 24 ton Boxes would be:
  • (280+4*24)/2000 = 0.188 tons of fuel per 7 days
Assuming a duration of 8 days per jump (to allow time for routine 16 hour standard maintenance drive checks after each jump before jumping again) a 9 jump sequence would require 72 days, not including maneuvering to/from jump points. So Basic Power "housekeeping" would consume 1.93371429 tons of fuel during the 72 day transit through 9 jumps.

Basic Power "housekeeping" for the L-Hyd Drop Tank(s) tonnage would also need to be included, but since that tonnage "varies" as they get dropped along the transit route, the calculation for that is slightly more involved. Suffice it so say, I've done it and ... is weighs in at +1.39428571 tons of additional fuel consumption across the entire J1+1+1+1+1+1 transit, just for the Drop Tanks.

By contrast, a mere J2+2+2 transit (with no L-Hyd Drop Tanks) would require only 24 days, during which Basic Power "housekeeping" fuel consumption would be a mere 0.64457143 tons of fuel.
  • 2.4 tons of fuel margin after J2+2+2 transit ... minus 0.65 tons for Basic Power = +1.75 tons of fuel remaining onboard starship for maneuvering ✅
  • 2.4 tons of fuel margin after J(1+1+1+1+1+2+)2+2+2 transit ... minus 1.94 tons for Basic Power (Starship + 4x Boxes) minus an additional 1.4 tons for Basic Power (L-Hyd Drop Tanks) = --0.94 tons of fuel deficit onboard starship for maneuvering ❌
And its at this point that the 1+1=2 tons of fuel capacity stored onboard the Fighter Gunned becomes important, because that small craft fuel "reserve" then makes up for the remaining margin needed to (just barely! 🤞) complete a transit from starport of origin to destination (where refueling can happen) BEFORE all fuel supplies onboard are exhausted. 😓

The fuel reserve margin (for error/mishap) is THIN ... very thin ... but still "doable" if necessary (and determined enough) to take the risk(s) involved in such extended transits (basically 9 jumps in 10 weeks!). Hope your maintenance schedules are all caught up before trying this! 😣

Note that having an unrefueled maximum range of 6 parsecs on internal fuel ONLY ... or a maximum range of 12(!) parsecs on internal fuel + L-Hyd Drop Tanks would make transits through the Great Rift potentially viable (albeit, still EXPENSIVE!) to undertake ... with a TL=9 merchant starship, the Rule of Man Long Trader.
Spinward Flow said:
However, I strongly suspect that this 280 ton TL=9 variation on the theme may wind up being more economical on "most" trade routes that require (merely) J2 or J2+2.
Click to expand...
2 or 4 parsecs, I expected.
6 to 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 parsecs distant ... I did not. 😲



I think I might have a "winner" on my hands here ... :unsure:
And that's before calculating the speculative goods arbitrage opportunities that having a J2+2+2 unrefueled range without L-Hyd Drop Tanks installed makes possible. That kind of "reach" before needing to refuel makes it possible to "marry up" all kinds of disparate trade codes on different mainworlds with relative ease ... especially when capable of multi-jumping "through" empty hexes en route to your ultimate destination. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Borrowing fuel from a carried craft for Jump... cute.

Puts me in mind of borrowing jump fuel from the absurdly high (in small ships) power plant fuel allocation via the TCS/JTAS #14 power-down rule.

From a canon design (Type S), re-purposed: J2 uses 20Td fuel (Jump) + 5Td fuel (1 week of Pn-2), leaving 15Td. Idle back to Pn-1 for a J-1, and the second Jump uses 10Td fuel while the power plant uses 2.5Td (1 week of Pn-1). The other 2.5T fuel supports 7 days of Pn-1, split between the outbound and final destination inbound normal-space transits at 1g/Pn-1. Range is then 3 parsecs in 2 weeks plus up to 1 week (total) transit to/from Jump Limit.

From an original design of mine (Gypsy Queen 199Td J2/6G):
Setting aside the oversize powerplant and hull-size manning arbitrage, it's just Jump-B, Maneuver-F, Power-F; Pn-6 mandates 60Td fuel for the power plant alone. Idle down to Pn-2 for normal operations (via the power-down rule) and that's J-2 plus 4 weeks at Pn-2.

Even if you have to go to 6g/Pn-6 for one normal-space leg (say, doing a speed-run out of Regina/Regina, since the mainworld is a gas-giant's moon), you've still got fuel left for the inbound run to the destination. Power plant reverts to Pn-2 during Jump, so only uses 5Td during that week. The speed-run is at 60Td/Mo rate, but is only for less than a day (2Td). 2Td outbound (brief Pn-6), 40Td Jump+5Td power (J2/Pn-2), 2.5Td (2G/Pn-2) inbound at destination. If arriving with nominally empty tanks is a concern, idle back to Pn-1/1G for the last bit. Or carry an extra 5-10Td fuel as a contingency buffer. :)

Note that Rules as Written call for this ship to have 100Td fuel (40 jump, 60 power), and it shouldn't be able to "borrow" the powerplant fuel for the jump drive -- it does work mechanically, even if the rules say no.
 
Grav_Moped said:
+ 5Td fuel (1 week of Pn-2)
Click to expand...
This is why I prefer to rely upon the fuel consumption formula provided in CT Beltstrike, p5 and p11.

knNJ6sU.png


OVwKbir.png


If you "backport" those values into something that works better when expressed as a formula for Basic Power tonnage and EPs (instead of 1G per 100 tons), you wind up with the following formula:
  • Basic Power = Tonnage / 2000 tons of fuel per 7 days
  • EP Generation = 0.35 tons of fuel per 7 days per EP
Or to write it even more simplistically ...
  • (Tonnage / 2000) + (EP * 0.35) = Fuel Consumption (tons) per 7 days
Therefore, the 20 tons of power plant fuel stipulated as required in LBB2 for a Pn-2 drive (generating EP=2), installed in a 100 ton hull would have a 7 day fuel consumption rate of:
  • (100 / 2000) + (2 * 0.35) = 0.75 tons of fuel per 7 days
  • 20 tons of fuel / 0.75 = 26.667 weeks of endurance under continuous EP=2 power demand (presumably for acceleration in a Type-S or Type-J)
Stocking the life support systems with enough consumable reserves to endure that long is a separate issue (hint: it requires the allocation of cargo space), but it can be done ... even with the limited cargo capacity of a Type-S Scout/Courier.



I know that the LBB2 power plant formula is 10Pn tons of fuel tankage required, but I view that as being a "displacement minimum" written into the regulations for construction, intended to ensure that starships have sufficient fuel reserves to "take a hit" to their fuel tanks and still have (some) fuel remaining. It's intended to be a "safety margin in the event of mishap" measure, rather than a "ruinously high fuel consumption measure" intended to compensate for LBB2 power plants being (hydrogen) gas guzzlers.

Besides, the 10Pn = 4 weeks of fuel consumption rate idea winds up being completely arbitrary and capricious when you start "mathing things out" and doing even the most cursory cross-comparison.
  • Power Plant-A drives are code: 2 in a 100 ton hull and consume 5 tons of fuel per 7 days (1 month minimum requirement)
  • Power Plant-A drives are code: 1 in a 200 ton hull and consume 2.5 tons of fuel per 7 days (1 month minimum requirement)
Same standard drive (Power Plant-A) ... completely different fuel consumption rates depending on the size of the hull the power plant is installed into ... which is nonsensical/dumb.

Switching over to the CT Beltstrike "fuel consumption formula" (that I've simplified for easier use) is something that can be utilized for ALL small/big craft (LBB2, LBB5, et al.) without requiring compromises/compensation elsewhere. Stipulate that LBB2 power plants generate EP=2 per drive letter increment (so Power Plant-A generates EP=2, regardless of the hull size it is installed into) and a lot of puzzle pieces rather neatly fall into place.



The other stipulation that I make is that during jump, a starship's power plant only needs to generate sufficient EPs to power the starship's computer and provide Basic Power (life support, housekeeping, etc.).
  • There's no "maneuvering" during jump, so no need to generate EPs for agility/maneuvering
  • There's nothing to "shoot at" during jump, so all weapons can be powered down and taken offline until breakout from jump
  • There's nothing "shooting you" during jump, so all defensive screens can be powered down and taken offline until breakout from jump
Computers, though, will require their full budget of EPs to continue operating while in jump.

So, basically, during the "week in jump" ... the power plant fuel consumption rate is going to be Basic Power (Tonnage/2000) plus however many EPs are needed by the starship's computer (EP*0.35).

Include a "fudge factor" of assuming that jumps will require 8 days, rather than (just) 7 ... so as to account for the 16 hours of routine drive checks after breakout from jump ... and all you have to do is multiply by 8/7 and you'll be able to calculate your fuel consumption rate while "in jump" and not maneuvering. Once you power up the maneuver drive/weapons/screens, you'll need to raise the production rate of EPs to "something higher than just what the computer needs" and your fuel consumption rate will increase (relative to what it was while "in jump").
 
Spinward Flow said:
Besides, the 10Pn = 4 weeks of fuel consumption rate idea winds up being completely arbitrary and capricious when you start "mathing things out" and doing even the most cursory cross-comparison.
  • Power Plant-A drives are code: 2 in a 100 ton hull and consume 5 tons of fuel per 7 days (1 month minimum requirement)
  • Power Plant-A drives are code: 1 in a 200 ton hull and consume 2.5 tons of fuel per 7 days (1 month minimum requirement)
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

Nonetheless, I'm still somewhat attached to the idea that the 10Pn rule is vaguely connected to actual fuel use (mostly for argumentation reasons) rather than "each Pn's fuel allocation allows you to sustain one hit in space combat".

In reality, 10Pn is just an extrapolation from the '77 small-craft rules rather than being a plausible element of consistent ship design. In those rules, a flat 10 tons per G, or Pn for ships, supported 1 week or so at max Gs (and if you needed more, take a starship and do it as a jump because that's faster.) They kept the formula -- while redefining what it supported -- for reasons of backwards compatibility, not because it made the most sense.

Beltstrike fuel rules are fine, but totally detached from LBB2. That's more "realistic", but I still want the backward compatibility with LBB2 -- hence the power-down exploit to make it more plausible.

Spinward Flow said:
The other stipulation that I make is that during jump, a starship's power plant only needs to generate sufficient EPs to power the starship's computer and provide Basic Power (life support, housekeeping, etc.).
  • There's no "maneuvering" during jump, so no need to generate EPs for agility/maneuvering
  • There's nothing to "shoot at" during jump, so all weapons can be powered down and taken offline until breakout from jump
  • There's nothing "shooting you" during jump, so all defensive screens can be powered down and taken offline until breakout from jump
Computers, though, will require their full budget of EPs to continue operating while in jump.
Click to expand...

Disagree, based on LBB2 & 5 (2nd Ed. for each). Starships and non-starships have identical power plant fuel requirements, despite non-starships not spending two of every four weeks (canon jump cadence) in Jump. If no power for the jump drive (and thus no fuel) were needed during Jump, non-starships would use half as much power plant fuel as starships.

ETA: Mongoose rules do not require power to the jump drive while in jump, just at entry.
 
Last edited:
IMTU fuel is doing triple duty as minimal fuel usage, reaction mass and heat exhaust. So the TCS fuel rule works for me.
 
Grav_Moped said:
Starships and non-starships have identical power plant fuel requirements, despite non-starships not spending two of every four weeks (canon jump cadence) in Jump.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. 🧐
Let's put some numbers on this, just to make the already obvious exceptionally clear.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument and illustration purposes that 2 craft with the exact same power plant (tonnage, type, tech level, etc.) are rated for 1 ton of fuel consumption per week (just to keep the math simple).

Let's also say that a J1 will cost 10 tons of fuel consumption (again, just to keep the math simple).

One craft is a non-starship.
One craft is a starship.



For both craft, the power plant fuel consumption for 2 weeks of operation would be ... 1*2 = 2 tons ... regardless of whether the craft jumped (starship) or not (non-starship).

If the starship performed a J1 during those 2 weeks, the fuel consumption would increase by +10 tons ... so 2+10 = 12 tons.



The point being that jump fuel consumption is calculated separately from power plant fuel consumption.
Jump fuel consumption "is its own thing" effectively.
Grav_Moped said:
If no power for the jump drive (and thus no fuel) were needed during Jump, non-starships would use half as much power plant fuel as starships.

ETA: Mongoose rules do not require power to the jump drive while in jump, just at entry.
Click to expand...
As a matter of game mechanical accounting, it's probably simpler to just calculate things as a "lump sum to jump" rather than forcing Referees and Players to deal with the "fiddly bits" of saying that MOST of the jump fuel is consumed at jump, but the remainder is needed to "sustain the drive" through the duration of the entire jump (90% to initiate, 10% to sustain until breakout, for purposes of illustration rather than as a definitive reference).

Note that as soon as you say "you only need 90% to get INTO jump" ... someone with suicidal tendencies is going to TRY IT and see if they can forego the remaining 10% needed to sustain the operation of the jump drive until breakout ... and then you're putting the Referee into the position of needing to adjudicate What Happens™ when a jump drive "shuts down" partway through a jump.

Short answer: 🎵 Hello CharGen my old friend ... 🎶

It's just SIMPLER to design the technology with fail safes such that if there isn't sufficient fuel to complete a jump, then the drive systems will abort/reject the jump ... hence why the jump fuel requirement is the size factor that it is in terms of tonnage fraction.



Which again means that jump fuel requirements are separate from/stacked on top of the fuel requirements for power plant consumption. The fuel ITSELF is "fungible" (so long as you have enough of it), such that it "doesn't matter" whether it is consumed by the jump drive OR the power plant (the jump drive just "consumes faster").



Which is why I would argue that during jump, the power plant doesn't need to be "running at full blast" the entire way. Basic Power (housekeeping) and sufficient EPs to keep the main computer running is "enough load" for the power plant during jump and anything additional would be superfluous (in terms of EP generation). Starships are basically "inertial coasting" through jump ... the same way that a non-starship can "inertial coast" without acceleration on a trajectory after an initial maneuver burn, in order to save on fuel consumption.

All of the fuel "needed" during the jump (initiate, coast, breakout) MUST be available to the jump drive at the START of a jump, so as to ensure an uninterruptible supply of fuel to the jump drive during the entire jump (start to breakout) ... and THAT value is the one we (as gamers) know from the rules and game mechanics.

The power plant number needs to be equal to or higher than the jump drive number so as to make sure that the power plant can "do its part" of handling the power load at the start of a jump (you must be THIS HIGH to jump this far!), but that's a "peak load" requirement rather than a "steady state for the entire week during jump" requirement.
 
Grav_Moped said:
Borrowing fuel from a carried craft for Jump... cute.

Puts me in mind of borrowing jump fuel from the absurdly high (in small ships) power plant fuel allocation via the TCS/JTAS #14 power-down rule.

From a canon design (Type S), re-purposed: J2 uses 20Td fuel (Jump) + 5Td fuel (1 week of Pn-2), leaving 15Td. Idle back to Pn-1 for a J-1, and the second Jump uses 10Td fuel while the power plant uses 2.5Td (1 week of Pn-1). The other 2.5T fuel supports 7 days of Pn-1, split between the outbound and final destination inbound normal-space transits at 1g/Pn-1. Range is then 3 parsecs in 2 weeks plus up to 1 week (total) transit to/from Jump Limit.

From an original design of mine (Gypsy Queen 199Td J2/6G):
Setting aside the oversize powerplant and hull-size manning arbitrage, it's just Jump-B, Maneuver-F, Power-F; Pn-6 mandates 60Td fuel for the power plant alone. Idle down to Pn-2 for normal operations (via the power-down rule) and that's J-2 plus 4 weeks at Pn-2.

Even if you have to go to 6g/Pn-6 for one normal-space leg (say, doing a speed-run out of Regina/Regina, since the mainworld is a gas-giant's moon), you've still got fuel left for the inbound run to the destination. Power plant reverts to Pn-2 during Jump, so only uses 5Td during that week. The speed-run is at 60Td/Mo rate, but is only for less than a day (2Td). 2Td outbound (brief Pn-6), 40Td Jump+5Td power (J2/Pn-2), 2.5Td (2G/Pn-2) inbound at destination. If arriving with nominally empty tanks is a concern, idle back to Pn-1/1G for the last bit. Or carry an extra 5-10Td fuel as a contingency buffer. :)

Note that Rules as Written call for this ship to have 100Td fuel (40 jump, 60 power), and it shouldn't be able to "borrow" the powerplant fuel for the jump drive -- it does work mechanically, even if the rules say no.
Click to expand...
It's also a thing in TNE, though it's more usually written in the ship descriptions as eating jump fuel for combat manoeuvres. But you can do it the other way round, too, so a warship with lots of fuel for combat can also jump a long way without refuelling if the commander is comfortable with having limited (possibly very limited) manoeuvre capability at the far end.

I found that, when combined with the potential high risk of any jump into a system in the Wilds in TNE, it made for some interesting calculations for players. Do they avoid some risk in a transit system by jumping into somewhere 'safe' and immediately jumping on, and thus accept increased risk in the next system due to low manoeuvre fuel, or do go the other way - accept more risk in the transit system by refuelling there, in order to have more fuel for a potential combat encounter (or to avoid/escape from such) in the destination system? And when travelling many jumps, which systems should be skipped through vs refuelled in?
 
Rupert said:
I found that, when combined with the potential high risk of any jump into a system in the Wilds in TNE, it made for some interesting calculations for players. Do they avoid some risk in a transit system by jumping into somewhere 'safe' and immediately jumping on, and thus accept increased risk in the next system due to low manoeuvre fuel, or do go the other way - accept more risk in the transit system by refuelling there, in order to have more fuel for a potential combat encounter (or to avoid/escape from such) in the destination system? And when travelling many jumps, which systems should be skipped through vs refuelled in?
Click to expand...
All of which are important questions, hence the point I made earlier (without overly elaborating the logistics concerns) ...
Spinward Flow said:
The fuel reserve margin (for error/mishap) is THIN ... very thin ... but still "doable" if necessary (and determined enough) to take the risk(s) involved in such extended transits (basically 9 jumps in 10 weeks!). Hope your maintenance schedules are all caught up before trying this! 😣
Click to expand...
Mind you, the context that I was talking about was of the "jumping through empty hexes to reach the destination on the far end" without needing to refuel along the way, rather than any sort of "roll for random encounter/mishap" that could happen at any time between each jump.

But yes, the point still stands that when fuel reserves GET LOW, especially if you've "spent" almost all of your fuel jumping to your ultimate destination, then navigation accuracy/precision is going to be rather ... important. :unsure:

Of course, that can work in multiple different ways/meanings.
Having knowledge of a "route" that can be calibrated/traversed with decent reliability through otherwise "unfriendly" space (for reasons of environmental hazards or hostile foes claiming the region(s) involved) can become what amounts to a Trade Secret™ on the order of navigator's charts and maps in the Age of Sail. The kind of thing on the order of being able to navigate the Straits of Magellan ... or round the Cape of Good Hope ... to give a Solomani maritime equivalent (which plenty of sailing ships were unable to succeed at doing).

Point being that records of Calibration Points (or even deep space navigation waypoints in empty hexes) can be enough of a competitive advantage that they can potentially make or break commercial and/or paramilitary/military ventures that needs to rely on accurate/precise navigation in order to succeed (without getting lost or run out of fuel along the way). That means MAPS, a tall (star)ship ... and a WHOLE LOT OF STARS to "set sail" by.
Oh and a "good navigator" helps too ... 😅
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spinward Scout
General This is awesome! I dropped my "high-value, low-weight cargo" article on my blog into ChatHGPT - it can act as a Broker. Who needs some cargo?
Replies
15
Views
1K
Spinward Scout
Spinward Scout
yannir
CT Only: Another rules ambiguity
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Black Vulmea
Black Vulmea
Spinward Scout
MGT Only: How would you like to use a Surplus X-Boat?
Replies
0
Views
424
Spinward Scout
Spinward Scout
yannir
CT Only: A couple of ship designs I banged up using a program of my own devising
Replies
17
Views
2K
yannir
yannir
S
Semi-standard LBB2-ish 300 Ton Trader
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Rupert
R
Back
Top