Fleet sizes

[Brandon C]

1 per 15,000 is just moronic - and I hate to say it that way, but what the hell? Not even Traveller, IMO, can you suggest that 1/15k is a rational starship number. maybe in the very heart of Core, perhaps, but certainly not the Imperium as a whole. You'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of starships flying in the skies of every high-pop world.

Most 2300 AD ships lack airframes, so there will be little sky flying.

And lots of small ships and craft are more interesting than a few large ships.

Let's bring it back to 2300AD. A Commercant-class Cargo Ship is 19.76 MLv and 200dTons. A single Ariadne Cargo Rocket is 0.75MLv, and carries 5.45dTons of Cargo.

200/5.45 is 37 Ariadne launches to loft the dTons of materials needed to build the Commercant, ignoring the need to build its orbital construction facilities, launch the crew and supplies for that crew, the cargo devils needed to facilitate movement of large materials into place, and the cost of paying all those specially-trained space constructors to do the job and housing them for the duration.

27.75MLv alone to just get the materials into orbit, followed by 19.76MLv to build the thing and furnish those components, if we're abstracting, which is in total 47.51MLv ignoring construction factors such as life support costs for a space station, crew transfer costs, and the like.

Several hundred Commercant were built, so apparently someone thought it was worth the effort. In fact, a substantial percentage of designs lack airframes and are more effectively built in space or on low gravity, vacuum worlds.

 

[McPerth]

Let's bring it back to 2300AD. A Commercant-class Cargo Ship is 19.76 MLv and 200dTons. A single Ariadne Cargo Rocket is 0.75MLv, and carries 5.45dTons of Cargo.

200/5.45 is 37 Ariadne launches to loft the dTons of materials needed to build the Commercant, ignoring the need to build its orbital construction facilities, launch the crew and supplies for that crew, the cargo devils needed to facilitate movement of large materials into place, and the cost of paying all those specially-trained space constructors to do the job and housing them for the duration.

27.75MLv alone to just get the materials into orbit, followed by 19.76MLv to build the thing and furnish those components, if we're abstracting, which is in total 47.51MLv ignoring construction factors such as life support costs for a space station, crew transfer costs, and the like.

Now obviously there are cheaper options than the Ariadne, but the simple economics of carrying foodstuffs, mass materials, and everything else to orbit is considerable in 2300. 1/15k is a ridiculous number under those circumstances.

I mean, you can probably go digging, find the generalized wages of a colony, multiply those by their population, take 20% off the top, divide the operating budget by their national needs, and then decide what kind of spacecraft they can buy.

While I agree in your principles, see that the Ariadne is a current (2018) design. If you raise those materials on something similar to the cargo shuttles shown in my design, for Mlv 15.18 you have a reusable 115 payload to orbit. Off course that is more expensive to build than an Ariadne, but once built each trip is cheaper (only its maintenance and about 80 tons of fuel, at standard prices, Lv 500/ton, based on Traveller prices, as I didn't find it in 2300AD) that's about Klv 40 per trip, so about Lv 350/ton taken to orbit, quite less than the Ariadne's lv 140000 per ton.

With those numbers, taking to orbit the materials for your 200 dton ship would cost only about Klv 70 )though this is missleading, as the amortization costs for the shuttle msut be taken into account, but this is a more long-term issue).

And sure a cheaper option could be built, if dedicated oy to interface...

And, as interface trasport is the most extensive part, using materials taking for an asterois belt (where interface is not involved) may make it less expensive...

 

[Clone95]

Even if we ignore interface and difficulty of expenditure, do remember that Tantalum is the singular most rare material in the setting, enough so that they prefer to scrap drives rather than sell ships off generally speaking.

I do agree that I'm probably overstating cost, though do recognize that for worlds without a Beanstalk, HELL system, or Mass Driver the payloads being brought up will take both time and money.

In either case I still think any more than say, 5,000 ships (20% military) is a whole helluva lot as-is.

 

[Brandon C]

Even if we ignore interface and difficulty of expenditure, do remember that Tantalum is the singular most rare material in the setting, enough so that they prefer to scrap drives rather than sell ships off generally speaking.

It's clearly not that rare, since it's used in fighters and thrown away in missiles. In MgT 2300 AD stutterwarp drives are far too cheap for Tantalum to be rare (I never owned Star Cruiser, so I have no idea of the cost there).

If ships weren't sold off, Libertines wouldn't have ships.

 

[McPerth]

Even if we ignore interface and difficulty of expenditure, do remember that Tantalum is the singular most rare material in the setting, enough so that they prefer to scrap drives rather than sell ships off generally speaking.

It's clearly not that rare, since it's used in fighters and thrown away in missiles. In MgT 2300 AD stutterwarp drives are far too cheap for Tantalum to be rare (I never owned Star Cruiser, so I have no idea of the cost there).

I agree we here have a cannon paradox. I agree with Clone95 that the canon says Tanatalum (specifically the isotope 180^m) is rare enough as for limiting the number of ships and recicling it when scrapping ships, and yet it's also canon ,as Brandon says, that it is used for missiles and fighters (though fighters are expected to be recovered).

If it was so rare, missiles would be used only as last resort, as they would be nearly irremplaceable, and usual weaponry would be beams (as power is in ample supply) and submunitions, as nukes, while not so in ample supply as power, are more so than the tantalum used on missiles.

I also agree that stutterwarp drives should be more expensive if Tantalum is so rare.

If ships weren't sold off, Libertines wouldn't have ships.

Some are sold, that is also clear in canon, but as for military ones, I guess they prefer to recycle the Tantalum than to mothball older ships.

I do agree that I'm probably overstating cost, though do recognize that for worlds without a Beanstalk, HELL system, or Mass Driver the payloads being brought up will take both time and money.

In either case I still think any more than say, 5,000 ships (20% military) is a whole helluva lot as-is.

Even those 5000 ships are quite more than the numbers we were manageing before...

I also agree, though, in your comparing of the sea travel versus space travel. Space travel is quite expensive in 2300AD setting, and only the most needed cargoes are so traded, while sea trade is quite common.

 

[Clone95]

I agree we here have a cannon paradox. I agree with Clone95 that the canon says Tanatalum (specifically the isotope 180^m) is rare enough as for limiting the number of ships and recicling it when scrapping ships, and yet it's also canon ,as Brandon says, that it is used for missiles and fighters (though fighters are expected to be recovered).

If it was so rare, missiles would be used only as last resort, as they would be nearly irremplaceable, and usual weaponry would be beams (as power is in ample supply) and submunitions, as nules, while not so in ample supply as power, are more so tan the tantalum used on missiles.

I do think there's a counterpoint to this, which is warp efficiency. Missiles and fighters both are small craft which may use commensurately less tantalum for their size.

With that in mind, the idea of using missiles isn't so ridiculous, and it's even mentioned that most missiles aren't detonation lasers. The vast majority are actually just remote fighters armed with battery lasers, or mobile submunition dispensers, both theoretically capable of being recycled if they aren't destroyed (or even if they are provided the tantalum is still intact).

 

[McPerth]

I do think there's a counterpoint to this, which is warp efficiency. Missiles and fighters both are small craft which may use commensurately less tantalum for their size.

More than Warp Efficiency, that uses to be greater for fighters than for ships, I'd say range. But then we come into a problem told about in the tugs discussion: unless the missiles drives are unassembled, they will catch charge, and so they will need the same (relative) amoun of range, or they must be carried with their drives unassembld and assembly them before launching (wich is not easy, IIRC).

With that in mind, the idea of using missiles isn't so ridiculous, and it's even mentioned that most missiles aren't detonation lasers. The vast majority are actually just remote fighters armed with battery lasers, or mobile submunition dispensers, both theoretically capable of being recycled if they aren't destroyed (or even if they are provided the tantalum is still intact).

Both kinds of missile exist in canon, but most are detonation. The only submunition dispenser I can remember is the one in SotFA, the is at once detonation and submunition dispenser. Others (as the Ritage 1), as you say, are more in the drone categorie than in the missile one, regardless their name, but I wouldn't say the vast majority. On the table given in MgT 2300AD (page 214) there appear 4 battery laser missiles and 8 detonation laser missiles.

And, of course, that does not fix the low prices for the warp drives in MgT 2300AD if Tantalum is so rare...

 

[whartung]

Kind of boils down to the lethality of the missiles.

If they're "no more" than a couple of beam shots, when it's all said and done, then, yea, likely not worth the tantalum. However, if they tend to be "one shot, one kill" (if properly employed), then they can be well worth the cost.

"Get on their six and shove one of these up their...that'll get 'em!"

 

[McPerth]

Kind of boils down to the lethality of the missiles.

If they're "no more" than a couple of beam shots, when it's all said and done, then, yea, likely not worth the tantalum. However, if they tend to be "one shot, one kill" (if properly employed), then they can be well worth the cost.

"Get on their six and shove one of these up their...that'll get 'em!"

There are both kinds.

The battery missiles (in fact fighter drones) are just as lethal as lasers.

The detonation ones may be quite lethal (dependoing on their warhead), if they reach the target without being shot, they hit and they overcome armor/screens (should the deffending ship has them) they can be a one shoot/one kill on most small ships.