Pondering starship evolution

[Spinward Flow]

I can't believe I missed this trick.

Starship delivery to other star system(s) for delivery to client, rather than delivery directly off the line from drydock at the constructing shipyard.
Specifically, being able to use 2x 328 ton SIE Clippers docked to each other (one crewed and loaded with 8x 12 ton Boxes, the other to be delivered is empty of crew and Boxes to an interstellar destination for handover to the purchasing party and is simply being towed externally using big craft displacement rules).

328*1.1 = 360.8 tons (round up to 361 tons)
328 + (328*1.1) = 688.8 tons (round up to 689 tons)
1000 - 689 tons = 311 tons capacity remaining
311 / 12 = 25.916666x 12 ton Boxes of external load capacity remaining


Okay, sub-optimal ... since having 26x 12 ton Boxes of external load capacity remaining would be better ... but what would it take to achieve that?

327*1.1 = 359.7 tons (round up to 360 tons)
327 + (327*1.1) = 686.7 tons (round up to 687 tons)
1000 - 687 tons = 313 tons capacity remaining
313 / 12 = 26.083333x 12 ton Boxes of external load capacity remaining


Ah, but what about fuel capacity, since the powered+crewed starship is going to be towing the unpowered+uncrewed starship (as external cargo for delivery) @ J1, but the unpowered starship can be loaded with fuel and used as a makeshift demountable fuel tank for the journey.

327*0.3 + 30 = 128.1 tons internal fuel per starship
2 * 128.1 + 90 = 346.2 tons of combined internal fuel + collapsible fuel tank in towed starship
346.2 / (327+360) = 0.503930131004367 = just over 5J1 parsecs of jump fuel

The powered+crewed starship would need to devote some of its Cargo Box and/or Environment Box transport capacity to containing either 12 or 24 tons of collapsible fuel reserve for use by the powered+crewed starship's power plant, which ought to be enough for a one way transit of up to 5J1 to deliver a finished starship (only, without Boxes or Pods which can be constructed at Type B starports, unlike the starship itself which requires a Type A starport to construct).

A much more likely scenario would be a 4J1 "direct route" delivery (through empty hexes and outer orbits to avoid unwanted encounters) between origin and destination.

And as it just so happens ... Caladbolg/Sword Worlds is 4 parsecs away from Grote/Glisten, but the distance is 5 parsecs if you have to follow the Spinward Main.

So it looks like shrinking down from a 328 form factor into a 327 ton form factor is going to be advantageous when it comes to the mission of exporting starships for delivery to customers (Grote --> Caladbolg) ... because doing so will enable up to 26x 12 tons (312 tons of additional external load capacity to be available when making these transport runs. Even loaded up to 327+360+312=999 combined tons of displacement, the E/E/E drives of the powered+crewed starship would be able to safely make 3J1 between Grote and Gunn (in either direction) while transporting up to 312 tons of additional external cargo (in 12 ton Boxes and 96 ton Pods) that needs to be sent along with the shipment (for whatever reason), helping to link the two world economies together.



Trouble is ... to make that happen, I need to shrink my 328 ton starship design down to being a 327 ton starship design ... which I can do successfully ... but which means that I (once again) need to tweak my deck plans ever so slightly(!) which will drop 2 compartments from the Interior Details list ... so I need to make yet another iteration of that deck plan once more.

Fortunately, the change involved will only affect the numbering of compartments 135-147 ... which will become 135-145 instead (by dropping 2 compartments) and will be a relatively straightforward edit of the deck plans I've been working with to reach this point.



So, annoying to realize that ...

... but I at least have the satisfaction of knowing that I caught this one last little wrinkle in the transport economics before moving into finalized publication. It's just a matter of fine tuning the last remaining factors and letting the "pachinko machine" sort it all out (so to speak) before settling on the glide path towards finally getting this wonderful starship class posted.



To think that I'd finally land on 327 tons as the "ideal balance point" for a starship ...

 

[kilemall]

There is a tipping point between passages for crew to marry up with receiving ships vs shipping the ship itself.


I’d say mostly a limited market for this, especially as most merchant lines down to the subsector are going to have operations and offices at A starports, the ship delivery is a known time so crew juggling can be done ahead of time to position and the line only has to pay salary and life support costs if shipping in crew with their own ships.

The big locked in market would be SDB delivery.

 

[Spinward Flow]

There is a tipping point between passages for crew to marry up with receiving ships vs shipping the ship itself.

Indeed, which is why I'm "trying to have it both ways" on this point.
If the purchaser and the constructing shipyard are in different star systems (in this instance, Caladbolg and Grote, for example) ...

... then there are two ways to marry up crews with ships.

1. Transport the starships from the shipyard Grote to the purchasers at Calabolg.
2. Transport the purchasers from Caladbolg to the shipyard at Grote to take delivery of their starship.

The idea here is that the starship itself is constructed at Grote (because type A starport required), but the 16 ton Light Fighter, 12 ton Boxes and 96 ton Pods can all be constructed at Caladbolg (using a type B starport for small craft and non-starships). The Clipper starship itself functions more or less like a "space/jump tug" or tender, hauling internal+external loads around to meet market needs.

Fun part is looking at the Traveller Worlds options for View: Full Star System for both Caladbolg and Grote respectively.

The Caladbolg star system has a Far Companion (5882 AU distant) with 5 populated worlds, 3 of which have Population: 6 ... so a J1 capable microjumper with a large external load capacity makes a lot of sense, even just in-system. In the primary's planetary system, there's Caladbolg itself plus 3 other inhabited worlds, one of which is a planetoid belt ... so plenty of transport work for a 1-3G craft capable of moving passengers and cargo around the star system, depending on demand.

The Grote star system is just a single primary, but there are 11 worlds in the system with populations on them, 2 of which are the outer planetoid belts (36 and 84.5 AU distant, respectively) ... both of which are, again, well served by a J1 capable microjumper with a large external load capacity makes a lot of sense, even just in-system.



As soon as you stop thinking of star systems as being a SINGLE destination (the UWP on the sector hex map) and start thinking more broadly in terms of a collection of worlds within a star system, all of which your ship and crew could need to travel to at some point, things start getting a lot more interesting. And it's under these circumstances that mutually beneficial trade agreements between star systems for transport infrastructure projects (like a Clipper ship with external load capacity) can turn into a public resource (worth subsidizing) that will then benefit far more interested parties than just the owners.

Additionally, the operators aren't necessarily always going to be wanting to take delivery in the same place.
Sometimes they'll want to take delivery at Grote.
Sometimes they'll want to take delivery at Caladbolg.
Or possibly somewhere else, if another star system has the public purse (and/or private pockets) to invest in acquiring their own run of the class to expand their interstellar capable merchant transport capacity.

And that's before the TL=10 design starts getting proliferated through licensing deals (or IP theft) to other shipyards in other star systems so the class can be built elsewhere. Being able to "deliver" a finished starship (with or without the accompanying Boxes) to other star systems can make quite a difference in terms of Total Addressable Market (TAM) for a specific shipyard constructing a class that is basically a glorified container ship (and all of the flexibility that implies).

I’d say mostly a limited market for this

Some operators would prefer to send their Boxes and crews (as cargo) to take delivery of a new starship of the class fresh out of drydock construction ... while some would prefer to have the starship transported to them (as cargo) so that a subsidizing government can do all of the inspection work and quality checks before turning the starship over to the operators. By making it something where "either way works" you increase the market potential (you pick up or we deliver) and broaden the customer base of parties who might be interested in buying.

The big locked in market would be SDB delivery.

Fun side note.
A 1000 ton J1 capacity drives starship with 673 tons of external load capacity available can "jump tender" SDBs of up to 600 tons displacement (consuming 660 tons of external load capacity, because Big Craft are transported at 110% of tonnage) ... and still have 13 tons of external load capacity remaining for a spare 12 ton Box of some kind to go with it (for whatever reason, presumably support and supply reserves, or whatever). That then makes it possible to set up "maintenance rotations" for SDBs in nearby star systems with type A-B starports capable of servicing those SDBs.

But you need to have the maneuver/jump tug merchant ship design FIRST in order to enable that kind of second order opportunity to emerge ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Aw crumbs! It gets even worse!

I just realized that I miscalculated the spreadsheet details of the 16 ton Light Fighter that I was counting on!

• 1 ton Maneuver-A drive
• 7 tons Power Plant-B drive
• 1 ton Internal Fuel
• 4 tons Bridge
• 3 tons Computer model/3
• 1 ton Dual Turret and Fire Control

= 1+7+1+4+3+1 = 17 tons

Looks like I'm going to need to redesign (again! ) to fit the 16 ton form factor limit necessary to achieve Agility=6 from EP=1 (1/6=0.1667*100=16.67 tons).

FORK!

 

[Spinward Flow]

I just realized that I miscalculated the spreadsheet details of the 16 ton Light Fighter that I was counting on!

• 1 ton Maneuver-A drive
• 7 tons Power Plant-B drive
• 1 ton Internal Fuel
• 4 tons Bridge
• 3 tons Computer model/3
• 1 ton Dual Turret and Fire Control

= 1+7+1+4+3+1 = 17 tons

I'm going to chalk this one up to {roll Transformers theme done as a filk} "blessings in disguise" ... I think.

Actually, scratch that.
Beast Wars seasons 1, 2 and 3 were peak Transformers for me.



* Ahem. *

Anyway, where was I?
Ah yes, pontificating.



Since I couldn't get the 16 ton form factor to fit the loadout I was wanting (see post #224 above), there were only 2 possible alternatives.

1. Model/3 computer reduced down to Model/2 and weaponry upgraded to Triple Beam Laser Turret (net: -1 ton to fit 16 ton form factor).
2. Model/3 computer reduced down to Model/2 and weaponry downgraded to Mixed Triple Sand/Pulse Laser/Sand Turret, Power Plant downgraded from standard-B (EP: 4) to standard-A (EP: 2) and add a double occupancy Small Craft Cabin to extend crew endurance beyond 24 hours (net: -1 ton to fit 16 ton form factor).

Option 1 kept the Light Fighter a "tethered short range escort" type of craft due to the lack of a small craft cabin, but enabled a single code: 3 laser battery (which would deliver automatic critical hits to hull size: 2-) which would be extremely damaging to craft up to 299 tons (LBB5.80 combat rules).

Option 2, however, enabled the Light Fighter a longer range (fuel consumption computes as 10d 2h 4m for 1 ton of fuel with an EP demand load of 1.96 for Agility=6 and a ready to fire laser weapon), which makes for a pretty decent tender/tug for shuttling external 12 ton Boxes and/or 96 ton Pods between different solar orbits. With a single Box externally docked (28 combined tons displacement), a Light Fighter could sustain 6G acceleration for 10d 0h 0m on 1 ton of fuel, which makes for a decent interplanetary fast (armed) shuttle delivery of a Box to another planetary orbit ... potentially done as "side work" generating additional revenue while the parent starship remains berthed at the mainworld starport awaiting the arrival of passengers and (speculative) cargo prior to making ready for departure to a jump point.

It's this (option 2) Light Fighter+Box @ 6G on interplanetary charter assignment option during "business week" in between jumps that would seem to have potential as a sideline for generating additional revenue using the small craft would seem to be an untapped opportunity ... both from a "merchant reach" perspective but also from a "patrons and adventure hooks" perspective, since this kind of interplanetary travel would presumably help remind Players (and Referees) that there is more to interstellar commerce than making deliveries from starport to starport, because there are other worlds with spaceports inside of star systems that can be visited as an opportunity to earn credits, contacts and reputation.

Option 2 also has the benefit of being significantly cheaper (almost MCr10 less to construct than Option 1) while still being "good enough for the escort/deterrence role" and armed for defense (blocking, tackling, evade, escape) rather than offense (bring the pain!). This latter option "feels better" in a commercial merchant sense, where the mission is to ward off and escape from pirates rather than go at them hammer & tongs in an attempt to deliver some vigilante justice to pirate attackers. So the tradeoff becomes less "power density" (lower EPs needed) and lighter weaponry in exchange for greater utility and a wider array of mission roles. The longer life support endurance makes it possible for the Light Fighter to be used as a system defense patrol fighter.

The Light Fighter could also be a product that can be exported to nearby star systems that are in need of patrol small craft due to a lack of industrial and/or economic development capable of supporting the technology and supply chains needed for even a modest TL=10 small craft. A SIE Clipper could periodically arrive in-system to pick up a squadron of Light Fighters for external transport to a neighboring star system capable of performing the necessary annual overhaul maintenance before bringing the squadron back to their home system where they can be returned to service. Set up a rotation schedule for squadrons to be taken offline for annual overhaul maintenance and you've got at least a token SDB service of small craft available at a relatively modest cost.

In fact, with the right configuration of Boxes, a 327 ton SIE Clipper could become a J2/2G carrier base for a squadron of 10 Light Fighters which could be assigned a variety of mission roles ... such as patrol/policing and low level system defense/picket tasking that can be sustained @ TL=10 "on the cheap" (so to speak).



And although the RAW doesn't support the notion explicitly, I also like the idea that the Power Plant-A (EP: 2) option has a smaller sensor signature than the more powerful Power Plant-B (EP: 4) option would in the same 16 ton form factor. According to RAW, that makes no difference whatsoever in terms of sensor detection and tracking, but I would like to think that an enterprising Referee (and/or Players) could find ways to make use of that otherwise trivial difference in power output to make all kinds of deception, sensor masking and other bits of trickery an option that wouldn't otherwise have been available (or plausible).



So here's what the new Light Fighter deck plan looks like, using the same form factor.

 

[Condottiere]

Delivery cost is operating cost, crew repatriation, plus mortgage principal and interest payment.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Delivery cost is operating cost, crew repatriation, plus mortgage principal and interest payment.

Depends on which side of the ledger you're on.

327 ton starship (unpowered, uncrewed) being transported as external (charter) cargo costs:
900 * 327 = Cr294,300 per J1 ticket

So a 4J1 transit from Grote to Caladbolg when transporting a brand new ship off the line as external cargo would cost Cr1,177,200.

Conversely, if you've already got your own 8x Boxes and 1x Light Fighter constructed and built at Caladbolg, you could ship those as external cargo costing:
900 * (16+8*12) = Cr100,800 per J2 ticket

So a 2J2 transit from Caladbolg to Grote when transporting new small craft off the line as external cargo would cost Cr201,600.

 

[Condottiere]

Smallcraft could be a do it yourself kit.

 

[kilemall]

Smallcraft could be a do it yourself kit.

Now that is more likely to be a delivery market- B starports less likely to be ops hubs, small craft are pretty high value per ton since they don’t tote around jump tonnage and fit into most common holds, no jump like SDBs, and likely destined to putter around on some orbital shuttle or intrasystem transport.

I don’t know about full build kits, but break down fin bits to fit in holds better for frontier reattachment makes sense.

A like cost reduction for sourcing from IND worlds like the profit distance of starship parts could work, if your universe should tell the story of the pressure on local yards from distant systems.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I just realized that I miscalculated the spreadsheet details of the 16 ton Light Fighter that I was counting on!

• 1 ton Maneuver-A drive
• 7 tons Power Plant-B drive
• 1 ton Internal Fuel
• 4 tons Bridge
• 3 tons Computer model/3
• 1 ton Dual Turret and Fire Control

= 1+7+1+4+3+1 = 17 tons

Light Fighter redesign spreadsheet:

• 1 ton Maneuver-A drive
• 4 tons Power Plant-A drive (EP: +2)
• 1 ton Internal Fuel
• 4 tons Bridge
• 2 tons Computer model/2
• 1 ton Mixed Triple Turret (sand/pulse laser/sand) and Fire Control
• 2 tons Small Craft Stateroom

= 1+4+1+4+2+1+2 = 15 tons ... @ Agility=6 requires 0.9 EP + 1 EP for the Pulse Laser in a 2 EP power budget.



It honestly irks me that I can't "make everything fit" into a form factor of 16 tons exactly.
I can have 15 tons or 17 tons ... but not 16.

Although ...

An extremely peculiar edge case would be a Mixed Dual Turret armed with a Pulse Laser and Plasma Gun (of all things), in which only 1 weapon is energized at a time, creating an OR condition rather than an AND condition in combat. Use the Pulse Laser (only) at long range and the Plasma Gun (only) at short range ... since both lasers and plasma guns only require 1 EP each. Such an option would require 2 tons of fire control for the plasma gun turret (which would include the fire control for the pulse laser).

At TL=10, the Pulse Laser is code: 1 and the Plasma Gun is code: 1.
At TL=11, the Pulse Laser is code: 1 and the Plasma Gun is code: 2.
At TL=12, the Pulse Laser is code: 1 and the Plasma Gun is code: 3.
At TL=13+, the Pulse Laser is code: 2 and the Plasma Gun is code: 3.

Nah, that's just wasteful vanity talking there.

What I really want is sufficient tonnage to be able to install a better computer into the fighter, because the computer model influences both offense AND defense performance (+DM to hit, -DM to get hit) and is honestly a "better bang for buck" than improvements to weaponry.



The alternative would be to rebalance the weaponry into a Mixed Triple Turret of Missile/Sand/Missile (which consume 0 EP) in order to install a model/3 computer (1 EP) instead. The downside of such weapons mix is that each launcher has a capacity of 3 shots (natively) and a turret can hold up to 12 reloads. So if the Sandcaster gets no extra reloads allocated to it, that would leave 6+6 reloads available to the two Missile Launchers, for a total of 9 shots each before they run empty.

• Sandcaster reloads are Cr400 each (LBB2.81, p17) so a complete resupply of 3 cannisters would cost Cr1200.
• Missile reloads are Cr5000 each (LBB2.81, p17) so a complete resupply of 18 missiles would cost Cr90,000.

The advantage of such a design choice would be realized in better offensive capability ...

• Code: 1 beam weapon (1) threshold 8 backed by a model/2 computer = roll 6 to hit before applying defensive modifiers
• Code: 1 missile weapons (2) threshold 6 backed by model/3 computer = roll 3 to hit before applying defensive modifiers

As well as yielding better defensive capability ...

• -2 Size, -6 Agility, -2 Computer modifiers to get hit ... Code: 3 sandcasters (2) backed by model/2 computer
• -2 Size, -6 Agility, -3 Computer modifiers to get hit ... Code: 3 sandcaster (1) backed by model/3 computer

From an offense/defense perspective, abandoning the (single) laser+model/2 option in favor of the (dual) missile+model/3 option makes combat engagements "more expensive" to engage in ... but at the same time yields a better mix of offense (more likely to hit, deal damage faster) and potentially superior defense (harder to get hit, sandcaster is more effective if it needs to be used). At the same time, it would also make combat "more expensive" when it comes to resupply of sand canisters and missile packs, but in the commercial operations that can be viewed as an additional barrier or moat to "entrepreneurial piracy" since the rewards for engaging in such behavior by operators would need to exceed the costs of replenishing ordnance stocks.



Hmmm.
I may have just talked myself into adopting the A/A drives with model/3 and missile/sand/missile mixed triple turret option here.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well.
That's an interesting result when looking at the "full stack" economic performance breakpoints.

---

Economic break even formula for annualized costs (including life support, berthing fees, crew salaries and annual overhaul costs)

Cost calculation

• CPD = (LS + CS*13 + CC*(CM/40+0.001) + FC*DPY + BFE) / DPY + BFD
  • CPD = Cost Per Destination (in Cr), round up to nearest integer
  • LS = Life Support (in Cr) per 2 weeks/14 days (Cr0 crew plus Cr0 high passengers) over Days Deployed per year (tempo * DPY)
  • CS = Crew Salaries (in Cr) per 4 weeks/28 days (Cr31,950)
  • CC = Construction Cost in credits (Cr223,675,800 single production, Cr180,659,040 volume production)
  • CM = Construction Multiplier (x0 Subsidized, x1 Paid Off or x2 Bank Loan Financing over 480 months)
  • FC = Fuel Cost (in Cr) to refuel per Destination (Cr500 per ton refined, Cr100 per ton unrefined, Cr0 per ton wilderness)
  • BFE = Berthing Fees Extra (additional berthing fees for warehousing the ship at idle during extra crew vacation days annually)
  • DPY = Destinations Per Year
  • BFD = Berthing Fees (in Cr) per Destination (Cr100 for 6 days, Cr100 more per +1 days)

Tables of profit points when allowing 14 days for annual overhaul maintenance within each year (365-14=351 days maximum)
Note: 255.5 / 365 = 70% (minimum required time on route each year for subsidy contracts)

Single Production break even profit points per port of call when using wilderness refueling

DPY (tempo) + vacation days	Subsidized CPD (in Cr)​	Paid Off CPD (in Cr)​	Bank Financed CPD (in Cr)​
25 (6+8 days) = 350 + 1	25,666​	249,341​	473,017​
19 (6+8 days) = 266 + 85	34,154​	328,465​	622,775​
15 (6+8+8 days) = 330 + 21	42,809​	415,602​	788,395​
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 87	54,036​	520,027​	986,018​

Volume Production break even profit points in credits per port of call when using wilderness refueling

DPY (tempo) + vacation days	Subsidized CPD (in Cr)​	Paid Off CPD (in Cr)​	Bank Financed CPD (in Cr)​
25 (6+8 days) = 350 + 1	23,945​	204,604​	385,263​
19 (6+8 days) = 266 + 85	31,890​	269,600​	507,309​
15 (6+8+8 days) = 330 + 21	39,941​	341,040​	642,138​
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 87	50,451​	426,824​	803,197​

---

Those subsidized break even revenue points are looking completely doable with 5 high passengers and 12+12=24 tons of cargo capacity.
Interstellar charter = 5 * 9000 + 24 * 900 = Cr66,600 (base) / 2 (subsidy revenue rake) = Cr33,300 revenue

That Cr33,300 for interstellar charters is still above the Cr23,945 profit breakpoint when jumping 25 times per year ... or even the Cr31,890 profit breakpoint when jumping 19 times per year and taking an extended (~3 month) vacation. And that's when operating @ J3/3G with no external loading whatsoever.

Start stacking on external load capacity (+168 tons external cargo yielding Cr900 per ton revenue @ J2/2G = +Cr151,200 per jump) can start adding up to "useful" quantities of profits every year.
Interstellar external charter = 168 * 900 = Cr151,200 (base) / 2 (subsidy revenue rake) = Cr75,600 revenue profit per subsidized jump
25 * Cr75,600 = Cr1,890,000 revenue profit @ 25 jumps per year
19 * Cr75,600 = Cr1,436,400 revenue profit @ 19 jumps per year

Point being that with "sufficient demand" for transport services AND enough transport infrastructure in circulation (12 ton Boxes and 96 ton Pods) it becomes relatively trivial for a subsidized operator to turn a profit on their investment (see: 20% down payment) even without needing to resort to dealing in speculative goods.

Of course, trading in speculative goods can potentially MAGNIFY those profit margins EVEN MORE when the opportunities align.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hmmm.
I may have just talked myself into adopting the A/A drives with model/3 and missile/sand/missile mixed triple turret option here.

Considering that under LBB5.80 combat rules, a "legitimate merchant" is going to be more interested in a successful Break Off By Acceleration (LBB5.80, p39) during the Pursuit Step (LBB5.80, p41-42) than allowing themselves to be forced into a running gun battle (that the merchant is likely to lose).

Breaking Off By Acceleration can only be done from long range (LBB5.80, p39), either from the line of battle or from the reserve, and all combats begin at long range in the first round of battle (LBB5.80, p39). Therefore, a Break Off By Acceleration maneuver is automatically available in the first combat round of an engagement. Craft can break off alone or in groups (LBB5.80, p39 and p41), but if they break off in groups the effective agility of the group is the lowest agility of that group and craft in the reserve are receive a +2 on their agility for successfully breaking off, while pursuit gains no such bonus (line of battle or reserve). This then forms the basis of the Fighter Screen tactic, in which small craft enter the line of battle (to exchange fire) while big craft in the reserve (out of range of fire) attempt to maneuver to escape the encounter (preferably undamaged).

Fun Fact (LBB5.80, p41)

BREAKTHROUGH STEP
A breakthrough occurs if all of one player's line of battle ships have been rendered incapable of firing any offensive weapons. If this occurs, the other player is allowed to fire all of his or her line of battle ships at any of the ships in the enemy's reserve. The (formerly) screened ships are not allowed to fire back, but may fire defensively. In the next turn, the player may form a new line of battle.

1. A missile armed fighter that is CAPABLE of launching offensively, but voluntarily declines launch (to conserve ordnance, perhaps?) is NOT considered to have been rendered incapable of firing any offensive weapons. So if there are missiles loaded, but the gunner declines to pull the trigger to attack, that does not mean that the craft has been rendered incapable of firing any offensive weapons.
2. An exclusively missile armed fighter that has expended all ordnance and needs to reload, however, WOULD be considered having been rendered incapable of firing any offensive weapons (because no more missiles). Even if the gunner pulls the trigger, no more offensive shots are available to be taken.

So in scenario 1, there is no breakthrough opportunity, because craft are still capable of offensive action (and the opponent is obliged to maneuver evasively, even if opportunities to shoot are voluntarily declined).

In scenario 2, there IS a breakthrough opportunity, because craft are NOT still capable of offensive action (due to missile launchers being empty).

Or to put it another way ...
"My fellow likes to fire last."
"He likes them to sweat a little."

Remember, you don't always HAVE TO take the first shot available.
Deterrence and intimidation can also have value, when it comes to weapons lock (without firing). If you can break your opponent's morale, pushing them into disengaging to save themselves ... that's often times going to be an acceptable alternative to inflicting Death & Destruction.



The point of all this rules mongering and pontificating is to point out that if you want to predispose your merchant escort fighter screen (line of battle) AND parent starship (reserve) towards a default stance of ...

... rather than attempting to "stand and fight" (until there is a winner) during potentially hostile encounters .... then the preference for missiles (better at long range) over lasers (better at short range) starts becoming something of a "better fit" for the anticipated array of encounters and potential self-defense use cases. After all, if your default ship to ship encounter response is to attempt to Break Off By Acceleration to escape the combat (and the damage that combat tends to entail), then optimizing the weaponry on your fighter screen small craft for long range battles (that you want to KEEP at long range in order to escape from them) would seem to be the better choice.

Lasers are "good" for this role when you can get "enough of them" to be a serious attack threat even at long range (3x Beam Lasers in a single turret battery are Code: 4 @ TL=13+, for a base to hit threshold of 6+ before DMs) ... and of course, lasers have "bottomless magazine" capacity so long as they can receive EPs to power them.

But if your preference is to end a combat engagement during the first combat round by Breaking Off By Acceleration in the first combat round of an unwanted encounter, then "missiles are good enough" for that role ... even if you wind up not shooting any in order to conserve ordnance because the battle isn't one you need to WIN, it's just one you need to LEAVE.



Guess I should reassign the Ship Type Code for the Light Fighter.
Change it from FL (Fighter, Light) to FM (Fighter, Missile) instead.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Guess I should reassign the Ship Type Code for the Light Fighter.

Behold ... the Escort Fighter (Type-FE).



Escort Fighter redesign spreadsheet:

• TL=10
• 1 ton Maneuver-A drive (Agility: 6 = -0.96 EP)
• 4 tons Power Plant-A drive (EP: +2)
• 1 ton Internal Fuel
• 4 tons Bridge
• 3 tons Computer model/3 (-1 EP)
• 1 ton Fire Control and Mixed Triple Turret (missile/sand/missile) (0 EP)
• 2 tons Small Craft Stateroom (double occupancy)

= 1+4+1+4+3+1+2 = 16 tons

Hull length: 17.65m
Hull width: 6m
Hull height: 3m (+1.5m w/landing gear down)



Yeah, I'm liking this iteration better, now that I've been able to formulate a deck plan for it.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Now THAT looks better than what I had before!

• 1-10: Upper Deck
• 11-21: Escort Fighter
• 22-60: Upper Deck Boxes (4)
• 61-98: Main Deck Boxes (4)
• 99-150: Main Deck

A few tweaks to compartmentalization here and there, to make some of the "life support" machinery spaces a bit more logical in their layout.

Compartments 3 and 8 contain the atmospheric recovery systems needed to pressurize and depressurize the forward hangar bay (2) on the upper deck, used to internally berth the Escort Fighter between deployments.

Compartments 4, 9, 140 and 144 contain the atmospheric recovery systems needed to pressurize and depressurize the aft double deck height hangar bay (10 and 143) which can be loaded with either 8x 12 ton Boxes or 1x 96 ton Pod, an assortment of break bulk cargo lots, or filled with a collapsible fuel tank containing up to 90 tons of fuel capacity to enable additional jump(s) before needing to refuel.

Compartments 123 and 125 contain life support chemical reserve tanks to capture and store a variety of "waste chemistry" byproduct feedstocks that result from fuel refining and purification when wilderness refueling. These feedstocks are used by the Laboratory Boxes in their regenerative biome life support systems, which require inputs to replace and replenish losses over time between annual overhaul maintenance cycles.



Now, to hunker down and start getting text write ups formatted, proofread and prepared for posting in The Fleet forum.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Wow. Talk about finding something you weren't expecting or even anticipating as being an option.

I was running some numbers for theorycrafting of external loads for the 16 ton Escort Fighter equipped with Maneuver-A and Power Plant-A drives. This combination yields a maximum performance profile that looks like this, because Standard Drive-A equals Code: 1 in a 200 ton displacement form factor:

• Maneuver-6 @ up to 33 tons total (+17 tons external)
• Maneuver-5 @ up to 40 tons total (+24 tons external)
• Maneuver-4 @ up to 50 tons total (+34 tons external)
• Maneuver-3 @ up to 66 tons total (+50 tons external)
• Maneuver-2 @ up to 100 tons total (+84 tons external)
• Maneuver-1 @ up to 200 tons total (+184 tons external)

So far, so ordinary, right?

Well ... ... do not speed past the (already) obvious too quickly (like I've been doing for months, now) or you'll miss a trick (or few).



What I finally realized is that with the redesign into the 16 ton Escort Fighter (mixed triple M/S/M turret and model/3 computer) the small craft now had a 2 ton small craft stateroom included in the design, extending crew endurance beyond the 24 hour life support limit (12 hours in combat) of acceleration couches (of which there are 2 on the bridge). As I mentioned up thread in previous posts, this would enable interplanetary transport voyages in commercial service as well as longer endurance patrol for both interplanetary system defense and customs inspection/policing tasking and missions.

But now, I only had 1 EP available to spend on Agility, because the model/3 computer consumes 1 EP and a Power Plant-A only produces 2 EP (by definition).

So at this point, a more complete drive performance table accounting for external loading was starting to look like this:

• Maneuver-6, Agility-6 @ up to 16 tons total (+0 tons external)
• Maneuver-6, Agility-5 @ up to 20 tons total (+4 tons external)
• Maneuver-6, Agility-4 @ up to 25 tons total (+9 tons external)
• Maneuver-6, Agility-3 @ up to 33 tons total (+17 tons external)
• Maneuver-5, Agility-2 @ up to 40 tons total (+24 tons external)
• Maneuver-4, Agility-2 @ up to 50 tons total (+34 tons external)
• Maneuver-3. Agility-1 @ up to 66 tons total (+50 tons external)
• Maneuver-2, Agility-1 @ up to 100 tons total (+84 tons external)
• Maneuver-1, Agility-0 @ up to 200 tons total (+184 tons external)

That's an extremely INTERESTING array of drive performance breakpoints ... because ... carry the ə ... and you get the following:

• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 0x 16 tons external Fighter + 0x 12 tons external Box = 16 tons = Maneuver-6, Agility-6
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 0x 16 tons external Fighter + 1x 12 tons external Box = 28 tons = Maneuver-6, Agility-3
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 1x 16 tons external Fighter + 0x 12 tons external Box = 32 tons = Maneuver-6, Agility-3
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 0x 16 tons external Fighter + 2x 12 tons external Box = 40 tons = Maneuver-5, Agility-2
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 2x 16 tons external Fighter + 0x 12 tons external Box = 48 tons = Maneuver-4, Agility-2
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 0x 16 tons external Fighter + 4x 12 tons external Box = 64 tons = Maneuver-3. Agility-1
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 3x 16 tons external Fighter + 0x 12 tons external Box = 64 tons = Maneuver-3. Agility-1
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 5x 16 tons external Fighter + 0x 12 tons external Box = 96 tons = Maneuver-2, Agility-1
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 0x 16 tons external Fighter + 7x 12 tons external Box = 100 tons = Maneuver-2, Agility-1
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 0x 16 tons external Fighter + 15x 12 tons external Box = 196 tons = Maneuver-1, Agility-0
• 16 ton Escort Fighter + 10x 16 tons external Fighter + 2x 12 tons external Box = 200 tons = Maneuver-1, Agility-0

The key insight here being that Escort Fighters can "buddy dock" to each other during long (hopefully uneventful) transits and not lose acceleration, only agility during the ferry cycle. This allows 2+ Escort Fighters to dock with each other in a "bundle" in order to share standing watch duties during long transits, reducing crew fatigue.

So if 2 Escort Fighters dock with each other for a transit, crews can "take turns" standing watch during the transit, allowing the other crew enough off duty cycle time to keep both crews from becoming exhausted while continuously accelerating @ 6G the entire time.

3 Escort Fighters docked together, with 1 on duty, 1 on standby and 1 in a rest cycle, can continuously accelerate together @ 4G
4 Escort Fighters docked together can continuously accelerate together @ 3G.
6 Escort Fighters docked together can continuously accelerate together @ 2G.

And somewhat astonishingly, 11 Escort Fighters docked together, plus 2 additional 12 ton Boxes (which could contain anything from starship staterooms to fuel reserves for extending endurance to an automated magazine loaded with missiles and sand canisters for replenishment of ordnance by the fighter squadron), can continuously accelerate together @ 1G using only 1 of the 11 Escort Fighters for maneuver and power. In the event of an encounter, 10 of the Escort Fighters can "deploy" from the "buddy docking" stack and vector away to intercept, forming a line of battle, while the remaining Escort Fighter shepherds the 2x Boxes, from a position in the reserve ... creating a "break and attack" response while on patrol. I would imagine that the "200 ton buddy docking" stack of small craft would have a sensor return analogous to that of a 200 ton big craft (albeit an unstreamlined one) and a neutrino signature (before getting a visual) that looks almost exactly like a 100 ton Type-S Scout/Courier or 200 ton Type-A1 Free Trader (both of which use Power Plant-A standard drives also).



In other words, there are permutations of possiblities available here, particularly in the realm of "masquerading as being something that you're not while at range" ... such as 2x 16 ton Escort Fighters that are "buddy docked" together (with only 1 active) have almost the right displacement, hull shape and neutrino signature to be confused with a 1x 30 ton Ship's Boat accelerating @ 6G before any combat maneuvering starts (which is when Agility becomes relevant).

It's this kind of "tactical trickery" that can create confusion (and/or complacency) when interpreting sensor data, such that "1 pair of small craft" on sensors can unexpectedly turn into "2 pair, repeat, 4 bogeys!"



Here's a "low tech" example of what that can look like in a COACC theater operating in atmosphere (that some readers of these forums may be familiar with).

Extrapolate to orbital maneuvering in the vacuum of space to get an idea of what this kind of "sensor camouflage" (displacement, acceleration, neutrino signature, etc.) can do for tactical options in an intercept by TL=10 small craft fighters ... and a whole wealth of options becomes available while in the "instruments only/beyond visual range" realm of threat (MIS)identification (until it's too late).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Another fun bit of Setting Texture that results from switching from lasers to missiles as the armament for the Escort Fighter becomes dealing with the seemingly inevitable question of ordnance resupply (because HE missiles don't grow on rocks by themselves!).

After a bit of trawling through CT and the Travellerwiki Anti-Shipping Missile article, I was able to consolidate the following details:

Ordnance Resupply (missiles)

• Cr5000 per HE Missile container (LBB2.81, p17)
• requires Tech Level: 7+ (LBB5.80, p25)
• requires Law Level: 7- to be available for sale to private buyers (LBB SS3, p3 and p14)
• Population: 7+ is recommended for domestic production of HE Missile containers since Population: 6- will require import of kits which can raise prices to cover interstellar transport costs (add Cr50 per HE Missile container per parsec to nearest interstellar producer)

These constraints wind up making for an interesting mix that prevents HE Missiles from "being available in every corner drugstore" (or words to that effect). In fact, if I look around my preferred location for the SIE Clipper story that I'm (re)writing, there's only a limited number of places on the map that turret missiles could be obtained from domestic industries:

1. Mirriam/Five Sisters
2. Jone/Five Sisters
3. Wonstar/Five Sisters
4. Gohature/Five Sisters
5. Collace/District 268
6. Caladbolg/Sword Worlds
7. Trexalon/Disctrict 268
8. Dallia/District 268
9. Mertactor/District 268

I count 64 star systems on this particular map slice.
9 of 64 star systems with domestic arms industries capable of manufacturing HE missiles for turrets to buy makes for an interesting supply chain issue. That's slightly under 1 in 7 of the worlds shown on the map ... and those 9 star systems tend to be "clumped" together, rather than being evenly spread out, so in some parts of the map it can potentially be "a bit of a journey" before being able to reach a resupply point after an Escort Fighter engages in heavy combat with an adversary (firing many/all missiles available).

Fortunately ... Caladbolg/Sword Worlds (B365776-A) is on that list of worlds that threads the needle of having enough population (7+), tech level (7+) and a low enough law level (7-) to both produce and permit the sale of HE missile containers to private buyers, making Caladbolg one of the (few) "resupply points" on the map for missile ordnance.



Each missile launcher or sandcaster in a turret holds 3 rounds of ammunition in the weapon itself, 1 ready to fire plus 2 reloads LBB SS3, p7). A turret can store an additional 12 rounds (total), which must be divided among the weapons loaded into the turret.

So a Mixed Triple Turret with a loadout of Missile, Sandcaster, Missile would have the following capacity:

• Missile: 3 shots
• Sandcaster: 3 shots
• Missile: 3 shots
• Turret reserve: 12 shots (divided amongst the weapons)

One way to divide up the magazine capacity built into the turret would be ... 12 missiles and 0 sand. The 12 missiles would be "shared" between the two missile launchers. So what you wind up with is:

• Missile: 3 missiles
• Sandcaster: 3 canisters
• Missile: 3 missiles
• Turret reserve: 12 missiles, 0 canisters

If both missile launchers are fired each combat round, that yields a combat endurance of 3+6=9 shots from the two missile launchers and 3+0=3 shots from the sandcaster. Under nominal circumstances, in LBB5.80 combat, an Escort Fighter is unlikely to be hit (Size: 0 plus Agility: 2 is a -8DM even before getting to relative computer size) unless dangerously outclassed by a high model computer (which at TL=10 only goes up to model/4), in which case the sandcaster is probably going to be useless as a defense ANYWAY ... but up to 9 shots from 2x code: 1 missile batteries and a model/3 computer per combat round is a pretty serious threat, even to a TL=10 Type-T Patrol Cruiser, I'm thinking.

Higher tech level craft (with more compute power) will be able to "steamroll" the TL=10 Escort Fighters relatively easily, but for their tech level "era" they make for pretty decent fighters.

The only drawback is the limited supply of missiles (and sand) and the limitations on resupply.
Just don't get caught with your "pants down" out in the wilds of District 268 and you'll be fine ... Trust Me™.

 

[Spinward Flow]

When you're absolutely convinced that if you had to redo your deck plans, there must have been a better way/room for improvements over the previous draft.

For a long time now, I've been wanting to (somehow!) create a Laboratory Box that could be used as a building block for an astronomical interferometer telescope to do astronomy research with. Once you have the "basic building block" designed, just put that basic building block into volume production and "build a lot of them" for use in an orbital array to support academic research. Basically, something that a world(-class) university would sign onto to attract talent and specialists in the field, enhancing the university's reputation and prestige.

In Traveller terms, it's just a "big sensor system" (which CT doesn't even acknowledge as an option), but which later editions might have some RAW supporting the idea.

As far as I'm concerned, it's just (yet) another 12 ton Laboratory Box outfitted as a different type of "laboratory" that specializes in astronomical observations.

The idea here is that the dorsal hull of the Laboratory Box OPENS on either side to expose the astronomical mirrors to space, allowing observing time to begin. Point the ventral side towards local star (when in space) or mount onto stabilization cradle (when ground based).

Anyone who knows what THIS is ...

... ought to pretty instantly recognize what the big (5.09m² each!) silvery hexagons in the deck plan for the TL=10 Laboratory Box ought to be (hint: not parsecs on a subsector map!). This gives a single 12 ton Laboratory Box (astronomical interferometer) ~30.5m² of light gathering mirror area before accounting for the obscuration of secondary support struts for the secondary reflecting mirror.

For reference, the James Webb Space Telescope (linked and shown above) has 26.3m² polished mirror area.
So one 12 ton Laboratory Box can "approximate" the performance of JWST if specialized as a TL=10 astronomical observatory.

Needless to say, there would almost certainly be different variants of the 12 ton Laboratory Box specializing in specific wavelengths (infrared, optical, ultraviolet, etc.) with slightly different materials engineering optimizing for those particular observations ... but you get the idea.



But what makes this kind of astronomical research asset especially valuable in a Traveller context is that in an interstellar civilization you can MOVE these observatories around rather than being "stuck" in a single specific location (in only one star system). And in a universe where FTL jump is not only available but commonplace, it becomes possible to use the speed of light to an astronomer's advantage!

Ever wanted to observe a particular astronomical event multiple times?
In a polity encompassing thousands of star systems, it's going to take light TIME to travel across all of those star systems. So if you can get an FTL communication about an astronomical event BEFORE THE LIGHT REACHES EACH STAR SYSTEM ... it then becomes possible to create a wealth of multiple observations of the same event. Thanks to FTL via jump, it becomes possible to "know" what can be observed before the light for that event begins arriving at specific points in space, such that observation time for those events can be scheduled in advance to obtain the best possible data from multiple locations all observing the same phenomena (at different points in space and time).

Have astronomy "laboratory" ... will observe!

 

[kilemall]

So now you have to do modular Type L designs.

Have to. The architect bug compels you.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So now you have to do modular Type L designs.

Have to. The architect bug compels you.

Are you referring to doing something akin to a Lavelier class Laboratory Ship or a Donosev class Survey Scout?
Both options are possible with the 327 ton SIE Clipper ... you just add 12 ton Boxes and 96 ton Pods (towed externally) into the mix.

If you want to retain double jump capability, you simply add less external load to the outfitting.

With E/E/E drives, 500 tons (combined) displacement is the limit for J2/2G drive performance.
The starship is 327 tons with 8x 12 ton Boxes loaded into the internal hangar bay.
This leaves 500-327=173 tons of external load capacity available for additional Boxes and Pods.
2J2 can be accomplished with as little as 72 ton of collapsible fuel tank capacity in the internal hangar bay (trust me, I've run the numbers).

For the first jump, you have 6x 12 ton Boxes moved from the internal hangar to the exterior of the starship for towing and add 1x 96 ton Pod (or 8x 12 ton Boxes) to the external load. This leaves 2x 12 ton Boxes (of the 8 the design comes with) inside the internal 96 ton hangar bay, leaving 72 tons to be filled with the collapsible fuel tank to enable a double jump.
327+(0)+(72+96) = 2 parsecs @ 495 tons combined displacement for the first J2

For the second jump, you move the 6x 12 ton Boxes from the exterior of the starship into the 96 ton internal hangar bay (because the 72 tons of collapsible fuel have been pumped into the internal fuel tanks to replenish the fuel consumed in the first jump). This then leaves only the 1x 96 ton Pod (or 8x 12 ton Boxes) as an external load.
327+(0)+(0+96) = 2 parsecs @ 423 tons combined displacement for the second J2

The 5 high passenger staterooms essentially "convert" into being accommodations for 5 research scientists, with their life support costs "paid for" by the regenerative biome life support laboratories already included in the stock class design.

• 96 tons available for dedicated research laboratory space(s)
• 12 tons Cargo Box available (for vehicle berths)
• 12 tons Environment Box (for sample gathering/preservation)
• 7 crew, 5 researchers accommodations, regenerative biome life support for all
• 2J2/2G capability, streamlined hull, fuel purification plant means that wilderness refueling is preferred

In volume production, the stock starship, escort fighter, 4x stateroom boxes, 2x laboratory boxes, 1x environment box, 1x cargo box has a (combined) construction cost of Cr180,659,040.
Adding 1x 96 ton Laboratory Pod to that adds Cr20,889,600 to the total (labs are expensive!), and any vehicles to add on top of that (air/raft, etc.) will cost extra.

So a "Lab Clipper" would cost MCr201.54864 to construct, not including choice of vehicles.
Combined total hull displacements = 327+(16)+(96+96) = 535 tons.
201.54864 / 535 = MCr0.376727 per combined ton of construction



For reference, a Lavelier class Laboratory Ship offers:

• 85 tons available for dedicated research laboratory space(s)
• 23 tons cargo capacity
• 2 air/rafts
• 5 crew, 15 researchers accommodations, standard life support for all
• 1J2/1G capability, unstreamlined hull, requires pinnace to operate as a fuel shuttle, no fuel purification capacity

MCr158.9841 construction cost, including 2 vehicles.
Total hull displacement = 400 tons.
158.9841 / 400 = MCr0.397461 per ton of construction



In other words, the "Lab Clipper" conversion (somehow!) SAVES Cr20,734 credits per ton in construction cost relative to the Lavelier.
Adding vehicles to the loadout of the "Lab Clipper" will revise that downwards, but not by enough to wipe out the "cost per constructed ton" advantage (completely).

Sure, the "Lab Clipper" weighs in a 126.77% of the price of a Lavelier to construct ... but you're getting a very interesting mix of capabilities (including an option for expansion!) for that extra price tag on the "Lab Clipper" ... including the double jump capability and escort fighter protection while conducting research.

The "Lab Clipper" can host 5 researchers in high passenger accommodations, while the Lavelier can host up to 15 researchers in middle passenger accommodations.

The "Lab Clipper" averages 96/5=19.2 tons of research laboratory space per researcher hosted.
The Lavelier averages 85/15=5.667 tons of research laboratory space per researcher hosted.



However, if you REALLY NEED to have a high density of researchers with LOTS of laboratory space equipment to work with ... you can just add more Boxes/Pods to the "Lab Clipper" and reduce the drive performance down to 2J1/1G capability and just add another 4x 96 ton Pods into the mix (2x Stateroom, 2x Laboratory) to add another 24+24=48 staterooms into the mix and another 96+96=192 tons of laboratory space (which could be half regenerative biome life support and have research lab space).

Worst case scenario is that you can host some ~50 researchers and give them 192 tons of laboratory space to work with, or 3.84 tons of laboratory space per researcher hosted if the mission calls for it.



Your move, Lavelier class ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Started working on the "top down overlay" views of what the deck plans look like when the 12 ton Boxes get "moved outside to docking points on the wings" to free up space inside the aft internal hangar bay for transport of major/minor/incidental lots of cargo to be shipped internally (the usual stuff) ... and then add either 12 ton Boxes and/or 96 ton Pods for additional external load capacity.

Here's what things look like when configuring for single jumps.



J3 @ 327 tons displacement

J2 (option 1) @ 495 tons (combined) displacement

J2 (option 2) @ 495 tons (combined) displacement

J1 @ 999 tons (combined) displacement

Doing these kinds of stacked transparency layers helps to give "3D clarity" on where all of this external docking is happening, how the various components "fit" together in a logical way, while also being something of a "sanity check" for the kind of "naval architect spreadsheet math" that the starship design system in CT is built around and intended to make use of.

Taking that "theater of the mind" side of things where all you need is for "the math to add up" and then translate all of that into something more akin to a layout and 3D (using 2D grids) design challenge really starts to put the creative onus on "getting things RIGHT" so that you've got a library of scaled component images that let you just plug 'n' play in transparent layers that can be stacked onto grid backgrounds ... and everything starts falling into place.

Needless to say there is a LOT of prep work that goes into developing and iterating the libraries of component images that can then be assembled (LEGO brick style) into cohesive wholes like I'm demonstrating here.



Kind of hard to believe that my first attempt to draw a starship deck plan (2 years ago now!) looked THIS BAD.

Apologies for the slight blurring of the image, Preview does that when too many things are getting stacked on top of each other when marking up an image (in this case, a piece of graph paper).

But hey, gotta start somewhere ... am I right or am I right?



And yes, some of us are still interested in making deck plans for our starship designs.
Having an image library, a workflow and the experience needed with an image application to make it happen ... that's a different problem.
I just count myself lucky for having found the Geomorphs icon set at Yet Another Traveller Blog and then struggling with the copy/paste cutouts long enough to have amassed the necessary image library, workflow and experience with the Preview application to be able to do this kind of image editing into crisp, clean deck plans for starships ... just like I've always wanted to do for decades now.