What Do X-boat Pilots Do?

[the angle]

Got to thinking about this on a walk yesterday.

X-boats don't have maneuver drives, so the pilot obviously doesn't "fly" it in any normal sense.

He could plot the jump course, but that could be done remotely and transmitted to the ship by radio immediately before the jump. Flipping the switch to send the ship into jump doesn't require a person on board. Neither does having the ship drop out of jump space at the end of the trip or triggering the message burst. The first happens automatically, and the second is easily programmed into a computer.

So what does he do? X-boats could be significantly more efficient if they were just self-contained, jump-capable robots without interior room sacrificed to a crew compartment and life support.

I'd always assumed that a ship in jump space was on auto-pilot, and interfering with it was a really bad idea. But if you accept that x-boats have pilots for a reason, it implies that the pilot of any ship performs an important job in jump space. What is it? Does a ship in jump space require constant course corrections? I could see needing an engineer to monitor the power plant and drive, but why a pilot for a ship that can't be 'flown'?

Steve

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Supp7 does actually say the ship can function automatically.

Mostly, he's there "just in case."

 

[far-trader]

Supp7 does actually say the ship can function automatically.

It does?

I didn't recall that. Had to look (you dragged me away from catching up on overdue design checksums ) and so it does o: In the little box text on pg 9, I must have forgotten that a long time ago.

Mostly, he's there "just in case."

Yep, to defend the X-mail with his trusty sidearm until a Tender shows up :smirk:

I also figure the pilot and passenger are part of a redistribution system for IISS personnel too. Hey, you've got these J4 X-Boats whizzing all over the Imperium anyway, what better way to quickly transfer key personnel in a hurry (no stop-overs, just jump after jump after jump...), and fairly unnoticed. A pilot might also be given a message to deliver down the line, something too sensitive to commit to hard copy, to be memorized and passed on only to the intended recipient.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I'd forgotten it too!

 

[rancke]

Supp7 does actually say the ship can function automatically.

Mostly, he's there "just in case."

My explanation (which also "explains" why jump torpedoes are not used for regular communication) is that there is a statistically significant greater number of misjumps when a ship does not have a live (and concious) sophont aboard. About 3% of automatic jumps are never heard from again (presumably the explanation is misjumps, but for all anyone knows, the Mindbending Slynk eats empty ships/torpedoes). The Vilani noticed this thousands of years ago. No one has ever come up with an explanation, but the fact remains that X-boats do better with someone aboard.

(Another explanation that I would dearly like for Marc Miller to authorize is that X-boats have maneuver drives; since the Book 2 ship design rules turned out to be wrong (for the OTU), there's absolutely no good reason why X-boats are designed without maneuver drives).


Hans

 

[aramis]

What he does is the routine maintenace required by the hull, drives and computer.

 

[far-trader]

What he does is the routine maintenace required by the hull, drives and computer.

But that would be an Engineer not a Pilot

(not that I don't disagree, it would make more sense imo if crewing were done that way)

My explanation (which also "explains" why jump torpedoes are not used for regular communication) is that there is a statistically significant greater number of misjumps when a ship does not have a live (and concious) sophont aboard. About 3% of automatic jumps are never heard from again (presumably the explanation is misjumps, but for all anyone knows, the Mindbending Slynk eats empty ships/torpedoes). The Vilani noticed this thousands of years ago. No one has ever come up with an explanation, but the fact remains that X-boats do better with someone aboard.

Not a bad story for it. Similar to my take (I like to make the Navigator/Astrogator earn their pay) where there are continual fine adjustments made to the Jump Trim throughout Jump to insure a smooth and desired outcome, requiring as much intuition as calculation. So automated jump is a no-go in mtu (though your idea of doable but dicey is tempting me).

(Another explanation that I would dearly like for Marc Miller to authorize is that X-boats have maneuver drives; since the Book 2 ship design rules turned out to be wrong (for the OTU), there's absolutely no good reason why X-boats are designed without maneuver drives).

Referring of course (for those not aware) to the fact that Book 2 1st edition allowed the X-boat, while Book 2 2nd edition broke it, and Book 5 of course (and most if not all sets after that) totally invalidated the design.

Me I'd rather the design "idea" had been kept but "fixed" for the rule set in use. For example my Book 5 take on it would be a TL15 J5 version but otherwise much the same; 2 staterooms, 1ton cargo, no maneuver, but with 4 weeks endurance and a model/5 computer.

 

[Whipsnade]

Steve,

What does an X-boat pilot do during his flight?

In the OTU, he earns pilot pay while working as a drive lackey. He plots the jump very rarely, perhaps only to keep up his qualifications. He does not control the boat while in jump either. Jump courses are fixed and, while vessels may move through jump space, they do not maneuver in jump space.

What the "pilot" does is monitor the machinery aboard the x-boat during jump. He performs all sorts of planned maintenance and other small repairs. He most likely monitors the "check sums" the boat's data banks are performing too. What he is is a custodian.

So why call him a pilot instead of a drive lackey? That question is easy: So the IISS can pay him more. Just because he's called a "pilot" is doesn't always follows that he's doing the work of a pilot. Let's not confuse labels with reality.

Think of it. X-boat duty has to be among the worst billets the IISS can offer and, leaving that meta-game construct called "The Draft" aside, the Imperium doesn't have conscription. How can they fill all the needed slots? If volunteers knew they were certain to spend at least a year flying x-boats if assigned to the Communications Branch, the IISS would have few volunteers for the Comm Branch first and then the entire service soon after.

So the title of "X-boat Pilot" is part of the IISS' recruiting enticement. Join the IISS and, even if you get the Comm Branch and are stuck in the 'boats, you'll go to Pilot School, get pilot skill, and draw pilot pay despite the fact you'll actually be performing routine in-flight maintenance aboard what is essentially a data bank.

Rank and title "inflation" for pay and morale purposes are commonplace. The US Army had it's tech ranks which allowed specialists to draw higher rates of pay while serving in non-command positions. I myself enjoyed a similar "inflation" in the US Navy. I was an E-4 one month out of boot camp and an E-6 after only six years. The civilian world experiences this too. Babysitters are now "day care providers" and reporters are "journalists".

I prefer this "social" answer to what seems to be a "gearhead" problem because it adds no handwaves to the game. No facts changes and none are added, only our perception of how those facts fit together changes.

Now, IMTU, a "pilot" or "engineer" is needed during jump to manage the "interface" between the vessel's jump bubble and the jump space dimension outside. It's a "tuning" problem that involves both piloting/navigation and engineering issues. The better you remain "tuned" to the plot you produced before you jumped, the better chance you'll have of hitting your planned exit point in time and space. Vessels can jump "unmanned", it's just that they never hit their exit point within 100s of AUs or tens of hours because no one was aboard to monitor the interface.

(I sidestep jump torpedos by having a 100dTon "hard limit" on size. You can't maintain or control a jump bubble smaller than that.)


Regards,
Bill

P.S. Hans' idea is a good one, however I eschew it because it smacks of psionics and the hyperspace device pilots use for navigation in Niven's Known Space series.

 

[samuelvss]

Now, IMTU, a "pilot" or "engineer" is needed during jump to manage the "interface" between the vessel's jump bubble and the jump space dimension outside. It's a "tuning" problem that involves both piloting/navigation and engineering issues. The better you remain "tuned" to the plot you produced before you jumped, the better chance you'll have of hitting your planned exit point in time and space. Vessels can jump "unmanned", it's just that they never hit their exit point within 100s of AUs or tens of hours because no one was aboard to monitor the interface.

(I sidestep jump torpedos by having a 100dTon "hard limit" on size. You can't maintain or control a jump bubble smaller than that.)
[/i] series.

I take basically the same approach, only the navigator has a role in this "tuning" process, if there is one. The small starshipship pilot, then, far from being a drive lackey, is one of the elite. He is, within jump space, doing the job of three professionals. On exitting jumpspace, a Scout-courier pilot who has missed his exit point is able to use maneuver drives to tidy things up with no one the wise; the Xboat Pilot on the other hand is there, dead on, or not. If there is a lag from a few hours of tender maneuver, that will delay the whole route. Of course each "downstream" pilot will pass on who it was who caused the delay (otherwise they'd get blamed).

Is this the prestigious end of pilotting? Not from the perspective of most: no glamorous High Passengers to dine with, no crew, no combat ribbons, no dramatic entries to high ports, no holos made about them, and indeed no notice by 99.9% of interstellar society. There is a certain deep, innate pride some X-boat pilots have in their role.

 

[rancke]

Me I'd rather the design "idea" had been kept but "fixed" for the rule set in use.

Oh, I agree completely. There is some nice background material that it would be a pity to lose. I'd much prefer an explanation to a retcon. But I make one proviso: viz that the explanation makes a modicum of sense.

Can you come up with any explanation (short of the one Book 2 provided, that there was no other way to make a 100 T jump-4 ship than to leave out the maneuver drive)? What design feature could possibly be worth giving up that amount of flexibility and introduce such complications to the procedures?

For example my Book 5 take on it would be a TL15 J5 version but otherwise much the same; 2 staterooms, 1ton cargo, no maneuver, but with 4 weeks endurance and a model/5 computer.

My objections positively trip over each other .

* The X-boats are jump-4 designs, not jump-5. Even if you introduce jump-5 trunk lines, most of the secondary links would still be jump-4 (or lower). If yuo do introduce jump-5 trunk lines, why not make them jump-6 while you're at it?

* You really think a spare stateroom is worth giving up maneuvering capability? I sure don't. I'd put the pilot in a bunk (and give him triple pay ) if I had to. One stateroom that usually isn't even occupied by two people is pure luxury. Or if you must have an extra stateroom, make it a half-sized one (A maneuver drive only costs 2 dT); any passenger desperate enough to travel by X-boat would be desperate enough to make do with a closet to live in.

* How about a 4bis computer instead? OK, it's not listed on the computers list, but if you can make a 1bis at TL6 and a 2bis at TL8, surely you can make a 4bis at TL11.

My suggestion would be to keep the exterior hull but to put in a small maneuver drive. And keep the X-boat tenders too. Just because an X-boat can maneuver by itself doesn't mean tenders won't be needed.


Hans

 

[Spinward Scout]

What Do X-boat Pilots Do?

Sleep and dream of being promoted to Exploration Branch.

 

[aramis]

Bk 2 (post-1981) Design
100 Hull
015 JD B (J4)
007 PP B (P4)
040 J4 Fuel
020 Bridge
010 1Wk PP Fuel
004 Model 4
004 Stateroom
===
100 Td

Bk2 Pre1981
100 Hull
015 JD B (J4)
004 PP A (P2)
040 J4 Fuel
010 2 weeks fuel
020 Bridge
004 Model 4
004 Stateroom x1
003 Cargo
===
100 Td

Bk 5 design
100 Hull
005 JD 4
008 TL13 PP4
004 4 weeks PP fuel
040 J4 Fuel
004 Model 4
008 2x SR
020 bridge.
011 cargo
===
100 td

In comparison, the 1st Ed Bk2 works nicely; it even has room for a MD A.

 

[far-trader]

Oh, I agree completely. There is some nice background material that it would be a pity to lose. I'd much prefer an explanation to a retcon. But I make one proviso: viz that the explanation makes a modicum of sense.

A modicum of sense might be too much to ask of canon.

Can you come up with any explanation (short of the one Book 2 provided, that there was no other way to make a 100 T jump-4 ship than to leave out the maneuver drive)? What design feature could possibly be worth giving up that amount of flexibility and introduce such complications to the procedures?

Outside of Book 2 (meaning maneuver drives need a powerplant and huge amount of fuel)? No. But I'm not even sure that it was a design driven idea in the first place. I think it was a scenario driven design and that the whole complicated idea was the reason, not the result.

My objections positively trip over each other .

Of course

* The X-boats are jump-4 designs, not jump-5. Even if you introduce jump-5 trunk lines, most of the secondary links would still be jump-4 (or lower). If yuo do introduce jump-5 trunk lines, why not make them jump-6 while you're at it?

I can see J5 because at least one link (in the Marches) is J5*. The idea being that maybe Book 5 is best explained as new mature tech and Book 2 as old obsolete tech. So Book 5 allows replacing the J4 system with J5. Even if all the links don't use J5 it still gives you extra fuel in case of misjump or to speed up system pass through. You might even have systems that wouldn't need a Tender. And it adds a little versatility in times of war.

* EDIT - Actually, and I think I may have realized and forgotten before, that J5 link is J4 if measured rather than hex counted, so "Never Mind"

As for why not J6, because even with Book 5 it won't quite work in 100tons. Then of course one wonders why the apparently arbitrary limit on making the X-Boat system limited to 100ton ships? (Again it goes back to Book 2 where you could get J4 in 100tons at TL9) Or why if using Book 5 it's not 100tons with a lot more room for high maneuver, cargo, weapons, crew, etc. by utilizing drop tanks?

* You really think a spare stateroom is worth giving up maneuvering capability?

No, I think it makes little sense from a design view, but I don't think that's the reason the ship was built the way it was.

One stateroom is plenty. But that's not how it was designed because originally you couldn't fit a maneuver drive in so what else to use the space for? I wonder why not a weapon and a couple low berths more than why an extra stateroom. My point is redesigning it to include a maneuver drive or whatever "because you can" breaks the background and I don't think one should if still calling it the OTU. Making it J5 doesn't really break the background while allowing a legitimate use for all that "extra" tonnage. It's a capability that exists but isn't much used nor really changes things much even if it were.

* How about a 4bis computer instead? OK, it's not listed on the computers list, but if you can make a 1bis at TL6 and a 2bis at TL8, surely you can make a 4bis at TL11.

Book 5 1st edition had bis models all the way through. So you could, and it would be TL11. And (if I recall correctly) Book 2 1st edition and Book 5 1st edition didn't require that computer model equal Jump number, you just needed enough computer to run the programs, so you could get by with a model/3 TL9 for J4. Not sure why a model/4 was specified originally, unless it hinted at design rule changes to come or because there was probably an extra ton of space, so why not.

My suggestion would be to keep the exterior hull but to put in a small maneuver drive. And keep the X-boat tenders too. Just because an X-boat can maneuver by itself doesn't mean tenders won't be needed.

Not that it's a bad idea, actually it would be a good idea, and the artwork supports a maneuver drive (but art and fact rarely match in games and novels). But again, it would be too big a change. No longer is the poor Scout stuck waiting in his X-Boat for the Tender. No more dramatic plot potentials in the dilemma. I'm all but sure that was the reason for the setup so imo that's how it should be.

Tenders are another bit of a design mess imo. But I've got to go so I can't get into that here right now. Not even sure I want to...

 

[rancke]

Bk 5 design
100 Hull
005 JD 4
008 TL13 PP4
004 4 weeks PP fuel
040 J4 Fuel
004 Model 4
008 2x SR
031 cargo
===
100 td

IIRC HG requires a bridge too, and I'm not even sure if the minimum size of 20 dT has been dropped. However:

100 Hull
005 JD 4
008 TL13 PP4
004 4 weeks PP fuel
040 J4 Fuel
002 1G MD
020 Bridge (Should probably be less)
004 Model 4
004 1x SR
010 Spare jump fuel
003 cargo
===
100 td

A much more versatile design

In comparison, the 1st Ed Bk2 works nicely; it even has room for a MD A.

In comparison to what? It's one of the designs that isn't broken according to the system it's design by, sure, but that doesn't help much when the system it's designed by is broken by the system that replaced it. The Book 2 and the Book 5 design systems are mutually exclusive, the grandfathering clause in HG to the contrary notwithstanding.



Hans

 

[robject]

(Another explanation that I would dearly like for Marc Miller to authorize is that X-boats have maneuver drives; since the Book 2 ship design rules turned out to be wrong (for the OTU), there's absolutely no good reason why X-boats are designed without maneuver drives).

Hans

Only the design provided says they don't; I'd expect to see variant designs and Q-ships.

 

[rancke]

Outside of Book 2 (meaning maneuver drives need a powerplant and huge amount of fuel)? No. But I'm not even sure that it was a design driven idea in the first place. I think it was a scenario driven design and that the whole complicated idea was the reason, not the result.

I think someone noticed that you could do a 100T jump-4 ship if you left out the maneuver drive and that the whole X-boat system arose from that. It seems more likely than someone saying, wouldn't it be neat if there was a system of courier ships that couldn't move on their own? After all, it's a pretty silly idea (IMNSHO). What scenario are you referring to? I'm not aware that there was an adventure involving X-boats until TD1.

I can see J5 because at least one link (in the Marches) is J5.

I can see that one link being a mistake (or, just possibly, an experiment) because the background text explicitly states that X-boats are jump-4.

The idea being that maybe Book 5 is best explained as new mature tech and Book 2 as old obsolete tech.

That doesn't work. The Imperium has had jump-4 technology for 700 years, jump-5 for 400, and jump-6 for 100. The AHLs were designed with the technology described in HG back before the Solomani Rim War.

So Book 5 allows replacing the J4 system with J5. Even if all the links don't use J5 it still gives you extra fuel in case of misjump or to speed up system pass through. You might even have systems that wouldn't need a Tender. And it adds a little versatility in times of war.

So does a jump-4 design with 10 T of extra fuel. And you're much more likely to not need a tender if the X-boat can maneuver on its own.

As for why not J6, because even with Book 5 it won't quite work in 100tons.

Really? Is that because it requires a 20T bridge? Because it looks to me like there would be room otherwise, but I could be wrong.

Then of course one wonders why the apparently arbitrary limit on making the X-Boat system limited to 100ton ships? (Again it goes back to Book 2 where you could get J4 in 100tons at TL9).

Whereas by HG you're not limited to a handful of standard designs and can custom-make 110T hulls if that's what it takes to make a jump-6 X-boat.

However, jump-5 and jump-6 X-boats will be more expensive than jump-4 X-boats, so I can totally see jump-4 X-boats being retained on the secondary routes and jump-6 boats restricted to trunk lines. I can see absolutely no good reason to eshew jump-6 altogether. (Well, except for the reason I've suggested before: When jump-5 was invented, the Navy glommed onto it and kept it for itself for as long as they could. By the time it was released fro civilian use, the Imperial Bureaucracy had been relying on NavyNet instead of the X-web for a generation and there was no reason to upgrade. Same thing happened when jump-6 was invented).

Or why if using Book 5 it's not 100tons with a lot more room for high maneuver, cargo, weapons, crew, etc. by utilizing drop tanks?

Drop tanks (or rather, the special capacitors you need to use them for jump) are a genuine new invention.

No, I think it makes little sense from a design view, but I don't think that's the reason the ship was built the way it was.

The in-universe design view IS the reason the ship was built the way it was... in-universe, that is.

My point is redesigning it to include a maneuver drive or whatever "because you can" breaks the background and I don't think one should if still calling it the OTU.

True, but the breaking was done when the rules were changed to make it inexpressively stupid to design it the other way, precisely because you can and always could design it with a maneuver drive.

Making it J5 doesn't really break the background while allowing a legitimate use for all that "extra" tonnage. It's a capability that exists but isn't much used nor really changes things much even if it were.

But the disconnect comes when you ask "Why is the capability not used?" There's no good reason why not.

Book 5 1st edition had bis models all the way through. So you could, and it would be TL11. And (if I recall correctly) Book 2 1st edition and Book 5 1st edition didn't require that computer model equal Jump number, you just needed enough computer to run the programs, so you could get by with a model/3 TL9 for J4. Not sure why a model/4 was specified originally, unless it hinted at design rule changes to come or because there was probably an extra ton of space, so why not.

The way I look at it, there's a "real" way that shipbuilding works in the OTU. Every design system we've seen has tried to emulated that one single "real" way, though some of them were egregiously wrong in various ways (HG has ridiculous power plant fuel consumption, MT has the jump fuel requirements wrong, TNE uses fusion drives instead of thrusters, GT has that 20% for streamlining foolishness, etc.) I don't want to shop around and find the design system that works best for one particular ship and then turn around and use another one for another ship. I want a unified system that's closest to "reality" without being overly complicated (Is the lower limit for a jump field really 100.0000 dT or could you actually make a 97.8765 dT hull in "reality"? ). Though sometimes it's not easy to figure out what that "reality". Do you really need a factor 5 computer to compute a jump-5? What IS a factor 5 computer?

Not that it's a bad idea, actually it would be a good idea, and the artwork supports a maneuver drive (but art and fact rarely match in games and novels). But again, it would be too big a change. No longer is the poor Scout stuck waiting in his X-Boat for the Tender. No more dramatic plot potentials in the dilemma. I'm all but sure that was the reason for the setup so imo that's how it should be.

Too big a change in what sense? Would it invalidate any official adventure or amber zone? I can't recall any that involved a poor Scout waiting in his X-boat for the tender. Would it invalidate the X-boat system? I can't see how. Just what would have to be retconned (other than the description of the X-boat itself) to make such a change work?

I'm not saying that I don't regret the necessity of getting rid of the drive-less X-boat, but not nearly as much as I regret leaving it be without an explanation that works.

Tenders are another bit of a design mess imo. But I've got to go so I can't get into that here right now. Not even sure I want to

I've never studied the tenders in any detail, so I can't comment on that. But I'd be happy to read more about it.


Hans

 

[Madarin Dude]

Well i can see a number of reasons for two staterooms.
1. To keep said pilot from going nuts. give him a bit of space.
2. For high priority discrete passengers. X boats come and go all the time it will not cause a stir but a high jump capable craft leaving a port might raise suspicion.
3. I think scouts in the explorer branch might hop on X boats like pilots riding in the jump seat to go to their homeworlds or to go to an area requiring exploration. I can see this encouraged and it being a secret perk of being in the scouts.

 

[rancke]

Well i can see a number of reasons for two staterooms.
1. To keep said pilot from going nuts. give him a bit of space.

It is only a week he's going to spend alone. If he was going to crack in that time, another 18 square meters isn't going to make a difference. In any case,it'd make more sense to do a psyc evaluation of the pilots that to give them superfluous space, especially if it means having to leave out a maneuver drive. I can just imagine how much extra mental pressure it'd give a pilot to be unable to maneuver...

2. For high priority discrete passengers. X boats come and go all the time it will not cause a stir but a high jump capable craft leaving a port might raise suspicion.
3. I think scouts in the explorer branch might hop on X boats like pilots riding in the jump seat to go to their homeworlds or to go to an area requiring exploration. I can see this encouraged and it being a secret perk of being in the scouts.

Sure, if there is room for it and nothing better to used it for, an extra stateroom makes a lot of sense. But IMO a maneuver drive IS something better to use the space for. A lot better.


Hans

 

[Darley51]

"Just in Case"

Supp7 does actually say the ship can function automatically.

Mostly, he's there "just in case."

It's a Union Issue (those Teamsters.....):rofl:

 

[far-trader]

I hate the way the new board software does quotes!

Or more specifically I hate the way it can't do nested quotes the way it used to Makes some replies a friggan nightmare to compose or understand. Apologies in advance...

/RANT

I think someone noticed that you could do a 100T jump-4 ship if you left out the maneuver drive and that the whole X-boat system arose from that. It seems more likely than someone saying, wouldn't it be neat if there was a system of courier ships that couldn't move on their own? After all, it's a pretty silly idea (IMNSHO). What scenario are you referring to? I'm not aware that there was an adventure involving X-boats until TD1.

Not a specific adventure, perhaps I should have said plot? I'm sure I recall it from some sci-fi novel, or at least the roots of it and much of the IISS raison d'etre. Just can't recall which novel(s) or author.

That doesn't work. The Imperium has had jump-4 technology for 700 years, jump-5 for 400, and jump-6 for 100. The AHLs were designed with the technology described in HG back before the Solomani Rim War.

You misunderstand, I was not clear enough. Take the Book 2 builds as old Vilaini tech. Where you can get J6 much earlier than TL15 and not need a huge computer, but only on small hulls. And where maneuver drives are fusion torches (per Book 5 1st ed) and use a lot of fuel. Then Book 5 comes along to represent the modern Vilani tech where Jump is tied to TL and raw Computer power is required. But maneuver drives are no longer dangerous wasteful fusion torches but advanced gravitic thrusters that only need power.

I'm not saying it really works, it's just a vague wave at attempting to put the two in the same universe. Since despite the obvious bad idea it was, B2 is grandfathered into B5.

Really? Is that because it requires a 20T bridge? Because it looks to me like there would be room otherwise, but I could be wrong.

Yep. You end up at 99tons with just the drives, fuel, and bridge. Before computer, stateroom, or cargo.

Drop tanks (or rather, the special capacitors you need to use them for jump) are a genuine new invention.

The special capacitors were part of HG 1st ed and dropped from HG 2nd ed. And it was TL12 for the capacitor making it available long before the later colour text introduces it in the timeline.

(I can't stand trying to reply to this anymore, not you Hans, I mean the forking lack of easy nested quotes so I can keep track of what I'm replying to and those reading can keep up with the points, I'm getting a headache, maybe later, but I think I hit the main points, the rest I probably agree with you)

I've never studied the tenders in any detail, so I can't comment on that. But I'd be happy to read more about it.

I'll try to remember to put something together, but I've got a couple other prior commitments to get to first and am likely to forget. I wouldn't say I've studied any of it in detail, just wondered for years the whys and why nots, like so many others