Pondering starship evolution

[Grav_Moped]

One thing worth noting is that the stock Type R could actually cover expenses with a full hold of Cr1000/Td freight (and full pax load) if it had 20Td more cargo capacity instead of the lifeboat.

I don't recall whether this was without weapons and a gunner, or with one turret and one gunner. In any case, I do recall that the lifeboat made the subsidy necessary.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Another interesting result, because it demonstrates the "value" of subsidized operations.

• 27-37% manifest capacity @ 15 destinations per year to break even leaves a substantial quantity of cargo tonnage remaining for speculative goods arbitrage capacity.
• 34-47% manifest capacity @ 12 destinations (including 87 days "vacation") per year to break even leaves a substantial quantity of cargo tonnage remaining for speculative goods arbitrage capacity.

For privately owned ships that are paid off, it starts getting difficult to cover all expenses using ticket revenues exclusively when double jumping (J2+1 or J2+2), which is all that this spreadsheet "in a vacuum, without any context" analysis cares about ... while things start looking positively GRIM for bank financed ships!

However, that relatively quick+long range capability makes it possible to link up markets that would otherwise be completely isolated from or impractical to transport to @ J1 only. The flexibility afforded by double jumping creates opportunities to seek out the most favorable buy low/sell high chances, maximizing profit potentials through arbitrage.

Take a look at these two regions of the Spinward Marches, for example:

With a J1 (only) Fat Trader, you're essentially limited to the Vilis Trace ... and even then you've really only got 3 markets worth going to for full manifests:

1. Garda-Vilis/Vilis
2. Vilis/Vilis (Industrial)
3. Arkadia/Vilis

For any speculative goods trading that is best to buy/sell in Non-industrial markets, you're basically looking at Choleosti/Vilis or Stellatio/Vilis as your only meaningful options.

Note that this means that because your J1 (only) Fat Trader has limited jump range, the only trade codes you can meaninfully access when using Vilis/Vilis as your home port are going to be ... Industrial and Non-industrial ... which means, not a whole lot of variety in choices.

Contrast that with the opportunities afforded to to a J2+2 Long Trader. In terms of both population and trade codes, your preferred markets expand to:

1. Dekalb/Qrerien (Rich)
2. Thanber/Qrerien (Poor)
3. Vilis/Vilis (industrial)
4. Margesi/Vilis (Agricultural, Non-industrial)
5. Saurus/Vilis (Agricultural, Non-industrial)

That is a much more favorable mix of trade codes to take advantage of when dealing in speculative goods, with the only trade code missing from the preferred area of operations being Non-agricultural.

---

Here is another example in District 268.

There are enough trade codes scattered around within this region as to make a J2-4 Long Trader remarkably viable when dealing in speculative goods trading, but trying to navigate around @ J1 in a (stock trim) Fat Trader in the same region both frustrating and dangerous. LOTS of opportunity for pirate encounters (because there are few type A-B starports around) and the "best links" between trade codes are rarely adjacent to each other.

The moral of the story being that @ J1 ... your options of where to "go next" for 1-4 jumps is pretty tightly circumscribed, and the market opportunities along the way are basically "locked in" while you're in transit. Some star systems are going to have so little opportunity for trade in them that they're little more than "skim and jump pit stops" along your route towards getting somewhere more important/useful/lucrative.

By contrast @ J2 through J2+2 ... your mobility options expand somewhat exponentially. Transporting Industrial products from Collace/District 268 to Iderati/Five Sisters actually becomes practical (it's 5 jumps through Avastan, deep space and 875-496 along the way). Caladbolg/Sword Worlds to Forine/District 268 is only 3 jumps through Caliburn and Elixabeth along the way. Likewise, connections between Caladbolg/Sword Worlds and Flammarion/Sword Worlds via deep space become possible using J2+2=4 parsecs, linking an Agricultural+Rich world to a Poor world ... but with a J1 Fat Trader would be highly uneconomical requiring J1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=9 parsecs following the Spinward Main, with SIX Population: 0-4 worlds along the way (good luck turning a profit on that route)!



So although the stock (unarmed) Type-R Fat Trader plus (unarmed) Launch looks like it ought to be an absolute bargain (for the price) on paper, easily capable of breaking even or profiting on ticket revenues because of its large passenger and cargo capacities ... in reality the Fat Trader "misses out" on an entirely other scale of opportunities in speculative goods trading simply due to the limitations of J1 when it comes to freedom of navigation. Some of the "deficiencies" of the Fat Trader can be remedied with aftermarket options (with a TL=9 fuel purification plant being the prime NO BRAINER to enable wilderness skimming that yields refined fuel) ... along with collapsible fuel tanks to "flex" cargo capacity for extra jumps ... but the J1 limitation is actually VERY LIMITING when you start merchant trade code portolan charting into accound. You just don't have the "reach to go far quickly" to bridge gaps between star systems all that easily/quickly. As a result, the Fat Trader may wind up with a somewhat substantial portion of the cargo bay "tied up" transporting speculative goods, reducing ticket revenues that can be earned by a starship with higher overhead expenses (life support for crew and passengers being the primary concern).

Compare that to the (unarmed) Long Trader plus (armed) Laser Fighter escort design that I'm working on, which is intended to be J2+2 capable when the circumstances favor it. Overhead expenses are lowered by the fuel purification plant (wilderness refueling is free!) and regenerative biome life support laboratory, meaning that it is possible to break even on lower volumes of ticket sales. When speculative goods opportunities arise for making a purchase at a good price, the Long Trader can MOVE to a most favorable market to sell those goods into relatively quickly. That fast(er) turn around time then means (on balance) that there is a faster tempo of buy/sell in speculative goods (the REAL profit maker!) and the longer double jump range permits bypassing unfavorable destinations for the best market(s) to sell into at the best possible prices ... enhancing overall venture profitability in ways that simply "aren't available" to a J1 merchant ship like is possible with a J2 (or better yet, a J2+2) range advantage.

Yes, the more powerful drive systems are going to be something that has to be "paid for" in construction costs, but the lifetime advantage in terms of speculative goods arbitrage tempo functionally makes up the difference ... sometimes within just a few years (let alone 40+ before a ship is retired, scrapped or sold onwards to another buyer).



Subsidized operations make a LOT of economics options "more viable" than private purchase (in full) or even bank loan financing (in which the operator basically pays the bank enough money to buy 2 ships, not just 1, through interest over 480 months of mortgage payments).

For bank loan financing, piracy can be an enormous threat.
Just because your starship was stolen out from under you and taken as a prize, doesn't mean you can stop making mortgage payments! If you signed the dotted line for the loan, you still have to repay the loan ... whether or not you still have the starship to generate the money to keep making the mortgage payments with. So what did you sign up for in terms of insurance policy?

 

[Spinward Flow]

One thing worth noting is that the stock Type R could actually cover expenses with a full hold of Cr1000/Td freight (and full pax load) if it had 20Td more cargo capacity instead of the lifeboat.

The Launch doesn't really add all that much capability to the Type R. It doesn't even add 2G maneuver for VTOL on Size: 8+ worlds, and since the starship is streamlined it doesn't even have to be used as a fuel shuttle.

So more of a "nifty add on" but less useful in terms of capability addition, particularly since the Type R doesn't have 2 pilots on its crew roster, so the Launch can't be operated independently of the starship (1 pilot, 2 craft ... do the math ).

I don't recall whether this was without weapons and a gunner, or with one turret and one gunner. In any case, I do recall that the lifeboat made the subsidy necessary.

I'm perfectly fine with the Type R being something intended to operate under subsidy. As shown above, with a ~50% manifest the Type R can buy refined fuel and still turn a profit. Easiest way to keep manifests full is to"pre-program" destinations in advance so as to sell tickets to the next 2-3 destinations rather than just the next 1 destination, in order to keep ticket revenues as high as possible. Of course, "loading up" on multiple destinations like that limits "tramp" opportunities for dabbling in speculative goods even further (by keeping your cargo hold full and making it expensive to "abort" your destination plot to go sell you speculative goods "off route"), so there are some definite tradeoffs involved.

 

[kilemall]

Minor but not insignificant issues with unrefined fuel ops is time incurred to gas giants with desert/asteroid ports, and risk of pirates to such obvious watering holes.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Minor but not insignificant issues with unrefined fuel ops is time incurred to gas giants with desert/asteroid ports, and risk of pirates to such obvious watering holes.

Granted.
However ... at that point it's coming down to a "time is money" equation.
Note that this then becomes another point at which "1G isn't enough" to balance out that "time is money" computation in your favor, even with "free fuel" on the other end of that tradeoff.

Is it "cheaper" to take the time to fly out and obtain "free fuel" ... or is it cheaper to "save the time" and just buy unrefined fuel from a starport?
The answer to that question depends on the details.

Another question is ... when ... would a gas giant skimming run happen during a trading week?

• Do you breakout from jump near the gas giant, skim fuel and then spend time accelerating to the mainworld, conducting business negotiations over comms? That way, you spend relatively little time at the mainworld unloading/loading before maneuvering away to a jump point to depart the system.
• Or do you load all of your passengers and cargo before making a transit out to the gas giant, intending to orbit until your fuel tanks are filled and then maneuver away to a jump point around the gas giant to depart the system?

This isn't necessarily a simple straightforward question, since there could be opportunities for interplanetary charters that could complicate matters.

For example, a starship could breakout from jump at a desert mainworld, descend to surface to offload, be offered a "round trip" interplanetary charter contract to transport personnel and goods to orbit around the in-system gas giant allowing for an unload/skim/load cycle at the gas giant and then return to the mainworld with new passengers and cargo. By the time the starship returns to the mainworld, the interstellar passengers and cargo may be ready for loading ... so unload the passengers and cargo from the gas giant, load the interstellar passengers and cargo, maneuver to the jump point and depart the system.

Point being, there might be ... options ... which a reputable ship and crew can take advantage of which an "unknown tramp" would not be offered.

Mind you, the local tech level had better be 5+ in order to support radio.
If you're looking at TL=4- you're probably going to be limited to telegraph communications (TL=4), or worse ... in person only negotiations (TL=3-).



This is why my own personal (starship design) preference is to use water ocean refueling at the mainworld by preference, with any gas giant options as a backup (assuming the mainworld is not a Satellite of a gas giant, as is the case at Regina/Regina/Spinward Marches). Ocean water takes 10x as long to purify (1 ton per minute gas giant atmosphere, 1 ton per 10 minutes ocean water) but the difference in travel time for a transit can be a deal breaker. When you've got 6 days of starport berth rental on your tab, flying your starship to the ocean for fuel becomes relatively trivial in anything with less than 500 tons of fuel capacity.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Decided to go ahead and post my 16 ton Light Fighter (TL=9) design over in The Fleet forum.
Turns out it's a rather remarkable craft for the price and tonnage (MCr2.131 per ton, base trim in volume production). Short ranged (12-24 hours of life support), but as a convoy escort for merchant ships it's pretty darn decent.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And I've also posted my 30 ton Strike Fighter (TL=11) design over in The Fleet forum.
Another pretty remarkable craft for the price and tonnage (MCr2.119 per ton, base trim in volume production. However, this small craft has single occupancy small craft cabins for the pilot and gunner, increasing life support endurance beyond 24 hours and enabling much longer patrol and ferry range mission tasking. There's even an option for a missile magazine to enable planetary bombardment! At TL=13, the Pulse Laser and Missile in the triple turret both upgrade by +1 code factor due to advancements in weapons technology. As a system defense patrol fighter, I'm thinking that it's a really good mix of capabilities for both the displacement and the price.

 

[Spinward Flow]

... I wonder ...

If I wanted to do a J3/3G @ TL=11 external load towing starship built for double jumping ... the only reason to go to TL=11 would be for the LBB2.81 standard drives. Nothing in the design fundamentals for the SIE Big Clipper calls for anything over TL=10, so the only excuse I can think of to reach for TL=11 would be to make use of higher drive letters (specifically, J-K, which are rated at Code: 1 for 1800 and 2000 tons respectively). So J/J/J drives would be rated as code: 3 in a 600 ton form factor.

Note to self: the Subsidized Liner (Type M) from LBB2.81 uses J/C/J drives in a 600 ton custom hull to achieve J3/1G performance, so there ought to be "plentiful production" of Jump-J and Power Plant-J drives already in circulation.

So now I'm starting to wonder what happens if I take the design paradigm I was using in the SIE Big Clipper and scale it up from 400 tons to 600 tons using J/J/J drives @ TL=11 along with a 30 ton Strike Fighter (TL=11) for escort protection?

In a lot of cases, by scaling up (especially with LBB2.81 standard drives) until reaching 1000 tons, you wind up with marginal increases in revenue tonnage fractions relative to lower hull sizes (since things like bridge and computer tonnage do not scale while drives and fuel does).



Keeping things in the Spinward Marches, the follow up question would be ... where to build it?
And the answer to that question comes right back to ... Karin/Five Sisters or Iderati/Five Sisters ... as the best location for a J3/3G @ TL=11 commercial merchant starship design intended to serve more developed markets. Once the design is finalized, it can be "proliferated" to shipyards elsewhere within and beyond the sector.

Might be worth returning to that particular well once more ... except @ TL=11 instead of TL=12 this time.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So now I'm starting to wonder what happens if I take the design paradigm I was using in the SIE Big Clipper and scale it up from 400 tons to 600 tons using J/J/J drives @ TL=11 along with a 30 ton Strike Fighter (TL=11) for escort protection?

You ever have one of those moments when you realize you've been "barking up the wrong tree" and you just want to do this?

Yeah.
Definitely a realization of "you're doing it wrong" going on here.

I shouldn't have been trying to go "bigger" ... scaling up from TL=10 F/F/F drives into TL=11 J/J/J drives in order to haul bigger loads.
Instead, I should have been returning to my original 303 ton SIE Clipper using E/E/E drives @ TL=10 and tweaked the design by replacing the 25 ton Laser Fighter (TL=10) with a 16 ton Light Fighter (TL=9) instead. The tonnage saved from that switch alone is enough to afford an increase in hull size to permit an internal hangar bay for the Light Fighter (as opposed to the previous external only docking) while leaving enough additional tonnage under the J3 @ 333 tons upper limit to include additional fuel in the fuel tanks.

In other words, it's now possible to "rebalance" the E/E/E drives @ TL=10 approach into something more capable.

Additionally:

• 8x 12 ton modules = 96 tons + 16 ton Light Fighter = 112 tons of internal hangar bay space required on the naval architect spreadsheet
• 100 tons x 110% big craft hangar berthing requirement = 110 tons

Meaning ... it would be possible to design 100 ton Pods (stateroom, laboratory, environment and cargo varieties) that can fit into the refactored hangar bay of the evolution of the E/E/E drive installed class.

Furthermore, if I limit the starship hull size to 328 tons (with internal Light Fighter), that would leave 672 tons of external load capacity available for the towing of external loads.

• (6*100)*1.1 + (1*12)*1.0 = 672

So the redesign would be capable to externally towing 6x 100 ton Pods (3 dorsal, 3 ventral) plus 1x 12 ton Box ... while internally berthing 1x Light Fighter plus 8x 12 ton Boxes ... for a combined total displacement of 1000 tons, the code: 1 performance limit for E/E/E drives. And because the drives "top out" at 1000 tons, external loads of below 100 tons individual displacement are carried at 100% of their displacement rather than 130% (which is what happens for craft over 1000 tons, per LBB5.80, p32.

Net result ... the smaller ship gets CHEAPER AND MORE CAPABLE (all at the same time! ) due to better "load balancing" of the displacement tonnage budget!



This alternative merits renewed scrutiny!
I might even need to "retcon" the SIE Big Clipper out of continuity as a result of this (belated) realization!



Once again proving the dictum that Art Is Never Finished, Merely Abandoned ...

Looks like I'll have the opportunity to "make numbers SCREAM FOR MERCY" yet again ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Net result ... the smaller ship gets CHEAPER AND MORE CAPABLE (all at the same time! ) due to better "load balancing" of the displacement tonnage budget!

Oh.

Original design (from 25 Aug 2023 post) for a 303 ton E/E/E drives J3/3G starship plus 25 ton laser fighter and 8x 12 ton modules:

• Cr247,491,000 single production, Cr199,788,000 volume production

Revised design evolution (not yet posted, obviously) for a 328 ton E/E/E drives J3/3G starship plus 16 ton light fighter and 8x 12 ton modules:

• Cr230,811,800 single production, Cr186,306,400 volume production

Savings in total construction costs:

• Cr16,679,200 single production, Cr13,481,600 volume production
• 6.793% reduction in construction costs

Even better yet, the 20% down payment needed for a stock trim copy fresh off the production line is ... Cr37,261,280 ... which is only slightly above the MCr37,080,000 construction price of a Free Trader (Type A1) fresh off the production line (paid in full upon delivery). Or another way to think of the updated down payment cost is that it amounts to 62.56% of the value of a Far Trader (Type A2) fresh off the production line, which at a -1% value depreciation per year would put a merchant who can pay off the bank financing loan on an Empress Marava class within striking distance of being able to afford a down payment on a (revised) SIE Clipper by using the equity remaining in their Far Trader after 40 years.

Definitely more expensive than a Fat Trader (Type R) ... but the light fighter and external load towing capacity (allowing the starship to "transform" into a J2/2G 500 ton ship or a J1/1G 1000 ton ship for additional profits) makes for a remarkable difference in terms of opportunities to profit (and facilitate third party traders who want to make use of that external load capacity). However, the extremely low "break even" point for operating costs on my Clipper designs when in subsidized service means that with a Mail Contract, it becomes almost trivial to operate profitably even with less than full manifests and no external load capacity being chartered, which then facilitates availability to speculative goods arbitrage opportunities.




Yes, this redesign is starting to look VERY promising.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, this redesign is starting to look VERY promising.

Very interesting results from the economic analysis by spreadsheet for the 328 ton E/E/E drives J3/3G redesign (full package).

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	24,171​	210,477​	396,784​
19 (6+8 days) = 266 + 85	32,188​	277,328​	522,468​
15 (6+8+8 days) = 330 + 21	40,318​	350,828​	661,339​
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 87	54,730​	538,070​	827,199​

What does all of that mean for an operator of the redesign?

Capacity @ J3 = 5 high passengers + 24 tons cargo
Subsidized:

• 25 Destinations Per Year @ J3
  • Profitable: 5 high passengers + 0 tons cargo = +Cr829 net
  • Profitable: 2 high passenger + 4 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr329 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 24 tons cargo = +Cr9129 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 19 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr19,379 net
• 19 Destinations Per Year @ J3
  • Profitable: 5 high passengers + 15 tons cargo = +Cr312 net
  • Profitable: 4 high passenger + 0 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr312 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 24 tons cargo = +Cr1112 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 19 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr11,362 net
• 15 Destinations Per Year @ J2+3
  • Profitable: 4 high passengers + 1 ton cargo = +Cr682 net
  • Profitable: 2 high passenger + 8 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr182 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 24 tons cargo = +Cr33,682 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 19 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr41,182 net
• 12 Destinations Per Year @ J2+3
  • Profitable: 5 high passengers + 5 tons cargo = +Cr270 net
  • Profitable: 4 high passenger + 3 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr770 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 24 tons cargo = +Cr11,870 net
  • Profitable (charter): 5 high passengers + 19 tons cargo + 5 tons mail = +Cr19,870 net

Point being that the economic break even points on the redesign allow "margin" to engage in speculative goods arbitrage on the side to increase operator profits handsomely under a subsidy contract.

And those +Cr net numbers I'm computing above?
That's per destination ... not "per year" (or whatever).

As you can pretty plainly see, putting a Mail Vault into a 12 ton Cargo Box does some "rather nice things to bottom lines" for a subsidized operator, which then pushes the class into the Armed Packet courier classification (which did not exist as such during the CT era of Traveller).

Yes, this redesign is starting to look VERY promising.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Very interesting results from the economic analysis by spreadsheet for the 328 ton E/E/E drives J3/3G redesign (full package).

Very interesting results indeed.

Having gotten to computing the 100% manifest revenues under various configurations of internal/external loading, I'm starting to see some rather interesting trends emerging. When comparing the 328 ton E/E/E drives redesign to the 400 ton F/F/F drives variant I posted previously, something especially curious is happening.

Although the 400 ton F/F/F drives version is capable of carrying "more" at J2 (because E/E/E drives are code: 2 @ 500 tons versus F/F/F drives that are code: 2 @ 600 tons), the difference is actually pretty marginal (500-328=172 vs 600-400=200). When comparing construction costs between the two variations, the E/E/E drives version costs Cr186,306,400 (volume production) for 172 tons of external capacity @ J2 ... while the F/F/F drives version costs Cr232,003,280 (volume production) for 200 tons of external capacity @ J2.

• (232,003,280 - 186,306,400) / (200 - 172) = Cr1,632,031.4 per added ton of external load capacity (+28) in construction costs

That's basically adding Cr45,696,880 to the construction price for the "privilege" of adding +28 tons of external load capacity @ J2 ... which amounts to a +24.5% cost increase for the F/F/F drives over the E/E/E drives alternative.

Now, granted, the F/F/F drives 400 ton version has a larger internal hangar bay capacity relative to the E/E/E drives 328 ton version (154 ton hangar vs 112 ton hangar), but that's a difference of a mere 42 internal tons of capacity. When you put it all together on the internals, you have 5 high passengers + 60 tons cargo (F/F/F drives) versus 5 high passengers + 24 tons cargo (E/E/E drives), which in terms of "revenue tonnage" is 80 tons (F/F/F) vs 44 tons (E/E/E).

• (232,003,280 - 186,306,400) / ((200-172)+(154-112)) = Cr652,812.6 per added ton of external load capacity (+28) and internal hangar capacity (+42) in construction costs

So a pretty steep price increase (Cr45,696,880) for so marginal an improvement in transport capability when switching from E/E/E drives to F/F/F drives ... and when you start looking at needing to "balance the books" in order to break even on expenses before making a profit, that means that the F/F/F drives 400 ton version relies on a higher demand for trade volumes in order to make ends meet ... which then biases the business model of preferred operations further towards higher population mainworlds and thus away from lower end markets in low population star systems.

Yes, you're getting "more capacity" by going with a larger starship design ... but at what cost/price? Does that "added capacity pay for itself" in terms of demand for tickets and the revenue those ticket sales generate ("we make it up in volume")? Does that capacity increase "price aspiring merchants out of the market" for being able to afford acquisition of the class due to higher down payment requirements and/or higher break even points on revenues to pay for financing?



Just like with so many questions about engineering, it comes down to a balancing of and prioritizing of competing factors. It's not just a matter of grabbing "the bestest everythings" and just throwing them into a cooking pot, assuming that whatever comes out will also be the "bestest" because everything you put in was nothing but the "bestest" for every ingredient. There are competing priorities at stake ... when you want the "mostest for the cheapest that's still the bestest" you can do.

• Cr186,306,400 * 5 = Cr931,532,000
• Cr232,003,280 * 4 = Cr928,013,120

For a fleet operator, if you can buy 5 copies of a 328 ton clipper with E/E/E drives for almost the exact same construction cost price as 4 copies of a 400 ton clipper with F/F/F drives ... that "extra 5th ship" in the fleet can increase opportunities for speculative goods arbitrage profits a good bit more than simply having 4 ships with slightly higher cargo capacities in each ship.

One of those Quantity Has A Quality All Of Its Own kinds of deals.

You can also think of it in terms of industrial policy, employment (jobs! jobs! jobs!) and shipyard construction capacity utilization.
If a subsidizing government can afford to spend BCr1 every 2 years to finance subsidies in a single starship class, it would be better (economically speaking) for that BCr1 to buy 5 copies of the class every 2 years rather than just 4 copies, because the "faster delivery schedule per ship off the line" works out better at keep shipyard workers employed on a rolling basis (because steadier work for everyone involved). You don't wind up with severe "feast or famine" for particular worker skills needed in construction due to longer wait times between stages of production because there are fewer ships being produced each year (2 vs 2.5). Basically, less "hangar queen" factor during construction before ships can be launched and taken into service.

• (328+16+96) * 5 = 2200 tons constructed every 2 years
• (400+22+132) * 4 = 2216 tons constructed every 2 years

Larger "fleets" of ships going into service means greater "reach" and better "scattering/dispersal" of assets and operators, broadening the impacts and effects of procuring and using such ships to enhance soft power through trade, diplomacy and mutual assistance.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Very interesting results indeed.

Very interestings results INDEED ...

So I got to the "loadout configurations" step where I work out what external loads are optimal for the upper limits of drive performance (the J3/2/1 breakpoints) for the best delivery throughputs ... and that's ALWAYS where the "reaction mass hits the vacuum" when it comes to validating the specifications for the design of a merchant class.

And once again(!), the results challenge my initial assumptions.

For example ...
One of my assumptions for the first draft was that 328 tons for the starship is the "best balance point" because 500-328=172/12=14.333 and 1000-328=672/12=56. But when you put 100 ton pods into the mix (which cost 110 tons in towing capacity, because of 110% for big craft requirement) some different numbers start popping out of the configuration numbers ... 500-328-110=62/12=5.167 and 1000-328-6*110=12/12=1.

But then when looking at the ticket revenue totals and comparing them to the (current for 328 ton starship) break even to profit points are to determine where the margins fall, you can start using that data to determine if there's any "wiggle room" to adjust the design of the starship in a way that is advantageous for better efficiency of transport capacity.

Here's what those numbers currently look like, with collapsible fuel required for double jumping) for a 328 ton starship:

J3: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(0+0) = 3 parsecs @ 328 tons

---

J2: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(60+110) = 2 parsecs @ 498 tons

---

J2: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(168+0) = 2 parsecs @ 496 tons

---

J1: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(12+660) = 1 parsec @ 1000 tons

---

J1: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(672+0) = 1 parsec @ 1000 tons

---

J2: 328+(0)+(84+0)+(0+0) = 2 parsecs @ 412 tons (84 collapse)
J3: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(0+0) = 3 parsecs @ 328 tons

---

J2: 328+(16)+(96+0)+(60+0) = 2 parsecs @ 500 tons (96 collapse)
J2: 328+(16)+(96+0)+(60+0) = 2 parsecs @ 500 tons

---

J1: 328+(0)+(96+0)+(0+110) = 1 parsec @ 534 tons (36 collapse)
J2: 328+(0)+(60+0)+(0+110) = 2 parsecs @ 498 tons

---

J1: 328+(0)+(96+0)+(24+550) = 1 parsec @ 998 tons (96 collapse)
J1: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(24+550) = 1 parsec @ 902 tons

But then if I change the starship displacement from 328 to 330 tons, here's what happens (+/- c denotes adjustments in external charter tonnage):

J3: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(0+0) = 3 parsecs @ 330 tons

---

J2: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(60+110) = 2 parsecs @ 500 tons

---

J2: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(168+0) = 2 parsecs @ 498 tons

---

J1: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(0+660) = 1 parsec @ 990 tons (-12c)

---

J1: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(660+0) = 1 parsec @ 990 tons (-12c)

---

J2: 330+(0)+(84+0)+(0+0) = 2 parsecs @ 414 tons (84 collapse)
J3: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(0+0) = 3 parsecs @ 330 tons

---

J2: 330+(0)+(72+0)+(96+0) = 2 parsecs @ 498 tons (+36c) (72 collapse)
J2: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(96+0) = 2 parsecs @ 426 tons (+36c)

---

J2: 330+(0)+(60+0)+(0+110) = 2 parsecs @ 500 tons (60 collapse)
J2: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(0+110) = 2 parsecs @ 440 tons

---

J1: 330+(0)+(96+0)+(0+110) = 1 parsec @ 536 tons (36 collapse)
J2: 330+(0)+(60+0)+(0+110) = 2 parsecs @ 500 tons

---

J1: 330+(0)+(96+0)+(24+550) = 1 parsec @ 1000 tons (96 collapse)
J1: 330+(0)+(0+0)+(24+550) = 1 parsec @ 904 tons

So by increasing the starship hull size from 328 to 330 tons, where do the "limits" tighten up in ways that yield favorable gains or acceptable losses? To which the answer is ... favorable gains where the results are beneficial (J2+2) and acceptable losses where the loss is basically a rounding error (J1).

Going to keep testing alternative configurations of the starship, just in case ... but it's already looking like maybe I ought to (ever so slightly) upscale to a 330 ton hull and reap the benefits.

It will take more modeling work to determine if moving up to 332 tons (or even 333) is detrimental enough to "convenient stacking" of the building blocks (12 tons/100 tons) as to be something to avoid.

 

[Spinward Flow]

But when you put 100 ton pods into the mix (which cost 110 tons in towing capacity, because of 110% for big craft requirement)

Don't use 100 ton pods.
Use 96 ton pods (ya newb).

Huh?

Look, you've already worked out how to make everything "stack" really nicely starting from 328 in increments of 12 all the way up to 1000, right?

Well, yeah ... 1000-328=672/12=56 ...

And 672/96=7 ... so why are you messing around with trying to shoehorn 100*1.1=110 into slots that otherwise divide neatly into 12 and 96?



Exactly.
Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with doing something like 332+(6*12)+(1*96)=500 and 332+(7*12)+(6*96)=992 when you're building everything in multiples of either 12 or 96.


But if I do that ...

Yes?

I'd be able to have a 5 ton cargo hold set aside as either an air/raft berth (plus 1 spare ton extra) or entirely converted into a Mail Vault for courier duty ... or for the placement of low berths ... or for use in the "small package trade" (otherwise known as smuggling) ... etc.

So what are you doing hanging around here then?
Shouldn't you be getting back to the naval architect's office?
I'm sure they'll appreciate the extra work you're giving them with all of this?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with doing something like 332+(6*12)+(1*96)=500 and 332+(7*12)+(6*96)=992 when you're building everything in multiples of either 12 or 96.

Actually, after doing a dive into the configuration options (using a calculator), the 332 ton option is actually looking "sub-optimal" on balance when accounting for all the competing factors ... so 328 tons for the starship is still looking like the "best fit" for the multi-axis "balance point" where the finished product needs to finalize at.

I'd be able to have a 5 ton cargo hold set aside as either an air/raft berth (plus 1 spare ton extra) or entirely converted into a Mail Vault for courier duty

Actually ... no.
Fell a fraction of a ton short of that goal by increasing hull size up to 332 tons.

I could make it work by scaling up to 333 tons, but then a whole collection of second order "domino fall" effects would be triggered in the realm of external loading capacity configurations, so that makes for yet another Bad Move™.

So back to the drawing board with the 328 ton starship to make additional tweaks and corrections to the underlying design specifics and integration with the "new" 96 ton pods intended to be used as containers by third party commercial services.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So back to the drawing board with the 328 ton starship to make additional tweaks and corrections to the underlying design specifics and integration with the "new" 96 ton pods intended to be used as containers by third party commercial services.

Here's how the computations for that worked out (somewhat successfully) in terms of napkin math for the exterior loading calculations of tonnages:

Jump(s): starship + (light fighter) + (boxes+pods owned) + (boxes+pods third party charter) = parsecs @ combined displacement for drive performance calculation (collapsible fuel tank load occupying internal hangar bay)

J3: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(0+0) = 3 parsecs @ 328 tons

---

J2: 328+(0)+(96+0)+(72+0) = 2 parsecs @ 496 tons

---

J2: 328+(0)+(72+0)+(0+96) = 2 parsecs @ 496 tons

---

J1: 328+(0)+(96+0)+(0+576) = 1 parsec @ 1000 tons


J2: 328+(0)+(72+0)+(0+0) = 2 parsecs @ 400 tons (72 collapse)
J3: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(0+0) = 3 parsecs @ 328 tons

---

J2: 328+(0)+(72+0)+(0+96) = 2 parsecs @ 496 tons (72 collapse)
J2: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(0+96) = 2 parsecs @ 424 tons

---

J1: 328+(0)+(96+0)+(0+576) = 1 parsec @ 1000 tons (96 collapse)
J1: 328+(0)+(0+0)+(0+576) = 1 parsec @ 904 tons



The load capacity is mildly impressive for these different configurations (in same order as above), largely thanks to the "packing efficiency" of being limited to 1000 max tons and not using 100+ ton "big craft" for the pods (allowing the 96 ton "small craft" pods to be carried at 100% tonnage, per LBB5.80, p32).

328 ton starship with E/E/E drives
J3: 5 high passengers, 24 tons cargo
J2: 5 high passengers, 120 tons cargo, 72 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J2: 5 high passengers, 96 tons cargo, 96 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J1: 5 high passengers, 120 tons cargo, 576 tons third party exterior charter cargo

J2+3: 5 high passengers, 24 tons cargo
J2+2: 5 high passengers, 24 tons cargo, 96 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J1+1: 5 high passengers, 24 tons cargo, 576 tons third party exterior charter cargo



For comparison purposes, here are the configurations I built for the 400 ton version:

400 ton starship with F/F/F drives
J3: 5 high passengers, 60 tons cargo
J2: 5 high passengers, 214 tons cargo, 36 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J2: 5 high passengers, 106 tons cargo, 140 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J1: 5 high passengers, 190 tons cargo, 560 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J1: 5 high passengers, 82 tons cargo, 700 tons third party exterior charter cargo

J2+3: 5 high passengers, 60 tons cargo
J2+2: 5 high passengers, 60 tons cargo, 96 tons third party exterior charter cargo
J1+1: 5 high passengers, 60 tons cargo, 596 tons third party exterior charter cargo



Relying on the insight gained above with respect to fleet operations (5x 328 construction ≈ 4x 400 construction) because of the price differential, if I multiply the above charts yields of 100% manifest "throughput" by x5 and x4 respectively, I get the following in terms of maximum combined "fleet lift capacity" when operating at the same jump numbers (best yields in bold):

	328 passengers	328 cargo	328 third party	328 combined cargo	400 passengers	400 cargo	400 third party	400 combined cargo
J3	25 high	120 tons	-	120 tons	20 high	240 tons	-	240 tons
J2	25 high	600 tons	360 tons	960 tons	20 high	856 tons	144 tons	1000 tons
J2	25 high	480 tons	480 tons	960 tons	20 high	424 tons	560 tons	984 tons
J1	25 high	600 tons	2880 tons	3480 tons	20 high	760 tons	2240 tons	3000 tons
J1	25 high				20 high	328 tons	2800 tons	3128 tons
J2+3	25 high	120 tons	-	120 tons	20 high	240 tons	-	240 tons
J2+2	25 high	120 tons	480 tons	600 tons	20 high	240 tons	384 tons	624 tons
J1+1	25 high	120 tons	2880 tons	3000 tons	20 high	240 tons	2,384 tons	2624 tons

Now that's an interesting result!

The 5x 328 E/E/E drives fleet compared to the 4x 400 F/F/F drives fleet (for roughly the same overall construction cost) has some interesting divergence vectors to it.

When needing to jump for range (J3 or J2+3) the 4x 400 F/F/F drives fleet can transport -5 high passengers and +120 tons of cargo. Note that in terms of baseline net ticket revenues, this is only a +Cr70,000 advantage with a 100% full manifest (the equivalent to a 70 tons of cargo difference in "revenue tonnage" terms).

But when needing to jump for load volume (J1 or J1+1) the 5x 328 E/E/E drives fleet can transport +5 high passengers and +480/+352 tons of cargo (J1) or +5 passengers and +256 tons cargo (J1+1) due to the combination of "small craft at no more than 1000 tons" and the lack of big craft (100+ tons) pods, meaning less wasted load capacity and better packing efficiency. Note that this means that the 328 E/E/E drives fleet can deliver better "transport throughput" when microjumping within a star system to deliver high(er) volumes of passengers and cargo.

Perhaps the most surprising result here is just how CLOSE the two fleets are in terms of maximum throughput when operating at J2 or J2+2.
I honestly wasn't expecting the results to be THAT close.


Another interesting thing that tumbles out of this analysis is that although the combined aggregate transport capacity for comparable construction cost at the fleet operator level winds up being "roughly the same" for both types, because the 328 E/E/E drives fleet has more ships in it (5 vs 4) a commercial fleet of the 328 class is able to "spread" itself around more evenly (more smaller ships rather than fewer big ones) and with lower operating costs per ship, the 328 class can "survive" better in lower population mainworld markets with lower demand for interstellar transport services. Also, the 328 fleet is better able to "fan out" and engage in a higher tempo of speculative goods trading, simply by having 5 ships navigating around, instead of only 4.



So yeah ... I'm now starting to think that the 328 ton E/E/E drives version is "better" where it needs to be, while still being able to operate profitably on "slimmer pickings" than the 400 ton F/F/F drives version requires to sustain profits.

And that's before adding in the Armed Packet (the light fighter is the "mobile armament") operational mode as a X-Mail courier in addition to being a merchant class in its stock base trim.

 

[mike wightman]

12 - 6,4,3,2
10 - 5,2
Well done, you just discovered why the Sumerians didn't use decimal...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well done, you just discovered why the Sumerians didn't use decimal...

"Prepare to fire the Non-Sequitron!"

"But sir! That doesn't make any sense!"

"FIRE!"

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I'm now at the stage of (seemingly endless! ) proofreading, editing, revisions, etc. for my new 328 ton SIE Clipper (re)design ... and I started wondering what it's going to look like in deck plans and how everything is going to "fit" together (and so on). It was at that point that I realized that because the Light Fighter is now carried internally in its own hangar bay (rather than being externally docked and towed) that I needed to make sure the Light Fighter would be able to "fit" on the deck plans in a way that made sense visually (it makes sense on the naval architect's spreadsheet, but 2(+1)D deck plans are something else).

Here's what I've been able to come up with for the deck plan of the Light Fighter used as a defensive escort.

Light Fighter           FL-0106R31-000000-20000-0    MCr34.3904       16 tons
       batteries bearing                  1                             TL=9.
               batteries                  1                           Crew=2.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=1. EP=4. Agility=6. Bridge.
Maneuver-6, Agility-6 @ up to 33 tons total (+17 tons external)
Maneuver-5, Agility-5 @ up to 40 tons total (+24 tons external)
Maneuver-4, Agility-4 @ up to 50 tons total (+34 tons external)
Maneuver-3. Agility-3 @ up to 66 tons total (+50 tons external)
Maneuver-2, Agility-2 @ up to 100 tons total (+84 tons external)
Maneuver-1, Agility-1 @ up to 200 tons total (+184 tons external)

Fun part is that this new shape allows the fighter to dock with a "ring" of 8x 12 ton boxes (3x3 with the center missing, occupied by the Light Fighter). Access to the "ring of 12 ton boxes" would be dorsal/ventral through the grav lift that passes through the Light Fighter, rather than via a port/starboard airlock arrangement. An EVA airlock is located aft between the maneuver drive HEPlaR thrusters, in case the dorsal/ventral docking hardpoints are occupied by externally towed loads.

The Light Fighter is armed with a pair of beam lasers organized into a single battery mounted in a chin turret. Pilot and Gunnery workstations are located on the bridge. The aft hull engineering section hosts the standard Maneuver-A and Power Plant-B drives, the latter of which generates 4 EP, sufficient to power the dual beam lasers (2 EP), model/3 computer (1 EP) and Agility=6 (0.96 EP) performance that makes the Light Fighter a remarkably fierce combatant for its extremely modest technology level (TL=9).

One weakness of the Light Fighter is its limited life support endurance (12 hours combat, 24 hours non-combat), necessitating a return to base for replenishment and recovery. For most (local) planetary defense patrols and convoy escort duties when tethered to a carrier, this isn't much of an issue, but it does mean that the Light Fighter is unsuitable for interplanetary patrols, silent running lurk and hunt or deep strikes, all of which call for an increase in both life support and crew endurance for longer duration mission tasking.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I'm now at the stage of (seemingly endless! ) proofreading, editing, revisions, etc. for my new 328 ton SIE Clipper (re)design

Decided to take a break from scrolling through text laden with formatting for posting in the forums here so as to get started on making new deck plans for the redesign.

I'd like to think I've gotten off to a good start ... and have resolved a few things that I could have been doing better previously (because, hopefully, I'm getting better at this now that I've done so much of it).



There's still plenty more that needs doing on this main deck, but I like how things are turning out so far.