Cheapest 100 dton freighter possible

[fredofmars]

Near Scout class Merchant (Type N)

http://webspace.webring.com/people/jf/fredofmars/designs/nearscou.htm

This is a link to my Near Scout class Merchant (Type N).

It is based on the premise that drives can be built that get half the performance of the "A" drives. I call them "1/2 A" drives. Thus a 100 ton ship with "1/2 A" drives would get Jump-1 and 1-G. When the Near Scout is built as a refit of the Type-S scout, it is little better than a Type-J. If built new as a custom hull, they are somewhat better than a Type-J, but not a lot.

Near Scout (type N): Using a standard 100-ton hull, the near scout is intended for light merchant duty or long-term scouting of a nearby system. It mounts jump drive "1/2 A", maneuver drive "1/2 A", and power plant "1/2 A", giving performance of jump-1 and 1-G acceleration. A 20-ton fuel tank provides fuel for the power plant and provides sufficient fuel for one jump-1. Adjacent to the bridge is a computer Model/1. There are four staterooms and no low berths. One double turret with its fire control is installed on the ship's hard point, but no weaponry is mounted. One air/raft is carried in a specially fitted hangar within the ship. Excess space amounts to 23 tons (which can be modified to meet the desires of the purchaser when ordered). There are an extra 7 tons available in the standard drive area that many enterprising captains will use for additional cargo if the cargo will fit through the standard iris valves. The hull is streamlined.
The near scout requires a crew of one, assuming the duties of pilot and engineer. The ship costs MCr22.6 and takes 9 months to build.

 

[bookwyrm67]

in T20, it is stated that 10 tons of the 'bridge' is required for bridge stuff and the other 10 tons is ships lockers, the 1 allowed airlock, and other stuff. i wonder if it is possible to cut the 20 to 15 for minimum bridge stuff. that would give the ship i designed an extra 5t's on cargo, for a total of 60.5t. this is of course for a 100t cheap and possible non regulation cargo hauler working on the fringes of explored space. the down side is doing without something u might need in an emergency that is now taken up by 5t's extra cargo...

 

[mike wightman]

Turns out I didn't have to get too rules bendy munchkin after all to achieve profits.

CT Design, mixes High Guard (Hull, Jump Drive, TL15 Powerplant and 20% discount for standard design) and Book 2. Revenue based on flat Cr1,000 per ton and 25 trips per year.

+100tons  Hull - Dispersed            MCr005.000
            Unstreamlined

  -2tons  Jump Drive 1                   008.000
  -1ton   Maneuver A1                    004.000
  -1tons  Powerplant 1                   008.000

 -10tons  Fuel x2P
  -1tons  Fuel x4W

 -20tons  Bridge-Standard                000.500
  -1ton     Computer m/1                 002.000
            Programs 2/4                 000.500

  -4tons  Stateroom x1                   000.500

 -60tons  Cargo

   0tons  Final                       MCr028.500

Cost: MCr22.8 discounted for standard design

Crew: 1 - Pilot

Prog: Manevuer (0.1)
      Generate (0.8)
      Navigate (0.4)
      Jump 1 (0.1)
      Anti-hijack (0.1)


Annual Expenses:

   Mortgage               Cr1,140,000
   Fuel (refined)             131,250
   Salary (base)               72,000
   Life Support                50,000
   Maintenance                 28,000
   Misc/Docking                 5,000

                           -1,426,250

Annual Revenue:

   Freight                 +1,500,000

Annual Balance:               +73,750

Interesting design.

You could save more money - first off the power plant should only cost 6 MCr not the 8 MCr quoted.

Next use a HG manoeuvre 1 - only costs 3 MCr compared with the 4 MCr for the LBB2 type A drive.
You do lose 1t of cargo space though.


So that's 3.0 MCr off the price.

 

[far-trader]

Good catch Mike, I'd forgot to edit the PP cost after changing it from the LBB2 A version. I also forgot to mention the necessity of not running the M-Drive at it's actual 2G level. Will have to fix those later.

Yeah the reason for the LBB2 M-Drive was the volume savings. I wanted the nice round 60tons of cargo to support 2 modular cutter cargo modules. Easy pick-up and drop-off

My biggest issue is the 20ton bridge. For 1 crew? Even my usual "well the standard bridge has 5 workstations" makes little sense for ships that only need 1 or 2 crew. Oh well, that's CT

 

[far-trader]

You could save more money - first off the power plant should only cost 6 MCr not the 8 MCr quoted.

...wait a tic, went to edit and it hit me, it's not just a MCr2 difference, it should be MCr3 for a 1ton HG power plant right? That saves me MCr5! Cool

 

[Gray Pennell]

My biggest issue is the 20ton bridge. For 1 crew? Even my usual "well the standard bridge has 5 workstations" makes little sense for ships that only need 1 or 2 crew. Oh well, that's CT

Can we shove the crews cabin in there. I think it might actually be safer. The claxon goes off and you just roll out of bed to the pilot seat.

 

[far-trader]

Can we shove the crews cabin in there. I think it might actually be safer. The claxon goes off and you just roll out of bed to the pilot seat.

I like it

(also see post below)

 

[far-trader]

in T20, it is stated that 10 tons of the 'bridge' is required for bridge stuff and the other 10 tons is ships lockers, the 1 allowed airlock, and other stuff. i wonder if it is possible to cut the 20 to 15 for minimum bridge stuff. that would give the ship i designed an extra 5t's on cargo, for a total of 60.5t. this is of course for a 100t cheap and possible non regulation cargo hauler working on the fringes of explored space. the down side is doing without something u might need in an emergency that is now taken up by 5t's extra cargo...

I think the ideas are workable for T20, including the stateroom one just above this post...

...if the reason for the bulk of the "other" stuff is legal license issues you'd just need to find a place that didn't care about such restrictive laws to register and operate your ship

 

[mike wightman]

...wait a tic, went to edit and it hit me, it's not just a MCr2 difference, it should be MCr3 for a 1ton HG power plant right? That saves me MCr5! Cool

Yup, that was me being stupid - i was designing a jump 2 version so a 2t pp was needed with a cost of 6 MCr. Your pp should only cost 3 MCr since it is only a pp1

 

[mike wightman]

How about a 2t half stateroom for the 1 crew member...

it's TCS legal IIRC.

That way you can have 61 tons of cargo =)

 

[Gray Pennell]

The sad news is even at 23mcr and annual revenue of 73,000 cr it still takes 315 years to pay off. The good news is you gave the hauler a salary and nice one too.

 

[far-trader]

The sad news is even at 23mcr and annual revenue of 73,000 cr it still takes 315 years to pay off.

Nope, that's pure profit, after the loan payments. It's paid off in the usual 40 years. And with the recalculated costs* that is Cr278,250 a year. So paid off in 40 years AND MCr11.13 in the bank, not including interest or salaried savings

Or I suppose one could pay it off early, avoid a chunk of that interest on the payments, and then make even faster profits

* see page 2 for the corrections and updated post

 

[Gray Pennell]

Righto didnt see that so how do I get one. For a solo game thats not a bad design at all. Though your restrict to jump 1 routes. Hmmm what about a civilan fleet tender that jumps smaller haulers across mains You pay per ton/per jump type of thing. it might even have a large passenger section for the cargo ridder crews to relax in or ohhhh cut deals while in jump.

 

[aramis]

Since I'm not all too familiar with T20, I can't particularly say yea or nay. None the less, by posting it here, people who end up using T20 might see this and say "Yup, just what I need for my campaign."

T20 ship design is CT-HG except for computers.

 

[AndreaV]

T20 ship design is CT-HG except for computers.

Not quite. There are differences in powerplant and hull as well (I had to program them in to HGS). For the hull this is just an extra set of options (fully streamlining semi-streamlined hulls and an airframe option), but the power differences are significant.

 

[BytePro]

My biggest issue is the 20ton bridge. For 1 crew? Even my usual "well the standard bridge has 5 workstations" makes little sense for ships that only need 1 or 2 crew. Oh well, that's CT

The minimum 20 dton bridge requirement in my copy of CT Bk2 states it is for all ships for 'basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for proper operation of the ship' and my Bk5, 'Every ship requires a bridge for control of the drives and electronics and for navigation'.

A lot of non-crew compartment stuff. And a need for space to access it. Plus at least one fresher.

However, to be consistent with the small craft rules, I always considered it should be a starship requirement (i.e., 100+ tons with jump drive). Thus larger insystem haulers and the like (i.e. without jump drives) would use the bridge size of the small craft. Leaving all that extra minimum tonnage to accommodate jump drive requirements.

On a tramp, can definitely see the bridge pulling double duty as a cramped/rigged crew stateroom(s) - with staterooms gutted to accommodate extra cargo...

 

[aramis]

Not quite. There are differences in powerplant and hull as well (I had to program them in to HGS). For the hull this is just an extra set of options (fully streamlining semi-streamlined hulls and an airframe option), but the power differences are significant.

There are not supposed to be differences in PP, other than the method of presentation, and the addition of TL16 and Antimatter plants... but looking at the tables, I see that the EP are essentially double that of Bk5...

 

[Dragoner]

Use a robot with pilot-4 and get rid of the stateroom altogether.

:devil:

 

[Hal]

All things considered - it looks like we're more or less paring down on the cost of the craft as well as uping its cargo carrying capacity. I noted that most people geared towards the Jump-1 Manuever-1 ship, as a strong effort to drop down the price as well as increase cargo capacity.

What I found interesting in all of this, is that GURPS TRAVELLER makes the assumption that Jump-1 ships are the least effective craft as far as cost per ton shipped. It makes the presumption that most trade routes are going to be dominated by Jump-2 craft, with a few odds and ends jump-3 craft as well. What prompted all of this from my perspective was to see if a character could engage in speculative trading per the JTAS rules, gain a sufficient amount of cash for the eventual purchase of his own "cheap" ship, and then continue to engage in speculative sales. The reason being - that the smaller ship would have a smaller monthly cost owed to the bank.

Now that we've gone the route of Jump-1 and manuever-1, what are the designs for a Jump-2 Manuever-1 ship where possible (Book2 seems to make it impossible to design a Manuever-1, Jump-1 drive, as an "A" class drive automatically grants a Jump/manuever rating of 2 regardless).

In the end? What I'd like to do is get a discussion going about the merits of:

A) A straight cargo/freight transport

Versus

B) A straight passenger transport

Versus

C) Hybrid passenger/freight transport

In the end? The hardest part of financing a ship seems to be the monthly payments do not meet the monthly revenue.

Oh, for what it is worth, the JTAS reprints containing 13 onwards, had a High Finance article regarding the issue of stock to raise money for the purchase of corporate assets. I wonder...

What would it look like to have a corporate initial stock offer where one investor (the ship's captain) would have the largest block of ownership of stocks (say, at least 20% down payment on a ship), plus the remaining 80% financed amongst stock traders, and then having to make payments only for dividends and the like.

For those interested in exploring that option using strictly CT rules (including JTAS suggested rules), may I suggest opening a new thread to explore the concept/ideas involved?

 

[warwizard]

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=25997

A T4 Design that uses a minimalist approach but uses a grappled 50 Dton cargo module (or 2X 25 Dt for the modular cutters to deliver them) with 55 Dtons of internal cargo to get a whopping half a mil profit a year, and closer to 800-900k a year if you devalue the purchase price at the TL9-A starport local currency where each CR is worth about .7 CRImp. Granted the ship is actually jumping at 150 Dtons, but the ship IS 100 Dtons main hull.

Yes it is J1 and about <1g when unloaded.

I have a second design done at TL=15 where J-6 drive is installed with 35 Dt drop tank and it delivers J-1 with a whopping 250 Dton cargo module grappling the ship. (module spends 10 Dtons to grapple the 100 Dton ship, ship would need to spend 25 Dtons to grapple the module) that design while a bit pricy nets some 4 Million Cr profit per year. To meet some rules lawyering quibbles a small power plant and m-drive and a remote control station is installed on the cargo module to make it a in-system ship and hence legal to have it grapple the starship. Unfortunatley the ship needs a crew of two.

Freighter with flexibility

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok sports fans Presenting the saturn

J-6 100 Dt 1g crew 2 TL 15 with grapple for a 35 Dt drop tank. The ship has no provision for internal jump fuel, no passengers, provision for 81
Dt of cargo
Maneuver drive is HEPLAR with 27.6 Gturns (half hr) of fuel. 4 large cargo hatches and some automated cargo handling equipment (one for standard modules, one for non modularized pallets) give an unassisted unloading rate of 5 Dt/hr (7dt/hr with additional equipment) total cargo cycle is 34 hours unassisted 22 hours with assistance/extra equipment.

HULL:
The ship's hull is a standard sphere with the minimal 20 armour coherent ultradense stressed to 4.7g's. There is no provision for streamlining or fuel scoops, fuel purifier, or antigravity drives. The hull does not have provision for landing gear.
2.6m3. 38.89mt 605m2 -.26 KW .08MCr

ENGINEERING:
Fusion Power plant -15
23m3 46mt -.16m2 159.78MW 4.6MCr
PP fuel 1 month 1.33kl
HEPLAR
7.26m3 7.26mt -7.26m2 -72.6MW .0726MCr
fuel 10m3 (13.77 Ghours if cargo averages 1mt/m3
Jump Drive
98m3 196mt -60.5m2 -151.2MW 29.4MCr
No permanent internal fuel tanks, provision for one 25dt internal demountable tank to be installed (displacing some of the cargo), used when the ship needs to perform J-6

ENVIRONMENTAL:
G=comp plates 1g
2.1m3 .042mt -1.47MW .105MCr
Class III life support (standard)
11.08m3 11.2mt -.28MW .0055MCr
Food storage
.23m3 .19mt
Staterooms 2Xhalf stateroom
56m3 4mt -.001MW .001MCr
1 minimal airlock
1m3 .06mt -1m2 .001MCr
4 large cargo doors 2m3 of handling equipment
2m3 2mt -80m2 -.03MW .08MCr

ELECTRONICS:
1 workstation 1 crewstation with holographic linked controls
21m3 .4mt .004MCr
2 flight computers CP4
.27m3 .055m3 -.24MW .022MCr
1 Maintence computer CP5 CM.2
7m3 1.4mt -6.02MW .56MCr
1 Active Scanner Sens 11
.5m3 1mt -.1m3 -.1MW .2MCr
500,000km Radio
.011m3 .022mt -105m2 -.105MW .094MCr
OTHER:
Drop tank Grapple
14.7m3 7.35mt .0074MCr
Cargo
1141m3 1141mt

PERFORMANCE:
1g loaded
4.7g's empty
Jump 6 (Jump-1 at 350dt)

COST:
35.27MCr
36.624 with design Fee
28.21MCr in quantity
Monthly payment of 1st unit
CR148,434
usual fuel costs/month Cr71,000
life support CR4000
Food and pay CR6300
Total CR228,734

INCOME:
CR162,000 (2 jumps/month)

Ahh but that's not the whole story.

The Rings:
250dt .001g, system ship
mounting a full grapple for a 100Dt sphere, a small power plant, 2 flight computers class II environmental controlls and 1G comp, a very small HEPLAR drive sends it at .009 g's loaded, .1g empty, oh yes and 236 Dt of cargo, 10 large hatches with full containerized handling system 40Dt/Hr full cargo cycle in 22 hours.

HULL:
Thin Disk 1:10 with a 13.9 meter hole in the center where the Saturn is docked. Hull is armour factor 20 stressed for .25g's made of the same materials as Saturn. The Rings has no provision for landing gear, streamlining fuel scoops, antigravity, or fuel purification.
10.09m3 151.29mt 2375m2 -.001MW .313MCr

ENGINEERING:
Fusion power
1m3 2mt -.03m2 6MW .2MCr
Heplar (mounted on edge of The Ring thrust is at rt angle to Saturn's thrust)
.163m3 .163mt -.326m2 -1.63MW .0016MCr
PP fuel .005m3
Heplar fuel 10.3m3 (631 hours, 11.59 Ghours)

ENVIRONMENTAL:
Environmental gravity 1g (for delicate cargoes)
5.25m3 .105mt -3.675MW .2625MCr
Life Support II (incendental occupancy during cargo operations)
17.4m3 17.5mt -.35MW .0052MCr
1 Airlock
1m3, .06mt -1m2 .001MCr
10 large cargo doors, each with handling equip for containerized cargo
10m3 10mt -200m2 -.15MW

ELECTRONICS:
2Xflight control computers CP4
.27m3, .055mt -.24MW .022MCr
Radio 500,000 Km range
.011m3 .022mt -105m2 -.105MW .094MCr

OTHER:
Grapple for 100Dt sphere
140m3 140mt .07MCr
236dt cargo

COST:
1.17MCr
1.18MCr with design fee
.935MCr in quantity
payment CR 4918
Fuel CR 1000

Notes: The Rings is radio controlled my either Saturn or local starport control. She does not mount any sensors, and there are no workstations for local control.

INCOME:
CR 472,000

Performance when Saturn is docked in The Rings:
J-1 .3G's 317dt cargo (drop tank 35Dt supports 1 J-1)

COSTS

CR 228,734 + 5918 = 234,652

INCOME

CR 162,000 + 472,000 = 634,000

NET

634000 -234652 =399,348

The ship can ply a high volume J-1 route between two high population worlds, then J-6 to reach it's annual maintance location then return and take up the route again with just 4 weeks off route a year.

Return on investment a nomial 4 MCr per year not counting the 40 year payoff rate. Approxi a 12% per year ROR.

Who says you can't make money with a J-6 ship. This ship can get over the gaps between mains, and skip over the dangerous or unprofitable worlds along a main