CT Only: Long Night Trader

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Long Night Trader
Ship Type: AT (Merchant-A, Transport)
TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard hull and drives) (LBB5.80, p18)

Tonnage (standard hull): 400 tons (MCr16) (LBB2.81, p13 and p22)
Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge, streamlined, MCr3.2) (LBB5.80, p22-23)
Armor: 0

Engineering Compartment (50 tons)
Jump-D (code: 2, 25 tons, MCr40, TL=9, Civilian, Capacitor storage: 4 tons = 144 EP maximum)
Maneuver-D (code: 2, 7 tons, MCr16, TL=9)
Power Plant-D (code: 2, 13 tons, MCr32, TL=9, EP: 8, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 2, Emergency Agility: 2)
Total Drives: 25+7+13 = 45 tons (+8 tons Laser Cutter = 53 tons combined)
Waste Space (Engineering Compartment): 5 tons

Main Compartment (350 tons)
Fuel: 100 tons = 80 + 20 tons (LBB2.81, p14-15, 23)

Jump Fuel = (Tonnage/10) * Parsecs tons
- 80 tons = 2 parsecs @ 400 tons
Power Plant and Reactionless Maneuver Fuel = (10Pn * days/28) tons
- 20 tons = 28 days @ 2G M-Drive reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells for 400 tons displacement

Fuel Scoops (MCr0.4) (LBB5.80, p27)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (9 tons, MCr0.038, TL=9) (LBB5.80, p27, p36)

Bridge (20 tons, MCr2)
Computer: 2 fib (Code: B, 4 tons, MCr14, EP: 0)
Hardpoints: none

Vehicle Berth: GCarrier (8 tons, MCr1, TL=9) (LBB3.81, p23)

Internal Hangars: 50+128=178 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (178 tons, MCr0.356) (LBB5.80, p32)

Laser Cutter (50 tons, MCr47.5924, TL=9)
- Mixed Cargo Box (16 tons, MCr0.9216, TL=9)

Mixed Cargo Box (16 tons, MCr0.9216, TL=9)
Mixed Cargo Box (16 tons, MCr0.9216, TL=9)
Mixed Cargo Box (16 tons, MCr0.9216, TL=9)
Mixed Cargo Box (16 tons, MCr0.9216, TL=9)

Stateroom Module (16 tons, MCr2.5216, TL=9)
Stateroom Module (16 tons, MCr2.5216, TL=9)

Laboratory Module: regenerative life support biome (16 tons, MCr3.4816, TL=9)
- Environmental Control Type V-c capacity: up to 8 persons (hydroponic garden, aquaculture and carniculture)
Laboratory Module: regenerative life support biome (16 tons, MCr3.4816, TL=9)
- Environmental Control Type V-c capacity: up to 8 persons (hydroponic garden, aquaculture and carniculture)

External Docking: 400 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.8, Long Trader becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)

Crew positions minimum skills required: 6 crew (Cr30,950 per 4 weeks crew salaries)

Pilot-1 = Cr6000
Ship's Boat-1 = Cr6000 (quartered on Laser Cutter)
Navigator-1 = Cr5000
Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = ((4000*1.1)+(4000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr6600
Steward-1/Steward-1 = ((3000*1.1)+(3000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr4950
Medical-3 = 2000*1.2 = Cr2400

Crew staterooms: 5 single occupancy (20 tons, MCr2.5)
Laboratory: autodoc isolation infirmary (4 tons, MCr0.8) (CT Errata, p12, lab space costs MCr0.2 per ton)

Collapsible Fuel Tanks: 178 tons capacity (1.78 ton, MCr0.089) (LBB A5, p13-14)
Cargo Hold: 5.2 tons (Mail Vault conversion ready)
Waste Space (Main Compartment): 0.02 tons

Total Cost (starship only, not including vehicle and sub-craft)
MCr128.183 (100% cost single production)
MCr102.5464 (80% cost volume production) (LBB5.80, p20)

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Laser Cutter
Ship Type: FY (Fighter, Cutter)
TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard drives) (LBB5.80, p18)

Tonnage (custom hull): 50 tons (MCr5)
Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr1) (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor: 0

Maneuver-B (code: 6, 3 ton, MCr8, TL=9)
Power Plant-C (code: C, 10 tons, MCr24, TL=9, EP: 6, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 3+10 = 13 tons

Fuel: 1.8 tons (LBB2.81, p17-18) (LBB5.80, p34) (CT Errata, p15)

Power Plant and Reactionless Maneuver Fuel = (6EP * days/28) tons
- 1.8 tons = 8 days 9 hours @ 6G M-Drive reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells for 40 tons displacement

Bridge (10 tons, MCr0.25, includes 2 acceleration couches) (LBB5.80, p34)
Computer: 3 (Code: 3, 3 tons, MCr18, TL=9, EP: 1)

Hardpoints: 1 (LBB5.80, p30)
Weapons: Beam Laser, Beam Laser (1 ton, MCr2, EP: 2) (LBB5.80, p34)
Weapon Batteries:

1x Beam Laser (code: 2) (LBB5.80, p25, p29)

Internal Hangar Bay: 12.06m x 6.06m x 3.06m = 223.6m³ = 16 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (16 tons, MCr0.032) (LBB5.80, p32)

Mixed Cargo Box (16 tons, MCr0.9216, TL=9)

External Docking: 350 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.7, Fighter Transport becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)

Crew positions minimum skills required: 1 crew

Ship's Boat-1 or Pilot-2 (LBB5.80, p34-35)

Starship stateroom: 1 single occupancy (4 tons, MCr0.5)

Collapsible Fuel Tanks: 16+1=17 tons capacity (0.17 tons, MCr0.0085) (LBB A5, p13-14)
Cargo Hold: 1 ton
Waste Space: 0.03 tons

Total Cost (fighter transport only, not including sub-craft)
MCr59.4905 (100% cost single production)
MCr47.5924 (80% cost volume production) (LBB5.80, p20)

Mixed Cargo Box
Ship Type: AU (Merchant-A, Unpowered)
TL=9 (LBB5.80 design)
Tonnage (custom hull): 16 tons
Configuration: 4 (Close Structure, partially-streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr0.96) (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor (code: 0)
Maneuver-none
Power Plant-none
Fuel: none
Bridge: none
Computer: none
Hardpoints: none
Crew positions minimum skills required: none
External Docking: 96 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.192, Mixed Cargo Box becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)
Cargo Hold: 16 tons (multi-purpose conversion ready)
Total Cost: MCr1.152 (100% cost single production), MCr0.9216 (80% cost volume production)

Environment Tank
Ship Type: AU (Merchant-A, Unpowered)
TL=9 (LBB5.80 design)
Tonnage (custom hull): 16 tons
Configuration: 4 (Close Structure, partially-streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr0.96) (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor (code: 0)
Maneuver-none
Power Plant-none
Fuel: none
Bridge: none
Computer: none
Hardpoints: none
Crew positions minimum skills required: none
External Docking: 96 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.192, Environment Tank becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)
Environment Tank: 16 tons capacity (1 tons, MCr1.6) (CT Errata, p26, environment tanks cost MCr0.1 per ton)
Total Cost: MCr2.752 (100% cost single production), MCr2.2016 (80% cost volume production)

Stateroom Module
Ship Type: AU (Merchant-A, Unpowered)
TL=9 (LBB5.80 design)
Tonnage (custom hull): 16 tons
Configuration: 4 (Close Structure, partially-streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr0.96) (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor (code: 0)
Maneuver-none
Power Plant-none
Fuel: none
Bridge: none
Computer: none
Hardpoints: none
Crew positions minimum skills required: none
External Docking: 96 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.192, Stateroom Module becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)
Starship staterooms: 4 single occupancy (16 tons, MCr2)
Total Cost: MCr3.152 (100% cost single production), MCr2.5216 (80% cost volume production)

Laboratory Module
Ship Type: AU (Merchant-A, Unpowered)
TL=9 (LBB5.80 design)
Tonnage (custom hull): 16 tons
Configuration: 4 (Close Structure, partially-streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr0.96) (LBB5.80, p21-23, p34)
Armor (code: 0)
Maneuver-none
Power Plant-none
Fuel: none
Bridge: none
Computer: none
Hardpoints: none
Crew positions minimum skills required: none
External Docking: 96 tons capacity Ordinary Launch Facilities (0 tons, MCr0.192, Laboratory Module becomes unstreamlined while in use) (LBB5.80, p32) (LBB A5, p14)
Laboratory (16 tons, MCr3.2) (CT Errata, p12, lab space costs MCr0.2 per ton)
Total Cost: MCr4.352 (100% cost single production), MCr3.4816 (80% cost volume production)

Code:

Long Night Trader   AT-41222B1-000000-00000-0    MCr102.5464    400 tons
Passengers=0. Low=0. Lab=4. Cargo=5.2. Fuel=100(+178). EP=8. Agility=2.
Hangar=178. GCarrier=1. TL=9. Crew=6.
Jump-2, Maneuver-2, Agility-0 @ up to 400 tons total (+0 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-1, Agility-0 @ up to 800 tons total (+400 tons external)

Laser Cutter        FY-0106C31-000000-20000-0    MCr47.5924      50 tons
   batteries bearing                  1                            TL=9.
           batteries                  1                          Crew=1.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Hangar=16. Cargo=1. Fuel=1.8(+17). EP=4. Agility=6.
Maneuver-5, Agility-5 @ up to 80 tons total (+30 tons external)
Maneuver-4, Agility-4 @ up to 100 tons total (+50 tons external)
Maneuver-3, Agility-3 @ up to 133 tons total (+83 tons external)
Maneuver-2, Agility-2 @ up to 200 tons total (+150 tons external)
Maneuver-1, Agility-1 @ up to 400 tons total (+350 tons external)

Mixed Cargo Box     AU-0400000-000000-00000-0    MCr0.9216       16 tons
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=16. Fuel=0. EP=0. Agility=0. Crew=0. TL=9.

Environment Tank    AU-0400000-000000-00000-0    MCr2.2016       16 tons
Passengers=0. Low=0. Environment=16. Fuel=0. EP=0. Agility=0. Crew=0. TL=9.

Stateroom Module    AU-0400000-000000-00000-0    MCr2.5216       16 tons
Passengers=4. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=0. EP=0. Agility=0. Crew=0. TL=9.

Laboratory Module   AU-0400000-000000-00000-0    MCr3.4816       16 tons
Passengers=0. Low=0. Lab=16. Fuel=0. EP=0. Agility=0. Crew=0. TL=9.

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Long Night Trader

Single production (100% cost)

Total Cost (starship + gcarrier + laser cutter + 5x mixed cargo box + 2x passenger module + 2x laboratory module): MCr128.183 + (1) + (59.4905) + (1.152+0.9216*4) + (3.152+2.5216) + (4.352+3.4816) = Cr207,019,100
20% Down Payment: MCr25.6366 + (0.2) + (11.8981) + (0.2304+0.18432*4) + (0.6304+0.50432) + (0.8704+0.69632) = Cr41,403,820
Architect Fees (4 weeks): MCr1.28183 + (0.01) + (0.594905) + (0.01152) + (0.03152) + (0.04352) = Cr1,973,295
Construction Time: 56 weeks (starship), 24 weeks (fighter transport, cargo box, environment tank, passenger module, laboratory module) (LBB2.81, p22) (LBB A5, p33)
Annual Overhaul: Cr128,183 + (1000) + (59,491) + (1152+922*4) + (3152+2522) + (4352+3482) = Cr207,022 (LBB2.81, p8)
Bank Financing Monthly Mortgage Payment (Total Cost / 240 for 480 months) = Cr862,580 (LBB2.81, p23)

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

Total Cost (starship + gcarrier + laser cutter + 5x mixed cargo box + 2x passenger module + 2x laboratory module): MCr102.5464 + (0.8) + (47.5924) + (0.9216*5) + (2.5216*2) + (3.4816*2) = Cr167,553,200
20% Down Payment: MCr20.50928 + (0.16) + (9.51848) + (0.18432*5) + (0.50432*2) + (0.69632*2) = Cr33,510,640
Construction Time: 44 weeks 6 days (starship), 19 weeks 2 days (fighter transport, cargo box, environment tank, passenger module, laboratory module) (LBB2.81, p22) (LBB A5, p33)
Annual Overhaul: Cr102,547 + (800) + (47,593) + (922*5) + (2522*2) + (3482*2) = Cr167,558 (LBB2.81, p8)
Bank Financing Monthly Mortgage Payment (Total Cost / 240 for 480 months) = Cr698,139 (LBB2.81, p23)

Recurring costs:

Crew Life Support: Cr0 due to regenerative life support Environmental Control Type V-c (up to 16 persons)
Passenger Life Support (middle/high): Cr0 due to regenerative life support Environmental Control Type V-c (up to 16 persons)
Passenger Life Support (low): Cr100 per usage of low berth (potentially indefinite duration)
Crew Salaries: Cr30,950 per 4 weeks (LBB2.81, p11, p16)
Berthing Fees: Cr100 for 6 days, additional Cr100 per additional day after 6 days (LBB2.81, p8)
Surface to Orbit Shuttle Costs: Cr10 per cargo ton, Cr20 to 120 per passenger (LBB2.81, p9)
Fuel: Cr500 per ton (refined), Cr100 per ton (unrefined), Cr0 (skimmed) (LBB2.81, p7)
Sandcaster reloads: Cr400 per canister (3 canisters per launcher plus 12 canisters reserve per turret) = Cr24,000 for 60 canisters total loaded on starship and fighter transport (LBB2.81, p16-17, p32) (LBB SS3 Revised, p7)

Revenue sources:

Interplanetary Charters (12+ hours): Cr1 per hour per ton for laser cutter (Cr50 per hour) or starship (Cr400 per hour) rate without external loading (external loads add Cr1 per hour per ton), minimum 12 hours per charter (LBB2.81, p9)
- Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Interstellar Non-charter Passenger Revenue: Cr10,000 per high passenger, Cr8000 per middle passenger, Cr1000 per low passenger, to declared destination(s) per jump (LBB2.81, p9)
Interstellar Non-charter Cargo Transport: Cr1000 per ton, to declared destination(s) per jump (LBB2.81, p8-9)
Interstellar Charters (2 weeks): Cr9000 per high passage berth, Cr900 per low passage berth, Cr900 per ton of cargo, to declared destination(s) per jump (LBB2.81, p9)
Mail Delivery: Cr5,000 revenue per ton upon delivery (Cr25,000 max) (LBB2.81, p9)
Imperial subsidies reduce gross revenue receipts by 50% for passengers, cargo and mail (LBB2.81, p7)

Economic break even formula for annualized costs (including life support, berthing fees, crew salaries and annual overhaul costs)

Cost calculation

CPD = (LS + CS*13 + CC*(CM/40+0.001) + FC*DPY + BFE) / DPY + BFD
- CPD = Cost Per Destination (in Cr), round up to nearest integer
- LS = Life Support (in Cr) per 2 weeks/14 days (Cr0 crew plus Cr0 high passengers) over Days Deployed per year (tempo * DPY)
- CS = Crew Salaries (in Cr) per 4 weeks (Cr30,950)
- CC = Construction Cost in credits (Cr207,019,100 single production, Cr167,553,200 volume production)
- CM = Construction Multiplier (x0 Subsidized, x1 Paid Off, x2.4 Bank Loan Financing, over 480 months)
- FC = Fuel Cost (in Cr) to refuel per Destination (Cr500 per ton refined, Cr100 per ton unrefined, Cr0 per ton wilderness)
- BFE = Berthing Fees Extra (additional berthing fees for warehousing the ship at idle during extra crew vacation days annually)
- DPY = Destinations Per Year
- BFD = Berthing Fees (in Cr) per Destination (Cr100 for 6 days, Cr100 more per +1 days)

Tables of profit points when allowing 14 days for annual overhaul maintenance within each year (365-14=351 days maximum)
Note: 252 / 365 = 69% (~70% minimum required time on route each year for subsidy contracts)

Single Production (break even profit point in credits per port of call) when returning to home port each year for annual overhaul mainteance

DPY (tempo) + vacation days	Subsidized CPD (in Cr)	Paid Off CPD (in Cr)	Bank Financed CPD (in Cr)
24 (6+8 days) = 336 + 15	25,533	241,177	543,080
18 (6+8 days) = 252 + 99	34,477	322,003	724,540
14 (6+8+8 days) = 308 + 43	43,898	413,575	931,123
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 87	51,565	482,854	1,086,660
10 (6+8+8+8 days) = 300 + 51	61,497	579,045	1,303,612

Volume Production (break even profit point in credits per port of call) when returning to home port each year for annual overhaul mainteance

DPY (tempo) + vacation days	Subsidized CPD (in Cr)	Paid Off CPD (in Cr)	Bank Financed CPD (in Cr)
24 (6+8 days) = 336 + 15	23,888	198,723	442,771
18 (6+8 days) = 252 + 99	32,284	264,997	590,795
14 (6+8+8 days) = 308 + 43	41,079	340,281	759,164
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 87	48,276	397,345	886,042
10 (6+8+8+8 days) = 300 + 51	57,551	476,434	1,062,870

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Long Night Trader

100% manifest maximum revenues

1 Ticket = (J2/+0 tons external) = 2 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x1	80,000	72,000	40,000	36,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: 80 tons x1	80,000	72,000	40,000	36,000
Third Party Cargo: 0 tons x1	0	0	0	0
Subtotal	160,000	144,000	80,000	72,000
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x1	5000	4500	2500	2250
1. Total (cargo)	165,000	148,500	82,500	74,250
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	185,000	169,000	92,500	84,500

1 Ticket = (J1/+400 tons external) = 1 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x1	80,000	72,000	40,000	36,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: (16+128)+(16*5) = 224 tons x1	224,000	201,600	112,000	100,800
Third Party Cargo: (16*16) = 256 tons x1	230,400	230,400	115,200	115,200
Subtotal	534,400	504,000	267,200	252,000
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x1	5000	4500	2500	2250
1. Total (cargo)	539,400	508,500	269,700	254,250
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	559,400	529,000	279,700	264,500

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

2 Tickets = (J2/+0 tons external) (J2/+0 tons external) = 4 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x2	160,000	144,000	80,000	72,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: 0 tons x2 80 tons fuel	0	0	0	0
Third Party Cargo: 0 tons x2	0	0	0	0
Subtotal	160,000	144,000	80,000	72,000
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x2	10,000	9000	5000	4500
1. Total (cargo)	170,000	153,000	85,000	76,500
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	185,000	169,000	92,500	84,500

2 Tickets = (J1/+50 tons external) (J2/+0 tons external) = 3 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x2	160,000	144,000	80,000	72,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: 16*5=80 tons x2 50 tons fuel	160,000	144,000	80,000	72,000
Third Party Cargo: 0 tons x2	0	0	0	0
Subtotal	320,000	288,000	160,000	144,000
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x2	10,000	9000	5000	4500
1. Total (cargo)	330,000	297,000	165,000	148,500
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	345,000	313,000	172,5000	156,500

2 Tickets = (J1/+400 tons external) (J1/+320 tons external) = 2 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x2	160,000	144,000	80,000	72,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: (64)+(16*5) = 144 tons x2 80 tons fuel	288,000	259,200	144,000	129,600
Third Party Cargo: (16*16) = 256 tons x2	460,800	460,800	230,400	230,400
Subtotal	908,800	864,000	454,400	432,000
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x2	10,000	9000	5000	4500
1. Total (cargo)	918,800	873,000	459,400	436,500
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	933,800	889,000	466,900	444,500

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

3 Tickets = (J1/+98 tons external) (J1/+50 tons external) (J2/+0 tons external) = 4 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x3	240,000	216,000	120,000	108,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: (32+48)+(16*4) = 144 tons x3 128 tons fuel	432,000	388,800	216,000	194,400
Third Party Cargo: (16*16) = 256 tons x3	0	0	0	0
Subtotal	672,000	604,800	336,000	302,400
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x3	15,000	13,500	7500	6750
1. Total (cargo)	687,000	618,300	343,500	309,150
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	697,000	629,800	348,500	314,900

3 Tickets = (J1/+400 tons external) (J1/+320 tons external) (J1/+256 tons external) = 3 parsecs

Revenue	Paid Off or Bank Financed Non-charter (in Cr)	Paid Off or Bank Financed Charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Non-charter (in Cr)	Subsidized Charter (in Cr)
High Passengers: 8 x3	240,000	216,000	120,000	108,000
Owned Mixed Cargo: (32+48)+(16*4) = 144 tons x3 178 tons fuel	432,000	388,800	216,000	194,400
Third Party Cargo: (16*16) = 256 tons x3	691,200	691,200	345,600	345,600
Subtotal	1,363,200	1,296,000	681,600	648,000
1. Internal Cargo: 5 tons x3	15,000	13,500	7500	6750
1. Total (cargo)	1,378,200	1,309,500	689,100	654,750
2. Mail Vault x1	25,000	25,000	12,500	12,500
2. Total (xmail)	1,388,200	1,321,000	694,100	660,500

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Long Night Trader

While the true origins of the ship class now known as the Long Night Trader have been lost to the pages of history, it is presumed that the first ship of the class must have been constructed at some point prior to -650 (the founding of the Sylean Federation) during the Long Night. What is definitively proven from historical sources is that the oldest surviving records of starship construction from this time show the local subsidiary of Ling-Standard Products (LSP) as the primary contractor shipyard in volume production of the class. As the Sylean Federation expanded their interstellar trade hegemony over nearby star systems in the centuries prior the founding of the Third Imperium, scattered LSP subsidiaries that had been isolated from each other were able to reconnect. This enabled technology transfers, including the architectural plans and engineering of the Long Night Trader and its containerized transport business model of operations.

Long Night Trader (Type AT): Constructed using a stylishly sleek streamlined 400 ton aerodynamic hull better optimized for atmospheric maneuvering control authority, the starship class is fitted with TL=9 standard D/D/D drives, producing jump-2 and 2G acceleration with a power plant-2 performance profile in a "clean" configuration unencumbered by external loads. Internal fuel tankage is 100 tons, sufficient for 4 weeks of maneuver endurance and 2 parsecs of jump range before needing to refuel, with fuel scoops integrated into the leading edge wing roots of the airframe hull. An onboard fuel purification plant is used to purify unrefined fuel skimmed from gas giants or water oceans into refined fuel and distills out "waste elements" for use by the ship's life support systems. Accommodations aboard are 5 single occupancy staterooms and no low berths, augmented by integration with a pair of containerized Environmental Control Type V-c regenerative life support systems with a designed capacity for 8 persons each (a critical prerequisite to interstellar operations during the Long Night when trade routes and supply lines were not yet firmly anchored).

The ship's bridge features sophisticated touchscreen workstations and a fly by light control system integrated through the adjacent model/2 fib computer that incorporates redundant fiber optic backup systems hardened against natural high radiation environments (and, as it turns out, unsanctioned radiation weapons).

An internal hangar bay accommodates an armed Laser Cutter that can be loaded with a variety of container modules, five Mixed Cargo Boxes, two Stateroom Modules and two Laboratory Modules containing the ship’s regenerative life support systems. This containerized load capacity can be used to facilitate a remarkably wide variety of runabout service deployments within star systems, including operations independent of the starship itself (up to and including multi-day interplanetary voyages, when necessary). The hulls and drives of both the starship and associated small craft have been engineered to facilitate external docking with other craft for towing through both normal space by maneuver drive and/or by jump drive. While up to 400 tons of small craft and/or big craft are docked and being towed externally, including the Laser Cutter and other modules, the starship becomes unstreamlined. Towing external loads necessarily reduces drive output performance until the external load can be undocked or jettisoned.

Costs and Revenues: Although relatively expensive to construct (and therefore finance through bank loans) in terms of up front capital expenditure, the Long Night Trader actually has a markedly lower operational overhead cost than is typical of merchant ships in its displacement class. This is primarily due to the synergies of having a regenerative life support biome and onboard fuel purification plant. However, that hefty investment in construction costs is relatively easy to recoup, especially as a tramp merchant occasionally dealing in speculative goods. Being able to flexibly shift between small volume but high arbitrage value speculative cargoes over into high volume but low value per chartered ton external loading transport for third parties opens up a tremendous wealth of options in the generation of profits for the savvy (and/or wily) operator to take advantage of as the supply and demand of world markets (and governments) ebb and flow over time.

Although the Long Night Trader has its origin as an LSP starship design and business model, in the millennia and a half since its debut during the Long Night a wide variety of shipyards not affiliated with LSP have put the class into volume production for clients and governments throughout imperial controlled space (and even beyond). In more modern times, the Long Night Trader is still thought of by owners of the class as the “best low tech backwater merchant ship that (a little extra) money can buy” when compared with even older Vilani designs still in service such as the Type-R Fat Trader or the Type-A2 Far Trader, both of which fare better in more permissive and well patrolled trading environments.

Laser Cutter: The Long Night Trader class is designed to be (and delivered from the shipyard as) an unarmed merchant starship, but with an organic Laser Cutter fighter escort that is capable of operating as a mobile screening defense against threats to commerce along the fringes of civilization. The Laser Cutter’s capability to intercept and engage/harass incoming hostile craft at range, forcing them into defensive evasive maneuvering, affords the Long Night Trader parent ship the opportunity to break off by acceleration from unwanted encounters that the ship would otherwise be unable to escape from. Laser Cutters are armed with twin beam lasers rigidly mounted in the nose and boresighted to the fighter’s longitudinal axis, backed by the best compute power (for the technology level) of a model/3 computer and small craft bridge. Although designing a fighter transport to use lasers rather than missiles is more expensive, lasers have the advantage of not being limited by magazine capacity or the need to replenish expended stocks.

Accommodations for Laser Cutter pilots is a single occupancy stateroom aboard their small craft, which enables extended interplanetary voyages to be undertaken (when necessary) in addition to providing crew quarters while in jump.

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Crew Manning: The Long Night Trader relies on a ‘skilled crew" manpower model in which 6 personnel fill the 8 crew positions mandated by necessity and regulations. This requires crew who have above minimum skill levels in a few departments to allow a single crew member to fill two crew positions, reducing life support demands in exchange for increased salaries and compensation paid to individual crew members due to their increased workloads.

Bridge Crew (2 persons): A starship pilot (pilot-1) and navigator (navigation-1) are both required by regulations for starships in this displacement class. Either the pilot or the navigator will typically also serve as the ship's captain. The starship bridge has one pilot station and one navigator station. (LBB2.81, p16)
Small Craft Crew (1 person): A small craft pilot (ship's boat-1) is required to operate the Laser Cutter independently of the starship. (LBB2.81, p16) (LBB5.80, p34)
Engineering Department (1 person): The two engineering positions are required to maintain the 53 combined tons of drives between starship and small craft. These two positions can be manned and maintained by a single engineer of sufficient skill (engineering-2) who can fill both positions. The starship bridge has one engineering station for the ship's engineer. (LBB2.81, p16)
Service Department (1 person): The starship's Environmental Control Type V-c regenerative life support system requires a service crew, which typically is not needed on ships below 1000 tons displacement. Without any ship's troops, three service crew positions per 1000 tons is the standard requirement on larger vessels, so a smaller 400 ton ship requires a single service crew position. A single skilled steward (steward-1) who handles maintenance, food service and other crew support tasking, can also provide passenger support services for up to 8 high passengers. (LBB5.80, p33) (LBB2.81, p16)
Medical Department (1 person): The starship's Environmental Control Type V-c regenerative life support system requires a skilled medical doctor (medical-3) in order to keep the closed loop cycle life support systems in balance and the crew dependent upon that life support healthy. Consequently, medical support aboard is usually higher than the bare minimum that most spacers are conditioned to expect (where even nurse level skills are considered a luxury), raising crew morale, loyalty and retention rates. Historical records from the Long Night period show that xeno-medicine qualifications were also required during the interstellar expansion and re-contact happening at that time in history, hence the inclusion of an autodoc medical infirmary facility in the starship’s foundational design plans. (LBB2.81, p20-21) (LBB2.81, p16)

Peculiarities: By FAR, the most consistently peculiar thing about the Long Night Trader is its Environmental Control Type V-c capacity for its 6 person crew and 8 high passengers (with spare capacity for 2 more persons, if needed). However, the improvement this feature makes to the onboard quality of life aboard these ships is such that recruiting seasoned crew is rarely (if ever) an issue. FRESH food meals prepared and served daily by the ship's skilled cook (steward), instead of heavily preserved rations, often makes for quite a difference in crew morale, loyalty and retention over the long term. This self(-ish) sufficiency factor also means that crews are not at the mercy of local market prices (and quality) when visiting worlds where life support consumables are an expensive commodity due to scarcity of resources and/or (in)adequate technology (a potential liability in some remote backwater systems). In standard practice, the two Laboratory Modules are usually set up for a single world type habitat but operating in different seasons, offering some measure of redundancy in the event of accident or mishap while also providing a wider variety of food selections for both crew and passengers.

While closed loop life support recycling efficiency of gases, liquids and solids is quite high, it is not and cannot ever be 100%. The replacement of losses in chemical reserves necessary for sustaining the regenerative biome life support systems are routinely obtained from the waste byproducts of wilderness fuel skimming getting filtered out by the onboard fuel purification plant, which is more integrated into the ship's life support reserve systems than is typical. Additionally, the life support systems of the Laser Cutter have also been designed to integrate relatively seamlessly with their parent Long Night Trader and Laboratory Modules for waste purging and consumables reserve replenishment while docked in the internal hangar bay, helping to keep the regenerative biome life cycles better balanced over the long duration between annual overhauls.

The habitat species of the regenerative life support biome can be changed during annual overhaul maintenance if desired, although this option is rarely exercised unless crews have allergic reactions to specific biomes beyond the skills of the medical doctor aboard to resolve adequately. Changing the regenerative life support biome to model a species habitat of a world other than that of where the construction and/or maintenance work is being done may incur additional time and cost surcharges, so owners will want to plan for and budget their operations accordingly if exercising this option.

Another peculiar design factor is that the Laser Cutter has a collapsible fuel tank installed which can be filled with fuel, with or without a Mixed Cargo Box loaded into the small craft's internal hangar. This gives the Laser Cutter a power plant restart capacity in the event of a breach of the internal fuel tanks during combat or due to other mishap circumstances, while also allowing the Laser Cutter to be operated as a fuel shuttle when necessary. This reserve fuel capacity is also very useful to have when the Laser Cutter plus five Mixed Cargo Boxes and other modules are docked externally to the Long Night Trader, freeing up the starship's internal hangar bays to be filled with collapsible fuel tanks also, allowing the ship’s range and load capacity to be increased beyond a single jump before needing to refuel.

Spinward Flow · Jun 15, 2023

Naming: While there are no officially recognized naming conventions for Long Night Traders and their Laser Cutters, there is a bit of a tradition among crews to give their craft feminine names (in the old Solomani wet navy tradition of "all ships are female").

Variants: Owing to the sheer number of possible load outs with customized Mixed Cargo Boxes available, it is impossible to make an exhaustive list of all variants in service. The following is but a small sampling of the myriad options.

Safari Ship (Type KP): A few Long Night Traders in private ownership have been converted into safari tour ships (both commercial and non-commercial). The most common means to achieve this conversion is to swap the Mixed Cargo Boxes out for a mix of Environment Tanks to contain animals and/or preserve vegetation for retrieval, Laboratory Modules for on-site sample survey analysis, Stateroom Modules for use as mobile base camp accommodations that can be deployed to terrestrial environments, along with a wide variety of other expeditionary services and vehicle berthing support that can be delivered to remote and austere locations for later retrieval by the ship’s Laser Cutter. Some safari conversions in private hands even include allocating one (or more) of the Environment Tanks as a trophy room to be filled with an owner's most impressive prizes taken during their adventures and travels, where they can be put on display as a statement to be heeded by friends, rivals and enemies alike for the sake a pride and envy. Some Long Night Traders have also been donated or otherwise made available to various world universities and converted to Safari Ships for use in academic research sample return expeditions and long(er) term surveys.

Search & Rescue (Type JT): All of the factors which make the Long Night Trader an excellent jump and maneuver tug capable of towing up to 2x their own hull displacement externally also makes the class an almost ideal long endurance search & rescue platform, which can also bring in dead hulks for salvage if there are no survivors. All that is truly needed for such conversions is some customization of the Mixed Cargo Boxes aboard for deployment with the Laser Cutter to better support the mission with additional rescue crew and utility services, making these variants relatively economical in terms of refurbishment. Coordinating maneuvers with the Laser Cutter enables searches of large volumes of space to be conducted in relative safety, while also offering rapid acceleration responses to distress calls.

Commerce Raider (Type AR): While by no means an official variant, it is regrettably true that some ships fall into the hands of pirates and privateers. The most common ways for this to happen are through temptation and/or mutiny, but even financial fraud and other types of betrayal of trust can see ships wind up on the wrong side of the law (sometimes permanently). Unfortunately, all of the capabilities that make the Long Night Trader a relatively hard target for pirates to threaten in direct ship to ship combat perversely make these them a highly desirable corsair that is capable of transporting captured prize ships between star systems due to the large external load capacity. The inclusion of a Laser Cutter (a real prize for pirates!) and Mixed Cargo Boxes (which can be outfitted for all kinds of roles) gives the sly pirate operator a plethora of ways and means to employ guile and subterfuge to their own advantage against their chosen prey. Pirates who have connections and who can pay off all the right people are able to take boarded prizes to unscrupulous shipyards where those prizes can be gutted for salvage and scrap, effectively liquidating the small craft and starships they've captured into funding for their operations, a practice which can be exceptionally difficult for authorities to trace.

Spinward Flow · Jun 16, 2023

Spinward Flow said:
Total Drives: 25+7+13 = 45 tons (+8 tons Laser Cutter = 53 tons combined)

{sigh}

It isn't Traveller without an errata or few ...

Correction:

Total Drives: 25+7+13 = 45 tons (+13 tons Laser Cutter = 58 tons combined)

Fortunately, that seems to be the only error I've found in what I posted so far.

Spinward Flow · Jun 22, 2023

Well ... I didn't expect that to happen ...

So, a little bit of context would seem to be in order.

(Somewhat) obviously, the effort of the (above) starship design effort was one undertaken as a notional research into what can be done at TL=9 with a modular/containerized merchant ship (with LBB2.81 standard drives) that can operate in a "selfish sufficiency" business model way that would be required for an interstellar hegemony expansion when there is "a lot of unsettled frontier" all around a merchant's home port base. In other words, if there isn't much in the way of local support "everywhere you go" (because of the Long Night, or Hard Times, or where you're located is simply on the "fringes of civilization" and power projection by interstellar polities, such as the Five Sisters or Vilis subsectors, among many other examples in other sectors and eras) ... you can't just assume that every world you berth at will have life support stores readily available for purchase (at reasonable prices), that orbital spaces will be well patrolled and defended against raiders, criminals and scavengers by a strong constabulary and system defenses, or that refined L-H₂ fuel will be available in every corner ~~drugstore~~ starport/spaceport (again, at reasonable prices).

When you put merchant business on more of an "expeditionary" footing, where the only stuff you can count on is "what you bring with you" from your home port base of operations ... what happens? When you need to venture out "into the frontier" of the wilds and backwaters of "known space" to seek new opportunities for profit and to spread your influence ... what kind of (new) demands does that put into the designs of starships ... and what kind of quality of life should be expected by their crews?

The first thing that becomes abundantly apparent is that the legacy Type-A1 Free Trader is best suited to a more ... permissive/settled environment ... where resupply of consumable stores can be expected at almost every destination and the threat of raiders and piracy to commercial interests can potentially be "bought off" with bribes to the right people or ransom payments that won't drag an operator down into bankruptcy. Where "security can be outsourced" to ground support and system defense, the Type-A1 Free Trader makes for the "cheapest" option a low end operator can reach for to gain a foothold in interstellar markets that are already established and more or less defended by centralized authorities.

However, as soon as you start venturing into Planetia Incognita or otherwise unknown/uncharted "frontier" settings, where the security of ship and crew CANNOT be outsourced to ground support and local system defense assets (by default) ... things start getting VERY different (and very expensive!) ... in ways that affect the design of starships and the sort of business model of operations that such a starship would need to service.

The Long Night Trader (above), was my first venture into this murky world of "low tech frontier merchant" design space, where I deliberately wanted to see what could be done using the absolute bare minimum of TL=9 in order to achieve the widest possible baseline of technological and industrial support, making it possible to establish "commercial empires" that link up the greatest variety of worlds into an interstellar hegemony of markets and influence (at a profit, of course).

One particularly enormous sticking point, especially when sticking to LBB2.81 standard drives, is that the choice of A-D standard drives at TL=9 puts a pretty severe upper limit on drive performance in various hull size displacements. TL=9 also places an extreme upper limit on available computer models (3 at best!), so there isn't a whole lot of "wiggle room" to work with. I'd like to think that my first effort at working within the (for me anyway) unusually tight confines of the CT TL=9 design space was ... more or less successful ... but I can already see a few factors that could be tweaked and improved (slightly) for marginally better results.

The first factor is the notion of using the small craft as an orbital interface shuttle, taking modules from orbit through atmospheric entry down to world surfaces for loading/unloading. Sure, the small craft has a 6G maneuver drive and can perform this kind of interface shuttle service "quickly" (leaving the starship in orbit) ... but that's a low volume, many repeats arrangement. Also, since the small craft "has the weapon(s)" and the starship doesn't, putting the starship into the High Guard position while deploying modules to a world surface from orbit sounds like a long duration operation, during which the (unarmed) starship will be intermittently vulnerable on a repeating basis until transfer operations are complete. An unarmed starship doesn't exactly make for the best "security guard" for cargoes waiting to be delivered, even if the Laser Cutter "can respond to urgent calls quickly" (thanks to 6G acceleration/agility).

Reversing the orbital interface roles, such that the starship descends through atmosphere to make deliveries (in larger volumes, so fewer trips!) while the small craft remains on overwatch in orbit ... makes a lot more sense (now that I've thought about it further). The small craft needs to be a "mobile turret" defense screen (engage hostiles over there instead of right here where the valuable stuff is within weapons range) as well as being a "maneuver tug/crane" for marshaling modules in and around the starship to facilitate docking/loading/unloading operations along with other bits of routine logistics staging and coordination. Being able to use the small craft as a "sky crane" for modules, when the local infrastructure support is ... lacking (or otherwise "too austere") ... makes too much of a difference in capabilities to throw it away entirely, but removing the design constraint of the small craft needing to enter atmosphere with internally loaded modules (like I've done with the Laser Cutter above) makes a tremendous difference.

If modules need to be loaded internally and laser weaponry is needed on a small craft, the small craft design quickly balloons up to 50 tons ... as seen above with the Laser Cutter.

However, if modules do NOT need to be loaded internally(!) but laser weaponry is (still) needed on a small craft, the small craft design can be shrunk all the way down to 20 tons(!) ... which then represents a remarkable savings (hull cost, drives costs!), as well as a paradigm shift in anticipated routine operations when needing to deliver modules through atmosphere to a world surface. Use the starship (with the large hangar bay) for the interface work to reach the surface, leaving the (armed) small craft in orbit on overwatch protecting any external loads that need to "wait their turn" for internal loading into or unloading from the starship before making another surface to orbit shuttle run. Using the starship involves fewer round trips, a higher volume of transfer per trip, and the small craft can "stand guard" in orbit over any orbital staging that might be necessary and be ready to respond to any adverse conditions that may arise while orbital transfers are in progress.

The second factor is that I figured out a better containerization model based on 10 tons for cargo/environment/laboratory modules and 20 tons for the stateroom modules as the foundational units, rather than needing to resort to 16 tons for everything like I've done here with the Long Night Trader. This is largely "invisible" to the overall starship design (especially when building on a "lots of containers" model anyway), but it has subtle knock on effects in a variety of structural decisions concerning how to fit what where. The 16 tons foundational unit was "nice" for being a good compromise between 4 staterooms (16 tons) or 1 major cargo (10 tons) plus 1 minor cargo (5 tons) and 1 incidental cargo (1 ton) ... but in a number of other important "jenga pile" consideration ways it turned into something that was more trouble than it is really worth. Switching over to the 10/20 containerization notion, instead of sticking with a uniform "16 fits all" approach solves a number of edge case problems that I was encountering.

Spinward Flow · Jun 22, 2023

But the real reason why I'm posting this long ramble is because after learning everything I could with the Long Night Trader design you see above, I wondered what would happen if I "relaxed the technology constraints a little" and allowed the design to advance from TL=9 to TL=10 ... or maybe even TL=11 ... and something of a minor miracle happened, due to a confluence of factors that I hadn't previously even considered to be all that important.

The biggest and most obvious factor was that TL=10 means that E-H standard drives become available under LBB2.81 (which is HUGE!) along with model/4 computers (meaning up to J4 is now possible).
TL=11 makes J-K standard drives an option along with model/5 computers.

However, once you cross the F/F/G line of standard drives, you're looking at a total tonnage in drives of over 70 tons ... meaning you need more than 2 Engineering crew positions (and 1 person can fill 2 positions for a commensurate increase in salary, but they can't fill 3). So moving past the F/F/G combination of standard drives became something of a high hurdle. The thing is, drive-F is rated as code: 1 in a 1200 ton hull ... so code: 2 @ 600 tons, code: 3 @ 400 tons and code: 4 @ 300 tons. However, at this point, two other factors that I hadn't considered began to intrude.

201-400 ton hulls take 56 weeks (standard) or 64 weeks (custom) to construct.
401-600 ton hulls take 88 weeks (standard) or 96 weeks (custom) to construct ... a +50%(-ish) increase in construction time. (LBB2.81, p22)

That's a justifiable delay in construction times if you're looking at a +50% increase in hull displacement (400 tons to 600 tons), but a lot of the analysis of alternatives I was reaching for were things in the 450-500 ton range ... some of which involved experimenting with J4 and model/4 computer along with no small craft (these did not look all that promising as a return on investment). Even at TL=11 with J/J/K drives in a 450 ton hull for J4/4G performance, I was really struggling to be able to "fit" anything besides fuel tanks into the available volume. The drives were EXPENSIVE (90+36+80=MCr208

) and the construction time increased from 64 to 96 weeks ... and there was barely any revenue tonnage left over after building in enough "selfish sufficiency" to meet the fundamental needs of the design (and no small craft to assist also hurt!).

I tried scaling back to a 400 ton hull with H/H/J drives, but because of the way Small Starship Universe construction works in CT that only made things worse on the revenue tonnage front and I was still stuck with TL=11.

I tried downsizing my ambitions even further, struggling to fit within the TL=10 limit and ... the puzzle pieces just weren't fitting together (nicely). I kept having to make compromises that would make the starship BORING, especially for an adventure minded/capable type of ACS that a Referee might want to use in a campaign. Sure, the spreadsheet might make it work as a profit venture, but "interstellar delivery van" that is nothing but cargo (and speculation to make a profit) isn't all that interesting.

At this point, I was starting to get frustrated, because no matter what I did, I just couldn't make the (design) numbers add up.

They were CLOSE ... but they weren't GOOD ENOUGH to justify.
The numbers didn't add up.

So then in desperation, I tried going in the opposite direction.
Instead of "going big" on the TL=10 drives (H/H/H = 85 tons) ... what about "going small" (F/F/G = 68 tons) and scaling back from J4 to J3?

That ... kind of worked(?) ... but I couldn't shoehorn a laser armed small craft into the 400 ton design ... and I needed a laser for the "deep magazine" capacity that wouldn't run out of (expendable) ammo at inopportune times, forcing a reload/resupply maneuver when it might not be convenient (such as in the middle of combat). As soon as I added the drive tonnage of a small craft to the drive tonnage of a starship, I broke the 70 tons of total drives threshold and was back to needing another Engineering position. Adding another stateroom+regenerative life support (4+2=6 tons) to crew requirements and increasing the crew salaries needed by another Cr4660 per month (once again) just wasn't working. Sure, I could add turrets and gunners instead of adding a small craft and let the starship do the fighting instead of a small craft fighter ... but that was a risky proposition that could result in catastrophic damage and losses. Using a high agility fighter to engage an opponent at range, screening the starship for a break off by acceleration escape maneuver was a MUCH better option overall! For one thing, the small craft fighter would be FAR less likely to be hit by incoming fire ... and any damage taken would be easier/cheaper to repair.

It was about then that I noticed that having a starship + external load capacity combination in excess of 1000 tons (total) was facing the dreaded diminishing returns curve of small craft needing 130% tonnage on ships over 1000 tons. (LBB5.80, p32)

So even if I had a 400 ton starship with F/F/G drives capable of towing 1200 combined tons at code: 1, I could only "meaningfully" make use of 1000 of those 1200 combined tons when dealing with small craft scale sized modules.
400 + (600*1.0) = 1000
400 + (615*1.3) = 1199.5 (small craft)
400 + (727*1.1) = 1199.7 (big craft)

So those F/F/G drives were creating an "upper end scaling inefficiency" while at the same time being both "too big" (and too expensive) in terms of tonnage and costs that had knock on effects that cascaded throughout the rest of the starship design. They were somewhat "wasteful" in terms of added capacity, while also requiring a custom hull (not a LBB2.81 standard one) from the start ... AND they precluded the inclusion of a small craft fighter/logistics assistant.

So after seeing THAT result, I tried scaling down YET AGAIN ... and discovered something I was NOT expecting!

Switching to E/E/F drives for a lasers armed starship, followed by an E/E/E drives unarmed starship with laser fighter small craft alternative ... I finally found what I was looking for.

What surprised me though was that the E/E/E version made it possible to have:

J3/3G @ TL=10 in a 330 ton hull
J2/2G with +170 tons of external load capacity
J1/1G with +670 tons of external load capacity (sufficient to tow a 600 ton big craft!)
110 tons of hangar space for laser fighter small craft (20 tons), 3x cargo boxes (30 tons), 2x stateroom modules (40 tons, 6 crew, 4 high passengers), 2x laboratory: life support modules (20 tons)
100 tons capacity = 1 ton collapsible fuel tank (that can fill the hangar bay when the modules and small craft are docked externally instead)
5 tons of cargo bay space (for use as a Mail Vault if desired)

Why 330 tons?
1000 / 3 = 333

Note that 110 tons of hangar bay in a 330 ton starship is ... 1/3rd of the total hull displacement.

Where things start getting crazy is that by "putting the crew and passengers accommodations into the modules" ... rather than integrating them into the starship ... the tonnage needed to be spent on staterooms (and life support) can be "mobilized" from being inside the hangar bay to docked onto the exterior of the starship, leaving interior space available for hauling more cargo and/or fuel capacity internally.

In fact, if the 110 tons of small craft and modules are docked externally (440 combined tons) and the 100 ton collapsible fuel tank is used in the hangar bay ... that enables a J2 jump, followed by a transfer of the 110 tons of small craft and modules back into the internal hangar bay (during the routine 16 hours of maintenance checks after jumping), after which a second J3 jump can be made! That's a J2+3=5 parsec unrefueled range performance out of a TL=10 starship capable of carrying a few passengers and limited cargo.

That's enough to jump from Karin/Five Sisters or Iderati/Five Sisters (via 875-496/Five Sisters) to Collace/District 268 with a modest load ... without needing to resort to use of L-Hyd drop tanks! Suddenly, all kinds of routes that would have previously been impractical become possible (and with limited quantity speculative cargoes, potentially immensely profitable).

So ironically, by going TL+1 and actually shrinking the hull size ... I wound up with a step change superior design(!) than the Long Night Trader presented here.

Best of all, the new TL=10 J3 alternative only costs ~MCr25 more (in volume production) compared to the original presented here.
Good times.

Still have a lot of calculation, computation, editing and proofreading to do for the new post, but it's looking ... promising ...

Spinward Flow · Jun 22, 2023

Huh.
Yet more stuff I wasn't exactly expecting to see happen with the 330 ton TL=10 J3 Long Night Clipper redesign.

I was pondering the notion of possibly using it in an IISS survey ship role ... and remembered the 400 ton TL=15 J3 Donosev class Survey Scout. (LBB S9, p13)

Astonishingly, the comparison between the two is surprisingly favorable ...
Survey Scout construction cost: MCr263.8221 (single production) / MCr211.05768 (volume production)
Long Night Clipper construction cost: MCr239.046 (single production) / MCr192.5328 (volume production)

So ... pricey to buy (for merchant work) ... but exceptionally versatile in terms of missions and tasking that it can perform.
When you build a merchant ship that doesn't have to be used as a merchant you know you're on the right track towards building a really decent ACS class of starship that a Referee and a group of Players can go campaigning in. And if it comes down to needing to move speculative cargoes around ... my oh my, look at ALL THE OPTIONS you have!

And oh, hey look ... that ~MCr192.5(-ish) price tag looks suspiciously close to the "presumed sale value" of the Annic Nova (of MCr200) ... and the Long Night Clipper + Laser Fighter (plus modules) combination is capable of J2+J3 before needing to refuel (when carrying 4 high passengers and up to 30 tons of cargo) ... kind of like the Annic Nova (except wilderness refueling and processing is WAY FASTER than using a Solar Collector).

Nah. I'm sure that's just a coincidence ...

Spinward Flow · Jun 23, 2023

So as part of my "historical" research, I was looking at the Long Night years on the timeline saved at TravellerWiki and found these reference points that would be relevant to pre-Third Imperium times with respect to interstellar merchant activities:

-650: Sylean Federation founded, TL=11.
-495: First contact between Sylean scouts and Vland (it does not go well).
-489: Vilani resolve to begin expansion of interstellar trade.
-480: Trade corridor established between Sylean Federation and Vland.
-150: Sylean Federation reaches TL=12.

Okay ... so what?

From an archaeological history perspective, this would mean that during the Long Night you would be looking at a situation where it takes the Sylean Federation 155 years for their scouts (not merchants, scouts!) to reach Vland ... which according to TravellerMap is a journey of 60 parsecs(!) requiring at least 32 jumps at J2.

No matter how you slice it, that's a LONG haul!
Even worse, there is no J1 Main connection between Sylea and Vland, meaning you HAVE TO have a minimum 2 parsec range on starships that want to run this trade corridor route between Sylea and Vland.

Looking at the Milieu 0 (for lack of a better option) on TravellerMap and asking for a J2 route between Sylea and Vland, we get the following result. I'll highlight in bold the mainworlds that are recorded as having type A/B starports, population: 1+ and tech level: 9+ along this route, plus their UWPs.

60 parsecs -- 32 jumps
* Sylea (Core 2118) ... A586A98-C
Jump 2 to
* Zuarkri (Core 2016)
Jump 2 to
* Bala (Core 2014)
Jump 2 to
* Biin (Core 2012)
Jump 2 to
* Maashsha (Core 2010)
Jump 2 to
* Iiska Ashgi (Core 1909)
Jump 1 to
* Gamgiigela (Core 1808) ... B1008BB-A
Jump 2 to
* Erdi (Core 1707)
Jump 2 to
* Kakaaguur (Core 1506)
Jump 1 to
* Kuum (Core 1505)
Jump 2 to
* Gag (Core 1403)
Jump 2 to
* Kargi (Core 1202)
Jump 2 to
* Kiimi Di (Core 1101)
Jump 2 to
* Dun (Lishun 0940)
Jump 2 to
* Pagkaiinki (Lishun 0740)
Jump 2 to
* Leaded (Lishun 0638)
Jump 2 to
* Vliishuug (Lishun 0437)
Jump 2 to
* Raluug (Lishun 0236) ... A524222-B
Jump 2 to
* Siir (Vland 3235)
Jump 2 to
* Khakuu (Vland 3134)
Jump 2 to
* Matuyama (Vland 3032)
Jump 2 to
* Kiimzhal (Vland 2831)
Jump 2 to
* Luukon (Vland 2829)
Jump 2 to
* Giam Khanaar (Vland 2628)
Jump 2 to
* Uurshuu (Vland 2527)
Jump 1 to
* Khanaddar (Vland 2426)
Jump 2 to
* Iamone (Vland 2225)
Jump 1 to
* Liiaskuurkga (Vland 2125)
Jump 2 to
* Zhattar (Vland 2023) ... A88AA66-E (HOW?!?

)
Jump 2 to
* Kasear (Vland 1822)
Jump 2 to
* Kha (Vland 1820)
Jump 2 to
* Uushiish Uunap (Vland 1719)
Jump 2 to
* Vland (Vland 1717) ... B967344-A

My takeaway from this "historical archaeology" analysis is that some of the Milieu 0 UWPs must be in error, since there are worlds with type A/B starports and high technology but have zero population (which makes no sense, except as Die Back Worlds, but then, how are the starports being maintained?) ... but also that under Worst Case Scenario conditions, you're looking at needing to make 11 jumps between locations that are capable of performing annual overhaul maintenance on starships. That J2 trade route between Vland and Sylea basically takes ~16 months to run from end to end, so a ship running the entire route is going to need an annual overhaul maintenance somewhere along the way. You can basically make 2 round trips of this route in 5 years!

However, if you change that from a J2 to a J3 trade route (once TL=12 is reached in -150, unlocking Jump-3?), the route shortens like so:

59 parsecs -- 20 jumps
* Sylea (Core 2118) ... A586A98-C
Jump 3 to
* Irurk (Core 1916) ... A544644-9
Jump 3 to
* Gaadvlu Ki (Core 1813)
Jump 3 to
* Kaakhe Mirir (Core 1711)
Jump 3 to
* Uunnagirluu (Core 1708) ... B000444-9
Jump 3 to
* Giiar E (Core 1605) ... B546244-A
Jump 3 to
* Gag (Core 1403)
Jump 3 to
* Gipirkash (Core 1102)
Jump 3 to
* Meshiis Aar (Lishun 0840)
Jump 2 to
* Kip (Lishun 0639)
Jump 3 to
* Vliishuug (Lishun 0437)
Jump 3 to
* Mir (Lishun 0434) ... A512777-A
Jump 3 to
* Khuun (Lishun 0232)
Jump 3 to
* Maamibrin (Vland 3131)
Jump 3 to
* Luukon (Vland 2829)
Jump 3 to
* Piremad (Vland 2627)
Jump 3 to
* Martle (Vland 2425)
Jump 3 to
* Razzun (Vland 2124) ... A572433-9
Jump 3 to
* Kasear (Vland 1822)
Jump 3 to
* Arirk (Vland 1819)
Jump 3 to
* Vland (Vland 1717) ... B967344-A

Certainly a much faster route to run, requiring less than 1 year to complete, and there are 7 starports along the route capable of annual overhauls, rather than just 5 ... but it's still a really long haul from Sylea to Vland. However, something kind of weird is happening with respect to the distribution of tech levels for those "pit stop repairs" along the two routes (suggested by TravellerMap's routing algorithm).

The J2 route has 5 type A/B starports that are all TL=10+.
The J3 route has 4 type A/B starports that are TL=10+ and 3 type A/B starports that are TL=9.

The point I'm wanting to make here with this analysis is that even if a place such Sylea is capable of building TL=11 starships during the Long Night from -650 onwards, precious few other places along the route to Vland will have a type A/B starport, population: 1+ and a TL=9-10 (let alone TL=11) ... meaning that TL=11 starships would be "tethered" by their annual overhaul maintenance requirements to a "12 jumps out, 12 jumps back" operational cadence in order to be maintained every year at the only starport capable of performing such work ... at Sylea (and yes, I know there are a few other places that also meet the criteria, but they are FEW and FAR BETWEEN!).

Now, I haven't done an exhaustive proof of a Milieu 0 trade route between Sylea and Vland to find out if there are "detours" along the route that could be made for "pit stops" along the way which could solve the maintenance issue (by making the journey even longer) ... but the point still stands, for the most part. For a lot of very practical expeditionary logistics support reasons, any kind of long haul Sylea to Vland starship design is going to have to be a J2 or J3 capable one that is limited to TL=9-10 in order to be able to make the journey in both a reasonable amount of time AND be able to avail itself of in situ support resources intermittently along the way between endpoints of the ~~Kessel Run~~ Sylea/Vland Run.

Which is a very long winded way of saying that resisting the urge to try and bump up to J/J/K drives @ TL=11 seems to have been something of a good call from a historical grounding point of view. Yes, Sylea could have constructed such starships, but almost no one else could have maintained them as the Sylean Federation expanded their sphere of influence outwards, eventually becoming the capital of the Third Imperium in the year 0.

Now I'm left wondering if I can (almost as) successfully pull off a TL=9 J3/3G D/D/D drive combo in a 260 ton hull that I was able to do with a TL=10 J3/3G E/E/E drive combo in a 330 ton hull.

800 / 3 = 266
1000 / 3 = 333

Of course, a TL=9 J3/3G C/C/C drive combo in a 200 ton hull is also theoretically possible ... but the "economies of scale" in small ship construction start to bite REALLY HARD when scaling down that far!

kilemall · Jun 23, 2023

Maybe the assumption should change about the fee structure in that situation. Only cargoes worth Cr 1000000 per ton plus and Cr5000 per jump….

Spinward Flow · Jun 23, 2023

While you can always make the economics work "by changing the way the economics work" like that

... I am loathe to embrace such an opportunity(?) just to make the balance sheets yield more favorable results on "ordinary bulk goods shipping" between star systems.

However ... that said ...

It is perfectly possible to have "two business models" in operation at the same time ... with the savvy operator switching between them as needed and advantageous to their own bottom line and profits (go figure, eh?

).

Specifically ... it's "okay" to run at a bit of a loss on third party shipping (bulk freight, passengers, etc.) while sniffing around for opportunities in speculative goods arbitrage (where the REAL PROFITS are going to be found!).

Note that the megacorporation business model is founded upon the idea of doing both of these things simultaneously ... except with the added advantage of the megacorporation being the SOURCE for the speculative cargoes that get sold elsewhere AND controlling the distribution channels via their own starships for transport. That way, the starships can operate at a loss, but the arbitrage of the goods they carry more than makes up for those losses elsewhere withing the megacorporation ... basically something of a financial shell game that hides the profits in different divisions (but that's a different Evils Of Capitalism™ semester topic

).

From a tramp merchant perspective, being able to earn windfall profits "from time to time" while minimizing losses in between those windfalls is going to be the name of the game. Obviously, you're going to want to have a situation where you're "guaranteed a profit every time no matter what happens" ... but in order to achieve that outcome you need a guaranteed source of revenue (having a Mail Vault loaded with X-mail comes to mind, for some reason

) and then figuring out a way to get your operational overhead costs BELOW that guaranteed revenue stream level (which is tricky to do from a starship design standpoint, especially if you want a versatile starship design and not just a dedicated X-mail hauler).

But from a merchant perspective, being able to lose "a little money steadily" while searching around for windfall profit speculative goods opportunities is actually a viable business model ... provided you have the cash/credit reserves to weather the Feast Or Famine style of boom and bust on profit margins that such an operation will necessarily be engaging in.

Or to put it another way ... you'll need money in order to make money.
You aren't "getting rich" shipping third party passengers and cargoes, but rather by buying and selling speculative goods yourself and then transporting them to places where they can fetch a higher price and earn yourself a tasty bit of profit on the transaction.

Needless to say, there ARE some speculative cargoes valued at MCr1 per ton (radioactives, gems and aircraft come to mind when thinking of the LBB2.81 speculative goods table) with some items even exceeding that kind of "revenue density" per ton (computers are MCr10 per ton!) ... but if you're going to engage in speculation with such goods, you're going to need a healthy reserve of cash/credit in order to make the purchase before you can make a sale somewhere else.

So operating at a (slight) loss while tramping around looking for arbitrage windfalls "works" as a business model ... and the "fewer losses" you incur while on the hunt, the longer you can keep hunting (and the less you need to "win" when opportunity strikes) ... but you still need to have some financial cushion available to weather the times of famine before (and after) you FEAST.

kilemall · Jun 23, 2023

Hmm good reasoning, but I am coming at the how well does the cargo travel if it’s created at a major IND planet and shipped x parsecs, undercutting local production. A higher per jump/ton rate reduces the range of such a product, but ensures profitability for small multi jump shippers in a relatively small sector sized market.

Spinward Flow · Jun 23, 2023

The flipside to the "overcharge to make ends meet" argument is that the Third Imperium's ... habit ... of standardizing fuel and ticket prices (per jump) had to come from somewhere ... and I'm thinking that the "somewhere" in that assumption defaults to the economic hegemony that the Sylean Federation imposed upon neighboring worlds. Basically, those LBB2 ticket prices go all the way back to -650 (or probably even earlier? Second Imperium? First?) and they just continued forward into the Third Imperium.

Now, in the interest of Full Disclosure ... I interpret LBB2 ticket prices on a basis of 1 ticket = 1 jump rather than on a basis of 1 ticket = 1 parsec. It's an important distinction that matters at J2+ but not for J1 starships (such as the Free Trader, where 1 ticket = 1 jump = 1 parsec). If a ship needs to make 2 jumps to reach its ultimate destination from a point of origin, that will cost 2 tickets, regardless of how many parsecs are traveled.

This creates a kind of push/pull economic reality, because higher jump numbers and longer range requires starships to be more expensive to construct (larger hull, bigger drives, more crew required, etc.) while also reducing the revenue tonnage fraction they have to defray their overhead costs of operation. Those higher operating costs also then require commensurate increases in shipping manifests in order to justify the economics of their operation. This can be difficult to do in regions of space with small populations, which therefore generate more limited quantities of passengers and freight, both inbound and outbound.

So higher jump numbers "get there faster(er)" than low jump numbers, while also offering more "freedom" in the routing between Here To There ... but more powerful drive performance comes at a premium in operating expenses, which if taken too far can make a starship design uneconomical to operate on passenger services and freight shipping revenues alone.

This is where RIGHT SIZING starships to meet the needs of the markets they intend to service comes into play.

You don't need 24 high passenger staterooms, 20 low berths and 129 tons of cargo capacity when visiting worlds of Population: 4- with barely any demand for interstellar transportation services. However, such high capacity makes perfect sense for trade routes between Population: 8+ worlds (preferably Population: 9+).

However, since the REAL profits to be made are in speculative goods arbitrage, if you want to play around in the sandbox of the Small Time Tramp who navigates the "mighty river" of the Great Material Continuum (you've got to have faith, chief!), it's better to have more range (to have a better "reach" to a wider variety of destinations in 1-2 jumps) than to have "short legs" in a J1 Free Trader that can't go far in a hurry. Having "longer legs" extends the "reach" of your economic power within time frames that become more reasonable than the alternative, increasing efficiency for the customer/client at the expense of the starship operator. At the same time, that increased jump range can also be enough to make it easier to make ends meet when it comes to matching up Have to Want (and back again).

The way I think about it (broadly speaking) is that for J1-2 starships, passengers and freight tickets are their "main staple" source of revenue, with speculative goods being something that the merchant dabbles in on the side when they think they can turn a profit to pad out their margins (by playing with their own cash).

For J3+ starships, passengers and freight tickets are the "side attractions" on their balance sheets, with the speculative goods being the "real action" opportunities that these operators pursue. The megacorporations just kick this up another level by being the suppliers of the goods into the bargain, which is beyond the means and resources of most "small time" merchant starship operators.

J1 can go to any of 6 adjacent parsecs in 1 jump
J2 can go to any of 6+12=18 nearby parsecs in 1 jump
J3 can go to any of 6+12+18=36 nearby parsecs in 1 jump

So as a generic rule of thumb, every J+1 adds 3x the number of possible destinations that can be reached in a single jump ... and that increase in possibilities makes it more likely you'll be able to reach a destination for selling speculative goods at more favorable arbitrage prices than you would be able to reach with lesser jump range.

Likewise, there's also a distinct break point difference between the "minor leagues" private operators in small ships and the big bulk transporters (in the multi-thousands of tons) ... but that's beyond what I can really deal with inside the confines of this Small Ship Merchant topic.

And on a different note ...

I've had a preliminary look at the notional 260 ton D/D/D J3 @ TL=9 evolution of the Long Night Trader concept and ... it doesn't work.

It just isn't big enough to execute the concept properly, because there are too many component pieces that do not scale favorably as hull size goes down (bridge, computer, staterooms for crew, small craft size, etc.).

So it looks like I'm stuck with a J3 @ TL=10 using E/E/E drives as my only real option.

However, now I'm wondering if the 330 ton main hull is really the best configuration to execute this idea with, because of how jump fuel and power plant fuel scales. Might try putting the Laser Fighter small craft and/or Cargo Boxes on the outside by default as part of an external loading, using a smaller starship hull (to account for the difference) which will then require less jump fuel tankage by default. Ordinarily, this would be a problem, because in order to "make up the difference" when externally loading the starship for jump you'd need more fuel ... but the power plant fuel formula is ALREADY requiring "a seemingly excessive amount of fuel" for 28 days of operation, so there might be an opportunity here. By moving some of the revenue tonnage "outside the hull" on a more permanent basis, because the fuel fraction shrinks, there might be an increase in overall revenue tonnage fraction (and a slight reduction in overall construction cost into the bargain). It would mean that the internal hangar bay will necessarily shrink (because smaller overall hull size) while allowing an increase in tonnage that can generate revenue.

I'll need to twiddle it a bit, but my ~~spider senses~~ naval architect office comms are demanding my attention, so I should probably look into it and see what happens.

Spinward Flow · Jun 23, 2023

Spinward Flow said:
However, now I'm wondering if the 330 ton main hull is really the best configuration to execute this idea with, because of how jump fuel and power plant fuel scales. Might try putting the Laser Fighter small craft and/or Cargo Boxes on the outside by default as part of an external loading, using a smaller starship hull (to account for the difference) which will then require less jump fuel tankage by default.

Huh. I wasn't expecting that result.

Looks like moving the 20 ton Laser Fighter "outside the hull and reducing the hull size from 330 tons down to 310 tons (but 310+20=330 for jump performance calculations) ... something interesting happened. I was able to reorganize the internal hangar bay to be 100 tons (down from 110 tons previously) but still with a 100 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank for enabling double jumping (so a slightly better "fit" for load balancing with no wasted tonnage) and was able to increase the number of 10 ton cargo boxes from 3 to 4, which is pretty major for being able to profit from speculative cargo arbitrage.

When it comes to speculative cargoes, "more cargo capacity is better" under most circumstances ... there's also something of a diminishing returns on probabilities when using the LBB2 table for speculative cargo (as opposed to later editions). 40 tons of (owned) cargo capacity is actually sufficient for a majority of the speculative cargoes available on the LBB2.81, p47 ... and for the ones that yield larger lot sizes, the 4x cargo boxes (40 tons), 2x staterooms modules (40 tons) and 2x laboratory: regenerative life support (20 tons) can all be docked to the exterior of the starship (reducing drive performance from J3/3G to J2/2G) leaving 100 tons available inside the internal hangar bay for an additional 100 tons of speculative cargo ... for a total cargo capacity of 100+40=140 tons of (speculative) cargo. Out of all the speculative cargoes available from page LBB2.81, p47, only 6 of the 36 speculative goods types can generate lot sizes in excess of 140 tons (and even then, those 6 types can "roll low" and still be able to fit within 140 tons).

So by making the starship hull SLIGHTLY smaller and reshuffling the jenga pile of what goes where ... the overall design improved ever so slightly in a way that I wasn't expecting to see happen, which will then have knock on effects that percolate through how the merchant operations work and what other mission roles the ship can undertake (safari, survey, etc.).

I would like to thank everyone who has been reading my sophistry on this topic for inspiring me to think about this topic more than I would have otherwise, yielding a superior result than even I could have anticipated.

It's just that 310+20=330 tons is a decidedly NON-standard form factor and displacement to settle on ... but once again, that's where the "best biggest/smallest" balance point is for the "best low/high tech" performance point is to be found (as strange as that sounds).

Condottiere · Jun 23, 2023

We all know there's some form of price cartel in interstellar passenger and freight rates.

One speculation could be that's it's the government subsidizing it, but instead of using the rates to ensure trade and communication affordability, it's forcing the customers to actually directly subsidize it.

CT Only: Long Night Trader

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

SOC-14 5K

Similar threads