Screams smuggling compartment to me.Ironically, a 50 ton engineering section is a PERFECT FIT ... for 2 sets of B/B/B drives (main+backup) ... all of which will yield code: 1/1/1 in a 400 ton form factor.
Pointless to do that ... but still, a perfect fit ... because B/B/B drives add up to 25 tons for a single set of them.
Of course, now that I've said that, the only thing I can think of is "read 'em and weep" for how dumb that is ...
LBB 3 Tech level
- Thread starter spank
- Start date
Except it's standardized. Everyone will know to look there!
I'm having a lazy day today,
So I sat down and knocked out a 400 ton and 600 ton trader,
400 Ton Fat Trader.
94.9 MCr
Drives B/B/B, Jump 1 & 1G acceleration.
50 Tons fuel
Computer 1
13 Staterooms
8 Low Berths
5 Crew
248 Tons of Cargo
600 Ton Extra Fat Trader.
135.9 MCr
Drives C/C/C, Jump 1 & 1G acceleration.
70 Tons fuel
Computer 1
13 Staterooms
8 Low Berths
5 Crew
419 Tons of Cargo
The 400 tom model is 62% cargo, vs 69% for the 600 Ton model and
Compare with 41% for the Free Trader.
The payment for the 400 Ton shop is ~395,000 plus crew salary, plus crew life support, plus 2x fuel, plus 1/12 of the annual maintenance is ~453,000 vs a cargo only revenue of 490,000. So you have to run 91% full to be profitable. Or 80% full if you can pull 4 middle passages and 4 low passages.
The payment for the 600 Ton shop is ~566,000 plus crew salary, plus crew life support, plus 2x fuel, plus 1/12 of the annual maintenance is ~632,000 vs a cargo only revenue of Up to 838,000.
I say up to because I think it will be hard to pull 419 Tons of freight reliably. But 75% full to be profitable on freight only, Pulling 4 middle passages and 4 low passages. Only lowers this by 4% more.
In both cases you could be profitable on freight only, but I think it would be harder with the 600 tonner, because you need a lot more freight, so you may have to stick to higher POP worlds.
400 tons may actually be the butter zone for POP 5+ trader routes, IE non low pop trade routes.
So I sat down and knocked out a 400 ton and 600 ton trader,
400 Ton Fat Trader.
94.9 MCr
Drives B/B/B, Jump 1 & 1G acceleration.
50 Tons fuel
Computer 1
13 Staterooms
8 Low Berths
5 Crew
248 Tons of Cargo
600 Ton Extra Fat Trader.
135.9 MCr
Drives C/C/C, Jump 1 & 1G acceleration.
70 Tons fuel
Computer 1
13 Staterooms
8 Low Berths
5 Crew
419 Tons of Cargo
The 400 tom model is 62% cargo, vs 69% for the 600 Ton model and
Compare with 41% for the Free Trader.
The payment for the 400 Ton shop is ~395,000 plus crew salary, plus crew life support, plus 2x fuel, plus 1/12 of the annual maintenance is ~453,000 vs a cargo only revenue of 490,000. So you have to run 91% full to be profitable. Or 80% full if you can pull 4 middle passages and 4 low passages.
The payment for the 600 Ton shop is ~566,000 plus crew salary, plus crew life support, plus 2x fuel, plus 1/12 of the annual maintenance is ~632,000 vs a cargo only revenue of Up to 838,000.
I say up to because I think it will be hard to pull 419 Tons of freight reliably. But 75% full to be profitable on freight only, Pulling 4 middle passages and 4 low passages. Only lowers this by 4% more.
In both cases you could be profitable on freight only, but I think it would be harder with the 600 tonner, because you need a lot more freight, so you may have to stick to higher POP worlds.
400 tons may actually be the butter zone for POP 5+ trader routes, IE non low pop trade routes.
Of course which is why you build an extra bulkhead compartment wall that looks like the regular wall but gives half a meter of sneak space.
Show em what they expect, and they won’t get far.
Pfft it’s like you’ve never smuggled before!
And the fairings covering all the pipework from the fuel scoop inlets to the compressors and pumps is just a bit 'fatter' than it needs to be, and the pumps are mounted just a little further out from the bulkheads than is strictly necessary. And one of the pumps doesn't work because while it's all hooked up and everything, it's actually just the outer casing, and it has no guts.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Just because you have a 400t cargo hold that doesn't mean you can fill it. 
What is the average cargo and passenger availability on the worlds you subsidise? Are you bound to the numbers generated by the free trader mini-game or as an NPC ship can you always assume full?
If bound by the mini-game numbers do you build a ship to run half empty or do you turn away passengers and freight and nearly always run full?
What is the average cargo and passenger availability on the worlds you subsidise? Are you bound to the numbers generated by the free trader mini-game or as an NPC ship can you always assume full?
If bound by the mini-game numbers do you build a ship to run half empty or do you turn away passengers and freight and nearly always run full?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Both starship designs can be TL=9 ... so if you spend 9 tons of cargo capacity in exchange for a TL=9 fuel purification plant, you won't need to buy starport fuel if you can wilderness refuel from oceans and gas giants.
400 tons J1 fuel requirement = 40 tons * 2 jumps per month * Cr500 refined fuel = Cr40,000 fuel cost reduced to Cr0
600 tons J1 fuel requirement = 60 tons * 2 jumps per month * Cr500 refined fuel = Cr60,000 fuel cost reduced to Cr0
A TL=9 fuel purification plant costs Cr38,000 at 100% construction cost for 9 tons.
In other words, after 2 jumps (!) the fuel purification plant will have "paid for itself" and will continue to add profit margin to the bottom line for the lifetime of the craft.
And this is where regenerative biome life support laboratories can help (ironically enough) to mitigate the overhead costs of stateroom life support for passengers and crew (by reducing Cr2000 per person every 2 weeks down to Cr0 per person every 2 weeks). This shifts the expense from the operational overhead (life support) line item into the annual overhaul maintenance line item.Just because you have a 400t cargo hold that doesn't mean you can fill it.
Type V-c regenerative biome life support will cost 2 tons per person for life support, which is the equivalent to 2 tons of cargo tickets (non-charter) which then do not need to be scrounged up from every starport you do business with. So if you've got 13 single occupancy staterooms (crew+passengers) you can just dedicate 26 tons to Type V-c regenerative biome life support along with a slightly higher crew manning requirement (steward and medical) in order to "shell game shift" the expenses of stateroom life support into a different column of the operational overhead expenses spreadsheet.
The net effect is that operational expenses go down and the "need" for tickets to pay for those operational expenses also goes down as the cargo tonnage available goes down. You ultimately wind up with lower expenses per starport destination and thus are better able to turn a profit on lower volumes of ticket sales, which puts smaller world markets "in play" as destinations you can turn a profit from going to.
Very very "shell game" type stuff, but it CAN make a difference to profit margins and provide a measure of "life support security" which really isn't touched on all that much in CT RAW ... which just assumes that it's possible/predictable to be able to obtain 2 weeks of life support consumables EVERYWHERE you go for a price of Cr2000 at any starport (regardless of starport type or world environment conditions), kind of like how you can "always" buy fuel from any type A-D starport (E and X provide no fuel). However, as soon as you take a deeper look at world environmental conditions, the idea that life support consumables are obtainable EVERYWHERE ... no questions asked ... so long as you've got Cr2000 per person for 2 weeks of endurance starts looking pretty preposterous. There are going to be places that are "so life support poor" that they can barely afford to keep themselves going on what food, water and air they have, never mind SELLING some of it to interstellar traders.
As soon as you start looking at (sub)sector maps and begin thinking in terms of "where should life support consumables be more/less expensive to obtain?" an entirely new "economic hazard" to merchant operations jumps out at you, with no reasonable solution other than to ... carry around more than 2 weeks of life support consumables supply, which then takes up some cargo space (for Type IV life support) at Cr150,000 for 150 person/weeks per ton (CT Beltstrike, p3). That way, you've got a life support reserve to draw down and have the option of replenishment where the prices for life support consumables are cheapest, such as Rich and/or Agricultural trade coded worlds (for example).
As soon as you allow the cost for life support to ... vary ... including the possibility that there are going to be locations where a restock is NOT OBTAINABLE AT ANY PRICE (such as type E-X starports on worlds with Population: 0, for example) then questions of "range endurance" for starships can become an additional challenge that needs to be overcome by "professionals" in the field (merchants, military, etc.) and will rarely be kind to "amateurs" (PC Travellers, mainly). At that point, "bring your own life support with you" starts making a lot more sense when you can't just assume it's available anywhere and everywhere for exactly the same price (no matter what).
A more "advanced/expanded" version of the life support consumables requirement would set Cr2000 as the base price, but then use the Speculative Goods price modifier table (LBB2.81, p46) to determine the actual price to pay for life support consumables "this week" at each destination starport a starship goes to ... effectively turning life support consumables into a "speculative goods" item that is routinely available (except when it's not).
DMs to the roll for life support consumables price could be things like the UWP atmosphere and water codes, along with trade code modifiers.
So for example:
- Atmosphere: A+ applies a +(Atmosphere-6) DM
- Atmosphere: 3- applies a +(6-Atmosphere) DM
- Hydrographics 2- applies a +(3-Hydrographics) DM
- Poor worlds apply an additional +DM
- Non-agricultural worlds apply a +DM equal to their Population code
- Non-industrial worlds apply a small +DM
- Industrial worlds apply a small -DM
- Rich worlds apply a larger -DM
- Agricultural worlds with a tainted atmosphere apply a small -DM
- Agricultural worlds with an untainted atmosphere apply a -DM equal to their Population code
- Hydrographics 8+ applies a -(Hydrographics-7) DM
That kind of "tethering" of starship operations to a "cheap" source of life support supplies based on UWP codes then adds a lot of "richness and texture" to (sub)sector maps when Refereeing a merchant context Traveller campaign.
After all, there's a reason for the saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you."
Whew, I am not sure I’d justify 0Cr off with biomes. The majority sure, but you still need air/water filters during the transport phase, chemicals/filtration to help purify the sewage feed before it literally goes into the food supply, a little bit of purchased food difference from the biome gardens/fauna raising fare especially for the crew, and backup for when you have to go to vacuum for combat.
The latter can be solved with the Beltstrike life support in the hold bit for x weeks, but the others are consumables.
I could buy down to Cr100, but not 0.
Re speculative life support, providing that service could literally be a requirement of being a member world to fulfill the support interstellar trade obligation. Failing that, C+ has to have it for the rating with D being iffy and E/X the typical private sector affair.
Final thoughts, I always looked at life support costs as being mostly air/water and food, with a routine of replacing some filters/chemicals and getting sewage cleaned out.
But it’s not just the raw materials, it’s the service of doing the clean/swap labor. Looking at the very limited time in dock and small crews such as the typical trader, I’ve always assumed the fee covered the work.
The biome should probably increase crew overhead maintaining it to an extent.
I figure the sewage component partially covers the cost of life support for non-ag worlds. More fertilizer to extract plant nutrients from or help generate methane.
The latter can be solved with the Beltstrike life support in the hold bit for x weeks, but the others are consumables.
I could buy down to Cr100, but not 0.
Re speculative life support, providing that service could literally be a requirement of being a member world to fulfill the support interstellar trade obligation. Failing that, C+ has to have it for the rating with D being iffy and E/X the typical private sector affair.
Final thoughts, I always looked at life support costs as being mostly air/water and food, with a routine of replacing some filters/chemicals and getting sewage cleaned out.
But it’s not just the raw materials, it’s the service of doing the clean/swap labor. Looking at the very limited time in dock and small crews such as the typical trader, I’ve always assumed the fee covered the work.
The biome should probably increase crew overhead maintaining it to an extent.
I figure the sewage component partially covers the cost of life support for non-ag worlds. More fertilizer to extract plant nutrients from or help generate methane.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Then, the weevils invade.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Or wee evils.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Wilderness refueling and the follow on fuel purification is going to produce all kinds of waste chemistry while generating refined L-H2 fuel ... because basically anything that isn't hydrogen is a waste chemistry byproduct. Those waste chemistry byproducts produced from wilderness fuel refining can then be used to replenish "whatever losses" occur during the regenerative biome laboratory process that produces "life support consumables" for crew and passengers.
Ultimately, it's not a 100% closed system ... but it just needs to be "efficient enough" to sustain itself using the byproducts of chemical refining produced via wilderness fuel purification.
Cr100 is low berth life support cost.
I can envision a justification for requiring a Cr100 per person in staterooms if a craft does not use wilderness refueling and has no fuel purification plant onboard. THAT makes sense.
I agree.
Spacecraft and starcraft are basically "chemical factories" that convert chemistries while they operate. Most obvious example of this is O2 into CO2 by respiration of crew and passengers, hence the need for CO2 scrubbers that require periodic recharging (every 2 weeks) so they can keep functioning. There's all kinds of "waste chemistry" going on with the operation of starship (just like with any other vehicle).
I've always assumed that the berthing fees covered not only the rental of the berthing space itself, but also the offloading of any waste chemistry the craft has generated during its travels. That waste chemistry then gets "delivered" to local industries that can "do whatever" with it (including just dumping it somewhere).
The Cr2000 per person per 2 weeks life support expense is for recharging the consumables (air/water/food) that need to be replenished.
That way the "cheap part" is unloading the "sewage" (berthing fees) and the expensive part is restocking "supplies" (life support).
Kind of like how printer ink/toner cartridges are stupidly expensive to buy, but the "recyclable" plastic containers they come in are basically worthless (and almost never recycled). I figure the "life support racket" is a bit like the market for printer ink/toner cartridges ... hence the desire to "break the cycle of exploitation" by simply having your own life support laboratory that you bring with you everywhere you go, so you don't NEED to keep buying disposable consumables and instead move towards more of a renew, reuse, recycle system that relies on waste chemistry generated by the refining of skimmed fuel. The laboratory space requires tonnage and has an annual overhaul expense associated with it, but the net cost is lower than paying for consumable/disposable life support indefinitely.
Which I include in my House Rules on the topic.
Requires additional (service) crew, that might otherwise not have been needed at all, and a higher minimum standard for the medical staff.
To be fair, Non-agricultural worlds are probably ALWAYS scrounging for any kind of chemistry/technology that can help to improve life support conditions for the population. The most obvious option, of course, is an import/export arrangement with an Agricultural world (interstellar) or a Farming world (interplanetary) ... and even then, it still probably "won't be enough for EVERYONE" when it comes to the variety of food products available for consumption.
Yes, and...
Standardized means standardized.
Customs probably won't have the specs on an obscure 30-year-old custom 400Td hull by LSP. The standard one from General Products, though? Yeah, it's in the files. Bring the laser yardstick and go looking for false bulkheads in the drive bay...
("Bribery" success means the batteries in the laser yardstick "need to be charged".)
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I suppose one should open a life support supply store, and cash in.
You’re the kind of customs officer that ruins the great material continuum.
You should bear in mind that at the lower end of the scale you will likely have alot of zero ton cargos,
For example 66% of the major cargos from POP 1 world will be 0 tons. 33% from a POP 2 and 16% from a POP 3.
So you are honestly best avoiding these worlds, unless they have a major positive DMs on the outbound leg.
A POP 4 world will always give you some cargo, providing there are no negative DMs,
They are actually pretty good prospects, and should almost always fill a Free Trader, but bear in mind that the inbound leg will be at a -4 DM, so it should be from a POP 8 or higher world to offset the DM.
Here are the odds for "outlier" low cargos.
There is a compounding effect, if you get a low Major Cargo Roll it will likely be offset to some degree by your Minor Cargo Roll.
For combined cargoes the numbers are a little better,
The averages are pretty much average of Major + Average of Minor
POP 1 worlds badly skew the data scale with their 45% chance of no cargo, so they get their own chart.
For POP 2-5 you get a chart that looks like this:
The "10s" values occur more often than the "5s" because half the time minor cargos have a result that ends in 10.
And the POP 5 - POP 10 graph looks like this:
I'm going to have to smooth the data out,
Or I could take just the "10s" or "5s" data.
The averages are pretty much average of Major + Average of Minor
POP 1 worlds badly skew the data scale with their 45% chance of no cargo, so they get their own chart.
For POP 2-5 you get a chart that looks like this:
The "10s" values occur more often than the "5s" because half the time minor cargos have a result that ends in 10.
And the POP 5 - POP 10 graph looks like this:
I'm going to have to smooth the data out,
Or I could take just the "10s" or "5s" data.
Last edited by a moderator:
I smoothed the data, and the charts looked much better, but they weren't what I'd call exceptionally helpful.
These two might be much more useful:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I can only imagine that these charts are posted in every accounting office of every merchant business.
THESE RESULTS tell you what you need to know as a merchant operator (with regards to cargo ticket demands)!
So, for example ...
My own research into the possibility of a TL=10 320 ton J3/3G/PP3 Rule of Man Clipper class design (which is actually capable of up to J3+3 at the expense of MOST of its cargo transport capacity) is returning results of 3 high passengers, 0 low passengers and up to 112 tons of cargo transport capacity @ J3.
Using your charts, I can see that ~112 tons of cargo freight ticket demand has an 87% probability on a Population: 4 Green Zone world and a 98% probability on a Population: 5 Green Zone world (before factoring in TL differentials between Origin and Destination).
Likewise, an average of 3 high passengers (again, before factoring in TL differentials between Origin and Destination) should be the "baseline" demand signal for high passenger tickets (as you computed in Post #61) from Origins with Population: 4-7.
What this means is that such a starship class should have HIGH confidence of being able to fill its shipping manifest from Population: 5+ Green Zoned worlds, and a REASONABLE amount of confidence that there will be sufficient demand for tickets from Population: 4 Green Zoned worlds as well. Amber Zones will "skew" the probabilities in ways that require approximately Population: 8+ to offset the reduction in ticket demand relative to Green Zone expectations.
Going to Population: 0-3 worlds can still be done, especially with "overriding details" of speculative goods that "sell well" into Non-industrialized markets, but those are going to be unique circumstances rather than "baseline average" expectations.
VERY INTERESTING market research results.
Going to need to save these graphs for repeated reference, they're just that useful!
Thanks,
From what I see each DM will move you up/down in the chart by one POP level, so a POP 5 world with a -1 becomes a POP 4 world. 1D+1 Major Cargo with a -1 DM becomes 1D Major Cargo which is the same as a POP 4 world.
It might be worth while to do some tables for POP 10 +1, POP 10 +2 etc worlds, Maybe up to POP 10+5. It does seem like you can fudge this by adding ~ 50 tons to your result for a each +1 DM, But I'd still like to generate the charts.
The only place this breaks down is at the low end, between POP 2 and POP 1 the DM drops the POP 2 rolls to 1D-3 and 1D-2 or raises POP 1 to 1D-3 and 1D-3. For a POP 1 world there could be quite a few more possibilities, for example POP 1 with a +4 DM falls between 3 and 4 because the Major Cargo would be 1D (POP 4) and the minor cargo would be 1D (POP 3). Overall it seem that POP 1 either needs their own set of charts or their own rule. If you insert steps for POP +1 and POP 2- it seems that the rule could be "For POP 1 worlds increase the modified result by half step" For example the "90" cargo for a POP 1 world would be:
Also,
That's on a chart with line added for POP1+ and POP 2- Theoretically there would be lines for POP 1++ and POP 2-- but they would probably be Half steps, POP 2-- would be between POP 1 and POP1+; 1D-4 Major and 1D-3 Minor and POP 1++ would be between POP2- and POP 2,
1D-2 Major and 1D-2 Minor.
From what I see each DM will move you up/down in the chart by one POP level, so a POP 5 world with a -1 becomes a POP 4 world. 1D+1 Major Cargo with a -1 DM becomes 1D Major Cargo which is the same as a POP 4 world.
It might be worth while to do some tables for POP 10 +1, POP 10 +2 etc worlds, Maybe up to POP 10+5. It does seem like you can fudge this by adding ~ 50 tons to your result for a each +1 DM, But I'd still like to generate the charts.
The only place this breaks down is at the low end, between POP 2 and POP 1 the DM drops the POP 2 rolls to 1D-3 and 1D-2 or raises POP 1 to 1D-3 and 1D-3. For a POP 1 world there could be quite a few more possibilities, for example POP 1 with a +4 DM falls between 3 and 4 because the Major Cargo would be 1D (POP 4) and the minor cargo would be 1D (POP 3). Overall it seem that POP 1 either needs their own set of charts or their own rule. If you insert steps for POP +1 and POP 2- it seems that the rule could be "For POP 1 worlds increase the modified result by half step" For example the "90" cargo for a POP 1 world would be:
Also,
That's on a chart with line added for POP1+ and POP 2- Theoretically there would be lines for POP 1++ and POP 2-- but they would probably be Half steps, POP 2-- would be between POP 1 and POP1+; 1D-4 Major and 1D-3 Minor and POP 1++ would be between POP2- and POP 2,
1D-2 Major and 1D-2 Minor.
I can only imagine that these charts are posted in every accounting office of every merchant business.
THESE RESULTS tell you what you need to know as a merchant operator (with regards to cargo ticket demands)!
So, for example ...
My own research into the possibility of a TL=10 320 ton J3/3G/PP3 Rule of Man Clipper class design (which is actually capable of up to J3+3 at the expense of MOST of its cargo transport capacity) is returning results of 3 high passengers, 0 low passengers and up to 112 tons of cargo transport capacity @ J3.
Using your charts, I can see that ~112 tons of cargo freight ticket demand has an 87% probability on a Population: 4 Green Zone world and a 98% probability on a Population: 5 Green Zone world (before factoring in TL differentials between Origin and Destination).
Likewise, an average of 3 high passengers (again, before factoring in TL differentials between Origin and Destination) should be the "baseline" demand signal for high passenger tickets (as you computed in Post #61) from Origins with Population: 4-7.
What this means is that such a starship class should have HIGH confidence of being able to fill its shipping manifest from Population: 5+ Green Zoned worlds, and a REASONABLE amount of confidence that there will be sufficient demand for tickets from Population: 4 Green Zoned worlds as well. Amber Zones will "skew" the probabilities in ways that require approximately Population: 8+ to offset the reduction in ticket demand relative to Green Zone expectations.
Going to Population: 0-3 worlds can still be done, especially with "overriding details" of speculative goods that "sell well" into Non-industrialized markets, but those are going to be unique circumstances rather than "baseline average" expectations.
VERY INTERESTING market research results.
Going to need to save these graphs for repeated reference, they're just that useful!
Similar threads
