CT Only: Rift X-Courier

[Spinward Flow]

Rift X-Courier
TL=11 (LBB5.80)
Ship Type: AF (Merchant-A, Frontier)

Tonnage: 194 (custom hull)
Configuration: 6 (Streamlined, 15.52 MCr)
Fuel Scoops (MCr 0.194)
Armor: 0

Jump-2 (5.82 tons, MCr 23.28, Capacitor storage: 69.84 EP maximum)
Maneuver-2 (9.7 tons, MCr 6.79, Agility: 2 requires 3.88 EP)
Power Plant-2 (11.64 tons, MCr 34.92, EP: 3.88)
Fuel: 43 tons (2 parsecs = 38.8 tons, 4 weeks operations = 3.88 tons, up to 8 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton fuel capacity (7 tons, MCr 0.034) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)


Dual Turret (1 ton)
Missile Rack: 1 (Code: 1, Battery: 1, MCr 0.75)
Sandcaster: 1 (Code: 3, Battery: 1, MCr 0.25)
Bridge (20 tons, MCr 0.97)
Computer: 2 (Code: 2, 2 tons, MCr 9, TL: 7, EP: 0)

Crew: 2 (Pilot, Gunner)
Staterooms: 2 (8 tons, MCr 1)
Cargo: 85 tons (5 ton Mail Vault, 80 tons internal cargo remaining)
Collapsible Fuel Tank: 80 ton capacity (0.8 tons, MCr 0.04)
Waste Space: 0.04 tons

Rift X-Courier  AF-1622221-030000-00001-0   MCr 74.1984  194 tons
    batt bearing            1         1                    TL=11.
    batteries               1         1                   Crew=2.
Passengers=0 (1 possible). Cargo=85. Fuel=43. EP=3.88. Agility=2. FPP.
Jump-1, Maneuver-1 with 0.1-97 tons external cargo added.
Jump-0, Maneuver-1 with 97.1-291 tons external cargo added.

Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)





Total Cost (first in class): MCr 92.748
20% Down Payment (first in class): MCr 18.5496
Architect Fees (first in class): MCr 0.92748
Construction Time (first in class): 47 weeks
Annual Overhaul (first in class): Cr 92,748 (LBB2.81, p8)

Additional Ships Cost: MCr 74.1984
Additional Ships 20% Down Payment: MCr 14.83968
Additional Ships Construction Time: 38 weeks
Additional Ships Annual Overhaul: Cr 74,199 (LBB2.81, p8)


Life Support: Cr 4,000 per 2 weeks (LBB2.81, p7-8)
Crew Salaries: Cr 3500 per 2 weeks (also pay during 2 weeks annual overhaul) (LBB2.81, p8, 11, 16, 23)


Berthing Costs: Cr 100 for 6 days, plus Cr 100 per day after 6 days (LBB2.81, p8)
Surface to Orbit Shuttle Costs: Cr 10 per cargo ton, Cr 20 to 120 per passenger (LBB2.81, p9)
Fuel: Cr 500 per ton (refined), Cr100 per ton (unrefined), Cr 0 (skimmed) (LBB2.81, p7)


Mail Delivery: Cr 25,000 revenue per delivery (LBB2.81, p9)
Interstellar Cargo Transport: Cr 1000 per ton (LBB2.81, p8-9)
Interplanetary Charters: Cr 1 per hour per ton of ship (Cr 194 per hour), minimum 12 hours (LBB2.81, p9)
Interstellar Charters (2 weeks): Cr 900 per ton of cargo, Cr 900 per low passage berth, Cr 9000 per high passage berth (LBB2.81, p9)
Subsidy reduces gross revenue receipts by 50% for passengers, cargo and mail (LBB2.81, p7)

 

[Spinward Flow]

First there was the 100-ton 6G TL=13 Spinward Courier that I created as a "proof of concept" design for a subsidized/private courier starship that could reliably generate profits on X-Mail alone at any port of call with a population code of 1+ (and possibly even code: 0 when delivering to an interdiction garrison for a Red Zone system).

However, this 100-ton design was legitimately criticized as being too hyper-specialized for its "pure x-mail courier" role.

---

Next there was the 194-ton 6G TL=13 Spinward Flex Courier, which took the previous concept "to the next level" by increasing the starship's tonnage to the point where a 40 ton internal cargo bay plus 40 ton collapsible fuel tank to fill that internal cargo bay could be included, above and beyond the 5 ton mail vault for carrying x-mail.

This design was put through its paces in the Race to Profitability against an unarmed "stock" Far Trader, in which the Spinward Flex Courier design performed admirably compared to its competition. After the Race to Profitability ended, I turned to the potentially lucrative possibility of the design securing fuel tanker transport contracts running circuits between a gas giant and a mainworld lacking hydrographics (such as D'Ganzio/Lanth/Spinward Marches).

---

Then (in the history of this forum, but presumably not within the history of the Traveller setting), the 194-ton 5G TL=11 Spinward X-Courier design was detailed as an earlier ancestor of the design philosophy that could be produced at a lower tech level (11 vs 13).

Only after writing up the specifications for the 5G TL=11 design variant did I realize that such a ship would be perfectly "legal" to use in the Distant Fringe Traveller setting (which is limited to Jump-2 and TL=12). In a case of potential convergent evolution, such a Fringe X-Courier build would qualify as an X-Range Starship due to its flex fuel capacity inherent in its design.

---

Then I took the underlying basic concept that is the cornerstone for each of these starship designs and pushed it into a different direction … by increasing jump capacity (Jump-3 instead of Jump-2) with a commensurate increase in maximum range on internal fuel (6 parsecs instead of only 4 parsecs), yielding a 2J3 option rather than only a 2J2. This increase in jump range makes it possible to transit even the Jump-5 route of the Riftspan Reaches sector and other routes that would be essentially inaccessible to a wide variety of competing merchant starship types along the fringes.

Ironically, the increase in jump capacity necessitated an increase in fuel tankage and cargo space at the expense of maneuver drive power (now a more pedestrian 2G instead of 5G or 6G). Overall hull tonnage needed to increase to 198 tons from the previous (whacktastic?) "standard" of 194 tons, but everything still "fits" within the 100-199 ton hull code classification. Doubly ironically, the reduction in maneuver drive power permitted the power plant displacement to be reduced to the point where the J3 2G TL=13 Rift Courier is actually only 81% of the price of the J2 6G TL=13 design … and only 73.3% of the price of the J2 5G TL=11 (big custom power plants are EXPENSIVE at these tech levels!).

---

And now the final iteration challenge for this long range extension … bringing the tech level under 13 … so as to enable the same fundamental concept to be used in a lower technological setting such as the Distant Fringe Traveller setting (which is limited to Jump-2 and TL=12) while retaining the 6 parsec maximum range and keeping the collapsible fuel tankage and mail vault for x-mail deliveries to potentially far flung ports of call. In this case, the Rift X-Courier is truly an X-Range Starship due to its flex fuel capacity inherent in its design enabling a 3 Jump-2 performance before needing to refuel.

Once again, the maneuver drive performance has been sacrificed (again, a more pedestrian 2G instead of 5G or 6G), however the "sweet spot" for hull tonnage once again remains locked in at 194 tons (mysteriously whacktastic, yet still works brilliantly). And in a repetition of ironies, the J2 2G TL=11 Rift X-Courier weighs in at 67.53% the purchase price of a 6G TL=13 version, and only 61.06% the purchase price of a 5G TL=11 version (big custom power plants are EXPENSIVE at these tech levels!).

Just as a point of comparison, here are some LBB2/S7 starship designs in close to the same price range when comparing volume production run prices:

• Type-S Scout/Courier (100 tons unarmed): MCr 27.63 (LLB S7, p46)
• Type A Free Trader (200 tons unarmed): MCr 37.08 (LLB2.81, p19)
• Type Y Yacht (200 tons unarmed): MCr 51.057 (LBB2.81, p20)
• Type A2 Far Trader (200 tons unarmed): MCr 59.56 (LBB S7, p46)
• Rift X-Courier (194 tons armed): MCr 74.1984
• Type R Subsidized Merchant (400 tons unarmed): MCr 100.035 (LBB S7 p47)

Furthermore, note that the Rift X-Courier can install 10 tons of staterooms (40 tons) into its internal cargo hold to convert to a mixed passenger (steward, medic, 8 high passengers) and cargo (40 tons remaining) capacity at the expense of reducing maximum range from 6 parsecs to 4 parsecs when using cargo space for reserve fuel capacity.

Additionally, in terms of using "standardized" 97 ton L-Hyd drop tanks (MCr 0.155 each, that are not dropped when jumping) with internal collapsible fuel bladders in them as "flex type" external cargo containers capable of transporting either cargo goods or additional fuel (for tanker operations), a Rift X-Courier can "tow" either 1 such external tank through jump or up to 3 such tanks at 1G through interplanetary space.

Note that with a single 97 ton L-Hyd drop tank filled with 96 tons of refined fuel (in a 96 ton collapsible fuel bladder inside the drop tank) … if retained through 3 Jump-1 (29.1 tons jump fuel, 1.1 tons power plant fuel per 8 days) before being fully drained and discarded in normal space, after which the Rift X-Courier could make an additional 3 Jump-2 (38.8 tons jump fuel, 1.1 tons power plant fuel per 8 days) on internal fuel tankage and collapsible fuel bladder capacity … and after 6 jumps of up to 8 days per jump (210.3 tons total fuel consumption) still have 8.7 tons of fuel remaining (enough for 62 days of maneuvering at 2G) at the destination. That is a 9 parsec maximum one way range if expending the fuel tank along the route.

If retaining the 97 ton L-Hyd drop tank filled with 96 tons of refined fuel (in a 96 ton collapsible fuel bladder inside the drop tank) for the entire journey, a Rift X-Courier could make 7 consecutive Jump-1 (211.4 tons fuel consumption at 8 days per jump) and still have 7.6 tons of fuel remaining (54 days of maneuvering at 2G) at the destination, in addition to still having the external fuel tank (which could be refilled and reused for a return journey).

So … 9 parsec maximum range in 6 jumps with a discarded (in normal space) external fuel tank … or a 7 parsec maximum range in 7 jumps with a retained external fuel tank that is NOT discarded. It would be a LONG trip either way … but if there is no other way to reach your destination … then that's what it will take. Bear in mind that the above fuel calculations assume that all 80 tons of internal cargo space are devoted to carrying reserve fuel for these incredibly long journeys between the stars. Be sure that your life support systems are fully recharged before departing any starports!

The biggest advantage that I can see in using a J2 2G TL=11 version over a J3 2G TL=13 version is the difference in maintainability (TL=11 is easier to find than TL=13). So for the truly low end/backwater tech levels in charted space, if you REALLY need the REACH of a Rift Courier for your planned route(s), you may want to choose the TL=11 version rather than the TL=13 version so as to be able to obtain parts, spares and overhaul maintenance at a wider variety of locations (making it harder to get "stranded" somewhere).

X-Range Starship INDEED.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I've been looking at this Rift X-Courier and wondering about possible alternative private uses for such a starship (aside from the obvious commercial applications) and one of the first ideas that (re)surfaced was the idea of having a sort of Yacht(-ish)/Safari(-ish) type of alternative configuration courtesy of the 80 ton internal cargo bay and the external cargo capacity (interplanetary and interstellar).

The basic idea would be to use "standard" 20 ton containers, which the 80 ton internal cargo bay could contain 4 of during atmospheric entries. In this case, each of these 20 ton containers would be full on configuration: 4 type small craft hulls with no bridge, computer, drives or fuel (MCr 1.2 each) so they can be external to the Rift X-Courier in space without a problem.

The contents of each 20 ton container could vary, such as a simple 5 stateroom setup (20 tons, MCr 2.5) or a multi-vehicle berth "pod" or whatever configuration was desired.

---

Looking back at my Spinward Yacht design that I posted months ago as part of the 200 ton Yacht Design Contest in this forum, I realized that all of the main component functional features of that earlier design could be replicated with a Rift X-Courier plus 20 ton containers design format.

Rift X-Courier: MCr 92.748 (first in class) / MCr 74.1984 (volume production)
5 stateroom 20 ton container (each): MCr 3.7 (first in class) / MCr 2.96 (volume production)
"empty" 20 ton container: MCr 1.2 (first in class) / MCr 0.96 (volume production)

What you basically do is you buy the starship (MCr 74.1984 in volume production), 3 of the 5 stateroom 20 ton containers (MCr 8.88 in volume production) and 1 "empty" 20 ton container (MCr 0.96 in volume production) for use as a vehicle bay and additional cargo storage space. Grav vehicles would be most appropriate for TL=11 and could be one or more air/rafts (4 tons, MCr 0.6 each), g-carriers (8 tons, MCr 1 each) and or speeders (6 tons, MCr 1 each). Another option for the "empty" container would be to include auditorium, laboratory and/or workshop spaces (4 tons, MCr 0.5 each), which could be anything from a trophy room to a specimen analysis/storage lab to vehicle maintenance to kitchen facilities for cooking elaborate meals and fine cuisine (let your imagination run rampant with the range of possibilities!).

Net result is 15 staterooms and 20 tons of vehicle berthing inside of four 20 ton "standard" containers that are all spaceworthy and can fit into the 80 ton cargo bay of the Rift X-Courier for landings through atmosphere.

The contents of those four 20 ton "standard" containers could be assigned as follows:

1. Container 1 (passenger)
   • 4 High Passengers (including a presumably noble owner/host)
   • 1 Steward (serving 8 high passengers)
2. Container 2 (passenger)
   • 4 High Passengers
   • 1 Medic (required for up to 120 passengers)
3. Container 3 (security)
   • 1 Military Attaché officer (assigned to the noble owner)
   • 4 Marines (ship's troops assignment as a fire team, can also crew any vehicles)
4. Container 4 (other)
   • Vehicle berth(s)
   • Auditorium(s)
   • Laboratory space(s)
   • Workshop(s)

Ordinarily marines aboard would be assigned 2 ton cabins rather than 4 ton staterooms, much like gunners, but giving them larger quarters also gives them additional room to stow and maintain their military issue gear and equipment inside their quarters. Also, since they are all quartered within their own 20 ton container, that ought to help with security by compartmentalizing the passenger spaces away from the quarters for the marines.

Note that for "safari" style expeditions, all 4 containers could be offloaded from the internal cargo bay of the Rift X-Courier onto a world surface (almost ANY world surface, since the containers have "ship rated" hulls) and string them together in a daisy chain (linear or closed square) as an outpost for any expeditions that could last weeks at a time "with all the comforts of home" but not reliant upon the starship being present (so the ship and the crew can be attending to other business).

The price tag for this extra capability?
An extra MCr 9.84 in volume production (MCr 12.3 when not in volume production), not including the cost of any vehicles or auditorium/laboratory/workshop spaces installed into the "empty" container 4 as shown above.
That would mean that a Rift X-Courier/Yacht would cost MCr 105.048 (first in class) or MCr 84.0384 (volume production) ... not including vehicles and/or auditorium/laboratory/workshops when exercising the "military security" aboard option.

Other alternative configurations also exist, such as a laboratory explorer ship, in which container 3 is entirely devoted to laboratory space and container 4 is a mix of vehicle(s), a workshop for vehicle maintenance and additional laboratory space. If fewer than 8 high passenger (scientists) are needed for an expedition, then container 1 can also be devoted to laboratory space, downgrading accommodations in container 2 from high passenger to middle passenger accommodations for the 4 scientists and 1 medic.

---

In addition to all of the above, the Rift X-Courier would be capable of transporting all 4 container modules either internally or externally.

When transporting the four 20 ton containers internally, both the containers and the starship can enter atmosphere and safely make planetfall to land the containers onto the surface of almost any world. Range will be limited to 1 Jump-2 or 2 Jump-1 on internal fuel tankage only.

When transporting the four 20 ton containers externally, the Rift X-Courier has a drive performance of Jump-1 and Maneuver-1, consumes 27.4 tons of fuel per Jump-1 and another 1.1 tons of fuel per 8 days ... while having a 43+80=123 ton total fuel capacity with the collapsible fuel bladder fully loaded. This is sufficient fuel for 4 Jump-1 (4*28.5=114 tons) leaving 9 tons of fuel remaining, which is sufficient for ~65 days of maneuvering at 2G at the destination before fuel is exhausted (which hopefully will be enough to secure wilderness refueling).

This performance profile makes "long range" (for Jump-2 at TL=11) travel of 4 parsecs (one way) possible while carrying "expeditions" to interstellar locations with the capacity to "leave them there" for a season (or few) with the contents of the 20 ton containers to sustain them until the (or another) Rift X-Courier starship arrives to retrieve them or resupply the expedition or rotate their members on site. This in turn enables long term surveys and scientific studies at remote locations that would otherwise be inaccessible (or simply impractical) without the capabilities of the Rift X-Courier. Oh and once the 20 ton containers are offloaded, the starship can tank up on fuel, return the their starting point and ferry even more 20 ton containers to a destination in order to build up an outpost for much longer term habitation and possibly even settlement (locale depending).



Because ... seriously ... why would you need to have separate purpose built starships for the shipping of goods, passengers and x-mail in a mercantile capacity, nobles in an "official" (or retired) capacity, military special forces for insertion and firebase establishment (think about it), long(er) term scout survey missions, scientific expeditions, deep space fuel cache resupply ... and a whole host of other possible tasks and missions? Why can't you have a single starship that has so much built in versatility that the better question to ask is what CAN'T the ship do when you have a sufficiently creative grasp of the possibilities, rather than what it CAN do?

Why can't you have a starship so capable that the only specialization it "needs" depends on what modules you feel like stuffing into the cargo bay (or "towing" externally) and being able to repeatedly "milk run" those modules to destinations up to 4 parsecs away in support of operations? Let the container modules be specialized, rather than the starship.

And if that doesn't get your Traveller Adventure senses tingling at the possibilities ... perhaps this quote might (emphasis added for context).

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

I agree.

 

[coliver988]

Why can't you have a starship so capable that the only specialization it "needs" depends on what modules you feel like stuffing into the cargo bay (or "towing" externally) and being able to repeatedly "milk run" those modules to destinations up to 4 parsecs away in support of operations? Let the container modules be specialized, rather than the starship.

For some, pure ostentatiousness is the reason to have specialized and overly expensive vehicles. Otherwise why doesn't everyone drive a minivan - it can fit 4x8 sheets in the back, 7 to 9 passengers, I've hauled bikes and people to races keeping everything inside, and hauled an untold number of boy scouts on camping trips.

But not everyone wants a minivan. And the Rift Roamer may be thought of as a minivan in terms of its verisimilitude.

 

[whartung]

Specialization is for insects.

I agree.

For some, pure ostentatiousness is the reason to have specialized and overly expensive vehicles. Otherwise why doesn't everyone drive a minivan

Precisely.

A Yacht is not a Swiss Army Knife or a Multi-tool. It's not utilitarian. It's not transportation. It's jewelry. Like the folks that wear Rolexes instead of Casios or Timexes. You just can't put the word "Container" and "High Passage" in the same sentence. You don't shove your honored guests in to the hold, no matter how comfy the cot is.

 

[Spinward Flow]

For some, pure ostentatiousness is the reason to have specialized and overly expensive vehicles.

A Yacht is not a Swiss Army Knife or a Multi-tool. It's not utilitarian. It's not transportation. It's jewelry.

If it's just a question of BLING ... there is ALWAYS a way to make a pedestrian "stock" ship into something that looks down on people with pretensions of being over the top. Catering to expensive tastes isn't that difficult, but it IS that expensive to do (since the conspicuousness of the expense is the whole point, like you said).

You just can't put the word "Container" and "High Passage" in the same sentence. You don't shove your honored guests in to the hold, no matter how comfy the cot is.

Can't you? Why not?

The Jump Ship of LBB S9 p22-23 fame does exactly that with its Passenger Pod (just on a larger scale).
The Passenger Pod of the Jump Ship doesn't even stow the Passenger Pod internally on the ship at all(!), instead opting to "tow" the Passenger Pod like deadweight.

The whole point of using 20 ton configuration: 4 hulls (as in small craft/starship hulls) is to have a standard "container" to put things in ... whether that be goods, passengers or other cargo. The 20 ton displacement is a convenient "sweet spot" convergence point between major cargo (which comes in 10 ton increments) and passenger accommodations (5 staterooms). Also, by doing things this way with a 20 ton configuration: 4 hull (MCr 1.2 each) the hulls are spaceworthy and can be stowed either internally (in a cargo bay) or externally (towed outside the ship) without any worries for sustaining environmental integrity for the contents.

An amusing side note is that these 20 ton passenger modules can be boarded/loaded, getting everyone inside settled and ready for pickup, and then the starship arrives AFTER all the passengers are onboard. The starship then just loads the container(s) with the passengers already in them and departs.

Think of it this way ... you could even run an interstellar passenger liner service this way without needing to buy a starship to do so as a "poor aspiring merchant" (so to speak). If you (as the would be merchant) buy two 20 ton containers (MCr 2.4) and outfit them with 10 staterooms (MCr 5) ... so long as you have starships with 40 tons of cargo space available (internally or externally), you can start your own low end passenger line service (MCr 7.4 limited production buy, MCr 5.92 volume production buy) without needing to own your own starship!

Those two 20 ton containers are sufficient to carry:
8 High Passengers
1 Steward
1 Medic

Overhead costs for a full manifest would be:
Life Support: Cr 20,000 (10 staterooms for 2 weeks)
Crew Salary: Cr 2500 (Steward-1, Medic-1 for 2 weeks)
Interstellar Transport: Cr 40,000 (40 tons) per jump
Total costs: Cr 62,500 per jump
Revenue: Cr 80,000 (8 high passengers) to Cr 64,000 (8 middle passengers) per jump
Net Profit: Cr 1500-17,500 per jump = Cr 37,500 (middle passengers only) to Cr 437,500 (high passengers only) @ 25 jumps per year
Annual Overhaul Maintenance: Cr 7400 (limited production) or Cr 5920 (volume production) per year

So for as little as MCr 6 ... an upstart merchant could scrounge up the funding for a "passenger line" that is reliably profitable, provided there are enough passengers willing to travel and ships with 40 tons of cargo space "going your way" willing to carry your passenger pod containers in their cargo holds every 2 weeks (so 25 jumps per year, leaving 2 weeks for annual maintenance per year).

The starships are just the transport ... the containers with the staterooms in them are the EXPERIENCE.

 

[whartung]

Can't you? Why not?

The same reason you don't feed them bologna sandwiches.

The starships are just the transport ... the containers with the staterooms in them are the EXPERIENCE.

The container experience is going to be a lesser experience than a custom build designed for luxury. You're restricted to the container dimensions. As soon as someone move in to a room, they're going to want a bigger room. Specifically, they're going to want a bigger room than The Other Guy. The person in the square room is going to want the flowing, curved room with arches and other designer elements that take up space, but don't add utility. Put a person in a room with an 8 foot ceiling and one with a 10 foot ceiling, and guess which they prefer.

If you're wealthy enough to own a Yacht, you're not going to confine your design to something the size of container, especially if "everyone else" is doing it.

Consider this random cruise ship plan: https://www.ncl.com/cruise-ship/escape/deck-plans

Contrast Deck 17 with the lower decks. 17 is THE luxury deck. High end, large rooms, balconies. Right off the courtyard with a spa and lounge right out the front door. VS the density of the lower decks, the small rooms, crowded hallways, having to climb up stairs or elevators to "get anywhere", etc.

 

[Fovean]

Those two 20 ton containers are sufficient to carry:
8 High Passengers
1 Steward
1 Medic

I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this.

Below is a 20 dton Launch I built for an old Agent character I was playing for a time. Granted, drives and fuel and cockpit aren’t necessary in your passenger container but life support definitely should be. And pretty as the fittings might be, it’s going to be really cramped for five or six people, most of whom are paying premium.

 

[Silverhawk]

If it's just a question of BLING ... there is ALWAYS a way to make a pedestrian "stock" ship into something that looks down on people with pretensions of being over the top. Catering to expensive tastes isn't that difficult, but it IS that expensive to do (since the conspicuousness of the expense is the whole point, like you said).



The starships are just the transport ... the containers with the staterooms in them are the EXPERIENCE.

Which is the selling point for the dedicated liner. Sure you can get to the [Name the System] from here. But for the true EXPERIENCE you simply have to take the [Name of Liner], the grandest ship in space.

In the golden age of passenger trains the Atchison, Topeka, Santa Fe Railway ran a number of different trains between Chicago, IL and Los Angeles, CA. For comparison The Scout was a budget conscious train mainly patronized by tourists. THE train for the wealthy was the Super Chief which was also known as the train of the stars as it was very popular with movie stars and Hollywood executives.

So it really doesn't change whether its trains or starships.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Can't you? Why not?

The same reason you don't feed them bologna sandwiches.

Um ... nobody was talking about feeding High Passengers bologna sandwiches.
Why is THAT your go to assumption?

The container experience is going to be a lesser experience than a custom build designed for luxury.

As far as starship design in concerned ... a stateroom is a stateroom is a stateroom (4 tons, MCr 0.5 each).
I shouldn't need to point this out to anyone with a passing familiarity with CT starship design (LBB2 or LBB5).

The closest I can get to what you're talking about is giving a single passenger a suite of 2 staterooms rather than just a single stateroom per passenger. Note that such a thing is perfectly possible to do using standard 20 ton containers (2 stateroom suites = 8 tons, MCr 1) ... you just need more 20 ton containers for the accommodations.

If you're wealthy enough to own a Yacht, you're not going to confine your design to something the size of container, especially if "everyone else" is doing it.

AT BEST ... I'll be willing to concede that a (noble) Yacht owner is going to insist on having a suite of 2 staterooms dedicated to their personal accommodations, because that's just extravagant decadence (worthy of noble tastes).

However, if you insist on maximal opulence and decadence you can STILL pull it off using more 20 ton containers than just the two as outlined above for "mere" High Passengers.
Observe ...

• Container 1 (MCr 1.2)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Steward stateroom (1 stateroom, 4 tons, MCr 0.5)
• Container 2 (MCr 1.2)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Workshop: cooking (4 tons, MCr 0.5)
• Container 3 (MCr 1.2)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Auditorium (4 tons, MCr 0.5)
• Container 4 (MCr 1.2)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Passenger suite (2 staterooms, 8 tons, MCr 1)
  • Medic stateroom (1 stateroom, 4 tons, MCr 0.5)

Total price: MCr 14.8 (limited production) or MCr 11.84 (volume production) for 80 tons of configuration 4 hulls.

As soon as someone move in to a room, they're going to want a bigger room. Specifically, they're going to want a bigger room than The Other Guy. The person in the square room is going to want the flowing, curved room with arches and other designer elements that take up space, but don't add utility. Put a person in a room with an 8 foot ceiling and one with a 10 foot ceiling, and guess which they prefer.

I'm well aware of the concept of snobbery ... and the need to "keep up with the Joneses" that you're implying all over the place here. The problem you're running into is that the only way to effectuate that snobbery in a starship design sense is literal over the top wasteful extravagance in terms of tonnage, build cost and life support overhead requirements.

Granted, drives and fuel and cockpit aren’t necessary in your passenger container but life support definitely should be.

Life support is assumed as part of the 4 tons and MCr 0.5 needed for a starship single occupancy stateroom.

And pretty as the fittings might be, it’s going to be really cramped for five or six people, most of whom are paying premium.

Then riddle me this.
How is 40 tons for 10 staterooms occupied by 8 High Passengers, 1 Steward and 1 Medic in any meaningful way any different depending on where those staterooms are located?

40 tons for 10 staterooms inside the hull of a starship ... fine, no problem.
40 tons for 10 staterooms inside of two 20 ton containers ... TOTAL PROBLEM!

Why?
So long as the 20 ton containers are "daisy chained" together for access (presumably through an airlock arrangement that could be left open between containers during transport) ... how is the fact that the staterooms are inside of hull grade containers in any meaningful way any different from putting them inside of a starship ... or a non-starship ... or a small craft?

A 4 ton stateroom is a 4 ton stateroom is a 4 ton stateroom ... regardless where it is on a deck plan or what sort of a vessel it is inside of.

Does a starship need to have a configuration code: 2 in order to take on High Passengers ... or can a configuration code: 9 qualify just as well?
If you can have High Passenger service onboard a (Buffered) Planetoid hull ... why can't you have it in a container?
Do High Passenger staterooms require double decks for high ceilings anywhere? Or are single deck staterooms acceptable?
Based on all available CT published evidence, staterooms with ceilings higher than a single deck are exceptionally rare, rather than some kind of norm ... let alone the "standard" for High Passenger accommodations.

If a single deck stateroom can accommodate a High Passenger on a starship ... then a single deck stateroom can accommodate a High Passenger inside a container (provided there's enough tonnage allocated to do so). You just need to have 1 Steward per 8 High Passengers (LBB2.81 p16) and 1 Medic per 120 Passengers (LBB2.81 p16) and each High Passenger requires 1 single occupancy stateroom (4 tons, MCr 0.5).
That's it.
That's all that is required.
And I've just detailed how it is possible to do all of that using 20+20=40 tons for 8 High Passengers, 1 Steward and 1 Medic using 10 staterooms.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp for people?

Below is a 20 dton Launch I built for an old Agent character I was playing for a time.

Think of it this way.

If each square of deck plan represents a 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m space (3m high decks with 0.5m of combined engineering spaces above the ceiling and below the floors for a 2.5m free space between ceiling and floor) means that each square on a deck plan is the equivalent to 6.75m³ in volume. So 2 squares of deck plan floor space is 13.5m³ of volume or 1 ton of starship design space.

This would mean that a 4 ton stateroom could occupy 8 squares of deck plan space (usually a 2x3 room with a 1x2 corridor outside).
So each stateroom would occupy a 2x4 block of space.
String 5 such staterooms in a row with the shared corridor on one side running the length of the container and you have 5x (2x4) blocks lined up in a row, kind of like a lot of old rail cars, for a 10x4 squares deck plan (15m long x 6m wide x 3m high).

Put two such 20 ton containers side by side in a cargo hold and you either need 10x8 squares of deck space for them (15m long x 12m wide x 3m high) or 20x4 squares of deck space (30m long x 6m wide x 3m high) for a single linear straight line arrangement on a single deck. If you're double stacking them on a double deck you can even have a 15m long x 12m wide x 6m high arrangement of four 20 ton containers in a single cargo hold, all mated together.

At the two ends of the straight line corridor in the corners of the container would be a "4 directional docking airlock" for connecting with other similar containers (so a 1x1 square dedicated airlock with access to 2 side apertures, 1 floor and 1 ceiling aperture, could be iris valves or hatches). That way, the containers can be "daisy chained" together in a variety of configurations (vertically, horizontally, perpendicularly) to create access paths between containers and which can be optionally left open between containers to make relatively continuous corridor spaces.

So if the corridor was on (say...) the port side of a container, then the forward corner airlock would have access apertures to port, forward, below, above ... while the aft corner airlock would have access apertures to port, aft, below and above ... and all 5 of the staterooms would be on the starboard side.

Stack the containers "vertically" and you start getting into "high rise hotel" configuration types in which you might want to have a lift/elevator to move between "floors" of the attached containers. So it's more of a "private rooms" with no real communal lounge area type of situation (so very "hotel like" in that regard) inside of each container.

Of course, with "enough" containers strung together, some of the available staterooms can be converted to workshop: cooking spaces for the preparation of fine meals, along with auditorium spaces (dining room) for a more communal gathering space shared among the High Passengers.

 

[Silverhawk]

Design the containers to be modules that can be transported in a similar manner to the modular cutter. Especially useful for multiple destinations within the same system. Have the cutter take the module for a given destination while the ship heads for the main planet. Carry two cutters and you can handle three destinations within the same system. Saves time over having to go to one first, then the next, finally the last.

Does change the balance of what you are carrying but could be a selling point over a competitor who has just a ship and has to pick which destination or makes everyone go to the mainwoorld and then transfer to another shuttle or ship.

After all the name of the game is to fill berths for each trip.

 

[whartung]

The problem you're running into is that the only way to effectuate that snobbery in a starship design sense is literal over the top wasteful extravagance in terms of tonnage, build cost and life support overhead requirements.

Yes! That's not the "problem", that's the feature. At the luxury level, it's not wasteful extravagance. Extravagance is the goal. And name the suites in French. "Yes, this is the Le Cul Du Chat Suite" "Ooh la la! VERY nice!"

Recall how this started:

the first ideas that (re)surfaced was the idea of having a sort of Yacht(-ish)/Safari(-ish) type of alternative configuration

You don't make a modular Yacht. You buy another Yacht and have two.

40 tons for 10 staterooms inside the hull of a starship ... fine, no problem.
40 tons for 10 staterooms inside of two 20 ton containers ... TOTAL PROBLEM!

The containers are in the ships cargo hold.

Did you go to the cruise ship deck plan site?

Do you think it's coincidence that the "luxury" rooms are as far away from the physical plant of the ship as possible? The sounds, the smells, the air. Ever see Titanic? You want to put these folks in to the steaming bowels of the ship ala Alien? Or in the bright sun right next to the Captain and the LOBSTER BUFFET!? Maybe they like the comforting BAM BAM BAM from the Jump drive, the whiff of ozone of the fusion powerplant, or the sloshing of the waste tank on the other side of their wall. "I like it, it lulls me to sleep at night, like waves on a beach."

This is not a rules issue. It's a perception and status issue for the owners and their guests.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Design the containers to be modules that can be transported in a similar manner to the modular cutter.

Already ahead of you.

While I was (irl) walking to a medical appointment today, I started thinking about just how ... impactful ... this 20 ton modular container idea could be for low population missions such as long term surveys (such as the IISS or even civilian academic research) all the way on up to pioneers preparing for long(er) term settlement and colonization efforts in which you need to transport both people AND goods to found a new settlement on a new world in a new system. Being able to have a modular container system of logistics for being able to transport those people, the vehicles and machines they will need, workshop equipment ... and on and on and on ... for colonization to "seed" new worlds with would be incredibly impactful (to colonization efforts) while also having a sort of "secondary market" impact on survey and science missions that need to be in it for the long haul (ot at least, longer than you want to keep a starship hanging around doing next to nothing other than supporting the survey from orbit).

In other words, being able to deliver substantially self-contained habitat shelters that can survive anything a spacecraft's/starship's (unarmored) hull can seems like a worthwhile thing to have as an "off the shelf" make up to order container kind of thing to have available to civilian and military markets for societies and governments.

Think of it this way.
If a single round trip can deliver 10 people in a deployable habitat (40 tons, middle passengers) plus another 20-40 tons of equipment via Rift Courier per shuttle run every month (2 weeks out, 2 weeks return cycle), then a single starship could deliver 100 people (population code: 2!) to a new colony settlement on a new world in a mere 10 months. For a Rift X-Courier that would amount to up to 800 tons of 20 ton container modules delivered over that time frame (so 40 containers) which could be permanently deployed as habitable shelter at the new settlement.

Delivering 1000 people (population code: 3!) this way (40 tons for 10 people plus 40 tons of cargo per trip) would take 100 round trips (minimum 1 month per round trip) and could deploy 8000 tons of 20 ton containers to the new colony settlement. 100 months, at 12 months per year (the Imperial year is actually 13 months of 28 days plus 1 holiday per 365 day year) so as to give the crew time off for annual overhaul maintenance (2 weeks) and additional vacation time (an extra 2 weeks) would require 100/12= 8 years and 4 months to complete the deliveries with a single starship. Total cost in containers (2 passenger plus 2 "empty" cargo per round trip) for 100 round trips would be 200*(3.7+1.2)*0.8=MCr 784 ... not including the additional cost of vehicles, workshops, "cargo" (etc.) to fill those "empty" cargo containers with for one-way delivery.

In other words, it would be possible to fund a colonization effort using a single Rift X-Courier to shuttle ~1000 settlers to a new colony world in less than 10 years at an overall mission price tag of less than MCr 2000 for the starship, the containers, the supplies ... all of it.

Think about that.
For less than 2 billion credits ... it would be possible to colonize a new world up to 2 parsecs away (because, Jump-2) and raise it to a population code of 3 in less than 10 years as a colonization project by a government or corporate entity.
Even better yet, the Rift X-courier would represent less than 10% of that under 2 billion credits (more likely less than 5% of the total) for a single starship.

Want to colonize another world faster? Add more starships to the transport fleet.
With 10 starships running the colonization transport route, you could export 10,000 people (population code: 4!) to a new colony world in less than 10 years ... and they arrive with their own housing and supplies that remain on world.

Is the other world to colonize farther away than 2 parsecs? Add more starships to the transport fleet to avoid slowing the colonization schedule.



Now, if you're going to be deploying habitats in 20 ton increments like that ... in volume ... you're going to want to have a way to pick up and move them around (basically a "sky crane") when they need to be moved, which essentially amounts to a small craft with a cargo capacity (either internal or external) for a 20 ton container module with sufficient maneuvering power to achieve 2G with a 20 ton container module (either internal or external). Such a small craft could also supply the necessary power plant power for a "community" of 20 ton container modules, while also having the capacity to "fly off and refuel" itself as needed. Keep a minimum of 3 (preferably at least 4) such small craft available (1 down for maintenance, 1 on standby and 1-2 on active duty to respond to community needs) and you've got a handy little flotilla of useful small craft capable of "rearranging" the layout of the 20 ton containers as more get shipped in on the Rift X-Couriers.

I'm thinking that the most efficient designs for such a small craft would be a 20 ton Gig for carrying external loads (of a single 20 ton container at a time) and a 40 ton Pinnace for carrying internal loads (of a single 20 ton container at a time). The 20 ton Gigs would suffice for any movements of containers that do not require (re)entry into atmosphere (codes: 2+) ... while the 40 ton Pinnaces would be necessary for atmospheric entry to land the configuration: 4 container modules safely (just need a 20 ton internal cargo bay to put them into for atmospheric entries). So the 20 ton Gigs would be more like "ground hoppers" while the 40 ton Pinnaces would be more like "orbital shuttles" for the container modules.

Transport a few of these Gigs and Pinnaces to a newly established colony settlement and the 20 ton container modules can simply be delivered to a parking orbit for the Pinnaces to ferry down to the surface and the Gigs to move to their final (until changed) location placement on the surface.

However, such small craft would become relevant to have as logistical support once the number of 20 ton container modules reaches a certain threshold (which will vary from place to place and mission leadership to mission leadership) and there is a large enough population of people present with the necessary skills to maintain these small craft in working order. Optionally, they could also be carried back to the source world for more extensive annual overhaul maintenance when needed (and then need to be shipped back out to the colony again).
Design the containers to be modules that can be transported in a similar manner to the modular cutter.

Design the containers to be modules that can be transported in a similar manner to the modular cutter.

Like I said ... already ahead of you.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The containers are in the ships cargo hold.
{... snippity ...}
The sounds, the smells, the air.

The separate HULL(s) in the cargo hold ... each with their own SEALED ENVIRONMENT.

C'mon whartung, you can do better than that.
These containers could be OUTSIDE THE STARSHIP exposed to the vacuum and radiation of space and be JUST FINE.
Or did the MCr 1.2 for 20 tons of small craft hull in configuration: 4 that I have mentioned repeatedly all along somehow escape your notice this whole time?

This is not a rules issue. It's a perception and status issue for the owners and their guests.

I'm going to pretend you aren't making {censored} up just for the sake of being deliberately obtuse at this point.

There's an old saying in legal circles that would seem to apply here.

• When the law in on your side, pound the law.
• When the evidence is on your side, pound the evidence.
• When neither is on your side, pound the table.

What you're doing is the forum equivalent of pounding the table ... because you've got neither Rules As Written (RAW) nor the LBB starship deck plan evidence on your side of the argument that you're trying to make.

I've cited the rules that govern the answer to the proposition.
I've even described the deck plan arrangement in sufficient detail that anyone with the tools to draw a picture of a 20 ton container could easily do so (and not need +10% volume leeway in order to make it work).

If that's still not enough for you ... then I'm afraid I can't help you.



You can lead a man to water, but you cannot make him think.

 

[aramis]

PUBLIC REMINDER: Any link outside TravellerRPG.com MUST LIST Domain and Content Type. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Edit: For those who need to reread them: forum rules https://www.travellerrpg.com/index.php?pages/therules/

 

[Condottiere]

A yacht tend to imply leisure activities, contrasted to a freighter, which you'd assume would be used for commercial activities.

It can be moderately comfortable, for those inclined for family excursions, compared to super yachts owned by the oligarchy.

Comfort and luxury aren't necessarily the same thing, but conspicuous consumption is a sort of visual messaging.

 

[whartung]

You're talking about some way to do some thing with the design rules, that's fine.

These containers could be OUTSIDE THE STARSHIP exposed to the vacuum and radiation of space and be JUST FINE.

The point is, within the rules, high end passengers, the people, not the random 1D6 10,000Cr chits on the spreadsheet, the actual people that they're supposed to represent, would probably not take to kindly to being treated as CARGO bolted to the outside of a ship.

As a REFEREE, who is all powerful, when these top hat, monocle wearing gentlemen and their fur enshrouded escorts show up and see that they're walking up stairs in to a hatch on a sand blasted, scorched box attached to a ship that they, apparently, have no other access too. They're going to go "So, we're going to be residing on the outside of the ship? You know, this isn't the luxury accommodations that we're looking for", no matter what the plaque on the stateroom says.

To quote a young maven of starship design: "What a piece of junk!"

They want the red carpet jet way in to the spacious receiving lounge with their porters carrying the steamer trunks of clothing for the black tie dinner affairs. Stewards standing by with trays of sparkling vintage and fresh fruit. (FRUIT!)

You can try the "build it and they will come", but the referee, who represents the sophonts that inhabit their campaign, may look past the spreadsheets and see that regardless of what the dice rolled, no one is actually interested in these kind of accomodations.

 

[coliver988]

Look to the old King Richard deck plans for what a luxury liner in Traveller could be (and I actually used them, printed out and taped together, in my "Big Wreck" game a bit ago: characters had to steal a key from a passenger, so having nice deck plans on the table was helpful). Even at basically 15mm resolution it was several sheets of tabloid-sized paper taped together.

Have to go with Whartung on this one: if there is a choice between a cargo pod updated to "luxury" quarters vs a ship designed from the ground up, the purpose-built ship will win out (in T5 there would be a higher demand or whatever that was based on space and all that). If there is no choice, sure, the rules do say any standard cabin can be a high passage cabin. But the Lord and Lady HuffyPuffy may not give you a 5 star rating on TAS Rating board.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The point is, within the rules, high end passengers, the people, not the random 1D6 10,000Cr chits on the spreadsheet, the actual people that they're supposed to represent, would probably not take to kindly to being treated as CARGO bolted to the outside of a ship.

Then how do you explain the Jump Ship in LBB S9 p22-23 which does EXACTLY THAT (so ... canon precedent right there).
The Passenger Pod explicitly described contains 225 staterooms (MCr 212.5, so basically MCr 112.5 for 225 staterooms @ 900 tons, plus another MCr 100 for some inadequately explained reason, which could be 1000 tons of metal hull with no configuration price modifier on it) ... ALL of which are explicitly and by design (and I will now quote you exactly to drive the point home for you) ...

being treated as CARGO bolted to the outside of a ship.

If what the Jump Ship can do in a published example is "acceptable" ... but what I'm doing on a much smaller scale is not ... you're going to have to be a lot more convincing in your arguments than you have been thus far as to why one is fine but the other is not in CT.

see that they're walking up stairs in to a hatch on a sand blasted, scorched box attached to a ship that they, apparently, have no other access too.

Please quote me directly where I explicitly stated or implied or even HINTED that this would be the case ... let alone the default expectation for any and every High Passenger to be brought onboard as you assert here.

If you are unable to find and reference such in a quote of text that I have previously written on the subject, then I await your apology.

Have to go with Whartung on this one: if there is a choice between a cargo pod updated to "luxury" quarters vs a ship designed from the ground up, the purpose-built ship will win out (in T5 there would be a higher demand or whatever that was based on space and all that). If there is no choice, sure, the rules do say any standard cabin can be a high passage cabin. But the Lord and Lady HuffyPuffy may not give you a 5 star rating on TAS Rating board.

No doubt Lord and Lady HuffyPuffy would expect to be given 100 tons of life supported living space ... EACH ... along with a platoon of Stewards at their beck and call for even the slightest whim at all times (there is no decadence like moneyed aristocratic decadence, after all).

I mean, if you're going to take as your default expectation the kind of people who wouldn't be caught DEAD boarding anything less than 1000 (and by preference, nothing less than 10,000!) tons of extravagant over the top opulence in order to massage their own egos, narcissism and puffed up sense of self-importance (whether real and/or delusional) ... then sure, a 194-ton Rift X-Courier with High Passenger modules installed won't be "adequate" or otherwise "up to the task" for them.

But do you notice what you're doing with your assumptions there?
You're reaching directly for the top end of the social pyramid ... where snobbery is the whole point and the purpose of the obvious exercise of wealth ... rather than looking towards the "lower end of the market" that serves what amounts to "business class" and lower nobility (Knights, Barons, etc.) who don't have unlimited budgets to conspicuously "waste" on extravagance purely for the purposes of showing off.

At no point or time have I ever imputed or implied or asserted that a "Yacht conversion" via High Passenger modules would be a One Size Fits All option for EVERYONE in the absolute top tier of the upper crust of society. However, what I am saying is that such a conversion would be suitable for "nobles on a budget" (that isn't ... infinite) who can appreciate the versatility of the option. Likewise, the option "works" as a means to the end of providing High Passenger liner service in which the starship is merely a means of interstellar transport for passengers, rather than the starship necessarily needing to be a singularly specialized design. In fact, the benefits of the modularized container design is that if you need the starship for some "other" transportation purpose, there is enough flexibility to do so at need (or opportunity).

In other words, a Rift X-Courier can with modular conversion like this can serve as a "personal yacht" on a part time basis when needed ... while the rest of the time being a "working class starship" that can generate revenue to help defray the costs of ownership for those entities (public, private, corporate) that have limited budgets (as opposed to unlimited budgets). Why? Because starships that aren't generating revenues are just money sinks (their upkeep isn't "free" even if they're parked in a berth somewhere and shut down doing nothing) and therefore burning a hole in your finances and budget bottom line.

So Lord and Lady HuffyPuffy (whom you cite) ... who are so stupidly rich (or at least, pretending to be...) that for all intents and purposes they don't HAVE a budget to worry about (or at least want to present an image that they don't) ... would obviously not be inclined towards an "economy yacht" option like I've outlined here.

However, for the low end of the scale nobles (Knights, Barons, etc.) as well as higher social standing "merchant prince" types looking for what amounts to a "small business jet" type of starship which can carry (high) passengers and/or cargo depending on configuration of a multitude of options ... the versatility offered by a 2G Rift X-Courier (or a 5G Spinward X-Courier) at TL=11 can make for a compelling case for those interests that DO need to mind their budgets and don't have unlimited credits to spend on wanton extravagance.

Indeed, I can even make the case that the two (or more) 20 ton container modules (High Passenger and/or otherwise) option can even be thought of as a "traveling office" for a private business interest, which needs to station personnel at particular destinations to process transactions or oversee work in a consulting capacity for a duration of weeks to months before being picked up and reassigned to another location for their next tasking. In other words ... the equivalent to "migratory white collar work" where you don't need a permanent installation but a temporary office will do (meaning, staterooms, auditorium space, etc.) that is staffed by specialists and experts in a particular field (who can be securely housed "on site" regardless of external atmospheric conditions) whose skills are required on a longer term basis than just a single week at a time. Under such conditions, having a "mobile office" that can be loaded into a starship's cargo bay (ANY starship's cargo bay of 40+ tons!) and transported wherever your team of staffers are needed next means that (multiple?) pairs of 20 ton High Passenger modules ought to be all you need for such work and that any starship is just a means of transportation for your "mobile office" that you own (note that Steward could equate to "custodial staff" in this context). All you need is hookups to power and life support consumables recharging and your "mobile office" can be sustained on-site almost indefinitely.

Doing things the other way ... needing to park the entire starship for weeks/months at a time, because your "mobile office" is built into the starship as a permanent design feature and can't be removed ... means that in order to do the same kind of longer term consulting work would require "idling" the entire starship for weeks/months at a time. From a business perspective, that's just wasteful (keeping a starship "parked" like that, doing nothing other than providing life support/housing).

But again ... that's not something that Lord and Lady HuffyPuffy would stoop to now, would they?
But just because Lord and Lady HuffyPuffy won't ... doesn't mean that NOBODY ELSE would ...

In other words ... there are other market segments to serve than just the noses bleeding out due to their altitude.

 

[Spinward Flow]

see that they're walking up stairs in to a hatch on a sand blasted, scorched box attached to a ship that they, apparently, have no other access too.

Please quote me directly where I explicitly stated or implied or even HINTED that this would be the case ... let alone the default expectation for any and every High Passenger to be brought onboard as you assert here.

If you are unable to find and reference such in a quote of text that I have previously written on the subject, then I await your apology.

Still awaiting an honorable response.
I would like to believe that 2 weeks ought to have been sufficient time to formulate an honorable reply.