Cargo costs

[creativehum]

I really like this analysis. It is very illuminating. But my 81 LLB2 says the ratio for X is 4:5 no 0:5, which is a weird progression.

By '81 there is a shift from an assumed less stable environment to the more assumed stable environment of the Third Imperium.

The '77 edition has no mention of Amber and Red Zones. As soon as the travel zones are introduced into the '81 rules, ships from the new, more stable and effective interstellar government need to be sent in to keep the Zones free of folks who shouldn't be there. (After all, what's the use of interdicting a star system if you don't and can't keep people away from it.)

In the '77 rules X starports are literally places that don't have a starport of any kind. They are the places people don't go to -- for any variety of reasons. But in the '81 rules X starports are often on worlds of great interest to the stable, more powerful interstellar government. There might even be a starport of a different type, but it labeled X because no one should be dealing with it.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[aramis]

I really like this analysis. It is very illuminating. But my 81 LLB2 says the ratio for X is 4:5 no 0:5, which is a weird progression.

Yep - I missed a T entry.

 

[Straybow]

It is your thesis that the Referee is suppose to be rolling for all endless combinations the ship could possibly make?

Not necessary. The ref and the players are interacting. The players know that they want to go to a prime trading planet three parsecs away. Or they find a passenger who wants to get to that planet and he can't afford to wait and hope for a J3.

There might be two or three possible routes, and the ref can then check destinations on those routes. Or the best route for trading might be obvious, and only that route checked.

The passenger, per the description, pays the same to get to the destination three parsecs away, whether one J3 or three J1s. The same paragraph lumps cargo in with passengers in the last sentence. Cargo and people going to the first destination pay for 1 parsec travel, 2 parsecs paid to the second destination, and 3 parsecs paid to the third.

At the intermediate destinations the ref can again check for passengers and cargoes heading on the route.

Is it more likely that its a revision, or you've read the rule incorrectly?

We don't know if MWM originally didn't distinguish, or hadn't settled one way or the other, etc. We do know it wasn't clarified in print for 8 years.

The critical sentence exactly describes price per parsec. I'm a stickler for specific overriding general, hence RAW. Apparently many overlooked that sentence and see numbers implying per jump, and go with the preponderance of unspecified mentions interpreted as per jump, hence properly RAI.

With book 7 RAI wins, being specific (but not correcting the per parsec sentence in errata to make it RAW in all places).
__________
Interesting discussion of piracy risk costs. Now, how much does insurance cost? Can we add an insurance rider to cargo shipping cost for vulnerable destinations?

 

[Supplement Four]

The critical sentence exactly describes price per parsec.

Hey, man. Believe what you want to believe, and enjoy your game the way you want to play it.

 

[creativehum]

Your interpretation hangs on how one is defining "destination" in the game's text. Destination is defined at the start of the section, when the Referee is told to determine cargo for "all" destinations before proceeding with anything else. You are choosing to ignore the procedure for "all" destination, re-working the rules so that the players set whichever system the Players choose to go to and find the cargo for that, blowing past the "all" part of the text.

And that is awesome! I want you to play however you want. But your reading of the word "destination" does neatly slide by the practical implications of "all" meaning "The finite number of worlds a starship can reach in one jump" and makes it possible to read the otherwise implausible rule the way you need to read it to make it work.

But let us leave that aside. Seriously. I want you to play the way you want to play.

However, fascinated by one matter. The rules state:

a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship would take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets) to reach it.

Can I ask you about those multiple tickets?

Your assumption seems to be that if someone is traveling on a J1 ship to a world three parsecs away, the "passage" will be Cr8000 but the "ticket price" will be Cr2666.66 each. Am I understanding you correctly?

If so, my further questions are:

If someone buys a Middle Passage to a world three jumps away, and some else busy a Middle Passage on the same ship to the first leg of the journey does one pay Cr8000 while the other pays Cr2666.66?

Now, it might be (and probably is) that the ship will not dock at all for the first two legs of the trip. It will refuel as quickly as is possible and jump again without dropping off cargo and passengers, but continuing on to the final destination three worlds away. I'm assuming this is, in fact, the method at hand. Yes?

So, assuming the answer is "Yes" to the previous question, here's the big question:

A PC, using your interpretation of the rules, is going to travel on a J1 ship to a world three parsecs away. Per the rules he buys a ticket (the first of the three -- again, per the rules). He pays (I believe) Cr2666.66 for this first ticket. (Yes? Is this how you would work it?)

The ship jump out of the origin system to the first world on its journey. It won't stop to unload passengers, but does need to stop for fuel.

While the ship is fueling, the Steward will knock on the door of the passenger's stateroom (if am I understanding this correctly) and politely ask, "Would you like to purchase a ticket for the next leg of the journey?" At which point...?

The passengers automatically buys the second ticket? If this purchase is automatic, why do the rules dictated the shenanigans with three separate tickets?

If the purchase isn't automatic, then what happens if the passenger decides he doesn't want to buy the ticket? Is he tossed out the airlock? Does the captain safely deposit the passenger on the system's main world, sighing with a shake of the head and chuckle about the Cr5000 he just lost -- again? (Clearly this would happen a lot.)

I ask because I can't -- at least off the top of my head -- see how the multiple ticket thing works out in your model. Like, how it would function.

 

[aramis]

Per Bk2-77, p6: all jump fuel is consumed no matter how short the jump. And all SR and LB must be paid for, occupied or not.

Also the Type M... 21 passenger SR, 80 LB, and 124 Td cargo.
On a subsidy route... she must pay 50% of gross receipts (Bk2-77 p5).
Expenses: KCr279, counting salaries (KCr34/mo, halved), fuel (185Td), and 1/25 of annual maintenance.

• Max income, per jump: 210+80+144, counting HP, LP, and Cargo+mail = 434 gross receipts. Income half that, for KCr217.
• Per Parsec
  • Max Income, J2 per Pc: 420+160+288 = KCr868, halved is KCr 434.
  • Max Income, J3 per Pc: 630+240+432 = KCr1302, halved is KCr 631

This is the strongest evidence for the Per Parsec pricing. The Type M is a failure even on subsidy under Per Jump of any distance pricing.

It's noted that it's a fatal flaw in A13...
... but under A13, it's such a fatal flaw that the ship should never be approved by a bank... or the pricing is for NET receipts, not Gross. (I can make a case for net receipts based upon SSOM discussion... but note that the owner/captain is committing to a 20 year career post purchase at little more than pilot salary in such cases... thus justifying the "Old TImer's" accusations of sloth. If it's Gross, then the Subsidy captains have to bust ass just to stay afloat...)

Also note: I cannot find any Bk2-77 nor Bk1-77 adjustments to passengers/cargo for crew skills...

 

[creativehum]

Hi Wil,

Thank you for the information.

I have always read many of the changes found in the 1981 edition as correction to the 1977 edition. So while it is correct that the 1977 edition requires life support spent on all state rooms and lower berths whether occupied or not, the rules were changed in 1981 because it was a good idea to do so. In the same way the rules for partial fuel consumption on Jumps were introduced in 1981 because it was a good idea to do so.

Moreover, the design of the Type M was altered from the 1977 edition to the 1981 edition.

It seems to me easier to assume the Type M was originally built incorrectly (and it is rebuilt in the 1981 edition) and a few rules corrected (life support expenses altered; partial fuel consumptions based on Jumps) than drill down into one particular ship to re-interpret rules on commerce and travel that are otherwise clear.

As for the Type M, it loses money on a Jump 3, makes a profit on a Jump 2, and makes more money on a Jump 1. The trick, then, is to find a circuit of worlds that takes advantage of its strengths, even if it this means it might lose money on one leg of its run. That is to say, figuring out how to make money of the Type M might be one more mini-game in Traveller. And it seems to me making a profit with a space ship is definitely one of the mini-games of the games. (This leaves aside the need to take on high-risk/high-reward jobs on the side.)

Given that the Type M (per 1981 rules) can make a profit if the circuit is chosen and managed carefully, I can only say "Yes, it's hard. Yes, the margins are small. Yes, only crazy people would try it."

But then I look people who start restaurants. Or coffee shops. Or their own video game company. Or a small pen & paper game company. Or freelance writers...

I am, after all, a writer. I would say, in part, I am a writer because I fell in love with Hans Solo's life in STAR WARS and the vision of the Free Trader in Traveller. (No joke here, it's all true.)

The folks who decide to own and run a starship in Traveller are not people looking for a stable life first. They want a stable life, yes, but they have priorities that put other things first. The need for travel, the need for novelty, the need to be your own boss. I speak from experience: Those can be powerful lures for some people. They can also make your life a constant battle at the edge of financial dissolution. The profit margins are tight, the work income never lines up the way you want, you have to be really good at managing the money and planning for the fallow periods.

I say all this to suggest that there might be a temperament required to be the owner of a starship in Traveller is very much the spirit of the entrepreneur, the freelancer, and the small business owner... all of which accept the close calls month to month to keep doing what one values most and building toward something that one dreams of succeeding at if one pushes on long and hard enough.

I'm not saying it makes sense. I am saying it is out there as a possible way of living one's life and there are plenty of people willing to give it a try.

 

[aramis]

Hi Wil,

Thank you for the information.

I have always read many of the changes found in the 1981 edition as correction to the 1977 edition. So while it is correct that the 1977 edition requires life support spent on all state rooms and lower berths whether occupied or not, the rules were changed in 1981 because it was a good idea to do so. In the same way the rules for partial fuel consumption on Jumps were introduced in 1981 because it was a good idea to do so.

Moreover, the design of the Type M was altered from the 1977 edition to the 1981 edition.

It seems to me easier to assume the Type M was originally built incorrectly (and it is rebuilt in the 1981 edition) and a few rules corrected (life support expenses altered; partial fuel consumptions based on Jumps) than drill down into one particular ship to re-interpret rules on commerce and travel that are otherwise clear.

As for the Type M, it loses money on a Jump 3, makes a profit on a Jump 2, and makes more money on a Jump 1. The trick, then, is to find a circuit of worlds that takes advantage of its strengths, even if it this means it might lose money on one leg of its run. That is to say, figuring out how to make money of the Type M might be one more mini-game in Traveller. And it seems to me making a profit with a space ship is definitely one of the mini-games of the games. (This leaves aside the need to take on high-risk/high-reward jobs on the side.)

Given that the Type M (per 1981 rules) can make a profit if the circuit is chosen and managed carefully, I can only say "Yes, it's hard. Yes, the margins are small. Yes, only crazy people would try it."

But then I look people who start restaurants. Or coffee shops. Or their own video game company. Or a small pen & paper game company. Or freelance writers...

I am, after all, a writer. I would say, in part, I am a writer because I fell in love with Hans Solo's life in STAR WARS and the vision of the Free Trader in Traveller. (No joke here, it's all true.)

The folks who decide to own and run a starship in Traveller are not people looking for a stable life first. They want a stable life, yes, but they have priorities that put other things first. The need for travel, the need for novelty, the need to be your own boss. I speak from experience: Those can be powerful lures for some people. They can also make your life a constant battle at the edge of financial dissolution. The profit margins are tight, the work income never lines up the way you want, you have to be really good at managing the money and planning for the fallow periods.

I say all this to suggest that there might be a temperament required to be the owner of a starship in Traveller is very much the spirit of the entrepreneur, the freelancer, and the small business owner... all of which accept the close calls month to month to keep doing what one values most and building toward something that one dreams of succeeding at if one pushes on long and hard enough.

I'm not saying it makes sense. I am saying it is out there as a possible way of living one's life and there are plenty of people willing to give it a try.

No, the Type M loses money on a 1 parsec in both 77 and 81 whether you go per jump pricing or not. It's a bad design unless you're using per parsec pricing, and keep it to J2 or J3.

Bk2 -81 does not change the subsidy nor the "all jump fuel used regardless of distance"

It doesn't lose as much under '81. But it still loses.
21 Pass SR, 20 LB, 129 Td cargo, KCr34.7 monthly salary (KCr17.35 per two weeks, 195 tons fuel per jump (KCr97.5), KCr9.48 maintenance slice, KCr18 Crew LS.. She needs KCr124.32 to operate.
on Subsidy, her gross receipt on income is halved before expenses, resulting in figuring it thusly for per jump: Net income of (10/2)–2=KCr3 per HP, (8/2)-2=KCr2 per MP, KCr0.4 per LB, and KCr0.5 per cargo ton. Maxing out at that rate; assuming max Pass, KCr42 from 21 HP, KCr8 from 20 LP, and KCr64.5 for cargo, +KCr10 for mail. Max income KCr124.5, assuming 100% full. That's close enough to allow spec to make the difference... but the net profit on subsidy is VERY VERY VERY slim. Slim enough that only an insane bank would finance it even on subsidy... The more typical pop 7 is only getting 3.5 HP and 3.5 MP...

If going by per parsec, instead, those become the J1 numbers on subsidy.
J2 HP is then (20/2)-2=Net KCr8, and J3 HP is (30/2)-2 =Net KCr13
J2 MP is then (16/2)-2=Net KCr6 and J3 MP is (24/2)-2 = Net KCr10
J2 LP is then (2/2)-0.1=Net KCr0.9 and J3 LP is (3/2)-0.1=Net KCr1.4
J2 Cargo is (2/2) =Net KCr1, and J3 cargo is (3/2) =Net KCr 1.5

So topped out, J2 per parsec would be 168 (HP) + 18 (LP) + 129 (Cargo) + 20 (mail) = net receipts of KCr335 for a startlingly good profit, as net reci

J3 per parsec pricing would be KCr273 (HP) + KCr28 (LP), + 193.5 (Cargo) + 30 (Mail) =Net Receipts of KCr 524.5.

It almost works on per jump under Bk2-81. Almost, but not quite. Because, unless you allow posting for multiple destinations, you can't fill it on a regular basis, and typical spec on a route runs about an average of KCr 1.5 to KCr2 per ton... Note that a liner must bias for high pop worlds, and the subby must needs have several MCr on hand to leverage the spec opportunities. (On the other hand, once you hit that big score, you're better off hiring a captain to run her for you, or even arrange a loan assumption, and go buy another one outright for cash and operate it...

And the cost per jump for on standard loans: Cr987,375/mo, or Cr493,688 per jump... but the income is much better
J1 per Parsec, or any under Per Jump: HP Net KCr8, MP Net KCr6, LP KCr0.9, Cargo KCr1, Mail +20
J2 per parsec: HP net KCr18, MP KCr14, LP KCr1.9, Cargo KCr2, Mail +40
J3 Per parsec: HP net KCr28, MP KCr22, LP KCr2.9, Cargo KCr3, Mail +60

The revisions seem to be aimed at both verisimilitude and making per jump work for the Type M.

CT-77 is NOT the same game as CT-81... especially for the Type M.

This is why I say they "changed the paint" between the two - the differences are there and make the Type M an interesting challenge - rather than a grim fate if run under CT-77.

But note also - CT-81 still doesn't allow crew skill to increase fill rates. That happens with Bk 7...
Which adds...

• Admin Levels to MP available
• Steward at Level (or Carousing at 1 less than level ) are added to HP available
• Streetwise adds to LP available.
• Liaison adds level to number of minor cargos

On the M, assuming each steward's skill applies, that's +3 or +4 HP, probably +2 MP, and 0-18 extra LP, depending upon the crew...

If only the best applies, then it's probably +2 HP, and +2 MP, and +2 LP...

Bk7 is pretty clear prices are per jump, noting it as "Per Trip" to avoid any confusion for "Per Jump Rating"...

 

[creativehum]

I am confused about this:

Bk2 -81 does not change the subsidy nor the "all jump fuel used regardless of distance"

This is from Book 2 (1981), p. 15:

Ships performing jumps less than their maximum capacity consume fuel at a lower level based on the jump number used.

We might be talking about two different things. But I believe that quote explicitly scuttle the notion of "all jump fuel used regardless of distance."

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, the jump governor to allow lower fuel consumption was introduced in 79 HG, by the time of 89 HG it was just assumed to be part of the drive, as it is in CT 81 revision and beyond (with the exception of MT).

 

[Straybow]

Your interpretation hangs on how one is defining "destination" in the game's text. Destination is defined at the start of the section, when the Referee is told to determine cargo for "all" destinations before proceeding with anything else. You are choosing to ignore the procedure for "all" destination, re-working the rules so that the players set whichever system the Players choose to go to and find the cargo for that, blowing past the "all" part of the text.

No, instructions to the ref are suggestions only and have nothing to do with "canon" or economic rules. If I'm a ref and the players have a J3 ship, I'm not rolling up cargo and passengers for an average of 18 possible destinations. I'm going to ignore small pop destinations that wouldn't be good for trade. If the players have a destination in mind, that's the one I'm going to roll unless someone says they want to check out their options.

And that is awesome! I want you to play however you want. But your reading of the word "destination" does neatly slide by the practical implications of "all" meaning "The finite number of worlds a starship can reach in one jump" and makes it possible to read the otherwise implausible rule the way you need to read it to make it work.

Except the procedure doesn't say "all destinations reachable in one jump." It just says "all destinations." If you're going to rules-lawyer that, without allowing for any other considerations, then yes, roll for all 11,000 Imperial worlds. Oops, wait, don't stop there. The ship can go outside the Imperium, too... have fun!

However, fascinated by one matter. The rules state:
...
Your assumption seems to be that if someone is traveling on a J1 ship to a world three parsecs away, the "passage" will be Cr8000 but the "ticket price" will be Cr2666.66 each. Am I understanding you correctly?

Hmmm, misquoted. Fixed:
"A jump-3 starship charges the same passage price as a jump-1 starship. The difference is that a jump-3 ship can reach a destination in one jump, while the jump-1 ship wold take three separate jumps (through two intermediate destinations, and requiring three separate tickets)."

I'm sorry if my assumptions aren't clear (can't imagine that, but nobody is required to read every word or every post).

The J-3 and the J-1, each headed to the same destination 3 parsecs away, charge the same passage price, per the quote. Passage is distinguished from ticket. Nobody is debating whether a J-1 can go three parsecs on one fixed price charge listed in the table. The debate is whether that fixed price is per jump or per parsec.

Since the J-1 is always jumping and charging per parsec, then it follows that the J-3 jumps up to three parsecs and charges the listed amount per parsec. Thus, passage to the world 3 parsecs away is the same for J-1 as for J-3, except the J-3 gets there sooner.

This ignores the value of convenience that could be charged for fast service, but that's a small economic quirk compared to price per jump nonsense.

 

[creativehum]

I am becoming utterly baffled.

When you write:

Hmmm, misquoted. General condescension. Dismiss a question based off actual quote from the rules and by stating it was a misquote. Whatever. Fixed

In your interpretation, if someone is traveling three parsecs via a J3 ship in Middle Passage, how much will the journey cost?
In your interpretation, if someone is traveling three parsecs via a J1 ship in Middle Passage, how much will the journey cost?

Thanks!

Edited to add: I am genuinely curious about the answers to this question. I believe in you might say Cr24000 for each journey. But since this does not jibe with the text of the 1981 rules, I want to make sure I have this right.

 

[creativehum]

Yup, the jump governor to allow lower fuel consumption was introduced in 79 HG, by the time of 89 HG it was just assumed to be part of the drive, as it is in CT 81 revision and beyond (with the exception of MT).

Really? MT dropped that? I'm curious as to why.

 

[creativehum]

Also note: I cannot find any Bk2-77 nor Bk1-77 adjustments to passengers/cargo for crew skills...

I meant to comment on this:

I don't think there are any. Book 2 treats the Cargo and Passenger availability are forces beyond the influence of the PCs.

But from what I understand, after the expanded use of skills in Book 7 allowed spec trade to be money-generating-machine, yes?

I bring these points up because I never assume that PC skills should have an affect on these maters. Back in the day I was buying Traveller Books and Supplements. But Book 5: High Guard was clearly creating a setting a game more complicated and very different than the one I wanted... and Books 6 and 7 continued the trend. I bought them, but put them aside after reading them. By this time the Books were adding hefty fluff and mechanics I wasn't interested in.

Again, each of us has an idea of Traveller is based on variety of so many factors, including which edition or rules we first encountered, what additional materials excited us, and the stories and movies that had taken hold of our imaginations when we encountered the rules and supplements.

 

[mike wightman]

Really? MT dropped that? I'm curious as to why.

My guess id that the folks who wrote MT - DGP - were long time 77 version players and as a result had not switched to the new paradigm, No one picked them up on it so it made it to the into the MT rules.

 

[creativehum]

My guess id that the folks who wrote MT - DGP - were long time 77 version players and as a result had not switched to the new paradigm, No one picked them up on it so it made it to the into the MT rules.

If true, that's fascinating in lots of ways.

 

[aramis]

I am becoming utterly baffled.

When you write:


In your interpretation, if someone is traveling three parsecs via a J3 ship in Middle Passage, how much will the journey cost?
In your interpretation, if someone is traveling three parsecs via a J1 ship in Middle Passage, how much will the journey cost?

Thanks!

Edited to add: I am genuinely curious about the answers to this question. I believe in you might say Cr24000 for each journey. But since this does not jibe with the text of the 1981 rules, I want to make sure I have this right.

KCr24, either way. That's the "same price, but 3 tickets versus 1"... and under CT77 it makes economic sense, too. CT 81 is a higher profit margin, due to differences in rules, to wit, pay only for what you use in SRs, and only burn fuel for the parsecs travelled. Note that MGT rolls back to Pay for All SRs.

 

[creativehum]

KCr24, either way. That's the "same price, but 3 tickets versus 1"... and under CT77 it makes economic sense, too. CT 81 is a higher profit margin, due to differences in rules, to wit, pay only for what you use in SRs, and only burn fuel for the parsecs travelled. Note that MGT rolls back to Pay for All SRs.

Here is where I am getting confused with this line of thinking. (Or, rather, here is one more point where I am getting confused with this line of thinking)...

On p. 4 of Book 2 (1981) we find this:

Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accomodations; prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length.

[Emphasis added

The text immediately goes on to say...

There are four types of passage:

and then quotes the prices for each of passages

• High Cr10,000
• Middle Passage Cr8,000
• Low Passage at Cr1,000

Now, I don't know how anyone can read the clause "prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length" and then turn around and assume that a Middle Passage J3 trip is going to cost Cr24,000... since the text clearly states that a Middle Passage trip, regardless of length and encompassing one jump, will cost Cr8,000.

Now this isn't to say one can't decide to go with a per parsec model. Go for it! But don't we all have to agree that the text explicitly makes it clear that the fixed prices for each type of passage are per jump?

(I'm kidding, of course. Of course we won't agree.)

 

[aramis]

Note that CT-77 does not contain the line, "Interstellar travel is priced on the basis of accomodations; prices cover a trip from starport to starport, encompassing one jump, regardless of length." Many people who played with the '77 rules always used the Type M as proof that the correct interpretation is per Parsec. As I have done, in showing the financial math. The Type M is the only pre-80 J2+ merchant in rules; the A2 enters rules with Sup 7 in 1980.

Under the Bk2-77 RAW, the Type M is a losing proposition unless pricing is per parsec. Period.

Likewise, it they'll pay Cr16000 to go 2 Pc across 2 weeks, there is no logical reason they shouldn't pay Cr16000 to go the same 2 Pc in 1 week. Or, at least, Cr14000 (subtracting the cost of extra LS)...

One of the first principles Marc has stated is that the Economics have to make sense. Bk2-77 economics only make sense if the Type M charges per parsec.

The changes in '81 make the Type M workable as a subsidy op under per jump.

 

[creativehum]

Wil,

First, I am aware that the sentence isn't in the 1977 edition. That is why I specifically referenced as being from the 1981 edition.

I hear you about the 1977 Type M. I've heard you from the start. The Type M is problematic in 1981, and useless in 1977. You are correct.

I admit I'm becoming baffled how this one ship set in motion a whole cottage industry of reinterpreting straightforward sentences rather the dismissing the 1977 Type M as being the problem.

But you are correct about the 1977 Type M. By accepting this and moving on I can look at the sentences in Book 2 (which clearly were altered to remove some of the ambiguity people are spinning about from 1977) and see that there's really not much ambiguity at all in the 1981 edition. (Full disclosure: I don't see ambiguity in the 1977 edition either... but then I have never been trying to solve the problems of the Type M by re-working the text about cargo and passengers than reworking the Type M.)

But here is the things: Straybow isn't hanging his hat on the Type M. He's looking at the sentences alone and saying it is by parsec.

Now, if your answer to my question about the cost of Middle Passage for a Jump 3 journey is the same as Straybow's, I'm curious how he squares that answer with the quote I posted, a quote that makes it explicit and clear that a Jump 3 Middle Passage journey will cost Cr8,000.

Leaving aside the shenanigans of the 1977 Type M I'm not sure how anyone can assume a single jump, no matter what the distance, is going to cost Cr24,000.

Of course, I havne't heard from Straybow yet, and am curious what he will say about this.