CT Only: LSP Modular Pinnace

[Spinward Flow]

​

LSP Modular Pinnace
Ship Type: KB (Pinnace, Boat)
TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard drives, and off-the-shelf weapon systems) (LBB5.80, p18)

Tonnage (custom hull): 40 tons
Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr4.8)
Armor (code: 0)
Maneuver-A (code: 5, 1 tons, MCr4, TL=9)
Power Plant-A (code: 5, 4 tons, MCr8, TL=9, EP: 2, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 5, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 1+4 = 5 tons
Fuel: 1 ton = 14 days endurance (LBB2.81, p17-18) (LBB5.80, p34) (CT Errata, p15)
Bridge (8 tons, MCr0.2, 2 person capacity)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15, p23)
Turrets: 0
Crew positions minimum skills required: 1 crew

1. Ship's Boat-1

Small Craft Staterooms: 1 (2 tons, MCr0.1)
Internal Hangar Bay: 20 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (20 tons, MCr0.04) (LBB5.80, p32)
Cargo Hold: 4 tons (multi-purpose conversion ready)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Total Cost: MCr17.24 (100% cost single production), MCr13.792 (80% cost volume production)

---

LSP Modular Cargo Box
Ship Type: AU (Merchant-A, Unpowered)
TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard drives, and off-the-shelf weapon systems) (LBB5.80, p18)
Tonnage (custom hull): 20 tons
Configuration: 4 (Close Structure, partially-streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr1.2)
Armor (code: 0)
Maneuver-0
Power Plant-0
Total Drives: 0+0 = 0 tons
Fuel: 0 tons
Hardpoints: 0
Cargo Hold: 20 tons (15m x 6m x 3m)
Total Cost: MCr1.2 (100% cost single production), MCr0.96 (80% cost volume production)

---

LSP Modular Pinnace    KB-0105501-000000-00000-0  MCr13.792           40 tons
Passengers=1. Low=0. Cargo=4. Hangar=20. Fuel=1. EP=2. Agility=5. Bridge. Crew=1. TL=9.

LSP Modular Cargo Box  AU-0400000-000000-00000-0  MCr0.96             20 tons
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=20. Fuel=0. EP=0. Agility=0. Crew=0. TL=9.

Single production (100% cost)

• Total Cost (modular pinnace + modular cargo box): MCr17.24+1.2 = MCr18.44
• 20% Down Payment: MCr3.448+0.24 = MCr3.688
• Architect Fees (4 weeks): MCr0.1844
• Construction Time: 24 weeks (modular pinnace, modular cargo box) (LBB A5, p33)
• Annual Overhaul: Cr17,240+1200 = Cr18,440 (LBB2.81, p8)
• Bank Financing Monthly Mortgage Payment (Total Cost * 2.4 / 40 years / 13 months) = Cr79,570+5539 = Cr85,109

Volume production (80% single production cost) (LBB5.80, p20)

• Total Cost (modular pinnace + modular cargo box): MCr13.792+0.96 = MCr14.752
• 20% Down Payment: MCr2.7584+0.192 = MCr2.9504
• Architect Fees (4 weeks): MCr0.14752
• Construction Time: 24 weeks (modular pinnace, modular cargo box) (LBB A5, p33)
• Annual Overhaul: Cr13,792+960 = Cr14,752 (LBB2.81, p8)
• Bank Financing Monthly Mortgage Payment (Total Cost * 2.4 / 40 years / 13 months) = Cr63,686+4431 = Cr68,117

​

LSP Modular Pinnace (Type-KB): The modular pinnace is a long range interplanetary small craft displacing 40 tons that can be constructed at tech level 9+ using standard maneuver and power plant drives. Fuel scoops are integrated into the streamlined hull and the 1 ton internal fuel tank is sufficient for 14 days of operational endurance before needing to refuel. The bridge can accommodate two persons, but only a single small craft pilot is required as minimum crew. Immediately aft of the bridge is a small craft stateroom to extend crew endurance beside a 4 ton internal cargo bay that can be easily converted using aftermarket option packages. The remaining aft length of the pinnace is comprised of a 20 ton capacity (15m x 6m x 3m) hangar bay designed for rapid loading and unloading of standardized 20 ton modular cargo boxes which can themselves be configured for a surprisingly wide variety of mission purposes and possible use cases.

A few of the aftermarket option packages available for the reconfigurable 4 ton internal cargo bay include (but are not limited to):

• Air/raft Berth: 1 (4 tons, MCr0.6)
• Starship Stateroom: 1 (4 tons, MCr0.5)
• Small Craft Staterooms: 2 (4 tons, MCr0.2)
• Small Craft Staterooms: 1 (2 tons, MCr0.1), Environmental Control Type V-b capacity: up to 2 persons, Add Medical-2 skilled Nurse to crew
  • Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (2 tons, MCr0.4, TL=9, hydroponic garden) (CT Errata, p12, lab space costs MCr0.2 per ton)
• Low berths: 8 (4 tons, MCr0.4)
• Model/2 computer (2 tons, MCr9), Fire Control (1 ton), Turret (varies), Weapons (varies), Demountable Fuel Tank (1 ton, MCr0.001, +14 days endurance) (LBB2.81, p23) (LBB A5, p14)

Interplanetary charters (12 hours minimum) can earn a modular pinnace operator Cr40 per hour. A one week (168 hour) charter can therefore yield Cr6720 per week, while a 50 week (1 year, minus 2 weeks of annual overhaul time) charter can yield up to Cr336,000 in revenue annually.

Life support will cost Cr2000 per 2 weeks (Cr50,000 for 50 weeks per year) and crew salary for a small craft pilot will cost Cr6000 per month minimum (Cr78,000 per year, minimum).

Bank financing of a modular pinnace (only, no modular cargo box) will cost Cr65,686 per year plus an annual overhaul cost of Cr13,792 per year. A modular pinnace operator, therefore, will incur operational overhead costs of Cr207,478 per year, not including berthing fees or costs for buying fuel. It is therefore possible to break even on bank financed overhead costs (not including berthing fees and fuel purchases, which can vary widely) after as little as 5187 hours (30w 6d 3h) of charter service per year when operating an unmodified "stock" modular pinnace.

Operators who can afford the full cost of a volume production copy of the modular pinnace (without modular cargo box) will have an up front capital investment cost of MCr13.792 for an unmodified "stock" modular pinnace (without modular cargo box). Life support, crew salary and annual overhaul maintenance costs will add up to only Cr141,792 (not including berthing fees and fuel purchases, which can vary widely). At Cr40 per hour under interplanetary charter, an operator can break even after as little as 3545 hours (21w 17h) of charter operations per year. It is therefore actually relatively rare for operators to seek bank financing for individual stand alone modular pinnace purchases. Most operators would prefer to purchase these craft outright when ordering them so as to keep a larger share of any profits they can generate for themselves.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Fun side note about this little exercise in small craft design ...

I'm thinking that I'd want to swap out the contents of the 80 ton internal hangar bays on my Five Sisters Clipper (Iderati revision) for two of these 40 ton Modular Pinnaces with a 20 ton Modular Cargo Box in each of them ... instead of using the 50 ton Modular Cutter with a 30 ton Modular Cargo Module loaded into it and a spare 30 ton Modular Cutter Module stored alongside. I mean, I've already got the pair of Pilot-2 skilled pilots on payroll in the starship design, meaning that it would be perfectly possible to assign both pilots to "pinnace shuttle duty" if needed while the starship remains parked (somewhere, either in a starport berth or in orbit).

The downside to making such a change is that internal cargo capacity drops from 2x 30 tons down to 2x 20 tons.
The upside would be that external cargo loads could be transferred FASTER with a pair of 5G Modular Pinnaces than is possible with a single 4G Modular Cutter.

The other effect of making such a change is something that only a deck plan would care about (much) due to the change in form factors.

20 ton Modular Cargo Boxes (as detailed above) are 15m x 6m x 3m (10 deck squares long by 4 deck squares wide and a single deck in height) and they're RECTANGULAR, making them very "efficient" for packaging lots of them together.

30 ton Modular Cargo Modules for Modular Cutters, by contrast are 15m long by 6m in diameter cylinders ... meaning that they're ROUND and do not want to "pack neatly" with a minimum of wasted space between them.

The scaling factors between multiples of 20 tons and 30 tons winds up creating some oddball edge cases.

200 tons of external load on a 600 ton starship (reducing drive performance from 4 to 3) means that up to 6x 30 ton Modular Cutter Modules can be docked externally ... while 10x 20 ton Modular Cargo Boxes could be fitted into the same load limit. Sometimes you can "fudge" this a little, by moving the Modular Cutter itself outside (so 50 ton Modular Cutter plus 5x 30 ton Modular Cutter Modules external) and then using the internal hangar bay for 2x 30 ton Modular Cutter Modules plus another 20 tons of "something" cargo if you really want to push it ... but it starts getting logistically "messy" to try and stack that all up in the first place when picked up at the point of origin and then unwind it all at the destination. That's just simply the nature of the 20+30=50 tonnage split involved in the design of the Modular Cutter.

Note that under the above example, a single Modular Cutter would be responsible for any surface to orbit transfers of 6 Modular Cutter Modules (minimum) ... creating a logistics bottleneck situation. When you push the external load into the J1 regime with up to 46x 30 Modular Cutter Modules docked externally, you're looking at needing to make up to 46 surface to orbit transfers with a single 4G Modular Cutter ... which can start to look an awful lot like a High Guard type of situation, depending on where you're doing this. In other words, while such transfer operations are underway, the starship is functionally "pinned" in place for a relatively long duration (multiple hours, minimum) which can make it vulnerable to attack.

Contrast this with what happens when switching to a pair of Modular Pinnaces instead.

In the J1 regime, you could be dealing with up to 69x 20 Modular Cargo Boxes docked externally ... but now you have two 5G Modular Pinnaces at your disposal to shift that external load surface to orbit. Instead of needing to make 46x1 transfers @ 4G, you can make 35x2 transfers at 5G (a ~30% increase in transfer rate, not including reduced maneuvering time) ... speeding up the loading/unloading and reducing the vulnerability window in such a High Guard type of situation. Additionally, the higher maneuver drive G rating means the starship can "orbit farther out" for the same duration of maneuver transfer time, reducing potential vulnerability during such transfer operations (or even search and rescue!) in a way that can a little hard to quantify (since it's a "range difference").

Additionally, the Modular Pinnaces can be individually armed (although that's an EXPENSIVE proposition, costing MCr10.501 for Model/2 computer (2 tons, MCr9), Dual turret (1 ton, MCr0.5), Sandcaster/Missile (MCr1), Demountable Fuel Tank (1 ton, MCr0.001) in order to maintain Agility=5 as a combatant ... but you're honestly a LOT better off having TWO armed small craft (if you need them) compared to only having ONE, especially if the 2 are more agile (and can mount a better computer!) than the 1 could be in case you need to exchange fire with an adversary. So if you need "mobile fighter" firepower away from the starship, the twin Modular Pinnaces becomes the superior option versus the singular Modular Cutter.



So on balance, it's looking to me like I may need to update my Five Sisters Clipper (Iderati revision) design to embark an alternative choice of small craft ... which will reduce the J4 internal cargo capacity (from 30+30=60 to 20+4+20+4=48 tons), but which will have numerous advantages with respect to external loading and increased operational flexibility that are simply too desirable to avoid.

 

[Grav_Moped]

You do know what's about to happen here, right? Because I saw what you did there.

For the record, I fully approve of it.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You do know what's about to happen here, right? Because I saw what you did there.

? ?

For the record, I fully approve of it.

Uh ... okay ...

 

[Dragoner]

You do know what's about to happen here, right? Because I saw what you did there.

For the record, I fully approve of it.

Is it detachable?

 

[Grav_Moped]

Is it detachable?

No, it's "too small".

 

[Grav_Moped]

Is it detachable?

I'll pretend I didn't get that reference.
(That happens a lot.)

 

[Grav_Moped]

Is it detachable?

No, it's "too small".

And of course the thing that's "too small" is the fuel tank, because it's 1Td fuel supporting a standard Size A drive from LBB2'81. Mind you, I can see a couple of ways to rules-lawyer it, and Spin appears to have used them.

The fun part is they're not ones I'd use myself.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And of course the thing that's "too small" is the fuel tank, because it's 1Td fuel supporting a standard Size A drive from LBB2'81. Mind you, I can see a couple of ways to rules-lawyer it, and Spin appears to have used them.

The fun part is they're not ones I'd use myself.

Oh, is THAT what you're worried about?
Easy enough ... I'll just use a preponderance of precedents (which I actually cited!).

Fuel: 1 ton = 14 days endurance (LBB2.81, p17-18) (LBB5.80, p34) (CT Errata, p15)

So let's see what we have here, shall we?

LBB2.81, p17 ...

The fuel tankage listed for each craft is sufficient for four weeks of operations.

LBB2.81, p18 ...

Pinnace: Using a 40-ton hull, the pinnace is capable of 5-G acceleration, carries 2 tons of fuel, and has a crew of two.

So LBB2.81 design using LBB2.81 drives in a 40 ton hull for 5G ...
That must be LBB2.81 A/A drives (which I used), so no deviation from precedent there ...
And it specifies that 2 tons of fuel is sufficient for 4 weeks of operations, which is 28 days ...
Meaning 1 ton of fuel is enough for 14 days of operations ...

LBB5.80, p34 ...

Fuel: [...] It may never be less than one ton.

And last time I checked, 1 ton of fuel is not less that 1 ton, so ... so far so good there ...

CT Errata, p15 ...

Page 34, Small Craft, Fuel (clarification and addition): The formula given for fuel [...] gives four weeks of fuel (28 days). Small craft may reduce the amount of fuel carried to one day (24 hours) or several days, but it may still not be less than one ton.

So small craft are permitted to carry a minimum of one day (24 hours) of fuel endurance ...
And last time I checked 14 days is longer than 1 day ... so ... I think I'm safe on that point too.



As for why I think I'm entitled to pull off such a "stunt" ... well ...

TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard drives, and off-the-shelf weapon systems) (LBB5.80, p18)

So what does that citation refer to?

LBB5.80, p18 ...

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The ship design and construction system given in Book 2 must be considered to be a standard system for providing ships using off-the-shelf components. It is not superceded by any system given in this book; instead this book presents a system for construction of very large vessels, and includes provisions for use of the system with smaller ships.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Wasn't arguing. Thought you were going to come at it from the angle that LBB2'81 didn't specify minimum fuel duration (because no S/C design rules, just examples), plus the 1Td minimum from LBB5'80, plus the LBB5 fuel allocation formula.

I'm almost certain that the LBB2'81 small craft were LBB5'80 builds, but not in a mood to check the math. The ones in LBB2'77 probably did use Standard Drives without coming out and saying so...

But then the "[LBB2] is not superseded by any system given in [LBB5]" could be read to prohibit using the LBB5 power plant fuel allocation rule for Standard Power Plants. <unconcerned shrug>

 

[Spinward Flow]

Wasn't arguing.

Didn't think you were.
I just wanted to "lay all the cards on the table" where anyone and everyone could read them and come to their own conclusions based on the citations and evidence.

I'm almost certain that the LBB2'81 small craft were LBB5'80 builds, but not in a mood to check the math.

I just worked it from the opposite direction.

LBB2.81 Power Plant-A is Code: 1 in a 200 ton hull ... therefore it is a EP=2 power plant (under LBB5.80 interpretation).
LBB2.81, p17-18 explicitly states that the fuel allowance specified is sufficient for 4 weeks of endurance.
The Pinnance explicitly has 2 tons of fuel listed for it.
2 tons = 4 weeks ipso facto means that 1 ton = 2 weeks ... all else being equal.

I sincerely believe that the small craft listed in LBB2.77 (5-15 tons, depending on the specific small craft) was largely done to make it easier to use the designed small craft as fuel shuttles for unstreamlined starships (that would have to rely on small craft for wilderness refueling). Bigger fuel tank meant fewer trips "to the (gravity) well" (so to speak) for refueling operations.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I sincerely believe that the small craft listed in LBB2.77 (5-15 tons, depending on the specific small craft) was largely done to make it easier to use the designed small craft as fuel shuttles for unstreamlined starships (that would have to rely on small craft for wilderness refueling). Bigger fuel tank meant fewer trips "to the (gravity) well" (so to speak) for refueling operations.

They needed all that tankage because they were using the 100kg/g-turn (10-minute turns, too) fuel burn rate rule (that ignored ship tonnage) in '77. I still think that the 10Td/Pn starship fuel requirement was an extension upwards of that rule, with a 1-week endurance mandate that was handwaved into "it's always enough, but it's all burned every trip". Small craft were just exempt from having to have 1 week of fuel on board. Partly this was because they were interface craft rather than interplanetary ones, but mostly because a full week of fuel at 100kg/g-turn simply wouldn't fit.

Then '81 made it 4 weeks, for everything -- but let small craft use the HG fuel rules because they were built using LBB5.

 

[Grav_Moped]

but let small craft use the HG fuel rules because they were built using LBB5.

And that's the clever bit with this design of yours. At TL-9, Size A drives are a lot smaller than high-G drives from LBB5 (maybe cheaper too?).

They really should be using some fraction of the LBB2'81 10Pn fuel requirement rather than the 1%/Pn HG fuel requirement, but I'm not going to argue the point beyond bringing it up this once.

 

[Spinward Flow]

They really should be using some fraction of the LBB2'81 10Pn fuel requirement rather than the 1%/Pn HG fuel requirement

Anyone who wants to make such an objection is going to have "issues" with ALL of the small craft detailed on LBB2.81, p17-18.

1. 20 ton Launch, 1 ton of fuel = 28 days endurance
2. 30 ton Ship's Boat, 1.8 tons of fuel = 28 days endurance
3. 30 ton Slow Boat, 1 ton of fuel = 28 days endurance
4. 40 ton Pinnace, 2 tons of fuel = 28 days endurance
5. 40 ton Slow Pinnace, 1 ton of fuel = 28 days endurance
6. 50 ton Cutter, 2 tons of fuel = 28 days endurance
7. 95 ton Shuttle, 2.85 tons of fuel = 28 days endurance
8. 10 ton Fighter, 1 ton of fuel = 28 days endurance

I view those values as being an "undocumented backport" of LBB5.80 rules regarding "1 EP requires 1 ton of fuel per 4 weeks" with the Minimum 1 Ton limit of LBB5.80 thrown into the bargain.

1. 20 ton Launch, 0.2 EP required for 1G/Agility=1 ... 0.2 tons fuel needed, 1 ton fuel minimum = actual endurance of 20 weeks (not 4)
2. 30 ton Ship's Boat, 1.8 EP required for 6G/Agility=6 ... 1.8 tons of fuel needed = actual endurance of 28 days
3. 30 ton Slow Boat, 0.9 EP required for 3G/Agility=3 ... 0.9 tons of fuel needed, 1 ton fuel minimum = actual endurance of 31.1 days
4. 40 ton Pinnace, 2 EP required for 5G/Agility=5 ... 2 tons of fuel needed = actual endurance of 28 days
5. 40 ton Slow Pinnace, 0.8 EP required for 2G/Agility=2 ... 0.8 tons of fuel needed, 1 ton fuel minimum = actual endurance of 5 weeks
6. 50 ton Cutter, 2 EP required for 4G/Agility=4 ... 2 tons of fuel needed = actual endurance of 28 days
7. 95 ton Shuttle, 2.85 EP required for 3G/Agility=3 ... 2.85 tons of fuel needed = actual endurance of 28 days
8. 10 ton Fighter, 0.6 EP required for 6G/Agility=6 ... 0.6 tons of fuel needed, 1 ton fuel minimum = actual endurance of 6.67 weeks

As evidence for my assertion of an "undocumented backport" of LBB5.80 EP limits ... take a look at the restrictions on weapons for each small craft detailed on LBB2.81, p18.

1. 20 ton Launch ... cannot power lasers (less than 1 EP available ... probably a "round down" type situation)
2. 30 ton Ship's Boat ... can mount 1 laser (more than 1 EP available, but not enough for 2 EP)
3. 30 ton Slow Boat ... can mount 1 laser (at least 1 EP must be available, somehow... probably a "round up" type situation)
4. 40 ton Pinnace ... can mount 2 lasers (so 2 EP must be available)
5. 40 ton Slow Pinnace ... can mount 1 laser (at least 1 EP must be available, somehow... probably a "round up" type situation)
6. 50 ton Cutter ... can mount 2 lasers (so 2 EP must be available)
7. 95 ton Shuttle ... can mount 2 lasers (so 2 EP must be available)
8. 10 ton Fighter ... can mount 1 laser (at least 1 EP must be available, somehow... probably a "round up" type situation)

None of that is explicitly stated in the actual text available ... but it is STRONGLY IMPLIED when you start reverse engineering things and trying to find a "common framework" that takes from both LBB2.81 and LBB5.80 such that they aren't mutually incompatible with each other in terms of foundational basis.

My interpretation of thinking is that when "EP is less than 1" needed to power the maneuver drive, it was simply a "round off" decision.

• The 20 ton Launch generates 0.2 EP for its maneuver drive, so round down to 0 EP for laser weapons.
• The 40 ton Slow Pinnace generates 0.8 EP for its maneuver drive, so round up to 1 EP for laser weapons.
• The 10 ton Fighter generates 0.6 EP for its maneuver drive, so round up to 1 EP for laser weapons.

Everything else was generating 1+ EP, but in that range it becomes a (proper) case of "drop fractions" to deal with the breakpoints for how many lasers are allowed on each small craft.

And that's the clever bit with this design of yours. At TL-9, Size A drives are a lot smaller than high-G drives from LBB5 (maybe cheaper too?).

LBB2.81 Maneuver-A = 1 ton, MCr4
LBB2.81 Power Plant-A = 4 tons, MCr8
Total: 5 tons, MCr12

LBB5.80 Maneuver-5 @ 40 tons/TL=9 = 5.6 tons, MCr2.8
LBB5.80 Power Plant-5 @ 40 tons/TL=9 = 6 tons, MCr18
Total: 11.6 tons, MCr20.8

So yes, quite the savings on displacement and cost.
However, given that LBB2.81 specifies the price of a 40 ton Pinnace as being MCr20 ... it becomes really hard to square that circle when using LBB5.80 drives (MCr20.8) plus a 40 ton custom hull (MCr4) which is automatically streamlined and has fuel scoops for free.
(20.8 + 4) * 0.8 = MCr19.84 LBB5.80 @ 80% volume production price (already!)
... and that's before adding in a Bridge or what LBB2.81 would style as "Fittings" (which can be added in FOR FREE on small craft!).

In other words, the ONLY WAY for the construction cost of a LBB2.81 40 ton Pinnace to make any sense whatsoever on price ... is if it's using Maneuver-A/Power Plant-A standard drives (from LBB2.81, conveniently enough).

The way I interpret it, the LBB2.81 40 ton Pinnace AS WRITTEN is basically "overpriced" at MCr20 in order to have enough "wiggle room" to account for any and all options that could be selected as Fittings from LBB2.81, p23 ... because ...

LBB2.81, p17 ...

Any fitting or combination of fittings shown on the fitting table may be specified for a standard design small craft. The prices, however, are ignored, and are considered to be included in the standard design price.

So, basically, the LBB2.81 "stock" 40 ton Pinnace in effect overcharges everyone on price in order to ruthlessly simplify and slash the amount of text needed to detail small craft in publication down to the absolute bare editorial minimum word count (saving space and page count). It also means that depending on choice of Fittings for the configurable space, a shipyard building a 40 ton Pinnace can get a marginal profit that varies based on individual specifications which then averages out over multiple orders for different clients to be functionally guaranteed profits (actual cost to construct is less than cost to buy).

Hence why I look at that situation and think that there's "room in the market for competition" at a lower price point (as detailed in my OP) that matches on performance specs (bridge, 5G, optionally armed, etc.) while also being more flexible in a modularized interface transport mission role and having "longer legs" in terms of crew endurance than just 24 hours (the limit of acceleration couches), making it a properly interplanetary small craft. The 14 days of fuel endurance even works out quite nicely as an unrefueled round trip range capable of reaching destinations in less time than it takes to microjump in-system (because anything that takes 8+ days to reach, you might as well microjump to get there). So a 14 day round trip interplanetary voyage would only require refueling at "home base" (and even then, it's just 1 ton of unrefined fuel needed, a mere Cr100 if you aren't wilderness refueling for it at Cr0!). That works out to being some "reasonably long legs" for an interplanetary transport runabout that can fulfill a remarkably wide variety of mission profiles (think about it).



One of the more interesting possibilities would be outfitting one of these LSP Modular Pinnaces as a Seeker/Prospector.

It would need to be armed (I'm thinking Sand/Missile/Mining Laser triple turret) with a model/1 computer installed, along with a second Small Craft Stateroom. The Modular Cargo Box would need 10 tons dedicated to cargo space (minimum) for ore sample processing (CT Beltstrike, p3) and a Prospecting Buggy (4 tons, MCr0.75) (CT Beltstrike, p9). The remaining 6 tons in the Modular Cargo Box could be another two Small Craft Staterooms, 1 ton of fuel reserve (extending endurance between refueling to 28 days) and 1 ton of cargo space for life support reserves (150 person/weeks). Such a configuration would allow the embarkation of up to 4 crew (enabling continuous watch rotations) and be able to operate in the field for at least 36 weeks at a time before needing to return to home base for replenishment of life support reserves, with pauses to refuel every 3-4 weeks. Total cost "new" would be MCr23.99 (100% cost single production)/MCr19.192 (80% cost volume production), which is cheaper than converting a surplus Type-S into a Type-J Seeker. Even better yet, the entire LSP Modular Pinnace (and crew!) can be shipped as cargo (40 tons) with crew aboard between star systems to chase after prospecting rumors and opportunities! And because such an LSP Modular Pinnace is so cheap to own and maintain, operators can turn a profit on even otherwise marginal strikes and finds that would be unprofitable for competitors using starships (such as the Type-J Seeker), because Jump Drives are largely "dead weight/sunk costs" while prospecting within a star system.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Oh, is THAT what you're worried about?
Easy enough ... I'll just use a preponderance of precedents (which I actually cited!).

So let's see what we have here, shall we?

LBB2.81, p17 ...

LBB2.81, p18 ...

Pinnace: Using a 40-ton hull, the pinnace is capable of 5-G acceleration, carries 2 tons of fuel, and has a crew of two.

So LBB2.81 design using LBB2.81 drives in a 40 ton hull for 5G ...
That must be LBB2.81 A/A drives (which I used), so no deviation from precedent there ...
And it specifies that 2 tons of fuel is sufficient for 4 weeks of operations, which is 28 days ...
Meaning 1 ton of fuel is enough for 14 days of operations ...

The smallcraft in LBB2'81 are not designed with LBB2, but with LBB5'80* which is the official smallcraft design system. They do not use A drives. (* Except using a non-standard bridge-size of 4 ton for all smallcraft.)

If we were to use A drives in a smallcraft it would have potential 2 as per LBB2, and therefore use 20 Dt fuel per four weeks. The errata would allow us to use down to 1 Dt fuel for less endurance (~33 h).


Example:

Pinnace: Using a 40-ton hull, the pinnace is capable of 5-G acceleration, carries 2 tons of fuel, and has a crew of two. It may mount two lasers, and any remaining weapons must be missile racks or sandcasters. It has 22.4 tons of excess space, and costs MCr20.

KK-0205501-000000-00000-0       MCr 20,2          40 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                            TL=9
                           Cargo=22 Fuel=2 EP=2 Agility=5

Single Occupancy                                   22,4      25,3
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             0           40          
Configuration       Cone               2                      4,4
                                                               
Manoeuvre D                            5    1       5,6       2,8
Power Plant                            5    1       6        18
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                    2          
                                                               
Bridge                                      1       4         0,1
                                                               
Cargo                                              22,4

All LBB2'81 smallcraft are exactly recreated by this system, except costs taken from LBB2'77.

 

[Grav_Moped]

All LBB2'81 smallcraft are exactly recreated by this system, except costs taken from LBB2'77.

Looks like the '77 versions of small craft did use Size A drives (or drives derived from that paradigm, scaled down) and shorted the fuel loads. '81 rebuilt them in LBB5'80 but kept the '77 prices for continuity.

(Edited for clarity: )
The errata point about minimum fuel is a similar issue of continuity. '77 small craft didn't need a week of fuel* so '81 small craft shouldn't need the full amount called for by the rules either, even though their fuel burn rates had been drastically reduced by their conversion to HG.

------------
*that the 10Td*Pn needed by Size A drives would support when used a starship/nonstarship if small-craft burn rates applied, but which for starships was ruled to be "the amount that gets used up entirely on one trip". Many of the small craft couldn't hold that much fuel anyhow!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Looks like the '77 versions of small craft did use Size A drives (or drives derived from that paradigm, scaled down) and shorted the fuel loads. '81 rebuilt them in LBB5'80 but kept the '77 prices for continuity.

Agreed, the Boat, Pinnace, and Cutter used something like an A drive, but the Lifeboat used a smaller drive and the Shuttle a larger drive, neither with performance directly related to a lettered drive.

(Edited for clarity: )
The errata point about minimum fuel is a similar issue of continuity. '77 small craft didn't need a week of fuel* so '81 small craft shouldn't need the full amount called for by the rules either, even though their fuel burn rates had been drastically reduced by their conversion to HG.

LBB5'80 has no such exception, it was added in the errata. It does not matter much except for high performance fighters.

------------
*that the 10Td*Pn needed by Size A drives would support when used a starship/nonstarship if small-craft burn rates applied, but which for starships was ruled to be "the amount that gets used up entirely on one trip". Many of the small craft couldn't hold that much fuel anyhow!

LBB2'77 had separate rules for smallcraft fuel, LBB2'81 did not. If we are using LBB2'81 for the drives, they are using 10Pn Dton fuel, regardless of size.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Size A drives (or drives derived from that paradigm, scaled down)

LBB2 maneuver drives are 2% of tonnage per G, minus 1 ton; LBB2 power plants are 3% of tonnage per Pn, plus 1 ton.

Combined, they're 5% of tonnage per G (the + and - 1 ton components cancel out) and cost MCr1.2 per ton of drives (Cr60,000 per G per ton of ship).

It's slightly different for starships with Jn>G, but this ought to work for use in deriving "drives" size and cost for small craft and non-starships from the LBB2 table.

Note that while the math works, it's probably best not to think too much about the actual hardware it represents.

 

[Grav_Moped]

How do you get a 100 Dt ship with potential 5, or potential 1 for that matter? You don't, in LBB2.

Well, actually...

You build one with potential 6 and declare it de-rated to potential 5. Frees up 10Td that would have gone to fuel, but still costs like potential-6 drives.

How do you get a Pinnace with 5 G drives? You use LBB5 drives.

In '77, you used a Size A maneuver drive and power plant, and really shorted it on fuel compared to what those drives were forced to have in a starship.
In '81, you used LBB5.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB2 maneuver drives are 2% of tonnage per G, minus 1 ton; LBB2 power plants are 3% of tonnage per Pn, plus 1 ton.

Combined, they're 5% of tonnage per G (the + and - 1 ton components cancel out) and cost MCr1.2 per ton of drives (Cr60,000 per G per ton of ship).

So, you have derived a different set of LBB5 drive percentages. But we already have LBB5. What's the point of using LBB2 to recreate LBB5?