Thing is, I'm thinking of changing one of the fundamental building blocks of the design (16 ton modules instead of 20 ton modules) in order to make the whole thing "backwards compatible" with a TL=9 precursor design that has lower performance (because, TL=9 instead of TL=10) but which retains the core features and business model context for the later TL=10+ upgrade path.
Here's a ... preview ... for you, of where the math is pointing for a TL=9
J3/3G/PP3 starship winds up landing, when you "push the engineering to the extremes" using LBB2.81 D/D/D standard drives.
250 tons starship hull
45 tons for LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives (codes: 3/3/3, TL=9)
105 tons of total fuel: 250 tons @ J3 = 75 tons jump fuel + 30 tons power plant fuel
9 tons for TL=9 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum)
20 tons for bridge
2 ton for model/2bis computer
64 tons for hangar berths capacity
1. Stateroom Box = 16 tons
2. Stateroom Box = 16 tons
3. Cargo Box = 16 tons
4. Cargo Box = 16 tons
External Docking Capacity: 550 tons capacity
1. Escort Fighter = 16 tons
5 tons Cargo Hold
1. 4 tons for Air/Raft
2. 0.36 tons for 54 person/weeks Life Support Reserves (@ 150 person/weeks per ton)
3. 0.64 tons for 64 tons capacity Collapsible Fuel Tank
= 45+105+9+20+2+64+5 = 250 tons
4 Crew: Pilot/Navigator, Ship's Boat/Gunner, Engineer/Engineer, Steward/Medic
4 high passengers, 32 tons standard cargo internal
Escort Fighter external
Which looks "pretty crappy" for a commercial merchant ship ... until you realize:
- D/D/D drives = code: 3 @ 266 tons
- 250 ton starship + 16 ton fighter (external docking) = 266 tons
- D/D/D drives = code: 2 @ 400 tons
- 250 ton starship + 16 ton fighter + 8x 16 ton boxes = 394 tons
So that "meager" revenue tonnage capacity (4 high passengers, 32 tons cargo) in the stock configuration is only the case when you need to be operating @ J3/3G. Strap on 8 more Boxes (7 cargo, 1 stateroom ...?
) to expand your transport capacity at the expense of drive performance and you can start moving 8 high passengers and 144 tons of cargo @ J2/2G performance.
You would need to use the starship's hangar bay to shuttle those 16 ton Boxes down through atmosphere, but even with 4 internal plus 8 external Boxes, that's a mere "three trips" between surface to orbit in order to get everything marshaled. And the Escort Fighter can "shepherd" Boxes left in orbit between relays, so they aren't left unguarded.
The collapsible fuel tank is designed to "occupy" the internal hangar bay when used, so the 4 boxes loaded internally have to be moved out to the exterior while the collapsible fuel tank is filled. This means:
- J2+3
- 250 ton starship, 16 ton fighter, 4x 16 ton boxes external, 64 tons fuel internal = 330 tons combined displacement
- @ J2 = 66 tons of jump fuel consumed
- 250 ton starship, 16 ton fighter, 4x 16 ton boxes internal = 266 tons combined displacement
- @ J3 = 79.8 tons of jump fuel consumed
- 105 tons main fuel tanks + 64 tons collapsible fuel tanks - 66 tons @ J2 - 79.8 tons @ J3 = 23.2 tons fuel remaining for power plant endurance during J2+3 transit
- J2+2
- 250 ton starship, 16 ton fighter, 8x 16 ton boxes external, 64 tons fuel internal = 394 tons combined displacement
- @ J2 = 78.8 tons of jump fuel consumed
- 250 ton starship, 16 ton fighter, 4x 16 ton boxes internal, 4x 16 ton boxes internal = 330 tons combined displacement
- @ J2 = 66 tons of jump fuel consumed
- 105 tons main fuel tanks + 64 tons collapsible fuel tanks - 78.8 tons @ J2 - 66 tons @ J2 = 24.2 tons fuel remaining for power plant endurance during J2+2 transit
In other words, depending on your external loading (and how far you need to go), you can use this ship as a "pretty decent" capacity J2/2G merchant ship capable of 4-5 parsecs of range (via double jumping).
Practical upshot is that the ship "basically" needs to be operating as a J2/2G ship in order to make profits, but there's always the OPTION to "load up or trim down" as needed, depending on where you're going (and what you need to be carrying).
However, if you REALLY want to be "bringing home the bacon" ... you want to "load 'er up" with as many as 33x 16 ton Boxes external so as to operate the ship as a J1/1G microjumper within a single star system, making deliveries to outer orbits and Far Companion stars. You can even use the internal collapsible fuel tank to enable "round trip" microjumping, in case wilderness refueling is not available (or not economical) at one of the two ends of the round trip ... so you have enough fuel for "there and back again" maneuvering. Can you say "charter service liner connection" at the microjump scale ...?
Definitely NOT something detailed in CT, but rather the results of my own homebrew extrapolation of the CT starship design rules.
The TL=10 version advances to F/F/F drives in a 400 ton hull, but otherwise follows the same patterning and thought process. The more powerful drives and larger hull means that the starship becomes "more efficient" with a greater fraction of internal tonnage available for a hangar bay that can carry a higher quantity of 16 ton Boxes.
Anyway, point being that this line of thinking for a Modular Container Merchant that is "backwards compatible" to TL=9 which also has an impressively decent (for TL=9) organic fighter escort that can provide both protection and "maneuver marshaling" assistance feels like an extremely good value for money proposition to me.
Need to work out what the 16 ton Boxes "look like" in terms of deck plans in order to be able to draw the whole thing and write up build posts for both designs (TL=9 and TL=10).