LASH Tender
- Thread starter Pwyll
- Start date
can't wait to see it.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
How about:
hull 300t streamlined
bridge, model 1 comp
maneuver B (1)
powerplant B (1)
fuel 230t
crew: pilot, engineer 1 stateroom
35t unallocated
base cost 60.5 MCr
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
By the way I've realised that the tender only needs to be 400t. You would only need two tugs, also 400t, per tender (which can also carry the fuel to the jump ship), one in each system, and 3 1600t streamlined cargo pods.
I'm double checking the numbers and will post the designs soon.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I can see a revision of my design, where the cargo lighters are just cargo pods, each of 1000 tons and carrying nothing but cargo. These cargo pods are moved to and from the planet to the jump point by a tug. I'd make my tug 900 tons, with a maneuver drive big enough to move itself and four of the 1000-ton cargo pods at 1-G, and my tug would carry a fuel purification plant and 700 tons of fuel, so that it can refuel the jump tender as the cargo pods are being exchanged.
Of course, if you do this, you need to have one tug in each system, plus sufficient cargo pods (which are pretty cheap).
I still think I like the economics of my basic LASH design better. Each tender and lighter is effectively financed separately, and they all make a profit as long as everyone keeps to the schedule and the cargo bays are fairly full. You get more flexibility with the cargo lighters, too, as they can deliver the cargo by themselves, and so could deliver it in multiple locations at once, while a tug-and-pod system can only drop cargo off at one location at a time.
I have a variant of my original Book 2 LASH tender, which has a more powerful jump drive and can make jump-3 with one cargo lighter attached, or jump-2 with two lighters. However, it's more cramped and the lighter crews would have to live on their lighters (at two men to a stateroom), or be taken off prior to jump. I think this variant would be a subsidized merchant, as it's greater jump capacity makes it better suited to supporting military operations.
Any decent-sized LASH tender is automatically a small battle tender, don't forget. My LASH design could easily mount a "jump cradle" that could carry two 400-ton SDBs in place of a single cargo lighter. Such capability would be quite tempting to planetary navies.
Of course, if you do this, you need to have one tug in each system, plus sufficient cargo pods (which are pretty cheap).
I still think I like the economics of my basic LASH design better. Each tender and lighter is effectively financed separately, and they all make a profit as long as everyone keeps to the schedule and the cargo bays are fairly full. You get more flexibility with the cargo lighters, too, as they can deliver the cargo by themselves, and so could deliver it in multiple locations at once, while a tug-and-pod system can only drop cargo off at one location at a time.
I have a variant of my original Book 2 LASH tender, which has a more powerful jump drive and can make jump-3 with one cargo lighter attached, or jump-2 with two lighters. However, it's more cramped and the lighter crews would have to live on their lighters (at two men to a stateroom), or be taken off prior to jump. I think this variant would be a subsidized merchant, as it's greater jump capacity makes it better suited to supporting military operations.
Any decent-sized LASH tender is automatically a small battle tender, don't forget. My LASH design could easily mount a "jump cradle" that could carry two 400-ton SDBs in place of a single cargo lighter. Such capability would be quite tempting to planetary navies.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Here's the first of a couple of designs that I think are economically viable.
TL 11 Jump Tractor
hull 400t custom unstreamlined, 4 hardpoints
bridge, model 4 computer
drives: j J(4), m B(1), pp J(4)
6 crew, 6 staterooms
200t fuel
329t total
Base cost 221.4 MCr
<edit> this could just as easily carry 2x 800t lighters etc <edit>
TL 11 Pod Tug
hull 400t standard streamlined
bridge, model 1 computer
drives: m J(4), pp J(4)
3 crew, 1 stateroom
240t fuel
310t total
Base cost 132.5 MCr
1600t cargo pod, streamlined base cost 176 MCr
Economics
The following ships are required for trade between two worlds:
1x jump tractor, 199.26
2x pod tug, 238.5
3x cargo pod, 475.2
total 912.96 MCr, inc bulk discount
monthly costs
ship purchace, 3.804 MCr
maintainance, 0.076 MCr
life support, 0.048 MCr
wages, 0.045 MCr
powerplant fuel, 0.012 MCr
jumpfuel, 0.057 MCr
total costs= 4.042 MCr
income 1.6 MCr/jump, assuming 43 jumps per year
monthly income= 5.73 MCr
profit= 1.688 MCr per month
I have assumed 1 jump every 8 days and that the merchant line has invested in a couple of planet based fuel purifiers, hence I have used unrefined fuel costs.
TL 11 Jump Tractor
hull 400t custom unstreamlined, 4 hardpoints
bridge, model 4 computer
drives: j J(4), m B(1), pp J(4)
6 crew, 6 staterooms
200t fuel
329t total
Base cost 221.4 MCr
<edit> this could just as easily carry 2x 800t lighters etc <edit>
TL 11 Pod Tug
hull 400t standard streamlined
bridge, model 1 computer
drives: m J(4), pp J(4)
3 crew, 1 stateroom
240t fuel
310t total
Base cost 132.5 MCr
1600t cargo pod, streamlined base cost 176 MCr
Economics
The following ships are required for trade between two worlds:
1x jump tractor, 199.26
2x pod tug, 238.5
3x cargo pod, 475.2
total 912.96 MCr, inc bulk discount
monthly costs
ship purchace, 3.804 MCr
maintainance, 0.076 MCr
life support, 0.048 MCr
wages, 0.045 MCr
powerplant fuel, 0.012 MCr
jumpfuel, 0.057 MCr
total costs= 4.042 MCr
income 1.6 MCr/jump, assuming 43 jumps per year
monthly income= 5.73 MCr
profit= 1.688 MCr per month
I have assumed 1 jump every 8 days and that the merchant line has invested in a couple of planet based fuel purifiers, hence I have used unrefined fuel costs.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Thanks for the praise
.
I like the fact that 1600t is just right for carrying 4 400t SDBs into combat, but more about that with the next one. It does away with the tugs but keeps the cargo pod idea.
Coming soon.
I like the fact that 1600t is just right for carrying 4 400t SDBs into combat, but more about that with the next one. It does away with the tugs but keeps the cargo pod idea.
Coming soon.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
This is the design that I really like. I have noticed that lighters and tugs cost money so the obvious thing to do is get rid of them 
.
TL 11 Pod Long Hauler
hull 400t custom, streamlined, 4 hardpoints
bridge, model 4 computer
drives: j J(4), m J(4), pp J(4)
6 crew, 6 staterooms
200t fuel
343t total
Base cost 277.4 MCr
1600t cargo pod, streamlined base cost 176 MCr
Economics
The following ships are required for trade between two worlds:
1x Pod Long Hauler, 249.66
3x cargo pod, 475.2
total 724.86 MCr, inc bulk discount
monthly costs
ship purchace, 3.02 MCr
maintainance, 0.06 MCr
life support, 0.024 MCr
wages, 0.025 MCr, but see below
powerplant fuel, 0.004 MCr
jumpfuel, 0.033-0.057 MCr, depending on number of jumps per year
total costs= 3.166-3.190 MCr
income 1.6 MCr/jump, assuming 25-43 jumps per year
monthly income= 3.33-5.73 MCr
profit= 0.164-2.54 MCr per month
As you can see, this ship can turn a slight profit jumping twice a month. The purpose of the cargo pods is to reduce turnaround time. The highest profit figures assume 8 days per jump.
One idea that struck me to make this run more smoothly would be to have more than one crew. Two extra crews would only add 0.05 MCr to the monthly costs but it would allow the planet-bound crews to enjoy some R&R in order to maintain such a punishing schedule.
Now what about pressing them into military service? Notice that unladen this is capable of 4G. Plus the 4 hardpoints, a few extra staterooms for gunners and a makeshift 40t fuel tank and this ship could jump into a battlezone with 4 SDBs and fend for itself long enough to refuel or jump away 1 parsec.
.TL 11 Pod Long Hauler
hull 400t custom, streamlined, 4 hardpoints
bridge, model 4 computer
drives: j J(4), m J(4), pp J(4)
6 crew, 6 staterooms
200t fuel
343t total
Base cost 277.4 MCr
1600t cargo pod, streamlined base cost 176 MCr
Economics
The following ships are required for trade between two worlds:
1x Pod Long Hauler, 249.66
3x cargo pod, 475.2
total 724.86 MCr, inc bulk discount
monthly costs
ship purchace, 3.02 MCr
maintainance, 0.06 MCr
life support, 0.024 MCr
wages, 0.025 MCr, but see below
powerplant fuel, 0.004 MCr
jumpfuel, 0.033-0.057 MCr, depending on number of jumps per year
total costs= 3.166-3.190 MCr
income 1.6 MCr/jump, assuming 25-43 jumps per year
monthly income= 3.33-5.73 MCr
profit= 0.164-2.54 MCr per month
As you can see, this ship can turn a slight profit jumping twice a month. The purpose of the cargo pods is to reduce turnaround time. The highest profit figures assume 8 days per jump.
One idea that struck me to make this run more smoothly would be to have more than one crew. Two extra crews would only add 0.05 MCr to the monthly costs but it would allow the planet-bound crews to enjoy some R&R in order to maintain such a punishing schedule.
Now what about pressing them into military service? Notice that unladen this is capable of 4G. Plus the 4 hardpoints, a few extra staterooms for gunners and a makeshift 40t fuel tank and this ship could jump into a battlezone with 4 SDBs and fend for itself long enough to refuel or jump away 1 parsec.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I like this design, Sigg. You could think of the three crews as being assigned to the cargo pods, not the tractor vessel. Each crew only has to make a jump about every other week, but the tractor ship is almost constantly in jumpspace. It's only in normal space long enough to get to the planet, exchange pods and crews, refuel, and then head out to jump again, doing pre/post jump inspection and maintenance on the way to/from the planet. Total normal-space time could be as short as one day, certainly no more than two or three, depending on navigation, jump masking, etc.
I'll have to redo my 5000-ton design to this scheme and see how it works.
I'll have to redo my 5000-ton design to this scheme and see how it works.
this is my smallest true LASH design.
i envision relief crews at every port so that every crew gets a few days in port in between jumps. indeed, the crew of the support ship IS the relief crew for the jump ship, and vice versa. each port needs at least on support ship.
with this plan, approach time ought to be cut (i haven't the math, so i'll assume %50)
our schedules looks like this:
3 hours approach time
15 hours for drive inspections, refueling, and payload transfers.
1 hour to recharge the jump drive
turnaround time becomes ~19 hours. no customs inspections for the jump ship.
=======================================
true LASH, jump-1, 1000 tons full displacement
=======================================
jump ship
200 ton, Streamlined
12 months, TL 10
MCr 130.1 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 3 engineers, 1 medic, 2 gunners
Drives: jdrive-E, mdrive-A, pplant-E. 1g manuever, 5 parsec jump. enhanced diagnostic system (5 tons, .5 MCr)
Bridge: model/2 computer, 2 hardpoints, 2 single turrets (missile and sand). allows up to jump-2.
Fuel: 50 tons (0 parsec range, 28 days endurance)
Life Support: 8 staterooms
Payload: 43 tons cargo. 1 800 ton, or up to 4 200 ton lighters
Special: this ship accomodates an additional engineer to assist in maintenance, repairs, and drive inspections to help compensate for the nearly continual use the the j-drive.
this ship does not carry its own jump fuel. its support ship acts as a drop tank to supply jump fuel.
performance specs:
up to 200 tons in lighters, jump-2, burns 80 tons fuel from support ship
up to 200 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 40 tons fuel from support ship
up to 400 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 60 tons fuel from support ship
up to 600 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 80 tons fuel from support ship
up to 800 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 100 tons fuel from support ship
cargo space is for small freight like mail and diplomatic pouches. small craft are chartered as needed for off-loading.
=======================================
support ship
200 ton, Streamlined
11 months, TL 9
MCr 26.686 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 engineer, 1 gunner
Drives: mdrive-A, pplant-A. 1g manuever. 10 tons wasted.
Bridge: 2 hardpoints, 1 ton reserved for fire control, 1 single turret (missile)
Fuel: 125 tons, refinery (8 tons, .036 MCr)
Life Support: 4 staterooms (double occupancy with relief crew)
Payload: 9 tons cargo
Special: repair shop (5 tons, .5 MCr)
may be carried as a lighter. carries jump fuel, relief crew, and small freight like mail and diplomatic pouches.
life support consumables for the jump ships are generally tucked into some of the wasted space in the engine compartment.
=======================================
small lighter
200 ton, Streamlined
11 months, TL 9
MCr 24.7 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 engineer, 1 medic
Drives: mdrive-A, pplant-A. 1g manuever. 10 tons wasted.
Bridge: 1 hardpoint, 1 ton reserved for fire control
Fuel: 10 tons (28 days endurance)
Life Support: 3 staterooms
Payload: 141 tons cargo
payload/MCr: ~5.71
medium lighter
800 ton, Streamlined
28 months, TL 9
MCr 141.9 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 engineer, 1 medic
Drives: mdrive-D, pplant-D. 1g manuever.
Bridge: 4 hardpoints, 4 tons reserved for fire control
Fuel: 10 tons (28 days endurance)
Life Support: 3 staterooms
Payload: 734 tons cargo
payload/MCr: ~5.17
medium lighter costs more than the jump ship, and payload ratio is worse than the small lighter.
i envision relief crews at every port so that every crew gets a few days in port in between jumps. indeed, the crew of the support ship IS the relief crew for the jump ship, and vice versa. each port needs at least on support ship.
with this plan, approach time ought to be cut (i haven't the math, so i'll assume %50)
our schedules looks like this:
3 hours approach time
15 hours for drive inspections, refueling, and payload transfers.
1 hour to recharge the jump drive
turnaround time becomes ~19 hours. no customs inspections for the jump ship.
=======================================
true LASH, jump-1, 1000 tons full displacement
=======================================
jump ship
200 ton, Streamlined
12 months, TL 10
MCr 130.1 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 navigator, 3 engineers, 1 medic, 2 gunners
Drives: jdrive-E, mdrive-A, pplant-E. 1g manuever, 5 parsec jump. enhanced diagnostic system (5 tons, .5 MCr)
Bridge: model/2 computer, 2 hardpoints, 2 single turrets (missile and sand). allows up to jump-2.
Fuel: 50 tons (0 parsec range, 28 days endurance)
Life Support: 8 staterooms
Payload: 43 tons cargo. 1 800 ton, or up to 4 200 ton lighters
Special: this ship accomodates an additional engineer to assist in maintenance, repairs, and drive inspections to help compensate for the nearly continual use the the j-drive.
this ship does not carry its own jump fuel. its support ship acts as a drop tank to supply jump fuel.
performance specs:
up to 200 tons in lighters, jump-2, burns 80 tons fuel from support ship
up to 200 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 40 tons fuel from support ship
up to 400 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 60 tons fuel from support ship
up to 600 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 80 tons fuel from support ship
up to 800 tons in lighters, jump-1, burns 100 tons fuel from support ship
cargo space is for small freight like mail and diplomatic pouches. small craft are chartered as needed for off-loading.
=======================================
support ship
200 ton, Streamlined
11 months, TL 9
MCr 26.686 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 engineer, 1 gunner
Drives: mdrive-A, pplant-A. 1g manuever. 10 tons wasted.
Bridge: 2 hardpoints, 1 ton reserved for fire control, 1 single turret (missile)
Fuel: 125 tons, refinery (8 tons, .036 MCr)
Life Support: 4 staterooms (double occupancy with relief crew)
Payload: 9 tons cargo
Special: repair shop (5 tons, .5 MCr)
may be carried as a lighter. carries jump fuel, relief crew, and small freight like mail and diplomatic pouches.
life support consumables for the jump ships are generally tucked into some of the wasted space in the engine compartment.
=======================================
small lighter
200 ton, Streamlined
11 months, TL 9
MCr 24.7 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 engineer, 1 medic
Drives: mdrive-A, pplant-A. 1g manuever. 10 tons wasted.
Bridge: 1 hardpoint, 1 ton reserved for fire control
Fuel: 10 tons (28 days endurance)
Life Support: 3 staterooms
Payload: 141 tons cargo
payload/MCr: ~5.71
medium lighter
800 ton, Streamlined
28 months, TL 9
MCr 141.9 (full price)
Crew: 1 pilot, 1 engineer, 1 medic
Drives: mdrive-D, pplant-D. 1g manuever.
Bridge: 4 hardpoints, 4 tons reserved for fire control
Fuel: 10 tons (28 days endurance)
Life Support: 3 staterooms
Payload: 734 tons cargo
payload/MCr: ~5.17
medium lighter costs more than the jump ship, and payload ratio is worse than the small lighter.
The Oz wrote:
"I like this design, Sigg."
Mr. Oz,
I do too. In fact all the designs in this thread have been delightful, thought-provoking, and chock-a-block full of crunchy Traveller goodness.
"It's only in normal space long enough to get to the planet,..."
This is where you lose me. Why should the tender go anywhere near the planet at all? You keep writing about the tender travelling 'in', making orbit, refueling there, travelling back 'out', and so on. That is an utter waste of time. Why should the tender make that trip at all? Think of the LASH jump tender as a huge x-boat; it doesn't go to the planet, the planet 'comes' to it!
Somewhere beyond the 100D limit, in an area where jump masking worries don't exist, is the LASH Operations Area. Thanks to jump drive's physcial accuracy; 3000km per parsec jumped, the area isn't that large. Thanks to jump drive's temporal accuracy; +/- 33.6 hours, the people waiting there need only be present for ~48 hours or so. Waiting for the LASH jump tender to arrive is a tanker, work crews, various in-system frieght haulers, cargo lighters, cargo handling 'devils', replacement crew members, and a few others.
When the LASH tender does arrive, all the waiting in-system vessels descend on it. The tanker and her crew begin refuelling ops, freight handlers remove the cargo containers meant for this system and attach others in their place, replacement crew swaps are made, while work crews help the LASH crew make system checks, handle repairs, and restock any life support requirements.
In-system freight haulers thrust away with their cargo, some heading for the mainworld and others heading for other destinations. Any powered cargo lighters thrust away on their own. The tanker tops off the LASH tender's tanks, the various repair and resupply issues have been tackled, crewmen due time off have been replaced, the new navigation plot worked out, and the LASH tender jumps away.
Total time? Maybe one work shift; eight hours or so, maybe even faster. No time or gees wasted travelling to the mainworld. Everything the LASH tender needed was waiting for it. Freight and personnel were swapped out, fuel pumped aboard, and the ship is on its way. What's more, all those in-system assets can now await the next LASH jump tender.
Why have the tender travel to the mainworld at all?
Sincerely,
Larsen
"I like this design, Sigg."
Mr. Oz,
I do too. In fact all the designs in this thread have been delightful, thought-provoking, and chock-a-block full of crunchy Traveller goodness.
"It's only in normal space long enough to get to the planet,..."
This is where you lose me. Why should the tender go anywhere near the planet at all? You keep writing about the tender travelling 'in', making orbit, refueling there, travelling back 'out', and so on. That is an utter waste of time. Why should the tender make that trip at all? Think of the LASH jump tender as a huge x-boat; it doesn't go to the planet, the planet 'comes' to it!
Somewhere beyond the 100D limit, in an area where jump masking worries don't exist, is the LASH Operations Area. Thanks to jump drive's physcial accuracy; 3000km per parsec jumped, the area isn't that large. Thanks to jump drive's temporal accuracy; +/- 33.6 hours, the people waiting there need only be present for ~48 hours or so. Waiting for the LASH jump tender to arrive is a tanker, work crews, various in-system frieght haulers, cargo lighters, cargo handling 'devils', replacement crew members, and a few others.
When the LASH tender does arrive, all the waiting in-system vessels descend on it. The tanker and her crew begin refuelling ops, freight handlers remove the cargo containers meant for this system and attach others in their place, replacement crew swaps are made, while work crews help the LASH crew make system checks, handle repairs, and restock any life support requirements.
In-system freight haulers thrust away with their cargo, some heading for the mainworld and others heading for other destinations. Any powered cargo lighters thrust away on their own. The tanker tops off the LASH tender's tanks, the various repair and resupply issues have been tackled, crewmen due time off have been replaced, the new navigation plot worked out, and the LASH tender jumps away.
Total time? Maybe one work shift; eight hours or so, maybe even faster. No time or gees wasted travelling to the mainworld. Everything the LASH tender needed was waiting for it. Freight and personnel were swapped out, fuel pumped aboard, and the ship is on its way. What's more, all those in-system assets can now await the next LASH jump tender.
Why have the tender travel to the mainworld at all?
Sincerely,
Larsen
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Larsen,
If I understand Sigg's design correctly, the idea is to reduce overall cost of the transport system by not spending money on tugs to move the cargo pods (which have no maneuver drives, bridges or powerplants, just cargo) to/from the destinations, or by spending money (and cargo tonnage) on self-propelled lighters.
He's buying only one jump drive, one powerplant, and one maneuver drive to move three cargo pods worth of payload.
With my design, which I think is a more standard LASH design (with four self-propelled cargo lighters per LASH ship) my jump tender can stay out at the 100D limit as you say, but I have to buy a bridge, computer, maneuver drive and powerplant for every lighter. And to get maximum use out of that jump tender, I have to buy three sets of lighters for every jump tender. That's twelve bridges, computers, powerplants and maneuver drives for every jump tender. Plus twelve lighter crews.
His design really reduces the cost of the entire system. A regular LASH design (like the one you describe) can come even closer to the minimum turnaround, but the whole system costs more. You either need self-propelled lighters, or you need tugs to move your cargo pods, or you need to pay someone to move your pods for you.
Now, a regular LASH design (or a tender/pod/tug system) would work better in a TU with lots of jump masking. If the travel time from/to the 100D limit is very long, it would make more sense to have the cargo delivered to the LASH ship out at the 100D limit, rather than requiring it to go and fetch the cargo itself.
If I understand Sigg's design correctly, the idea is to reduce overall cost of the transport system by not spending money on tugs to move the cargo pods (which have no maneuver drives, bridges or powerplants, just cargo) to/from the destinations, or by spending money (and cargo tonnage) on self-propelled lighters.
He's buying only one jump drive, one powerplant, and one maneuver drive to move three cargo pods worth of payload.
With my design, which I think is a more standard LASH design (with four self-propelled cargo lighters per LASH ship) my jump tender can stay out at the 100D limit as you say, but I have to buy a bridge, computer, maneuver drive and powerplant for every lighter. And to get maximum use out of that jump tender, I have to buy three sets of lighters for every jump tender. That's twelve bridges, computers, powerplants and maneuver drives for every jump tender. Plus twelve lighter crews.
His design really reduces the cost of the entire system. A regular LASH design (like the one you describe) can come even closer to the minimum turnaround, but the whole system costs more. You either need self-propelled lighters, or you need tugs to move your cargo pods, or you need to pay someone to move your pods for you.
Now, a regular LASH design (or a tender/pod/tug system) would work better in a TU with lots of jump masking. If the travel time from/to the 100D limit is very long, it would make more sense to have the cargo delivered to the LASH ship out at the 100D limit, rather than requiring it to go and fetch the cargo itself.
The Oz explained:
"If I understand Sigg's design correctly, the idea is to reduce overall cost of the transport system by not spending money on tugs to move the cargo pods (which have no maneuver drives, bridges or powerplants, just cargo) to/from the destinations, or by spending money (and cargo tonnage) on self-propelled lighters."
Mr. Oz,
If that is the case (and it most certainly seems to be it) then I have missed the entire purpose of this thread. I assumed (a shocking habit) that, because the term 'LASH' was being used, the idea was to speed up a freighter's turn around time. I did not realize the object was to make a cheap freighter.
"He's buying only one jump drive, one powerplant, and one maneuver drive to move three cargo pods worth of payload."
Plenty of OTU freighter designs for that then; i.e. All Of Them. OTU freight is almost entirely containerized and has been described that way since CT's TTA. The 'March Harrier' diagrams in that product even show shipping containers. Their size and capacity are discussed too.
The biggest single expense involved in constructing a FTL frieghter in Traveller is the jump drive. Anytime that jump drive isn't working in jump space, it isn't doing the job it was bought for. The idea behind LASH freighters is to maximize the time vessels spend in jump. The way to do that is to separate as many normal space functions from the vessel with the jump drive, normal space functions like delivering cargo to destinations within the 100D limit or travelling through normal space to fuel sources. Delivering six, 100dTon cargo 'pods' to a mainworld orbit is no different than sixty, 10dTon cargo 'containers'; your freighter still had to make the trip.
"With my design, which I think is a more standard LASH design (with four self-propelled cargo lighters per LASH ship) my jump tender can stay out at the 100D limit as you say, but I have to buy a bridge, computer, maneuver drive and powerplant for every lighter."
Why? On current day Earth, container vessels and LASH vessels don't own every container and lighter they carry. They are paid to deliver them, all the containers and lighters belong to someone else - usually many someone elses.
"And to get maximum use out of that jump tender, I have to buy three sets of lighters for every jump tender. That's twelve bridges, computers, powerplants and maneuver drives for every jump tender. Plus twelve lighter crews."
And all are utterly unnecessary. Your tenders do not need to own the containers and lighters they haul. All they need to do is offer the FTL service between two worlds and the owners of the containers and lighters will avail themsleves of it.
"His design really reduces the cost of the entire system."
Only if you insist on owning every container and lighter you carry, something that does not occur in the Real World at all.
"A regular LASH design (like the one you describe) can come even closer to the minimum turnaround, but the whole system costs more."
You aren't paying for the whole system anymore than a current day freight line pays for an entire container port.
"You either need self-propelled lighters, or you need tugs to move your cargo pods, or you need to pay someone to move your pods for you."
No, you do not. The container belongs to someone else and, once it is delivered to the system, they or their agents are responsible for getting it where it needs to go. Do you think Lykes Lines worries about trucking the container they landed in Bayonne, NJ to Altoona, PA?
The same holds true for lighters. The lighter and its crew belong to someone else. All you are doing is charging them for a FTL hop through jump space. For the price of a shuttle and the haulage fees, a small trading firm can count on 95dTons of regular, FTL shipments without purchasing a jump ship and worrying about the intendent costs.
"If the travel time from/to the 100D limit is very long, it would make more sense to have the cargo delivered to the LASH ship out at the 100D limit, rather than requiring it to go and fetch the cargo itself."
If we are talking about actual LASH freighter designs, it would always make sense to deliver cargo out beyond the 100D limit to the LASH vessel's op area. If we are talking about freighters that simply haul large, odd sized cargo pods; i.e not LASH freighters, then all bets are off.
I can only guess that I've misconstrued this thread from the beginning.
Sincerely,
Larsen
"If I understand Sigg's design correctly, the idea is to reduce overall cost of the transport system by not spending money on tugs to move the cargo pods (which have no maneuver drives, bridges or powerplants, just cargo) to/from the destinations, or by spending money (and cargo tonnage) on self-propelled lighters."
Mr. Oz,
If that is the case (and it most certainly seems to be it) then I have missed the entire purpose of this thread. I assumed (a shocking habit) that, because the term 'LASH' was being used, the idea was to speed up a freighter's turn around time. I did not realize the object was to make a cheap freighter.
"He's buying only one jump drive, one powerplant, and one maneuver drive to move three cargo pods worth of payload."
Plenty of OTU freighter designs for that then; i.e. All Of Them. OTU freight is almost entirely containerized and has been described that way since CT's TTA. The 'March Harrier' diagrams in that product even show shipping containers. Their size and capacity are discussed too.
The biggest single expense involved in constructing a FTL frieghter in Traveller is the jump drive. Anytime that jump drive isn't working in jump space, it isn't doing the job it was bought for. The idea behind LASH freighters is to maximize the time vessels spend in jump. The way to do that is to separate as many normal space functions from the vessel with the jump drive, normal space functions like delivering cargo to destinations within the 100D limit or travelling through normal space to fuel sources. Delivering six, 100dTon cargo 'pods' to a mainworld orbit is no different than sixty, 10dTon cargo 'containers'; your freighter still had to make the trip.
"With my design, which I think is a more standard LASH design (with four self-propelled cargo lighters per LASH ship) my jump tender can stay out at the 100D limit as you say, but I have to buy a bridge, computer, maneuver drive and powerplant for every lighter."
Why? On current day Earth, container vessels and LASH vessels don't own every container and lighter they carry. They are paid to deliver them, all the containers and lighters belong to someone else - usually many someone elses.
"And to get maximum use out of that jump tender, I have to buy three sets of lighters for every jump tender. That's twelve bridges, computers, powerplants and maneuver drives for every jump tender. Plus twelve lighter crews."
And all are utterly unnecessary. Your tenders do not need to own the containers and lighters they haul. All they need to do is offer the FTL service between two worlds and the owners of the containers and lighters will avail themsleves of it.
"His design really reduces the cost of the entire system."
Only if you insist on owning every container and lighter you carry, something that does not occur in the Real World at all.
"A regular LASH design (like the one you describe) can come even closer to the minimum turnaround, but the whole system costs more."
You aren't paying for the whole system anymore than a current day freight line pays for an entire container port.
"You either need self-propelled lighters, or you need tugs to move your cargo pods, or you need to pay someone to move your pods for you."
No, you do not. The container belongs to someone else and, once it is delivered to the system, they or their agents are responsible for getting it where it needs to go. Do you think Lykes Lines worries about trucking the container they landed in Bayonne, NJ to Altoona, PA?
The same holds true for lighters. The lighter and its crew belong to someone else. All you are doing is charging them for a FTL hop through jump space. For the price of a shuttle and the haulage fees, a small trading firm can count on 95dTons of regular, FTL shipments without purchasing a jump ship and worrying about the intendent costs.
"If the travel time from/to the 100D limit is very long, it would make more sense to have the cargo delivered to the LASH ship out at the 100D limit, rather than requiring it to go and fetch the cargo itself."
If we are talking about actual LASH freighter designs, it would always make sense to deliver cargo out beyond the 100D limit to the LASH vessel's op area. If we are talking about freighters that simply haul large, odd sized cargo pods; i.e not LASH freighters, then all bets are off.
I can only guess that I've misconstrued this thread from the beginning.
Sincerely,
Larsen
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
Larsen,
I don't think you've misconstrued this thread, I think this thread split into two (or more) different sub-threads. Some of us talked about true LASH ships, while others started working on how to get the lowest cost-per-ton for cargo.
I'm not sure how we got the idea of paying for the entire system. I did say that my LASH lighters might not be owned by the entity paying for the LASH ships but we seemed to be checking the whole system for profitability.
Ah, well. I still think there's plenty of good stuff here to mine for one's TU; either LASH designs or the cargo pod systems.
I don't think you've misconstrued this thread, I think this thread split into two (or more) different sub-threads. Some of us talked about true LASH ships, while others started working on how to get the lowest cost-per-ton for cargo.
I'm not sure how we got the idea of paying for the entire system. I did say that my LASH lighters might not be owned by the entity paying for the LASH ships but we seemed to be checking the whole system for profitability.
Ah, well. I still think there's plenty of good stuff here to mine for one's TU; either LASH designs or the cargo pod systems.
The Oz wrote:
"I don't think you've misconstrued this thread, I think this thread split into two (or more) different sub-threads."
Mr. Oz,
I've had a severe case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion over the last month or so. I've misunderstood, misconstrued, assumed, goofed, gaffed, and plain old 'effed-up' dozens of things both professionally and personally. At best just dust in the old synapses and at worst early on-set Alzheimer's, I'm guessing.
"Ah, well. I still think there's plenty of good stuff here to mine for one's TU; either LASH designs or the cargo pod systems."
You can post that again! Plenty of great Traveller crunchiness to go around!
Sincerely,
Larsen
"I don't think you've misconstrued this thread, I think this thread split into two (or more) different sub-threads."
Mr. Oz,
I've had a severe case of Rectal-Cranial Inversion over the last month or so. I've misunderstood, misconstrued, assumed, goofed, gaffed, and plain old 'effed-up' dozens of things both professionally and personally. At best just dust in the old synapses and at worst early on-set Alzheimer's, I'm guessing.
"Ah, well. I still think there's plenty of good stuff here to mine for one's TU; either LASH designs or the cargo pod systems."
You can post that again! Plenty of great Traveller crunchiness to go around!
Sincerely,
Larsen
Similar threads
