CT Only: Fleet Scout (Type SF) 199.5Td, J4/4G

[Grav_Moped]

This is the "fast" variant of my Type ST Transport Scout (199Td, J4/2G).
It trades two staterooms, the air/raft, and two Td of cargo space for a full power plant fuel allocation and and upgrade to Maneuver-D (from B) -- and gets bumped up half a ton in size. (This will be significant in later iterations of the design.) It is fully LBB2'81 compliant in this iteration.

Using a 199.5-ton custom streamlined hull, the Fleet Scout is intended for moderately long range reconnaissance in coordination with Imperial fleet movements. It has jump drive-D, maneuver drive-D, and power plant-D, giving performance of jump-4 and 4-G acceleration. A 120-ton fuel tank provides fuel for four weeks of power plant operation and one jump-4. Adjacent to its bridge is a Model/4 computer. There are two staterooms and no low berths. One MLS triple turret is installed on the ship's hardpoint. Cargo capacity is 1.5 tons. The hull is streamlined, and incorporates fuel scoops. The drives can tolerate unrefined fuel without difficultly. Sensors are Scout/Military grade unless specified otherwise.

The Fleet Scout's crew consists of a pilot and a gunner. MCr129.33 in serial production, MCr143.79 individually.

And yes, it's nifty but not particularly helpful for RPG campaigns. I'll get to that -- and start catching flak for it, I suppose.

But as-is, it doesn't really need deck plans. Two staterooms, the bridge, and the drive bay is all there is to it. Oh, and fuel tanks.

Sorry about the alignment issues -- at least it fell into place correctly.

199.5​	J4 199.5Td​	0​	143.7​	129.33​
20​	0.1​	bridge​	143.7​	Type SF Fleet Scout. J4/4G, TL-10 (LBB2).​
4​	30​	comp​	​	Computer sets TL at 10. Takes 2EP when ECM active.​
8​	1​	SR​	​	Crew=Pilot, Gunner since < 200Td​
25​	40​	j D​	J4​	​
13​	32​	p D​	Pn 4​	​
7​	16​	m D​	4G​	​
80​	​	jf​	​	​
40​	​	pf​	​	​
​	22​	hull (B2 Streamline)​	​	Alternate: HG "Flattened Sphere" @ MCr 16 saves MCr 6.​
​	0.1​	hardpoints​	​	2 hardpoints.​
1​	1​	turret​	​	1 3xTurret​
0​	1.5​	MLS wpns​	​	Beam laser, missile launcher, sandcaster​
1.5​	0​	Cargo​	​	​
​	​	​	​	​

 

[Grav_Moped]

Second iteration: Replace 20 tons of fuel tankage with demountable tanks (from TCS). Costs MCr 0.2.
With tanks installed, still unquestionably legal per Rules as Written (RAW).
With them removed, add 20Td cargo; ship is then J-3 (fuel limited)/4G per RAW.

And this is where we get into the house rules section of the ship design...
The "Yacht loophole" (accept it or don't) means it can make a jump-4 with only 2 weeks (20Td) of fuel for the powerplant. This may require using the TCS powerdown rule broken down into weeks (rather than entire months as that rule is written), and restricting the ship to 1G (Pn1) during the transits to and from Jump Limit at either end of the trip. (If you're not picky, allow brief use of up to Pn4/4G for combat).

I don't think this is entirely necessary, and probably wouldn't use it. Maybe only short it by 10, not 20, tons of fuel? But still....

 

[Grav_Moped]

Third iteration: Replace 20 tons of fuel tankage with collapsible tanks (HG, TCS). Cost: MCr 0.010

This starts at the same point as the first iteration with the demountable tanks removed (J3/4G), but with 20Td of not-immediately-accessible fuel.

However (and we're into house rules again -- but I think they're sensible)...

Once the J4 (or any jump, for that matter) is initiated and the fuel burned, the entire contents of the collapsible tank can be transferred into the main tanks, and this takes three hours. Despite RAW requiring the entire power plant fuel allocation to be in hard tanks, it would be rather strange if the first 20Td of fuel (enough to support the power plant for two weeks) is completely exhausted by the outbound trip and initiating the jump.

This is (if it is) only "illegal" for the hour and a half it takes to get a "legal-by-that-point" amount of the fuel transferred from the collapsible tank into the main tanks, after the decision to make a Jump-4 is implemented. After three hours, it's absolutely rules compliant from then on.

This is where I get creative...
Remember that 1.5 tons of cargo? We're using it.

The typical distribution of space in a stateroom is 3m between decks, of which 2.2m is living space and 0.8m is ducting, plumbing, wiring, and air filtration. That is, about 25% of it is life support systems. So, let's get one stateroom worth of life support (1Td, and price it like the whole stateroom) into 1Td of cargo, leaving half a ton for other stuff.

At this point, there's enough life support for 6 personnel (two full staterooms at double occupancy, and the mechanicals for another full stateroom at double occupancy) -- but not the space for them. Crew stays on the bridge on the outbound leg, the remaining four (passengers) have two staterooms (double occupancy) to wander around in for 12 hours, tops. Expect them to do a lot of napping. Drugs may be involved.

That's why it has the collapsible fuel tank. Folding the empty tank after the jump fuel burn, frees up 19.8Td of elbow room for the occupants (five staterooms worth!) during the jump and the inbound leg at the destination.

The extra half ton of cargo space holds folding cots, tables, and chairs, and sound-deadening blankets to be hung as room dividers.

So, you can carry 4 passengers. One of those might be willing to pay almost standard mid-passage rates, if the crew and other passengers set aside one of the two actual staterooms for them (which they probably wouldn't unless that passenger is a very VIP). The rest, far below that.

Typically, though, the passengers aren't paying; instead they've been ordered to (or are willing to) take space-available transportation.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And this is where we get into the house rules section of the ship design...
The "Yacht loophole" (accept it or don't) means it can make a jump-4 with only 2 weeks (20Td) of fuel for the powerplant.

Third iteration: Replace 20 tons of fuel tankage with collapsible tanks (HG, TCS). Cost: MCr 0.010

When it comes to collapsible fuel tankage, all you really need is "1 ton of internal fuel left over after jumping" to buy you sufficient time to transfer the contents of the collapsible fuel tank(s) over 3 hours into internal fuel tanks and survive the jump.

41 tons internal (+20 tons collapsible) - 40 ton expended at jump = <1 ton internal at jump (+20 tons collaspible)
After 3 hours into jump = between 20-21 tons of internal fuel reserves

Having that "1 ton of additional reserve" like that then allows you to shuffle/shell game your fuel reserves in ways that make the trip work. You'll arrive at your destination with smaller fuel reserves than you would have if you'd done it "the regular/ordinary way" but then THAT'S ON YOU as an operator to manage your fuel reserves and prevent a casualty/mishap from occurring.

The way I read the 10Pn fuel rule for starships under 1000 tons using standard drives is that the fuel regulations are "biased" in favor of extended endurance/excessive fuel supply required for reasons of safety margin. Smaller starships lack the necessary bulk/volume to be able to handle casualties/mishaps all that easily. When a loss of 10 tons of fuel can amount to 25% (or more!) of your internal fuel capacity, that's a potential "lights out" vulnerability that can shut down EVERYTHING aboard (including life support) and battery backups will have a limited endurance window (measured in hours, not weeks).

Bring CT Beltstrike fuel consumption rules into the picture (updated to account for the more flexible EP consumption accounting system that works more broadly and includes more edge cases) and suddenly that "excessive" fuel load of 40 tons in a 100 ton Scout/Courier can potentially last for 6 months or more on station maneuvering around within a star system between wilderness refueling runs, which then makes a LOT more sense in an interstellar exploratory/survey craft than a more simplistic 1 month endurance range.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Yeah, one probably only needs a few Td of hard-tankage power plant fuel if the rest is still on hand, in a strictly mechanical sense. Main problem is that a fuel hit takes out the entire folding tank.

I see the 10Pn rule as something that's arbitrarily flawed, but which can be made mostly tolerable by munchkin-ing around it (amortized TCS powerdown) and retconning (the excessive allocation gives the Type S a spare parsec of range, with careful fuel management).

 

[Spinward Flow]

I see the 10Pn rule as something that's arbitrarily flawed, but munchkin-ing around it (TCS powerdown) and retconning (gives the Type S a spare parsec of range) makes it mostly tolerable.

The LBB2.77 Scout/Courier was definitely a product of the rules as formulated at that time in 1977 ... but then as the rules (and OTU lore) got further developed, the original formulation of the design began to suffer from paradigm mismatch as the years (and CT releases) rolled on.

I honestly think that it would be quite fun to work up a revised and updated Scout/Courier design that could take advantage of ALL of the developments (in CT) that happened after 1977, while still remaining "true to the spirit" of the original 1977 design aesthetic.

For example ...

4 staterooms "sound great" for life support accommodations ... except that as soon as you want to include middle/high passenger services you MUST have a medic on board for interstellar passengers, so AT BEST you're looking at actually only having 4 staterooms for 2 crew (minimum) and 2 passengers ... and if you want to be doing high passenger services, you're going to need a steward-1/medical-2 skill (so as to take -1DM on each crew position) on a single crewman, plus the pilot.
(3300+2200)*0.75 + 6000 = Cr10,125 per month in crew salaries to enable transportation of 2 high passengers

If you dual skill the pilot to also be a gunner (for the turret) you wind up with this:
(3300+2200)*0.75 + (6600+1100)*0.75 = Cr9900 per month in crew salaries enable transportation of 2 high passengers + mail

If you remove the air/raft as a standard feature and instead turn the air/raft into a "mission module package" that is only required on some missions, even under LBB2.77 with 4x staterooms you've got 7 tons of cargo space to play around with.

7 tons of cargo space can do ALL KINDS OF THINGS that the original design cannot (especially if the cargo hold is a singular multipurpose space). For commercial purposes, the first thing that comes to mind is the option to install a 5 ton Mail Vault for those Courier service that the original design seems uniquely UNsuited to being able to perform. That then leaves you with 2 tons left over for Incidental Cargo capacity and/or Life Support Consumables (Cr150,000 per ton = 150 person/weeks per ton) for a Scout / Courier that can "go off the grid" for an almost impossibly HUGE number of missions (both in regular IISS tasking and in Detached Duty service)!

The kicker is that if you increase the internal fuel tankage from 40 tons to 41 tons (so only 6 tons of cargo capacity remaining after dropping the air/raft berth as a standard feature) ... if you're using the fuel consumption of CT Beltstrike, p11 (0.05 tons of fuel for basic power per 100 tons of craft per week, plus 0.35 tons of fuel per EP per week), which incidentally includes the Type-J Seeker (CT Beltstrike, p8) and is detailed specifically as a modified surplus Scout/Courier ... the simple change from 40 to 41 tons of internal fuel makes a TREMENDOUS DIFFERENCE!

Why?
Because 41 tons of internal fuel is sufficient for 2J2 () @ 20 ton each, leaving a 1 ton fuel reserve ... which can be divided up in a number of different ways before needing to refuel.

• 1 week basic power + 1J2 = 20.05 tons
• 1 week 2EP/2G maneuvering = 0.75 tons
• 1 week basic power + 1J2 = 20.05 tons
• = 3 weeks consuming 40.85 tons of fuel
• 0.15 tons of fuel reserve is sufficient for 1.4 days of 2EP/2G maneuver+basic power reserve

An even better option would be to add a (very small!) 1 ton collapsible fuel tank into the (now 6 ton) cargo hold would be sufficient to extend the unrefueled range into being sufficient for 4J1 ().

• 1 week basic power + 1J1 = 10.05 tons
• 1 week of 1EP/1G maneuvering = 0.4 tons
• 1 week basic power + 1J1 = 10.05 tons
• 1 week of 1EP/1G maneuvering = 0.4 tons
• 1 week basic power + 1J1 = 10.05 tons
• 1 week of 1EP/1G maneuvering = 0.4 tons
• 1 week basic power + 1J1 = 10.05 tons
• 1 week of 1EP/1G maneuvering = 0.4 tons
• = 8 weeks consuming 41.8 tons of fuel
• 0.2 tons of fuel reserves is sufficient for 3.5 days of 1EP/1G maneuver+basic power reserve

This would then enable a (revised and updated) Scout/Courier to run a mail delivery route along a J1 main without needing to refuel at every destination along the way while ALSO being able to offer up to 2 high passenger tickets per destination. Such a fuel endurance performance profile would then enable deliveries to destinations lacking in wilderness refueling options ... a circumstance found in the vicinity of Gitosy/Rhylanor and Heroni/Rhylanor, which both lack wilderness refueling options for starships transiting these star systems, although wilderness refueling options are available in adjacent star systems along this part of the Spinward Main.

In other words, even some almost TRIVIALLY MINOR changes to the basic LBB2.77 design fundamentals can VASTLY IMPROVE the utility and versatility of the "ancient" Type-S Scout/Courier that we've always known from the beginning. The changes would even make the ships CHEAPER to buy (even at the LBB2 90% volume production discount!) due to the removal of the air/raft berth as a standard feature on every craft, instead making the air/raft berth a mission specific package only needed occasionally, depending on tasking.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Nifty. But the fundamental problem here is that the Type S is supposed to be lousy at revenue generation.

And there's no reason that the ship has to be stuck with an air/raft -- even in the LBB1-3 context, there's a pressurized modular shelter in LBB3 that could be slotted into the air/raft bay, or a scout on detached duty could opt to leave the grav vehicle at a scout base.

 

[Spinward Flow]

But the fundamental problem here is that the Type S is supposed to be lousy at revenue generation.

Gamers have a term for that.
SELF-GIMPED

Just because "YOU" can't figure out how to make a starship design profitable on a "stagecoach to the stars" basis doesn't mean that "NO ONE" can!

Like I said, I'm thinking that there is a superior Scout/Courier starship design potential buried under all the layers of Legacy and Kruft™ that has been getting carried around since 1977, which can be "cleaned off" using CT alone to make a more capable product for the IISS at an even cheaper price that would also have a chance as a mail courier when sold off as surplus after 40 years of service.

And there's no reason that the ship has to be stuck with an air/raft -- even in the LBB1-3 context, there's a pressurized modular shelter in LBB3 that could be slotted into the air/raft bay, or a scout on detached duty could opt to leave the grav vehicle at a scout base.

I imagine the notion was that a crew would be going places where vehicle rental services weren't always going to be available (see: frontier explorer "scout") often enough for the air/raft berth as a Standard Feature™ make sense ... and for a dedicated Scout starship it does. However, as soon as you fold in the Courier role as well, that air/raft stars becomes dead tonnage that doesn't need to be there all the time (and at 4% of 100 tons is actually rather expensive!).

Ideally speaking, you want the Scout/Courier to be something of a THOROUGHBRED WORKHORSE that can do almost any (and every) bit of low end "scut work" tasking without complaint (aside from a lack of prestige). The whole point is to be the "jeep" of starships that adheres to the old Timex watches jingle ... where they can "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'" ... but can also "pay their own way" to support their own operating costs to help recoup the expense involved in their construction (everyone's favorite phrase in economics, "we make it up in volume!"). That way you have to pay for them up front to construct them, but then they can "pay themselves off" over time through the delivery of useful work until they get sold off into the surplus market (where they'll continue doing useful work until scrapped).

That's far more useful than a design that gets built at a loss, operates at a loss and eventually gets sold off at a loss to the IISS.

 

[Grav_Moped]

You miss my point. The non-profitability is desirable from an out-of-universe (game mechanics/campaign-shaping) perspective. In-universe, it simply is what it is.

 

[Grav_Moped]

For example ...

4 staterooms "sound great" for life support accommodations ... except that as soon as you want to include middle/high passenger services you MUST have a medic on board for interstellar passengers, so AT BEST you're looking at actually only having 4 staterooms for 2 crew (minimum) and 2 passengers ... and if you want to be doing high passenger services, you're going to need a steward-1/medical-2 skill (so as to take -1DM on each crew position) on a single crewman, plus the pilot

The Type S isn't meant to transport high passengers. It's a scout ship, first and foremost. Whatever happens to it in the aftermarket isn't the IISS's concern.

If you want to do it RAW, trade 2Td cargo for a half-stateroom (explicit in HG, but implied by the LBB2 small-craft stateroom), and swap the air/raft for a modular stateroom (from LBB3, but costs like normal SR). Crew (one person per slot) takes 2.5 staterooms because pilot (or owner) gets single occupancy. Allows 3 hi pax, RAW.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Actually, I had the weirdest idea ...

15 tons A/A/A drives
20 tons jump fuel
20 tons power plant fuel
20 tons bridge
1 ton model/1bis
1 ton fire control for dual turret
= 77 tons leaving 23 tons remaining for "payload"

If you do a 12 ton internal hangar bay for internal carriage of the 12 ton modules I made for my SIE Clipper, specifically a Stateroom Module for 3 staterooms, you wind up with 11 tons of cargo hold capacity remaining.

1. 1x Major Cargo + 1 ton of mixed life support consumable reserves and collapsible fuel tank = 11 tons
2. 2x Minor Cargo + 1 ton of mixed life support consumable reserves and collapsible fuel tank = 11 tons
3. 1x Minor Cargo + 1 Mail Vault + 1 ton of mixed life support consumables and collapsible fuel tank = 11 tons (install a missile rack and sandcaster in the turret so as to carry X-Mail)

Such a configuration would actually be slightly cheaper than the LBB2 "stock" version, while also being able to externally dock and tow up to 8x 12 ton modules @ J1/1G (with appropriate modification of the hull) allowing use of the 12 ton internal hangar as "short turn around swap space" for loading those external modules into so as to transfer them between world surfaces and a parking orbit by means of a shuttle relay through atmosphere under permissive conditions.

That way, not only can you accomplish the 2J2 "performance trick" using a 1 ton collapsible fuel tank (and CT Beltstrike fuel consumption rates), but the ship can also deliver useful loads of cargo/mail and a single passenger for "light duty deployments" with the IISS ... and/or be put to use as a "barge" hauling up to 8x12=96 tons of external load @ J1/1G, which can be enough to deploy a self-sustaining base camp for long duration surveys and exploration.

Hmmm ... this is looking compelling enough to be worth of posting in another thread.

Spend MCr0.2 on external hangar facility upgrades to the hull, plus another MCr0.024 for the internal hangar.
Spend MCr0.0005 on a 1 ton collapsible fuel tank.
Spend another MCr0.72 on 12 tons of hull for the Stateroom Module.
Save MCr0.6 by not buying an air/raft and another MCr0.5 by reducing the number of staterooms from 4 to 3 (total, relative to legacy).

Net price differential vs the legacy LBB2.77/81 design: MCr0.2+.024+0.0005+0.72-0.6-0.5 = MCr0.0605 increase in base (100%) price

Considering the sheer amount of Capability Upgrades™ such a simple modification makes, it feels almost criminal NOT to detail such a variant of the venerable Scout/Courier.

Still need to rely on the "scout drives" dodge of LBB2 in order to make the wilderness refueling work/reasonable, but under the circumstances, that feels eminently doable.

Might even have SIE @ Grote/Glisten/Spinward Marches come up with the design for it following the Third Frontier War (979-986) and style it as the "Spinward Scout/Courier" when offering it to the IISS for construction and use throughout the Spinward Marches (and beyond) ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Have at it!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It is fully LBB2'81 compliant in this iteration.

Except the second hardpoint (that is not payed for), of course...

Computer sets TL at 10. Takes 2EP when ECM active.

?

And yes, it's nifty but not particularly helpful for RPG campaigns.

Why not? It can support four people with lots of luggage (20 m³, perhaps ~20 tonnes). Isn't that enough for most adventuring groups?

The biggest problem I can see is that the Referee might run out of detailed map quite quickly at J-4?

Second iteration: Replace 20 tons of fuel tankage with demountable tanks (from TCS). Costs MCr 0.2.
With tanks installed, still unquestionably legal per Rules as Written (RAW).
With them removed, add 20Td cargo; ship is then J-3 (fuel limited)/4G per RAW.

Agreed. I would do this as default for most jump fuel, for flexibility. It's nearly free in both cost and tonnage.

Third iteration: Replace 20 tons of fuel tankage with collapsible tanks (HG, TCS). Cost: MCr 0.010

And 0.2 Dt?

And this is where we get into the house rules section of the ship design...

Yes, we can do lots of funky stuff if we remove the design constraints.

The "Yacht loophole" (accept it or don't) means it can make a jump-4 with only 2 weeks (20Td) of fuel for the powerplant.

There is no loophole, it's business as usual:

LBB2'81, p19-20:
Yacht (type Y): Built on the 200-ton hull, the yacht is a noble's plaything used to entertain friends and undertake political or commercial missions. The ship mounts jump drive-A, maneuver drive-A, and power plant-A, giving performance of jump-1 and 1-G acceleration. Fuel tankage of 50 tons supports the power plant and allows two successive jump-1.

TCS, p13:
The typical use for collapsible tanks is to allow a short-jumpship to cross a gap in two or more jumps. For example, to cross between two worlds located four parsecs apart, jump-4 drives are needed. With collapsible tanks, a ship with jump-2 could negotiate the distance in two sequential jumps, the first to deep space half way across, where the collapsible tanks provide the fuel for the second jump.

TTA, p140:
The Hercules is a heavy duty carrier used for both bulk cargo and containerized shipments. ... Because its jump-1 drives make larger distances difficult, Akerut maintains a supply of 500-ton demountable fuel tanks (valued at Cr500,000; can be mounted in two weeks) at its starport locations within the subsector. Hercules ships can be fitted with one, two, or even three sets of tanks in their cargo holds, thus displacing cargo capacity.

You're conflating design requirements with actual fuel consumption.
We must build the ship with four weeks of PP fuel, regardless how much we use on a normal trip (HG'79+, LBB2'81).
Two, or even three, jumps plus accelerating to and from the worlds is generally comfortably within four weeks.
And we can extend the duration by powering down the PP (but by RAW we can't jump longer than current PP#).

Fuel is fungible, so we can use fuel as desired. E.g. a Scout can power down to PP-1 and do three J-1 (but no J-2 while powered down) with the supplied 40 Dt fuel, perfectly by RAW.

 

[Condottiere]

1. In it's original role, was the scout/courier cost effective?

2. In it's current role, can you squeeze out net profit from the scout/courier, after deducting operating costs, maintenance, mortgages, labour, taxes, alimony, etcetera?

3. Is it a jeep, a pickup, or a Humvee?

 

[mike wightman]

Buy an air/raft on an Ind world at discount - take to world and sell at a profit.
Take 3 middle passengers per trip.
Wilderness refuel.
Once you have the spare capital take 3 tons of speculative trade per trip if considered potentially profitable
Soon have enough to buy a proper ship...

 

[Spinward Flow]

You're conflating design requirements with actual fuel consumption

THIS is perhaps the biggest bugaboo for the LBB2 fuel formula for power plants.
10Pn tons is the design requirement which will provide at least 4 weeks/28 days of power supply at nominal loads but which doesn't actually provide us with a fuel consumption formula. In fact, a fuel consumption formula wasn't actually provided until CT Beltstrike, because asteroid prospecting is more interested in Normal Space operations over an extended time frame, rather than Jump Space operations on a 2 week commercial cadence.

As soon as you accept the notion that the 10Pn tons of fuel formula requirement DOES NOT EQUAL the actual fuel consumption rate over 4 weeks/28 days ... a huge number of secondary factors "rearrange themselves" due to the way that Fuel Is Fungible™.

Take 3 middle passengers per trip.

You still need 1 medic if transporting any passengers (1+) interstellar, regardless of ticket type (low, middle, high).

So unless you have a Pilot-2/Medical-2 skilled pilot (doubtful...) you're going to need a second crew member to act as a medic in order to offer middle passage service ... meaning at best 2 middle passengers can occupy the remaining 2 staterooms.

Of course, if you've got a Pilot/Gunner flying the Scout/Courier and remotely commanding the turret from the bridge plus a medic on board so as to offer middle (but not high) passenger service and carry X-Mail, monthly crew salaries will add up like so:
(6600+1100)*0.75 + 2000 = Cr7775

However, if your medic has increased skill to include Steward skill so as to offer high passenger service and carry X-Mail, monthly crew salaries will add up like so (as previously detailed):
(6600+1100)*0.75 + (3300+2200)*0.75 = Cr9900

Considering that upgrading from middle to high service yields a net gain of Cr4000 per destination (~3 per month due to quick turnaround times for 2 passengers, up to 5 tons of cargo plus X-Mail or just a straight 10 tons of cargo being so fast to unload and load) ... that amounts to an up to Cr12,000 gain per month at a cost of Cr2125, which then makes the service upgrade something of a bargain. Simply scoring 1-2 high passengers per month would be sufficient to offset the increased cost in crew salary needed, making it a worthwhile investment for an operator.

1. In it's original role, was the scout/courier cost effective?

I sincerely doubt that the original game designers (pre-1977 publication) "gamified" the design to that extent (like I have the luxury of doing now, here in these forums with my starship designs). I wouldn't call the LBB2.77 Scout/Courier "slapdash" in its execution for the game, but it pretty clearly wasn't something that people were thinking "deeply" about at the time. As a First Draft it was functional as a "runabout" to go have adventures in, which was all it needed to be.

Consider that at the time LBB2.77 was being written, there wasn't even a Regina subsector yet!
LBB A1 didn't arrive until 1979 ... and that was the first time we ever got to see the Regina subsector.

It's harder (although not impossible) to plot out the "economic utility" of a starship in merchant service without a map. Having a map of star systems makes a lot of starship economics questions "more pertinent" in ways that can then inform starship design choices more effectively.

2. In it's current role, can you squeeze out net profit from the scout/courier, after deducting operating costs, maintenance, mortgages, labour, taxes, alimony, etcetera?

While in the IISS, Scout/Couriers aren't in the habit of selling off their runabout services for commercial profit gains. They're kind of "busy" doing all the "scut work" that other more prestigious craft would rather not have to do (such as logistics support, exploration, survey and communications work in the field, etc.). They're very "humble" craft, at the bottom of the interstellar totem pole doing work that is necessary, but rarely sexy (and when it is sexy, it's dangerous!).

In private hands though, the LBB2/LBB S7 version(s) struggle to cover their overhead expenses when pressed into commercial service. Not being able to carry X-Mail in the default configuration is a tremendous loss in revenue potential (as a commercial courier). Since the starship has such a limited (internal) capacity for passengers and cargoes, being able to unload and load quickly would enable a higher tempo of operations ... so 3 jumps per month rather than 2 could easily be the norm for surplus Scout/Couriers converted into commercial service.

• Cr25,000 revenue per X-Mail delivery @ 3 destinations per month = up to Cr75,000 revenue
• Cr10,000 revenue per high passenger per destination @ 3 destinations per month = up to Cr60,000 revenue
• Cr9900 crew salaries per month (Pilot/Gunner, Steward/Medic)
• Cr2000 life support costs per occupied stateroom per 2 weeks = up to Cr16,000 cost per month

So as you can see, even a "modified for purpose, surplus LBB2 Scout/Courier" that spends the extra 1 ton and Cr70,000 on a life support upgrade (LBB S7, p16) and ditches the air/raft berth in order to reorganize it as a "2 high passengers plus Mail Vault stagecoach to the stars" (spaghetti western style) with only 1 ton of cargo space remaining (to be filled with a combination of collapsible fuel tank and life support reserves to extend endurance) could be earning up to Cr135,000 per month on expenses of slightly over Cr25,900 per month for crew salaries and life support (annual maintenance, berthing fees, starport fuel purchases, etc. would all be extra on top of those expenses, but probably won't exceed Cr100,000 per month).

The achilles heel of such a craft would be its vulnerability in ship-to-ship combat (model/1bis is a bottom feeder when it comes to weapons fire) and boarding actions, so the piracy threat would remain a threat. However, with a 2G maneuver drive instead of the bog standard 1G installed into dedicated merchants, a "courier liner" would have the (relative) luxury of choosing "more acceleration intensive routes" to/from jump points in order to (hopefully) avoid the more well known trajectory routes in an effort to reduce the risk of Unwanted Encounters™.

3. Is it a jeep, a pickup, or a Humvee?

I think of the Scout/Courier as being more akin to an american WWII-era jeep. NOTHING SPECIAL, apart from the ruthless simplification of the engineering in order to make them as cheap and easy to manufacture as possible ... and then just produce them in mind bogglingly large quantities so as to make them ubiquitous.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Cost effective in the sense it fulfills it's role(s) for the Scout Service satisfactorily, and cheaper or within the budget constraints they operate under.

2. In it's current role, it's a relatively free ride provided by the Scout Service to some of it's veterans, under certain caveats; so the question would be if the operator decides to try to monetize the scout, could he keep his business venture afloat?

3. It's kinda big for a jeep, but the choices were deliberate - if it's a jeep, then a single crewmember should be able to keep it operational, under constrained conditions; a Humvee would make it a somewhat luxurious gas guzzler, while a pickup makes it a cost effective utility vehicle.

 

[Spinward Flow]

if it's a jeep, then a single crewmember should be able to keep it operational, under constrained conditions; a Humvee would make it a somewhat luxurious gas guzzler, while a pickup makes it a cost effective utility vehicle.

If you want to use those as the benchmarks of interpretation ...

The LBB2 version of the Scout/Courier is a "jeep" (essentially).
MY tweak for the design into a slightly evolved Scout/Courier makes it more of a pick(em)up truck capable of greater versatility, including using it as a "barge" for interplanetary/interstellar delivery of 12 ton modules, vastly increasing the design's utility and potential mission roles.

The distinction is that I need "the rest of CT" in order to pull that trick off ... which are parts of CT that hadn't been published yet in 1977, so I'm not throwing shade on the original design (just recognizing the limitations of the rules that were available in 1977).

 

[mike wightman]

Medic: Each starship of 200 tons or more must have a medic (medic-1 skill
or better). In addition, there must be at least one medic per 120 passengers carried.
If there is more than one medic, the most skilled is designated ship's doctor and
draws 10% more pay. Non-starships and small craft do not require medics.

Now before you interpret that as HA HA YOU NEED 1 per 120 SO YOU MUST HAVE AT LEAST 1, are you going to add an additional medic to all your passenger capable ships of 200 and above tons? Does the free trader require 2 medics?

The earlier version said:

Medic: Each starship of greater than 100 tons hull mass displacement requires a
medic aboard. Starships carrying more than 120 passengers require one medic for
each 120 passengers or fraction thereof.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I was hoping you'd comment.

Except the second hardpoint (that is not payed for), of course...

It doesn't have a second hardpoint, being 199.5Td instead of 200. It could be 200 and have one though, but the required crew (pilot, engineer, two gunners) would all be in double occupancy. Technically legal under LBB2, but not LBB5 since officers need single staterooms.

The "2EP when ECM active" is my interpretation of the "emergency agility" rule -- it doesn't quite line up, but it's hard to see what else about a computer as implemented in HG would need half a megawatt of input power. In any case, it's mostly a carryover from the ST design (and literally copy/pasted by accident...). That, and that ship's 2G drives, were the lampshade I hung onto the under-fueling (that is, since it only needed to be at PN-4 for Jump and combat, it only needed Pn-4 fuel for those situations, and Pn-2 fuel the rest of the time). House rule, of course -- but not just making it up out of whole cloth.

And 0.2 Dt?

Correct, when empty. It's a moot point since in this case it can't be used for anything else.

Yes, we can do lots of funky stuff if we remove the design constraints.

Sure.

You're conflating design requirements with actual fuel consumption.
We must build the ship with four weeks of PP fuel, regardless how much we use on a normal trip (HG'79+, LBB2'81).

Yes and no. If it's not driven by actual fuel consumption, it's due to in-universe regulations. Which can be waived by the entity issuing those regulations, for their own ships, if and when it makes sense to do so.

The purpose of the demountable-tank iteration was to demonstrate that the collapsable-tank version was rules-mechanically valid (even if not RAW compliant).

The point of the collapsable-tank iteration is to get a little more versatility out of a high-performance ship with essentially no payload capacity. But it's quirky -- which not only gives the design a bit of "character", but also means the concept won't generally be extended to standard commercial ship-building practices.

Fuel is fungible, so we can use fuel as desired. E.g. a Scout can power down to PP-1 and do three J-1 (but no J-2 while powered down) with the supplied 40 Dt fuel, perfectly by RAW.

While that was not the intent in '77 (or even in '81), that's exactly my explanation for the Type S's disproportionately huge tanks, except that I'd allow 1J2+1J1 (but only 1G during the entire trip).

Why not? It can support four people with lots of luggage (20 m3, perhaps ~20 tonnes). Isn't that enough for most adventuring groups?

The biggest problem I can see is that the Referee might run out of detailed map quite quickly at J-4?

In a small-party murderhobo campaign, it'd be fine. Or it can carry 1 mid pax (if crew doubles up) and 1Td cargo. I just don't like requiring double occupancy for campaign-length timeframes (it's fine for one-shot short-duration scenarios though).