CT Only: Type-ST Scout/X-Courier

[Spinward Flow]

Type ST Scout/X-Courier
:alpha: LBB2.81, TL=9

Tons  MCr  Item
----  ---  ----
       3   Standard 100 ton Hull (Streamlined) 
 10   10   Jump-A (2, Scout drive)
  1    4   Maneuver-A (2)
  4    8   Power Plant-A (2)
 20        Jump Fuel (2 parsecs)
 20        Powerplant Fuel (4 weeks)
 20   0.5  Bridge (Scout avionics)
  1    4   Computer model/1bis (TL=6)
      0.1  Hardpoints (1)
  1   1.5  Dual Turret (1, Misslie rack, Sandcaster)
  8    1   2 Staterooms for 2 Crew (single occupancy)
  5        Mail Vault
 10        Cargo
----  ---  ----
100  32.1  Total

Scout/X-Courier  ST-12266R1-020000-00001-0   MCr 28.89  100 tons
    batt bearing             1         1           Crew=2. TL=9.
    batteries                1         1         LBB2.81 design.
Passengers=0 (1 possible). Cargo=5+10. Fuel=40. EP=2. Agility=2.
0.1-100 tons external cargo: Jump-1, Maneuver-1, Agility=1.

List Cost (new): MCr 32.1 (MCr 28.89 in volume)
Down Payment (new): MCr 6.42 (MCr 5.778 in volume)
Architect Fee: Cr 321,000
Annual Overhaul: Cr 32,100
Construction: 9 months

Bank Financing: Cr 66,875 per 2 weeks for 480 months
Life Support: Cr 4000 per 2 weeks (2 staterooms)
Crew Salaries: Cr 6600 per 2 weeks (Pilot-2/Navigator-2, Engineer-2/Gunnery-2)
Fuel: Cr 100 per ton (unrefined), Cr 0 (wilderness)
Berthing Fees: Cr 100 for 6 days, Cr 100 per day beyond 6 days

Mail Delivery revenue: Cr 25,000 revenue per delivery (LBB2.81, p9)
Interstellar Cargo Transport revenue: Cr 1000 per ton (LBB2.81, p8-9)
Interplanetary Charter revenue: Cr 1 per hour per ton of ship (Cr 100 per hour), minimum 12 hours (LBB2.81, p9)
Interstellar Charters (2 weeks) revenue: Cr 900 per ton of cargo (10 tons internal @ Jump-2 ... or ... 10 tons internal and up to 100 tons external @ Jump-1) (LBB2.81, p9)



Overhead costs (2 weeks = 1 jump) with Wilderness Refueling
Bank Financing + Life Support + Crew Salaries + 6 days Berthing Fees = Cr 77,575
X-mail Delivery revenue: Cr 25,000 (LBB2.81, p9)
Breakeven Cargo Transport: Cr 52,575 = 53 tons



Overhead costs (2 weeks = 1 jump) with Starport Unrefined Fuel
Bank Financing + Life Support + Crew Salaries + 30 tons of Fuel + 6 days Berthing Fees = Cr 80,575
X-mail Delivery revenue: Cr 25,000 (LBB2.81, p9)
Breakeven Cargo Transport: Cr 55,575 = 56 tons



So ... this is where things start to look somewhat ridiculous from a Merchant Prince standpoint, and this might need a bit of explanation. :coffeegulp:



The stock and standard LBB2.81 TL=9 Type S Scout/Courier can, with some almost trivial modifications to convert it for purpose, make an EXCELLENT light external cargo tug transport with operating costs so exceptionally low that it can earn a profit with as little as 60 tons of cargo transport (10 tons internal, 50 tons external) on a Jump-1 main trading route.

The maximum cargo transport capacity of this conversion is (up to 5 tons of) X-mail capacity (see: Courier for reasons why), 10 tons of internal cargo and up to 100 tons of external cargo at Jump-1, Maneuver-1 drive capacity.

If using my proposed house rule that only major cargo, which comes in 10 ton increments (LBB2.81 p8), can be transported externally (the 10 ton containers are "space worthy"), this means that a converted ST Scout/X-Courier is capable of clearing a profit of as much as Cr 57,425 per Jump-1 every 2 weeks with a full transport manifest of 10 tons of internal cargo and 100 tons of external cargo (110 tons of combined cargo capacity) ... even while financed under a bank loan for 480 months. o:
Naturally, the profit margin potential is much higher if the starship is paid off.

Logistically speaking, for deliveries the best option is going to be orbital starport to orbital starport ... but if a surface pickup to surface delivery is required, the ST Scout/X-Courier is actually capable of making multiple surface to orbit transits ferrying individual 10 ton major cargo containers inside the internal cargo bay one at a time under 2G maneuver drive capacity. So pickups and deliveries to surface facilities planetside are certainly possible to accomplish, provided there is sufficient overwatch capability by system defense assets to ensure that cargo left in orbit will not be stolen by other parties (and/or pirates).

Because of these logistical considerations, ST Scout/X-Couriers strongly favor interstellar routes to star systems with type A and B starports only, both for their highport facilities in orbit and a strong enough system defense boat presence to keep order and deter pirates, with a strong preference for mainworlds with higher rather than lower populations so as to support their financial imperative to transport cargo (so avoid going to population 4- worlds). These starships have a necessarily limited capacity to profit from speculative cargo opportunities due to their limited internal cargo hold space, but high value speculative cargoes can be transported by these ships for sale in other star systems at considerable profit on an intermittent basis.



To be honest ... being able to shift that much cargo externally on such a small (and cheap!) starship almost feels "broken" (in more than one sense) ... but the capability IS there in the starship design details (you just need to know how to look for them).

In terms of modification to the stock Type S Scout/Courier, all that needs to happen is the following:

• - 2 staterooms (8 tons, MCr 1)
• - Air/Raft (4 tons, MCr 0.6)
• - 3 ton cargo bay (3 tons)

• + 1 Missile Rack (MCr 0.75)
• + 1 Sandcaster (MCr 0.25)
• + All new life support system
• + 5 ton Mail Vault (5 tons)
• + 10 ton cargo bay (10 tons)

In other words, the stock unarmed Type S Scout/Courier costs MCr 0.6 more o: than the armed Type ST Scout/X-Courier does.
This in turn means that the Type ST Scout/X-Courier costs Cr 600 less per year to overhaul and maintain than stock Type S hulls do.

I can even envision scenarios in which the "conversion" of a stock Type S to a Type ST by a shipyard is essentially "free" to the starship owner, simply because the systems being pulled out (2 staterooms, 1 air/raft) have a higher value (MCr 1.6) than the replacement systems do (MCr 1 to arm the dual turret), in which case the "cost" of the conversion is the MCr 0.6 difference in value getting claimed by the shipyard as their price for completing the work (MCr 0.279 equates to 8.5-8.7 annual overhauls) as well as the applicable architect's fees (MCr 0.321).

Note that this conversion to a Type ST can just as easily be performed on a 40 year old surplus Type S Scout/Courier.

The mix of skills for the 2 crew (Pilot-2/Navigator-2, Engineering-2/Gunnery-2) are considered an optimal baseline, as opposed to being the minimum required by regulations, in order to keep the starship in good working order and operational condition with a minimum of outside support.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Because of these logistical considerations, ST Scout/X-Couriers strongly favor interstellar routes to star systems with type A and B starports only, both for their highport facilities in orbit and a strong enough system defense boat presence to keep order and deter pirates, with a strong preference for mainworlds with higher rather than lower populations so as to support their financial imperative to transport cargo (so avoid going to population 4- worlds).

So ... looking around the Spinward Marches sector map ... are there any star system clusters 1 parsec apart that meet these criteria?

Answer: Yes.
Follow up question: Where?

1. Roget, Ilium, Mire, Darrian / Darrian (4 systems)
2. Emerald, Jewell / Jewell (2 systems)
3. Vilis, Garda-Vilis / Vilis (2 systems)
4. Hrunting, Tizon, Colada, Joyeuse, Gram, Tyrfing, Beater, Sacnoth, Excalibur, Orcrist, Anduril, Narsil, Dyrnwyn, Durendal, Hofud, Sting, Biter / Sword Worlds (17 systems )
5. Collace, Tarsus / District 268 (2 systems)
6. Mertactor, Mille Falcs / District 268 + Egypt / Glisten (3 systems)
7. Efate, Alell, Uakye / Regina (3 systems, 1 amber zone)
8. Ivendo, Icetina, Equus / Lanth (3 systems)
9. Zaibon, Tenalphi, Wardn / Lunion (3 systems)
10. Glisten, Overnale, New Rome / Glisten (3 systems)
11. L'oeul d'Dieu, Aramis / Aramis + Vinorian / Rhylanor (3 systems)
12. Macene, Risek / Rhylanor (2 systems)
13. Rhylanor, Porozolo, JaeTellona / Rhylanor (3 systems)
14. Garrincski / Rhylanor + Heroni, Fosey / Mora (3 systems)

I find it ironic that in the Spinward Marches, excluding Zhodani Territory (for what ought to be obvious reasons ) ... the longest routes a ST Scout/X-Courier can run are in the Darrian (4 systems) and Sword Worlds (17 systems! ) subsectors.
But in Imperial controlled space, the suitable system clusters are all 2-3 systems in quantity.

I primarily interpret this outcome as being due to the fact that the Sword Worlds and Darrian Confederation are political entities that have been around since before the Third Imperium, so they're "older" and have had longer to build up their starport infrastructure. Imperial controlled space is mostly frontier worlds with type C and below starports and lots of worlds with population 4-.

The moral of the story is (I guess) that this starship design for the ST Scout/X-Courier is FANTASTIC for making external cargo runs among the Sword Worlds ... which I wasn't exactly expecting.



I can also easily envision that the stock Type S Scout/Courier has been in production for so many centuries without updates to the technology in them(!) that I can't even make a good faith argument that the design for them ought to be a military secret (meaning you can't take Scout ships into the Darrian Confederation or the Sword Worlds without "permission" from the IISS). Local system defense boats might be more pre-disposed to challenge a Type ST in Darrian and Sword Worlds territory until a specific ship is "registered" with each system (so might be hassled the first time in-system), but the sight of a Type ST hauling up to 100 tons of external cargo in and out of star systems outside the Imperium is rather unlikely to provoke an overtly hostile response (since the ST is pretty obviously "encumbered" and unlikely to be a threat to anyone). Inspections (and harassment over paperwork) could certainly happen, but its unlikely that a Type ST with a significant external load would be fired upon ('m thinking).

Target locked to incentivize compliance with system defense? Sure, I'll give you that one, depending on the circumstances.
Weapons free, though? Not so much ...



As a Referee, your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's not that weird.
The other way to get this design is to take a Type A Free Trader and:
- Delete 8 staterooms and the low berths.
- Add an air/raft
- Add one double turret with a laser and missile launcher
- Somehow get Scout/Mil drives installed
- Somehow get Scout/Mil sensors installed

You still need an engineer and medic for this one. Yours? Depends on how the referee treats the cargo pod.

 

[mike wightman]

Just make the external cargo pod 99 tons and you can get by with a pilot and gunner.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Just make the external cargo pod 99 tons and you can get by with a pilot and gunner.

Yep.

I still like my trick of including two hardpoints but leaving off one turret. Yeah, it breaks Rules As Written, but since almost every canon deck plan shows turrets sticking out of the hull, omitting the second turret has to reduce the total hull volume below 200Td.

It enables a single player to run a Type A Free Trader without needing a NPC crew. If I were a ref, I'd only allow it if one player was all I had.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It's not that weird.
The other way to get this design is to take a Type A Free Trader and:

And this is where you get to the Demonology Is In The Details moment. :devil:

In terms of maximum capability, you're correct that a 200 ton Free Trader and a 100 ton Scout/Courier lugging 100 tons of external cargo will have remarkably similar performance profiles (AAA drives, 200 tons total displacement). The difference, however, shows up in the fact that the Scout/Courier can "undock" from the external load to restore design performance ... such as needing 2G to safely VTOL on a world size: 8+ water ocean for wilderness refueling, or being able to perform a 2 parsec jump in order to reach a location that would otherwise normally be inaccessible by Jump-1 only without extra fuel reserves.

Additionally, there's the bizarre economics of standard hulls (according to LBB2.77 and LBB2.81).
A standard 100 ton hull costs MCr 2 (additional MCr 1 for streamlining).
A standard 200 ton hull costs MCr 8 (additional MCr 2 for streamlining).

So you can either purchase a single 200 ton hull for MCr 8 unstreamlined or MCr 9 streamlined ... or you can just purchase two 100 tons hulls for MCr 5 (one streamlined, one not) and strap them together if you need internal cargo hold space (up to 85 tons because of the 15 tons for drives limitation). Alternatively, you can just purchase a single 100 ton hull for MCr 3 (streamlined) and live with the limitation of only being able to externally transport Major Cargo if it isn't contained within an explicit hull of some kind.



And that's before you even get into such oddball configuration options as a "Modular Pinnace" design to haul two 10 ton cargo modules (the other 20 tons are drives and crew spaces) so as to have an orbital shuttle/picket guard for making surface to orbit runs with 10 ton cargo modules. If the Modular Pinnace is armed, you then have a craft that can "stand guard" over an external cargo cluster parked in orbit or which can more quickly shuttle cargo modules down to a planetary surface than a ST Scout/X-Courier can. Heck, you would even be able to start the "delivery cycle" from 100 diameters out at the jump point, where the Pinnace takes 2x 10 ton cargo modules at 5G and "goes on ahead" of the ST Scout/X-Courier while the starship maneuvers at 1G into the gravity well. Depending on the details, the Pinnace might be able to "lighten the load" needing to be delivered to orbit or the surface by 1-2 trips before the ST Scout/X-Courier is able to maneuver into a 10,000km standard parking orbit or highport to complete deliveries. Plus, a 5G Pinnace would be a lot faster as an orbital shuttle than a 2G ST Scout/X-Courier could be, in an either/or circumstance, and the last 3x 10 ton cargo modules could be brought from surface to orbit (or orbit to surface) by both the Pinnace and the ST Scout/X-Courier working in tandem when there's nothing else left to transport beyond the contents of their internal cargo bays (although twin craft maneuvering would require adding more crew and their associated overhead costs). Still, 8 acceleration couches swap out rather neatly with 2 starship staterooms as far as tonnage allocation is concerned.

So while the Pinnace option would be dramatically more expensive (an additional MCr 20 according to LBB2.77 and LBB2.81), the flexibility in operations having a Pinnace operating with a ST Scout/X-Courier could improve operational security enough to be able to run external cargo outside of the type A/B starports limitation so as to include type D starports (with no naval or scout bases in-system, per LBB2.81 p35). Yes, you might run into "pirate" Scout/Couriers in type D starport systems, but when confronted with a ST Scout/X-Courier AND Armed Pinnace defense, the odds of winning that 1v2 fight start looking mighty unpromising ... in which case the (would be) pirate Scout/Courier would most likely take a pass and wait for the next opportunity to try their luck.

So of the two options, although the 100+40 tons option is more expensive to purchase (and presumably operate) it would be much more secure and quicker to complete deliveries safely (because time=risk) than the 200 ton option which is cheaper up front but also more limited in a number of other important ways. Whether or not those limitations "matter" to the bottom line entirely depends on the trade route being run.



Hmmm.
Bank financing of a brand new ST Scout/X-Courier plus Pinnace combination would be a list price of MCr 32.1+20=52.1 for a single ship purchase.
MCr 52.1 / 240 = Cr 217,083 per month ... or Cr 108,542 per 2 weeks.
Add life support (Cr 4000) and crew salaries (Cr 6600) and berthing fees (Cr 100) every 2 weeks and the per jump overhead costs climb up to Cr 119,242 every 2 weeks.
Cr 120,000 per jump requires ... Cr 25,000 from X-mail ... leaving Cr 95,000 per jump needing to be financed out of 20+60+10=90 tons of maximum available cargo capacity. Almost, but not quite breaking even (a mere Cr 5000 short) purely on bulk cargo transport.

However, such a combination of ST Scout/X-Courier plus Pinnace would have 10+20=30 tons of internal cargo capacity which could be used for speculative cargo in order to make up for the routine Cr 5000 deficit when not speculating on cargo under a bank financing scenario for a brand new "one off" starship construction plan.

Alternatively, if including volume discount pricing on the ST Scout/X-Courier plus Pinnace, the list price of new craft drops to MCr 28.89+20=48.89.
MCr 48.89 / 240 = Cr 203,709 per month ... or Cr 101,855 per 2 weeks.
Add life support (Cr 4000) and crew salaries (Cr 6600) and berthing fees (Cr 100) every 2 weeks and the per jump overhead costs climb up to Cr 112,555 every 2 weeks.
Cr 113,000 per jump requires ... Cr 25,000 from X-mail ... leaving Cr 88,000 per jump needing to be financed out of 20+60+10=90 tons of maximum available cargo capacity. So with 90 tons of cargo to transport, a (volume production) ST Scout/X-Courier plus Pinnace combination would be earning Cr 2445 per jump-1 if they can manage to swing 90 tons of bulk cargo to transport every jump while under (usury levels) bank financing.



To be honest, at those bank financing rates, it would undoubtedly be better to just buy 40 year old surplus starship and small craft for conversion and then just operate them both at a ridiculous level of profit margin.
Start up costs for such an endeavor would be higher (pay 60% of list price to purchase in full, rather than just 20% down payment), but then the difference in profit margins more than makes up for that initial expense (especially when amortized over 40 years! ).

Yours? Depends on how the referee treats the cargo pod.

The way that I would rule on the matter is that if the external cargo involves passengers, then a Medic is required in order to take on passengers (1 Medic per 120 passengers, remember). If the external cargo is "just cargo" then no additional crew is required (cargo capacity demands no crew).

Just make the external cargo pod 99 tons and you can get by with a pilot and gunner.

Point being that the external load of up to 100 tons can be ANYTHING YOU WANT ... so long as it doesn't exceed 100 tons of external loading.

• 100 tons of Major Cargo = 100 tons
• 50 tons of Major Cargo + 5x 10 ton modules of 2 staterooms and 4 low berths (10 staterooms, 20 low berths total) = 100 tons
• 10x 10 ton fuel/volatiles tankage modules = 100 tons
• 100 tons of Type S Scout/Courier wrecked hulk = 100 tons
• 100 ton planetoid = 100 tons
• 40 ton Pinnace (with 2x 10 ton cargo modules carried internally) + 6x 10 ton cargo modules carried externally = 100 tons

The basic consideration is that the capacity is there ... how you make use of it, is up to YOU as a captain.

 

[coliver988]

I just have a hard time with strapping on external cargo on ships not designed to handle that. While the magical inertialless drives may be able to magically compensate for the additional volume, and technically is not disallowed in the rules, it just feels wrong. While CT did not differentiate how the jump field worked, later additions did bring along the 3 main types:

• grid built into the hull [no way to add external cargo]
• jump plates [you will need to move them around and maybe add new plates for the new cargo pod]
• jump field [which, assuming you can extend the field, may work. I believe the rules cover the ship to the farthest point, so should work. but at what point is it stretched too thin, so to speak? What if we carry a 300m pole?]

Going with the jump field, technically it works within the rules. But I still can't help but feel strapping something on is just going to throw off all the engineering that was designed for a specific shape, even with overpowered drives.

And yeah, there is the jump tug....but that had a special jump net if I recall.

and of course, the whole 10 tons of feathers vs 10 tons of lead not making a difference in your acceleration has bothered me as well but I've let that go....well, I guess we can strap Granny to the top of the ship and not worry about it.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And yeah, there is the jump tug....but that had a special jump net if I recall.

The Jump Ship in LBB S9, p22-23 actually did 2 of the 3 options you cite.

Special field cables attached to the rear of the ship extend the ship's jump field to include this additional cargo. Alterations in displacement will affect the size of the jump itself, but the amount of cargo carried can be varied to fit the needs.

So basically what you wind up with, using your description list is a combination of ...

{snippity}

• grid built into the hull [no way to add external cargo]
• jump plates [you will need to move them around and maybe add new plates for the new cargo pod]
• jump field [which, assuming you can extend the field, may work. I believe the rules cover the ship to the farthest point, so should work. but at what point is it stretched too thin, so to speak? What if we carry a 300m pole?

Jump Grid on the ship itself PLUS "special field cables" to increase the displacement of the Jump Field beyond the confines of the hull of the starship.

It's the same principle as gets used for the difference in L-Hyd drop tank performance depending on whether the tanks are retained or dropped on a Gazelle class close escort (LBB S7 p30-35 and 47).

CE-3455762
L-Hyd tanks add 100 tons of fuel and displacement (CE-4444762) and cost MCr.11

If the jump field couldn't be extended to include the drop tanks, then the USP with tanks retained would have to be CE-4404762 instead of being CE-4444762 with tanks retained, adding 100 tons to the total displacement.

In other words, there are two precedents of legacy designs detailing the "jump tug" effects on starships carrying external loads through jump. The Close Escort design uses a predefined "fixed" external configuration (drop tanks), while the jump ship design allows for a widely variable combination of external loads to be hauled through jump to other systems, making the S9 Jump Ship a "modular jump tug" that doesn't even require specific shapes or hull types to be compatible with performance (it can just net up some untouched asteroids and jump with them in tow as bulk to be transported, density or configuration not an issue).

In other words ... IT CAN BE DONE ... as demonstrated in OTU LBBs (S7 and S9 specifically) ... it just isn't done all that often (because, I'm assuming, almost no one writing materials at that time gave serious thought to the Barge+Tug business model of operations for both interplanetary and interstellar applications, let alone went to the lengths that I have to expound on the potential possibilities in detail).

There's thinking inside the box (ie. the hull) ... and thinking outside the box (still, the hull) ... and then there's adding more boxes outside the box (yet again, the hull) like I'm attempting to do here. So long as the concept of "towing" is allowed in Your Traveller Universe ... external loads become possible, with starships acting like "sky cranes" of a sort, provided they have enough excess drive capacity to move themselves plus their external cargo in a "tug" capacity.

Some environments (atmospheric maneuvering/entry/exit) will require a "clean" hull configuration with no external loads, meaning that if you need to shuttle from orbit to surface to orbit through an atmosphere you'll need to be able to fit discrete "chunks" of the external load into the internal cargo bay in order to safely land/launch those items through an atmosphere (including, I would presume, an orbital skimming of a gas giant). But so long as you have the internal cargo capacity to "break down" a larger external load into discrete sections for orbit to surface to orbit transfers, there's no reason you can't make use of an external load capacity as a "tug" for maneuver and/or jump.

 

[whartung]

While the magical inertialless drives may be able to magically compensate for the additional volume, and technically is not disallowed in the rules, it just feels wrong.

Why, whatever do you mean?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Why, whatever do you mean?

That is DEFINITELY a Grav Moped right there ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

That is DEFINITELY a Grav Moped right there ...

What you don't see is that the floral display is wrapped around a bunch of helium balloons.

(It's also 'shopped, of course.)

 

[Gray Lensman]

I don't know ... I was stationed in Korea at one point and to see someone on a light motorbike or bicycle with 20 individually caged chickens on the back was an everyday thing ;-D

 

[whartung]

(It's also 'shopped, of course.)

Oh, no, that is certainly not shopped.

There are lots of photos like these. I picked this one (after my exhaustive, 2 second search) simply because it was on 2 wheels, meaning it has to be really well balanced. In contrast to large loads on full size tricycles.

 

[Condottiere]