Pondering starship evolution

[Grav_Moped]

There's no reason why the fighter CAN'T be a box shape (or even a dispersed structure, for that matter) if the intent is pure combat.

However, for the purposes of what I'm researching here, I'm wanting a combination fighter and "external docking sky crane" VTOL lifter for the Boxes (cargo, etc.) to provide logistical support in austere locations for the loading/unloading of the starship. This means that entry into atmosphere (2+) becomes necessary, which then requires streamlining (configuration: 1, 2 or 6), even if the fighter isn't going to be transitioning from orbit through atmospheric entry with an external load (since that's the job of the starship to do orbital interface runs using internal loads). Of those choices, the "maximal" fighter option is configuration: 1 (which is only useful against meson guns, but still...). But it's still important for the fighter to be able to enter atmosphere and "be available" down near the surface as a VTOL sky crane for the marshaling of Boxes in the absence of ground support infrastructure (so as to be able to deploy outposts, make deliveries to austere locations and other "logistical services" as useful/necessary).

As a skyhook for cargo loading, it doesn't have to go very fast at all. It'd be a heavily-armed tugboat/GCarrier with a hard V_ne.

 

[Grav_Moped]

* Velocity (never exceed).

Had to manually code the subscript and don't want to mess with the post again...

Also, it does not need streamlining for fast atmospheric entry/departure since it can hitch a ride inside the freighter for that.

 

[Spinward Flow]

As a skyhook for cargo loading, it doesn't have to go very fast at all. It'd be a heavily-armed tugboat/GCarrier with a hard V_ne.

Also, it does not need streamlining for fast atmospheric entry/departure since it can hitch a ride inside the freighter for that.

Depends on your perspective, I guess.

A 30 ton small craft with A/A drives would be capable of lifting up to 170 (displacement) tons external load @ 1G of acceleration thrust (base, before accounting for local gravity), which functionally amounts to being up to 5x 30 ton Boxes when local gravity is ~0.9G or less. When dealing with local gravity closer to 1.0G or more, the external load lifting capability would be reduced to 60 (displacement) tons external load @ 2G acceleration thrust (base, before accounting for local gravity) ... or 30 (displacement) tons external load @ 3G acceleration thrust (base, before accounting for local gravity).

I'm thinking that "streamlining: yes" is operationally a more flexible option. It allows the fighter to enter atmosphere independently of the starship, which would be important in a variety of edge case scenarios. You REALLY don't want to have to use an internal docking inside the starship for transfers from orbit to surface if there are any kind of "hot LZ" type situations where some suppression/covering fire is needed. In overall "grander" terms of economics, the cost difference between configuration: 1 and configuration: 4 in terms of hull construction cost @ 30 tons of hull is MCr3.6 vs MCr1.8 ... and for reference, configuration: 2 would be MCr3.3.

For the 30 ton fighter design that I'm currently working up/putting through the wringer, that MCr1.8 savings on construction cost amounts to only ~6.3% of the total price of the small craft ... so not nothing, but also not something to be that worried about on the economics front.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on the edition.

Currently, anything with a gravitational manoeuvre drive can renter an atmosphere, without needing heat shielding.

Probably, dead slow for dispersed structure.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Depends on the edition.

Currently, anything with a gravitational manoeuvre drive can renter an atmosphere, without needing heat shielding.

To be excessively fair, LBB2 (77 and 81) were written in the heyday of the Space Shuttle era. The basic notion underpinning LBB2.77 was that maneuver drives were reaction mass rocket engines, so delta-v potential was NOT "excessive" (with thrust burns on the order of days/weeks). In a paradigm where reaction mass for maneuver is QUITE FINITE ... inertial aerobraking into atmosphere for a descent to a world surface makes perfect sense. You just set up an intercept trajectory with the planetary atmosphere and let the aerobraking lower your perigee down to the world surface without needing to expend any reaction mass (brilliant!). However, in order to do that, you need a streamlined hull to be able to "ride the wave" through atmospheric entry transition from orbital velocities to "geosync at low altitudes over lithosphere" velocities.

It was basically the "CTOL of atmospheric entry" approach (the whole "touchdown THEN stop" solution).

But as soon as you've got gravitics technology available ... a lot of that "saving reaction mass by aerobraking" dance for delta-v just becomes obsolete. Instead, with gravitics, you can do more of a "VTOL for atmospheric entry" approach ("STOP ... then descend to touchdown"). With (sufficient) gravitic thrust available, you can "geosynch at ANY altitude above lithosphere" ... not just out at the inertial delta-v=0 geosync orbit for any given world. With gravitic thrust, you can "match world rotation rate" at any circularized orbit above the world surface so that you're "stationary in the sky" relative to the surface ... after which you just ease off on the gravitic thrust a little bit so as to sink/lower altitude down to the surface in a controlled way with no "massive orbital velocity" to scrub off when making contact with the atmosphere.



The aerobraking maneuver would continue to be a "quicker way to get down" from orbit ... but partially streamlined craft would ALSO be able to descend into atmosphere on gravitic thrust (provided that gravitic thrust exceeded local gravity), they would just do so slower than their fully streamlined counterparts.

However, all of those developments/realization happened AFTER the publication of CT, so CT still stipulates that partially streamlined craft are only allowed to land on worlds with atmosphere: 0-1 and are not allowed to land on worlds with atmosphere: 2+.

One way to interpret that would be that fully streamlined hulls (configurations: 1, 2 and 6) are designed to handle load bearing stress at the bottom of a gravity well, in addition to the atmospheric streamlining elements of their configuration. This means that the hulls are "safe to land" in gravity wells in excess of 1G (I think that world size: A = 1.25G according to CT).

By contrast, the largest world size that can (using LBB3) have an atmosphere: 1 would be a world size: 6, which would be a 0.75G maximum surface gravity (according to LBB2).

Point being that even if you can (logically) come up with a condition where a configuration: 4 (partially streamlined) craft can "VTOL down from orbit" without aerobraking, there can be additional factors at play such as the capability of the hull to bear up to the load bearing stresses of local gravity when on the surface, along with potential "wind gust" control hazards when making a descent from orbit (or vice-versa). High wind speeds could potentially buffet the partially streamlined hull in ways that could make control authority of the craft during descent/ascent "more dangerous than is acceptable" (not that it can't be done, just that the safety record is ... problematic ... to put it mildly). Therefore, the game RAW basically amounts to "atmosphere: 0-1 only" for partially streamlined hulls, without elaboration (to keep things simple).

And in CT, unstreamlined craft (configurations: 7-9) are not allowed to "land" on ANY world surfaces at all. Presumably a dispersed structure just isn't "rated" for that kind of local gravity load bearing stress on the construction under any circumstances.

 

[whartung]

The aerobraking maneuver would continue to be a "quicker way to get down" from orbit

Eh, we have power, and it's cheap, so there's no need to aerobreak. Let the thrusters do the work in advance, no need for a whole bunch of armor and heat mitigation, no need to suffer through all that. The trick is to just make sure nothing flies off in the high winds while interfacing.

And, yea, maybe it is a "quicker way down", but I'm betting its not that much quicker when you count all of the measures needed to survive it and coped with the risks in the first place. We'll be talking minutes of difference, not hours. "So, if I land 5 minutes later, the ship won't be incinerated? I think I can live with that."

 

[Spinward Flow]

And, yea, maybe it is a "quicker way down", but I'm betting its not that much quicker when you count all of the measures needed to survive it and coped with the risks in the first place. We'll be talking minutes of difference, not hours.

We've got the live video feeds of Starship testing from SpaceX to use as reference for an inertial aerobraking to surface as a real world example taking a bit over 20 minutes for an atmospheric entry to splashdown.

If you wanted to start your descent from a thrust controlled geosync at 100 km (100,000m) altitude above the surface and wanted to make a "controlled fall" at a constant sink rate of 10m/s (36kph) to the surface from that altitude, it would take over 2h 45m (9900 seconds) to make that controlled descent from orbit to surface.

So roughly 5-6x faster to get "down" from orbit using aerobraking (streamlined) rather than doing a "controlled sink" at a constant speed under gravitic control (partially streamlined) which also does not include the time required for deceleration to match world rotation prior to the vertical descent.

We'll be talking minutes of difference, not hours.

I'm thinking that an aerobraking ought to be able to "get down" to surface using aerobraking in 20-40 minutes (1-2 combat rounds), while a gravitic power "vertical" descent would take at least 4-5x as long to complete the maneuver (during which time the craft is highly vulnerable to incoming fire from either the surface or from orbit).

 

[kilemall]

We've got the live video feeds of Starship testing from SpaceX to use as reference for an inertial aerobraking to surface as a real world example taking a bit over 20 minutes for an atmospheric entry to splashdown.

If you wanted to start your descent from a thrust controlled geosync at 100 km (100,000m) altitude above the surface and wanted to make a "controlled fall" at a constant sink rate of 10m/s (36kph) to the surface from that altitude, it would take over 2h 45m (9900 seconds) to make that controlled descent from orbit to surface.

So roughly 5-6x faster to get "down" from orbit using aerobraking (streamlined) rather than doing a "controlled sink" at a constant speed under gravitic control (partially streamlined) which also does not include the time required for deceleration to match world rotation prior to the vertical descent.

I'm thinking that an aerobraking ought to be able to "get down" to surface using aerobraking in 20-40 minutes (1-2 combat rounds), while a gravitic power "vertical" descent would take at least 4-5x as long to complete the maneuver (during which time the craft is highly vulnerable to incoming fire from either the surface or from orbit).

An unexamined aspect is all of this time in atmo has to be coordinated by space traffic control.

Stacking em up in approach lanes means probably handling several at once, vs the much faster clearing but greater clearance and no one in the way of a hot landing.

Hot launch would be preferable as a way for clearing lanes fast, but may not be possible for the partially streamlined.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well ...
I wasn't expecting THAT to happen ...

Looks like the 30 ton form factor has some ... unexpected "stacking advantages" in the way everything computes out in the context of the holistic package of design.

30 ton form factor = 5x single occupancy staterooms (20 tons) + Environmental Control Type V-c capacity: up to 5 persons (aquaculture, hydroponic wall gardens and carniculture) (10 tons)

• 30*14 = 420m3
• 9.3m x 7.5m x 6m = 418.5m³ = 6.4 deck squares x 5 deck squares x 2 decks high box form
• 18.6m x 7.5m x 3m = 418.5m³ = 12.4 deck squares x 5 deck squares x 1 deck high box form

Using F/F/F drives means that the code performance breakpoints are:

• code: 1 @ 1200 tons
• code: 2 @ 600 tons
• code: 3 @ 400 tons
• code: 4 @ 300 tons

Since I'm wanting to use a model/2bis as the starship computer (enables J3 but consumes EP=0), there is an incentive to "subtract the highest multiple of 30 from 400 without dropping below 300" ... which then (rather obviously) computes out to being a 310 ton starship hull form factor.

• 310 + 30*3 external load = 400 tons

That then means that the internal hangar bay has a "best fit" of 3x 30 ton (small craft) form factors for a total of 90 tons ... which can be loaded internally or towed externally without a loss of drive performance code factor(s).

• 310 tons + 0 tons external load = 310 tons = Drive-F performance codes: 3
• 310 tons + 90 tons external load = 400 tons = Drive-F performance codes: 3

But the curious thing is what happens when attempting J3+3:

• 400 * 0.3 = 120 tons J3 fuel consumption
• 310 * 0.3 = 93 tons J3 fuel consumption
• 120+93 = 213 tons J3+3 fuel consumption

With LBB2.81 drive fuel requirements in play, J3 @ 310 tons requires 93 tons and PP3 requires 30 tons, for a minimum internal fuel tankage of 123 tons.

• 213 - 123 = 90 tons of additional fuel reserve required for J3+3

And the hangar bay needs to be 90 tons for 3x 30 ton form factors ... which can be towed externally for the first jump, then moved internal for the second jump, allowing the 90 ton hangar bay to be filled with 90 tons of collapsible fuel tank reserve ...

Have a "little extra" fuel margin available above the 213 tons needed for J3+3 for "basic housekeeping power" over the entire transit plus enough for 2 days of full power maneuvering ... and it ought to be possible to complete a double J3+3 transit without refueling. My calculations are showing that as little as a 2 ton fuel margin beyond the 213 tons needed for the J3+3 (@400 tons and @ 310 tons, respectively) ought to be sufficient to complete a world surface to world surface maneuver across 6 parsecs, but that margin is going to be pretty tight, so additional "fuel reserve backup" options are preferred to widen the safety margin (in the event of mishap or adversity).

Crucially, neither the 16 ton nor 24 ton form factors (when used as basic building blocks, for this purpose) manage to achieve a similar result. The "stacking of the blocks" always winds up with a granular mismatch that fails to achieve sufficient fuel tankage (internal+additional) to achieve J3+3. That's because both the 16 and 24 ton form factors "stack" to 96 tons (6*16=96) (4*24=96) while the 30 ton form factor "stacks" to 90 tons (3*30=90). This then means that the 16 and 24 ton form factors "need a bigger hangar bay in a smaller starship" (400-96=304) versus the 30 ton form factor (400-90=310) and that differential is JUST ENOUGH to be "too big for too small a hull" at which point stuff doesn't fit anymore in a way that synergizes well further on down the line.

In other words, the 16 and 24 ton form factors manage to just miss the mark for the critical balance point needed to achieve J3+3 unrefueled performance out of the design. Mind you, the revenue tonnage available @ J3+3 is vanishingly small (2x high passengers, 10 tons or less of cargo), so it's not exactly economical to double jump over 6 parsecs like that ... but the capability IS THERE in the design refactoring when using the 30 form factor for modularized interstellar shipping containers.



I'll put the "text file of the spreadsheet" particulars into my next post (need to do some forum formatting to make it look good) for the requisite SHOW YOUR WORK to lay out all the particulars in an accessible layout of information.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Rule of Man Clipper
310 tons starship hull, configuration: 1
65 tons for LBB2.81 standard F/F/F drives (codes: 3/3/3, TL=10, EP=12)
123 tons of total fuel: 310 tons @ J3 = 93 tons jump fuel + 30 tons power plant fuel
8 tons for TL=10 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum)
20 tons for bridge (1000 ton rating, MCr5)
2 tons for model/2bis computer
90 tons for internal hangar berths

1. Fighter Provincial = 30 tons
2. Stateroom Box = 30 tons (starship pilot, small craft pilot navigator, medic, gunner) (5x staterooms, V-c life support for 5 persons)
3. Stateroom Box = 30 tons (engineer/engineer, purser/purser, steward/steward, 2x high passengers) (5x staterooms, V-c life support for 5 persons)

* External Docking: 690 tons capacity

1. 
   
2. 
   

2 tons for cargo hold

• 92 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank = 0.92 tons

= 65+123+8+20+2+90+2 = 310 tons

Crew = 8 (Cr37,350 per 4 weeks crew salaries)

1. Pilot-1 = Cr6000
2. Ship's Boat-1 = Cr6000
3. Navigator-1 = Cr5000
4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = Cr6600
5. Steward-1/Steward-1 (purser) = Cr5400
6. Steward-1/Steward-1 = Cr4950
7. Medic-3 = Cr2400
8. Gunnery-1 = Cr1000

---

Fighter Provincial (Type-FP, TL=9)
30 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr3.6)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
5 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/A drives (codes: 6/6, TL=9 civilian, EP=2) (Agility=6 requires EP: 1.8) (MCr12)
1.8 tons for fuel (19d 124h 50m endurance @ 1.8 EP output continuous)
6 tons for bridge (crew: 2) (pilot, gunner) (MCr0.15)
2 tons for model/2 computer (TL=7, EP: 0) (MCr9)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=9, code: 1, batteries: 3, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads shared between batteries) (MCr3.35)
4 tons for 2 single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
* External Docking: 170 tons capacity (MCr0.34)
10.2 tons for cargo hold (5 ton Mail Vault installation ready)

• 0.1 tons for 15 person/weeks consumable life support reserves (2 crew=7.5 weeks endurance)
• 0.1 tons for 10 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (MCr0.005)

= 0+5+1.9+6+2+1+4+10.1 = 30 tons
= 3.6+0+12+0.15+9+3.35+0.1+0.34+0.005 = MCr28.545

• 1G = 200 - 30 = 170 tons external load
• 2G = 100 - 30 = 70 tons external load
• 3G = 66 - 30 = 36 tons external load
• 4G = 50 - 30 = 20 tons external load
• 5G = 40 - 30 = 10 tons external load
• 6G = 3 - 30 = 3 tons external load

---

Revenue Tonnage @ J3/3G = 310 + 90 = 400 tons

• 2x high passengers
• 1 ton internal cargo
• 90 tons additional internal hangar cargo (when 1x Fighter Provincial, 2x Stateroom Boxes docked externally)
• 10 tons cargo/x-mail (1x Fighter Provincial)

Revenue Tonnage @ J2/2G = 310 + (90+200) = 600 tons

• 2x high passengers
• 1 ton internal cargo
• 90 tons additional internal hangar cargo (when 1x Fighter Provincial, 2x Stateroom Boxes docked externally)
• 200 tons external load charter capacity
• 10 tons cargo/x-mail (1x Fighter Provincial)

Revenue Tonnage @ J3+3/3+3G = 400 tons (J3) then 310 tons (J3)

• 2x high passengers
• 92 tons collapsible fuel tank in hangar and cargo hold (when 1x Fighter Provincial, 2x Stateroom Boxes docked externally)
• 10 tons cargo/x-mail (and/or collapsible fuel tank) (1x Fighter Provincial)

Drive Performances with External Loading

• (Starship tons) + (Multiplier*Small Craft tons*Quantity)
  • 310 + 1.0*30*0 = 310 tons = J3/3G/PP3
  • 310 + 1.0*30*3 = 400 tons = J3/3G/PP3
  • 310 + 1.0*30*9 = 580 tons = J2/2G/PP2
  • 310 + 1.0*30*23 = 1000 tons = J1/1G/PP1
• (Starship tons) + (Multiplier*Big Craft tons*Quantity) + (Multiplier*Small Craft tons*Quantity)
  • 310 + 1.1*100*1 + 1.0*30*6 = 600 tons = J2/2G/PP2
  • 310 + 1.1*200*1 + 1.0*30*2 = 590 tons = J2/2G/PP2
  • 310 + 1.1*300*1 + 1.0*30*12 = 1000 tons = J1/1G/PP1
  • 310 + 1.1*310*1 + 1.0*30*11 = 981 tons = J1/1G/PP1
  • 310 + 1.1*310*2 + 1.0*30*0 = 992 tons = J1/1G/PP1
  • 310 + 1.1*400*1 + 1.0*30*8 = 990 tons = J1/1G/PP1
  • 310 + 1.1*500*1 + 1.0*30*4 = 980 tons = J1/1G/PP1
  • 310 + 1.1*600*1 + 1.0*30*1 = 1000 tons = J1/1G/PP1

---

Although the starship's F/F/F drives are rated as:

• code: 1 @ 1200 tons
• code: 2 @ 600 tons
• code: 3 @ 400 tons
• code: 4 @ 300 tons
• code: 5 @ 240 tons
• code: 6 @ 200 tons

... the maximum external load the hull is designed to tow externally is only up to a combined 1000 tons (310 tons of starship, up to 690 tons of external load). This means that "200 tons of capacity" @ code: 1 is being "wasted" due to insufficient support elsewhere in the build details (bridge tonnage and cost, external "hangar" docking capacity and cost).



The reason why there are 4x Steward crew positions (being filled by 2 people) is because the regenerative biome life support systems require a Service Crew (3 positions per 1000 tons without Ship's Troops or 2 positions per 1000 tons with Ship's Troops). Since the "total amount of (combined) hull displacement" for the starship can vary from 310 tons (with zero external load) to 1000 tons (with 690 tons of external load), any Service Crew department section needs to be "sized" for the maximum (combined) displacement that the starship can move. That means that the Service Crew needs to be "sized" for 1000 tons ... not 310 tons ... and therefore, consequently, requires 3 crew positions for those (potential maximum) 1000 tons. Likewise, this is why the starship bridge is "rated" for 1000 tons (and therefore costs MCr5, instead of MCr1.55 for 310 tons), so being internally consistent and Intellectually Honest™ here.

My own headcannon on the subject is that the "3 Service Crew positions" have supercargo duties, in addition to "managing the farms" of the Environmental Control Type V-c capacity: up to 5 persons (aquaculture, hydroponic wall gardens and carniculture) regenerative life support biomes that are integrated into each of the 30 ton Stateroom Boxes (previous design iterations had these separated into different Boxes). The LBB5.80, p33 description of the Service Crew department duties are quite helpful in this regard:

Service Crew: The ship itself may have a requirement for other sections which provide basic services, including shops and storage, security (especially if there are no ship's troops aboard), maintenance, food service, and other operations.

The Purser fills a "4th Steward" crew position (separate from the 3 Service Crew positions responsibilities) and handles high passenger services (up to 8). Note that an additional 1x 30 ton Stateroom Box (5 staterooms, V-c regenerative life support for 5 persons) can be added (externally) to increase the number of high passengers that can be served per jump from 2 to 7 (at the loss of double jump maximum range) when operating routes that can take advantage of the increase in high passenger accommodations. If an additional 3x 30 ton Stateroom Boxes (5 staterooms, V-c regenerative life support for 5 persons, each), the number of high passengers who can be transported @ J3 increases from 2 to 16, although an additional Steward (single crew position) will need to be hired and accommodated in one of the additional Stateroom Boxes to support the increased number of high passengers. This means that it is possible for the starship class to operate as a high end J3 Liner in regions where high passage transport services are in demand, and/or if an operator can secure a long term interstellar charter contract to a third party to supply such services (devolving the responsibility for filling the transport manifests for those high passagenger accommodations onto the third party).



Of course, the REAL profit opportunities lie not within the passenger and cargo ticket revenues (those just "pay the bills" and defray operating costs in between windfalls) ... but rather within the possibilities for speculative goods arbitrage. Being able to transport up to 1+90+10=101 tons of speculative goods at J3 makes it VERY EASY to (quickly!) "link up" world with a variety of trade codes, enabling the wheeling and dealing of speculative goods to maximal advantage in fast turnaround times that yield quick profits for the savvy operator. With 3 parsecs of range available, being able to choose your next destination as a tramp merchant can become very lucrative indeed.

Operators who choose to purchase additional Cargo Boxes (for external towing) can choose to operate as J2+2 speculative tramp merchants in regions where the astrogation is more favorable to that mode of interstellar transport in order to "link up" between world markets.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So here's a different spin on an old question of profitability.

Is it better to have a bigger (and therefore, more expensive) starship ... with a smaller crew ... than the alternative of TWO "cheaper" starships operating with 2 crews?

In other words, when it comes to a "race to the bottom" for operating overhead expenses, is there a limit on "how low you SHOULD go" before alternatives wind up being more profitable on the bottom line?
Specifically, the costs of crew salaries + life support (annualized) versus annual overhaul maintenance (annualized).
It ultimately turns into one of those "tricksy accounting" simulation problems to solve.



As a matter of framing, let's take the absolute most bare bones minimalist commercial starship available, the J1 Free Trader, and compute out the overhead expenses for its operation (bank loan financing is a separate issue for the purposes of this analysis).

The J1 Free Trader has a crew of 4: pilot, engineer, medic, steward (Cr15,000 per 4 weeks crew salaries, Cr8,000 per 2 weeks life support)
A crew draws salaries even while a starship is "laid up" for 2 weeks receiving annual overhaul maintenance at a starport, but the life support expenses do not need to be paid while a starship is undergoing annual overhaul maintenance.

This means that there are 52 weeks (13 months) per year during which crew salaries ought to be getting paid, but only (up to) 50 weeks (12.5 months) per year during which (crew only) life support overhead expenses ought to be getting paid.
15,000 * 13 + 8000 * 50 = Cr595,000 per year in crew salaries + life support expenses for a (stock) J1 Free Trader



If you were to design a larger starship (which invevitably would require a larger crew, since a navigator would be required at higher tonnages) ... is there a "balance point" where the larger starship winds up being "more efficient to operate" than 2x J1 Free Traders working in parallel, due to better utilization of crew skills capacity?

Well, let's have a look, shall we?



First off is the LBB2.81 crew requirement for engineering, set at 1 engineering crew position per 35 tons of drives.
From a literal perspective, this means that either C/C/C drives (35 tons) ... OR ... B/D/D drives (35 tons) will "get the most" out of a single engineering crew position.

Depending on how ... flexible ... you want to be with your handling of LBB2.81 drive performance outputs to be in a variety of hull form factors, you can wind up with:

• C/C/C = codes: 1/1/1 @ 600 tons (RAW)
• C/C/C = codes: 2/2/2 @ 300 tons (House Rule)
• B/D/D = codes: 1/2/2 @ 400 tons (RAW)
• B/D/D = codes: 2/4/4 @ 200 tons (RAW)

Because of how the LBB2.81 power plant fuel requirement "punishes" smaller hull sizes, the 200 ton form factor is unlikely to be "economical" in commercial service.

• 600 ton form factor, C/C/C drives (35 tons) adds 70 tons of fuel (J1/PP1) leaving 495 tons remaining for all other installations
• 300 ton form factor, C/C/C drives (35 tons) adds 80 tons of fuel (J2/PP2) leaving 185 tons remaining for all other installations
• 400 ton form factor, B/D/D drives (35 tons) adds 60 tons of fuel (J1/PP2) leaving 305 tons remaining for all other installations
• 200 ton form factor, B/D/D drives (35 tons) adds 80 tons of fuel (J2/PP4) leaving 85 tons remaining for all other installations

Note that in all 4 cases ... bridge (20 tons) plus computer (1 ton for model/1 or 1bis) plus 4x staterooms for crew is 37 tons.
Add in that every hull over 200 tons will require a navigator be added to the crew and you're looking at 41 tons required.

• 600 ton form factor, 495-41=454 revenue tons remaining
• 300 ton form factor, 185-41=144 revenue tons remaining
• 400 ton form factor, 305-41=265 revenue tons remaining
• 200 ton form factor, 85-37=48 revenue tons remaining

Those "revenue tons remaining" are the hull displacement left to spend on:

• Fuel Purification Plant (TL=9)
• Small Craft berths (if any)
• Vehicle berths (if any)
• Fire Control allowance set asides for hardpoints/turrets
• Staterooms for gunners/middle passengers
• Staterooms for (high) passengers
• Low Berths for (low) passengers
• Cargo Hold

Gaming things out ...

• The 600 ton form factor with C/C/C (codes: 1/1/1) drives looks like an upgraded Type-R Subsidized Merchant option. The 454 revenue tons fraction could be spent like so:
  • Fuel Purification Plant = 9 tons
  • Speeder berth = 6 tons
  • Air/Raft berth = 4 tons
  • Fire control for 4x turrets = 4 tons
  • 4x gunner/middle passenger staterooms = 16 tons
  • 8x high passenger staterooms = 32 tons
  • 20x low passenger low berths = 10 tons
  • Cargo Hold = 373 tons
    • Mail Vault = 5 tons
    • 368 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank = 3.68 tons (up to 6J1 range extender)
  • = 9+6+4+4+16+32+10+373 = 454 revenue tons
• The 300 ton form factor with C/C/C (code: 2/2/2) drives looks like a superior Type-A2 Far Trader option. The 144 revenue tons fraction could be spent like so:
  • Fuel Purification Plant = 9 tons
  • Fire control for 2x turrets = 2 tons
  • 2x gunner/middle passenger staterooms = 8 tons
  • 8x high passenger staterooms = 32 tons
  • 4x low passenger low berths = 2 tons
  • Cargo Hold = 91 tons
    • 91 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank = 0.91 tons (up to 3J1 range extender)
  • = 9+2+8+32+2+91 = 144 revenue tons
• The 400 ton form factor with B/D/D (codes: 1/2/2) drives looks like a superior Type-R Subsidized Merchant option. The 265 revenue tons fraction could be spent like so:
  • Fuel Purification Plant = 9 tons
  • Speeder berth = 6 tons
  • Air/Raft berth = 4 tons
  • Fire control for 2x turrets = 2 tons
  • 2x gunner/middle passenger staterooms = 8 tons
  • 8x high passenger staterooms = 32 tons
  • 4x low passenger low berths = 2 tons
  • Cargo Hold = 202 tons
    • 200 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank = 2 tons (up to 5J1 range extender)
  • = 9+6+4+2+8+32+2+202 = 265 revenue tons
• The 200 ton form factor with B/D/D drives ... doesn't work out all that well due to its inferior revenue tonnage available.

Of those options, the 400 ton form factor is looking the most promising (generically) speaking.

400 ton (custom) hull (MCr40)
Atmospheric Streamlining (MCr4)
B/D/D (codes: 1/2/2) drives (MCr68)
60 tons of internal fuel
Fuel Purification Plant TL=9 (MCr0.038)
Bridge (MCr2)
Model/1 computer (MCr2)
2x Hardpoints (MCr0.2) (no turrets installed)
Speeder TL=9 (MCr1)
Air/Raft TL=9 (MCr0.6)
15x staterooms (MCr7.5)
4x low berths (MCr0.2)
200 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (MCr0.1)
= 40+4+68+0.038+2+2+0.2+1+0.6+7.5+0.2+0.1 = MCr125.638

Note that the crew required adds only 1 navigator to the roster.
20,000 * 13 + 10,000 * 50 = Cr760,000 per year in crew salaries + life support expenses for a (redesigned) J1/2G/PPs Free Trader.
Add in annual overhaul maintenance expenses into the equation and you get:
760,000+125,638 = Cr885,638 per year in crew salaries + life support + annual overhaul maintenance


Compare that result to what you would be getting out of 2x 200 ton (stock) J1 Free Traders (both unarmed).
15,000 * 13 + 8000 * 50 = Cr595,000 per year in crew salaries + life support expenses for a (stock) J1 Free Trader
Add in annual overhaul maintenance expenses into the equation and you get:
595,000+37,080 = Cr632,080 per year in crew salaries + life support + annual overhaul maintenance per J1/1G/PP1 Free Trader that your company is operating!
632,080 * 2 = Cr1,264,160 per year in crew salaries + life support + annual overhaul maintenance to run 2x J1/1G/PP1 Free Traders



Note that for the purposes of this comparison, the overall tonnage is basically the same (400 vs 200+200).
The construction costs for the 2 options are basically 10:3 ... MCr125.638 vs MCr37.08.

So for the same amount of purchasing power (call it MCr377) for construction costs, you could buy 3x 400 ton J1/2G/PP2 Free Traders ... or 10x 200 ton J1/1G/PP1 Free Traders.

But then, what would the annualized expenses of a fleet of those two options look like?
3x 400 ton J1/2G/PP2 Free Traders = Cr2,656,914 per year (salaries+life support+annual overhaul maintenance)
10x 200 ton J1/1G/PP1 Free Traders = Cr6,320,800 per year (salaries+life support+annual overhaul maintenance)

That means that the 10x 200 ton J1/1G/PP1 Free Traders are 2.379x more expensive to operate, as a fleet, than the 3x 400 ton J1/2G/PP2 Free Traders alternative.

The LBB2.81 Type-A Free Trader was designed to be as CHEAP as possible to construct (and therefore enter the market) ... but it's relatively "expensive" to operate because the crew roster is not all that well suited (in terms of load balancing) for the demands of their crew positions. That mismatch in demand makes the crew "relatively inefficient" in ways that create scaling issues when building out a merchant fleet.

Cheap to buy, but expensive to operate, means that the classical J1/1G/PP1 "bare minimum entry level" Free Trader class of starships is something of a "newb trap" for entry level merchant wannabes. The design WORKS (barely) but isn't as efficient an operator as it potentially could be. Point being that "better funding" for a superior design (up front) can yield longer term dividends in the form of better utilization of crew resources (and thus, expenses) in ways that can scale better as a business grows its balance sheet and personnel on payroll.

 

[Condottiere]

You're looking at external factors, if you want to know if you can scale your operations.

Is there demand for your specific services?

Is just in time a factor for your customers?

Is there a guarantee on payment, and at the scheduled time?

On the design side, you have to remember that for every separate jump drive module, you have a five tonne overhead that doesn't contribute to performance, and still has to be paid for.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You're looking at external factors, if you want to know if you can scale your operations.

And the biggest contributor those external factors is ... MAPS and ROUTES.

Is there demand for your specific services?

Which is determined by MAPS and ROUTES.

Is just in time a factor for your customers?

If it is, they're going to want your starship operating on charter (so THEY can dictate where you go when on a continuing, reliable basis!).
Anything else is "catch as catch can" spot market stuff.

Is there a guarantee on payment, and at the scheduled time?

To my knowledge, most TICKETS (passengers and cargo freight) are paid in advance ... so you have to pay before you can board/get your stuff loaded.

The exception to this is Mail deliveries. Mail only pays on delivery, not upon loading ... and you're getting a fixed price on delivery (Cr5000 per ton, maximum 5 tons, regardless of the number parsecs and/or jumps it took to make the delivery). This means that in most circumstances, mail is "more profitable per ton" when single jumping than alternative options (passenger/freight tickets) ton for ton. But as soon as you start double jumping (using onboard fuel reserves and/or L-Hyd Drop Tanks), mail drops down to "near parity" with passenger ticket revenues on a ton for ton equivalency basis.

The other thing to be aware of is that "jump timing" for deliveries has some pretty significant "slop factor" built into it.

LBB5.80, p17:

So ... (150-175) hours ... plus 16 hours ... plus maneuver drive through the jump shadow ... is not something you're going to be able to Just In Time calculate down into 10 minute block increments.

What the above leaves unclear is whether it's a case of ...

1. Spend 150-175 hours in jump
2. Breakout near target world
3. Spend 16 hours on standard procedures while on inertial trajectory following breakout
4. Maneuver to world
5. Get a starport berth

... or ...

• Spend 150-175 hours in jump
• Breakout near target world
• Maneuver to world
• Get a starport berth
• Spend 16 hours on standard procedures while conducting business over the course of a week

Since most starships are not designed with a double jump capability (due to fuel reserves), most starships do not have to worry about the following scenario choices:

1. Spend 150-175 hours in jump
2. Breakout in empty map hex
3. Spend 1-2 combat rounds generating sufficient EP to jump again
4. Jump again less than 1 hour after breakout (go to step 1s of previous list of options at target world)

... or ...

1. Spend 150-175 hours in jump
2. Breakout in empty map hex
3. Spend 16 hours on standard procedures while on inertial trajectory following breakout
4. Jump again ~16 hours after breakout (go to step 1s of previous list of options at target world)

Again, you're not talking Just In Time logistics in either case. The tolerance variable (25 hour spread, per jump) is just too great for extremely precise "getting the trains to run on time" types of scheduling.

 

[Grav_Moped]

On the design side, you have to remember that for every separate jump drive module, you have a five tonne overhead that doesn't contribute to performance, and still has to be paid for.

Oh, and the 20Td minimum-size bridge too. Not a huge MCr hit, but it takes a small chunk out of payload tonnage if you're distributing operations over multiple hulls rather than a single one.

Note that the Type R has unused drive bay space and carries a lifeboat, so two Type A's* won't be that much less cost-effective... this feels intentional.

*hated using the greengrocer's apostrophe (wikipedia) there, but it's less confusing.

 

[kilemall]

One thing that these analyses do not cover is the skill pressures for duplicating skills to fit business cases.

Things go wrong- crew members get hurt/arrested, fall in love/hate, get tired of the job/ship, have a bug to traveller, get a better offer, etc all of which ends up with ships being short of personnel.

If this happens at say A/B starports or Pop 7+, shouldn’t be a problem getting someone new with the right mix. But lower end starports/pop, it’s less likely to have a very specific skill set.

So there is this risk with minimalist double role crewing out in the one ponii starports. I’d strongly consider staying away from those ships as a required element of profitability and certainly would ref challenges from time to time.

 

[whartung]

Again, you're not talking Just In Time logistics in either case.

All things considered, it may not be FedEx but 2 days of slop is more than adequate for "Just In Time". You just bake it into your system.

If you sell 1000 a day of XXX, you order extra, pad your inventory when it comes early, consume it when it comes late. Warehousing a couple days of goods beat warehousing a months worth any day of the week...or even month.

 

[Condottiere]

Some purchasing personnel are figuring that out, again.

However, new friction can, and has, now been introduced.

 

[kilemall]

All things considered, it may not be FedEx but 2 days of slop is more than adequate for "Just In Time". You just bake it into your system.

If you sell 1000 a day of XXX, you order extra, pad your inventory when it comes early, consume it when it comes late. Warehousing a couple days of goods beat warehousing a months worth any day of the week...or even month.

I’d say a lot of sailing era and even railroad moves involved feast/famine warehousing.

WWII bombing often proved illusory damage as already delivered surplus kept factory lines running while the upstream parts facility was being reconstructed.

 

[Spinward Flow]

One thing that these analyses do not cover is the skill pressures for duplicating skills to fit business cases.

Not quite sure where you're going with this.
The analysis I was doing in #631 was minimum skill levels and single person per crew position.

1. Pilot-1
   1. (Navigator-1)
2. Engineering-1
3. Medic-1
4. Steward-0

I wasn't even reaching for the "one person for two crew positions" option at all, in order to keep the Apples vs Apples thing consistent in the spreadsheet analysis of the Simulation™.

As for my (other) starship designs that DO rely on "lean crew" roster assignments, I at least try to make sure that the skill required "over minimum qualification" is at least REASONABLE.

• Engineering-2 might not be as common as Engineering-1 ... but it's not a vanishingly tiny proportion of the available NPC population.
• Medical-3 might not be as common as Medical-1 ... but it's not "unheard of" in the sector. Medical School graduates get Medical-3 by default (for starters).
• Steward-1 isn't something that "everyone" has ... but it's not incredibly rare, either.

Things go wrong- crew members get hurt/arrested, fall in love/hate, get tired of the job/ship, have a bug to traveller, get a better offer, etc all of which ends up with ships being short of personnel.

True ... but that can happen to ANY starship crew.
LBB2.81 and LBB5.80 don't exactly get into "quality of life" factors with their crew requirements and staffing ... so any kind of "quality of life" factor that engenders loyalty in a crew to their starship is pretty purely (and obviously) a matter of House Rules™ rather than RAW.

I'm going that extra step further and trying to include design features into my (house ruled) starship designs that are preset specifically to improve crew "quality of life" issues that will help with crew retention and reduce turnover.

Like the poster on the wall says ... there's no such thing as foolproof, so we settle for fool resistant.

If this happens at say A/B starports or Pop 7+, shouldn’t be a problem getting someone new with the right mix. But lower end starports/pop, it’s less likely to have a very specific skill set.

True ... but that's more of a social roleplaying issue, rather than a naval architect's office blueprints issue when it comes to designing starship classes.

So there is this risk with minimalist double role crewing out in the one ponii starports. I’d strongly consider staying away from those ships as a required element of profitability and certainly would ref challenges from time to time.

Well, the obvious counter would be to have "double crews" so that no single crew position lacks redundancy.

Stock J1 Free Trader crew (LBB2.81 RAW):

1. Pilot-1
2. Engineering-1
3. Medic-1
4. Steward-0

Stock J1 Free Trader with redundant crew:

1. Pilot-1
2. Pilot-1
3. Engineering-1
4. Engineering-1
5. Medic-1
6. Medic-1
7. Steward-0
8. Steward-0

With the latter, you could literally lose "half the crew" and still have a fully functional starship operation.
Of course, losing 4x high passenger stateroom accommodations to a "redundant" crew would bring its own penalties to the bottom line of profitability ... so I can't really recommend it.

The other option would be to take a "Frozen Watch" type of approach to the "redundant" crew need desire ... but that would just mean losing 4x low passenger berths (and presumably hiring a higher skill medic to reduce the risk of DEATH when needing to "thaw" replacements) ... so even then there's going to be penalties to the bottom line of profitability. Less of a penalty than the "live" redundant crew in staterooms option, but still ...



Going in the other direction ... people with higher skill levels are more difficult to recruit to join your crew ... that's pretty much the default anyway, no matter where you go.

Now, one point that I will agree with you on is that 1 person=2 crew positions ought to get a LOT harder to find personnel for when the 2 crew positions require different skills (pilot/navigation being the classic example).

Limiting your applicant pool to people who have Pilot-2+ AND Navigation-2+ is going to necessarily be a lot "smaller" than the number of people who have Pilot-1 OR Navigation-1 (pick 2 people who don't have the same skills). Finding people who are cross-trained in unrelated skills (pilot/gunnery, for instance) is just going to be harder to do than finding someone who has above minimum skill level in a single position (Engineering-2, for example).

This kind of "crew roster shaping" IS something that can be decided/determined at the naval architect's office for the design of starship classes and ought to be accounted for when laying out the specifications for how a new class design ought to fare in terms of ease of recruiting and retention of crew (which is where "quality of life aboard" comes back into the picture).

As an example of that kind of thing ... consider the fact that LBB2.81 crew requirements do not include the option for a Service Crew department, dedicated to the upkeep of the craft itself (like LBB5.80 does, albeit only for craft over 1000 tons). So a Service Crew is not required for starships of 1000 tons or less, but if (optionally) done anyway ... even if not required(!) ... would probably have an impact on the "quality of life" for the crew aboard. Instead of having "high passenger facing steward(s)" on payroll with stateroom accommodations ... upgrading passenger services from middle passage to high passage ... you now have "crew facing steward(s)" on payroll with stateroom accommodations (and all the little quality of life "buffs" that implies for the lived experience of the crew).

Likewise, if your Medical department requires Medical-2+ skill instead of just Medical-1 ... that probably influences recruiting, hiring and retention factors for your entire crew, in ways that LBB2.81 and LBB5.80 "don't really track" (except with regards to low passenger survival rates).

These little "luxury" decisions will tend to add up (and compound on each other) ... such that an operator of a starship class with an "excellent reputation for crew quality of life" may wind up with an "embarrassment of riches" problem, where "highly qualified" applicants are often times trying to solicit for slots on payroll, while the incumbents in those positions are reluctant to leave (or at least, would prefer not to leave their shipmates in the lurch, if possible). You then wind up with the potential for a "bequeath to successor" type of turnover behavior. Those kinds of morale and camaraderie factors are difficult to quantify using just CT starship design criteria, but a Referee can easily "read between the lines" to get a sense of how cohesive and "loyal" a starship's crew ought to be to their "home" they live in for most of each year if the "quality of life" aboard can be expected to be above average minimum requirements.

 

[Spinward Flow]

---

Rule of Man Long Trader (Type-AP, TL=9)
280 tons starship hull, configuration: 1 (MCr33.6)
45 tons for LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives (codes: 2/2/2, TL=9, EP=8) (MCr88)
82 tons of total fuel (minimums required: 280 tons @ J2 = 56 tons jump fuel + 20 tons power plant fuel)
0 tons for fuel scoops (MCr0.28)
9 tons for TL=9 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum) (MCr0.038)
20 tons for bridge (800 ton rating, MCr4)
2 tons for model/2 computer (MCr9)
120 tons for hangar berths capacity (MCr0.24)

1. Fighter Escort = 22.5 tons
2. Stateroom Box = 24 tons (starship pilot, small craft pilot, navigator, gunner) (4x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 4)
3. Stateroom Box = 24 tons (4x high passengers) (4x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 4)
4. Stateroom Box = 24 tons (engineer/engineer, purser/purser, steward/steward, medic) (4x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 4)
5. Stateroom Box = 24 tons (4x high passengers) (4x staterooms, laboratory: V-c life support for 4)

* External Docking: 520 tons capacity (MCr1.04)

1. 
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. 
   

2 tons for cargo hold

• 122 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank = 1.22 tons (MCr0.061)
• 12 person/weeks consumables: IV life support reserves = 0.08 tons

= 45+82+0+9+20+2+120+2 = 280 tons
= 33.6+88+0.28+0.038+4+9+0.24+1.04+0.061 = MCr136.259

• J1/1G = 800 - 280 = 520 tons external load
• J2/2G = 400 - 280 = 120 tons external load

=====

Fighter Escort (Type-FE, TL=9)
22.5 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1 (MCr2.7)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
3.825 tons for LBB5.80 custom Maneuver-6 (Agility=6 requires 1.35 EP) (MCr1.9125)
7.05 tons for LBB5.80 custom Power Plant-A (EP=2.35) (MCr21.15)
1.085 ton for fuel (9d 02h 37m endurance @ 2.35 EP output continuous)
4.5 tons for bridge (crew: 2, pilot, gunner, acceleration couches life support endurance: 12-24 hours) (MCr0.1125)
3 tons for model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1) (MCr18)
1 ton for triple turret: missile, missile, missile (TL=A, batteries: 3, codes: 1/1/1, EP: 0, 3 missiles per battery, 12 reloads in turret shared between missile launchers) (MCr3.35)
* External Docking: 168 tons capacity (MCr0.336)
2 tons for 1x single occupancy small craft staterooms (MCr0.1)
0.04 tons for cargo hold

• 6 person/weeks consumables: IV life support reserves = 0.04 tons

= 0+3.825+7.05+1.085+4.5+3+1+2+0.04 = 24 tons
= 2.7+1.9125+21.15+0.1125+18+3.35+0.336+0.1 = MCr47.661 (21x HE Missiles = MCr0.105, bought after completing construction)

• 1G = 191.25 - 22.5 ≈ 168 tons external load
• 2G = 76.5 - 22.5 = 54 tons external load
• 3G = 47.81 - 22.5 ≈ 25 tons external load
• 4G = 34.77 - 22.5 ≈ 12 tons external load
• 5G = 27.32 - 22.5 ≈ 4 tons external load
• 6G = 22.5 - 22.5 = 0 tons external load

=====

Stateroom Box (Type-RU, TL=9)
24 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.44)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
16 tons for 4x single occupancy starship staterooms (MCr2)
8 tons for laboratory: V-c regenerative biome life support for 4 persons) (MCr1.6)
* External Docking: 6x 24 = 144 tons capacity (MCr0.288)
0 tons for cargo hold

= 0+16+8+0 = 24 tons
= 1.44+2+1.6+0.288 = MCr5.328

=====

Cargo Box (Type-AU, TL=9)
24 ton small craft hull, configuration: 4 (MCr1.44)
0 tons for Armor: 0 (TL=9)
* External Docking: 6x 24 = 144 tons capacity (MCr0.288)
24 tons for cargo hold

= 0+24 = 24 tons
= 1.44+0.288 = MCr1.728

=====

Crew = 8 (Cr37,350 per 4 weeks crew salaries)

1. Pilot-1 = Cr6000
2. Ship's Boat-1 = Cr6000
3. Navigator-1 = Cr5000
4. Engineering-2/Engineering-2 = Cr6600
5. Steward-1/Steward-1 (purser) = Cr5400
6. Steward-1/Steward-1 = Cr4950
7. Medical-3 = Cr2400
8. Gunnery-1 = Cr1000

=====

Single Production (100% construction cost): starship + fighter escort + 4x stateroom boxes + (21x HE Missiles)

• 136.259 + 47.661 + 5.328 + 3*5.328*0.8 = MCr202.0352 + (0.105) = MCr202.1402

Volume production (80% construction cost): starship + fighter escort + 4x stateroom boxes + (21x HE Missiles)

• 136.259*0.8 + 47.661*0.8 + 4*5.328*0.8 = MCr164.1856 + (0.105) = MCr164.2906

---

For a TL=9 starship that can "move" 120 tons of small craft from internal stowage (in the internal hangar bay) to external docking points on the hull (while in orbit) ... thereby making it possible to load the internal hangar bay with up to 120 tons of cargo, while also transporting up to 8x high passengers @ J2/2G across 2 parsecs ... this is actually making a compelling case for the best utilization of crew at the lowest amount of overhead expenses within the Hull: 2 code regime.

Construction cost is (approximately) ~2.74x that of a J2 Far Trader (200 tons) ... and ~4.43x that of a J1 Free Trader (200 tons) ... but the operating expenses will actually be lower (no life support expenses for crew or passengers due to regenerative biome life support, onboard refining of wilderness refueling) and the starship can be operated @ J2/2G (up to 400 combined tons) or J1/1G (up to 800 combined tons) depending on market demand for transport services (including interplanetary charters).

So more expensive to BUY ... but cheaper to OWN (and operate) than the (Vilani designed) competition.
This means higher up front costs for investments, but greater profit potential the longer an operator can keep a copy of the class in use.

And the (22.5 tons) Fighter Escort (designed to fit into the 24 ton Box form factor) provides a LOT of security guarantee(s) as an organic screen/mobile turret, in addition to the more utilitarian aspects of logistics marshaling in austere locations (including operations in wilderness areas away from starport/spaceport infrastructure). And although the Fighter Escort can be considered "best in class" for TL=9, it rapidly becomes obsolete at higher tech levels (due to advancements in available computer models) rendering it, at best, more of a "low end" paramilitary asset suitable for commercial operator security, rather than an explicitly "cutting edge" bit of military kit for challenging system defense boats and other peace keeping patrol craft with.



So this repackage oriented around the 24 ton Box modular form factor @ TL=9 is looking extremely promising ...