• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

CT Only: Rift X-Courier

Still awaiting an honorable response.
I would like to believe that 2 weeks ought to have been sufficient time to formulate an honorable reply.
After 1 month (plus a few extra days, just to be sure) in addition to a friendly reminder ... no honorable response to the challenge has been forthcoming.

It is therefore safe to assume at this point that no such honorable reply will ever be made.
 
These containers could be OUTSIDE THE STARSHIP exposed to the vacuum and radiation of space and be JUST FINE.
Colonial_movers.jpg

Here's my container ship, show me yours.
 
I can see universes where lighters are ubiquitous. I don't see it generally in Traveller, but I'm sure there are niches where it just works. For example, those 100,000 ton freighters seem to be shoe-ins for cargo lighters.

Generally though, passenger modules don't show up in ACS in the OTU (the Cutter is the one I can think of offhand). It's not that they're not there; the question is where they fit in. If the answer is "everywhere", then we've entered an ATU.
 
Generally though, passenger modules don't show up in ACS in the OTU
Probably because no one considered/thought of the idea at the time the resources were being written/printed.

Think of it this way.
If you can put staterooms into standard shipping containers (and by all accounts, you can!) then "containerized passenger services" simply require enough containers in a string with common access between them to make it all work.
10 staterooms = 8 high passengers + 1 steward + 1 medic = 40 tons

A "middleman" merchant line could do all the passenger gathering to fill the 8 high passenger slots and pay the steward and medic and life support costs for the lot. The containers just simply need to be shipped as 40 tons of standard cargo.

Overhead costs for 1 trip are ...
Cr 2000 * 10 = Cr 20,000 for life support for 10 staterooms
Cr 1500 + 1000 = Cr 2500 for crew salaries for 2 weeks for steward and medic
Cr 1000 * 40 = Cr 40,000 for cargo shipping of containers (the starship pays for berthing fees and fuel)

Revenue for 1 trip with 8 high passengers is ...
Cr 10,000 * 8 = Cr 80,000 for 8 high passage tickets

Net profit ... Cr 80,000 - 40,000 - 20,000 - 2500 = Cr 17,500 per trip for the "middleman" merchant.

If a starship has only a 40 ton cargo hold and can be chartered, transport costs drop from Cr 40,000 to Cr 36,000 ... raising net profit for the "middleman" merchant to Cr 21,500 per trip.

Not ridiculously lucrative, but that's just a single block of 40 tons of cargo capacity. The point though is that it's an "in" for extremely low end operators who can't even afford to buy/maintain a starship to get into the "interstellar passenger biz on the cheap" with an investment of MCr 7.4 (single)/MCr 5.92 (volume) to purchase the 40 tons of hull (configuration: 4) with 10 staterooms in them, which would require as little as MCr 1.48 (single)/MCr 1.184 (volume) down payment ... which is REALLY MODEST by starship standards.

So long as the "middleman" merchant line clears Cr 451,400 per year in net profit, they'll be able to break even including if operating under bank financing and needing to pay for annual maintenance (Cr 7400 per year) on single lot production from the shipyard (basically, a one off order).
17,500 * 26 = Cr 455,000 per year
By contrast, if such modules are already in steady volume production (MCr 5.92 per 40 tons with 10 staterooms), then the bank financing+annual maintenance (Cr 5920) fees means needing to clear Cr 361,120 per year which is a LOT more manageable.
17,500 * 21 = Cr 367,500 per year

Since the shipping containers themselves "never need to leave the starport" there's no 4 day shipping delay involved in getting them shipped to the starport for a new ship to take off with the passenger containers. Use the day after arrival at the starport to unload passengers and refresh all of the accommodations and life support systems. Give the steward and medic 2 days of shore leave ... so that by the 4th day everything is ready for passengers to arrive to embark, the containers are loaded onto the next outbound starship "going your way" and you're back into jumpspace for another week and another interstellar trip. So what you wind up with is a kind of 8 days jump time, 4 days planet time kind of cycle for ~12 days per trip.
12 * 30 = 360 days

So a "middleman" merchant running a starship-less interstellar passenger line with a single 40 block of cargo modules converted into 10 starship staterooms needs to make 21 trips per year with a full manifest in order to make a slight profit on a 40 year bank loan for volume production of these passenger modules ... and can make up to 29 trips per year and still have time for 2 weeks of annual maintenance and paid crew vacation time (during those 2 weeks). That means up to 8 trips per year at Cr 17,500 can be pure profit, which amounts to a profit margin of up to Cr 143,880 per year after all expenses are paid for (assuming full high passenger manifests on every trip). This may sound like "chump change" to most Fledgling Line merchant operators, but it's not nothing for a "mom 'n' pop" type of operation that essentially amounts to being interstellar hitchhikers as a business model, rather than needing to own and operate/maintain a starship themselves.

In other words, it's just yet another way to make a steady living if you aren't that inclined to be the adventurous/wandering Traveller type of sophont. You won't get rich quick just on passenger services ... but the potential Patrons you might meet ... well, that's a different adventure hook now isn't it? :sneaky:
 
Last edited:
Probably because no one considered/thought of the idea at the time the resources were being written/printed.
Side note - that is not an obstacle. See the Ghalalk, below.

I think there are a number of reasons why ships aren't particularly modular. One is likely Traveller's influences. Considered, and not thrown out, but relegated to speciality purposes.

LSP Modular Cutter (1980). We already know of the LSP modular cutter from JTAS No. 5, 1980, pp6+. Clearly modularity was understood then, and the Modular Cutter is Marc's invention.
[JTAS No. 5 pp6+] The LSP Modular Cutter is a single frame ship with modular inserts for use in a wide variety of tasks. Some were part of the original concept, while others were developed in the course of time for additional military or civilian uses.

Note that two other canonical modular designs -- the Gazelle and the Ghalalk -- are also both Marc Miller's designs. So modularity was KNOWN AND USED by GDW. A third design -- the Brilliance-class Liners -- I think was LKW's concept, but surely he was riffing off of the concepts that Marc already used.

I think this is a major reason they didn't modularize ships:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load.

This would complicate otherwise straightforward design rules.

I could be wrong there, but to me that makes the whole system too complicated. So instead they relegated this sort of thing to specialty ships like the modular cutter, the Ghalalk, and one-off designs that made use of L-Hyd tanks (Gazelle, Brilliance-class Liners). But in general it was too much to require recalculation for all ships. Again, I could be wrong, but this rings true in my head.

It's too much of a distraction for not enough benefit, generally.


Ghalalk-class Armored Cruiser

Note
. The Ghalalk-class Armored Cruiser was recently (2008) converted to (or, perhaps, revealed as) a modular design (by Marc). Originally it was just a 50,000 ton cruiser from Supplement 9.
 
Last edited:
I can see universes where lighters are ubiquitous. I don't see it generally in Traveller, but I'm sure there are niches where it just works. For example, those 100,000 ton freighters seem to be shoe-ins for cargo lighters.

Generally though, passenger modules don't show up in ACS in the OTU (the Cutter is the one I can think of offhand). It's not that they're not there; the question is where they fit in. If the answer is "everywhere", then we've entered an ATU.
That's an ATU I'm willing to play with.

When time becomes the last unresolvable scarcity, those with ostentatious wealth and no temporal responsibilities or sense of urgency (truly, the idle rich) will have no need or desire to get anywhere in a hurry. You'll see 500 dT luxury residences in the form factor of large standard "cans", with independent power, life support, and hangars for small craft. Unload and put into a parking orbit, and enjoy the system until loading on a freighter headed to the next stop.
 
To be fair ... containerization of shipping was only just getting started in the late 70s/early 80s, producing the kind of global supply chains that we take for granted today. It was a new concept at the time that CT was being written and not yet fully proven out to be the economic game changer that it ultimately became for the global economy.
I think this is a major reason they didn't modularize ships:
Performance of the cutter is affected by its load.
All that means is that the more you pile on the worse the performance gets (until achieving "that no work-y" status).
Traveller doesn't have formal "towing" rules in it. You have to infer them based on drive performances for different total tonnages of combined ship.

With LBB2, you just use the chart.
A drives are code 2 in a 100 ton hull, but code 1 in a 200 ton hull.
So a Type-S Scout/Courier can operate a drive codes 2 in a clean configuration (no external loading) or have performance reduced to drive codes 1 with a 100 ton external load attached (increasing total tonnage to 200 tons).

With LBB5, you simply use the formulas.
A 100 ton ship with a Maneuver-2 drive has 5 tons of maneuver drive delivering 2G of acceleration performance.
A 250 ton ship with a Maneuver-1 drive has 5 tons of maneuver drive delivering 1G of acceleration performance.
So a 100 ton ship with a Maneuver-2 drive can accelerate at 1G with a +150 ton external load (increasing total tonnage to 250).

Like I said, it's not something EXPLICIT in the rules ... but it is an obvious inference of them, depending on which LBB you're designing your starships under.
Unload and put into a parking orbit, and enjoy the system until loading on a freighter headed to the next stop.
Note that the exact same concept is how Battle Riders+Battle Tenders work for naval combat assets (think about it...). :unsure:
It's also how non-starships (like planetoid monitors for system defense) get delivered from shipyards in other star systems.

The only difference here is that we're talking about what amounts to "pleasure craft" of one sort or another in which Transport As A Service becomes a viable means of moving between star systems.

There will, of course, be a ... spectrum ... of luxury expectations depending on the stupidity to wealth ratio involved (go figure...), and the "imperative" of needing to conspicuously flaunt that wealth as extravagantly as possible. But the point is that there will be both low end and high end opportunities for this kind of thing.
You'll see 500 dT luxury residences in the form factor of large standard "cans", with independent power, life support, and hangars for small craft.
That would be the yacht.
A separate tender starship with jump drives docks with it to jump to other star systems.

Note that such a tender+boat arrangement would permit the tender to be used as a "jump tug" hauling freight when it isn't tasked with moving the "yacht boat" through jumps (meaning the asset of those jump drives don't have to be wasted while the "yacht boat" is idling around).
 
You'll see 500 dT luxury residences in the form factor of large standard "cans", with independent power, life support, and hangars for small craft. Unload and put into a parking orbit, and enjoy the system until loading on a freighter headed to the next stop.
This bumps into the "what's a Type Y Yacht good for?" discussion. I think the point of that ship isn't so much that it's a portable hotel suite but more that it's a self-propelled portable hotel suite.

Being able to leave without needing to rely on anyone else is worth a lot.
 
Being able to leave without needing to rely on anyone else is worth a lot.
Which is by way of saying that @willtron3030 's 500Td modular chateaus will probably be 600Td Jump-1/1G, but seldom actually use their Jump drives. If it's me building them and TL allows, they'll have J-1 with a backup Collector-1. This allows a prompt Jump with subsequent indefinite fuel-independent operation. Slow, but it'll get you home (or "out of there") and you don't have to ask anyone for anything.

Hmmn. Need to write up something on those lines...
 
Why stop there - use a 5000t hull and you get a population code :)
Once you take out the jump fuel, the ISCV King Richard is 4000 tons, about the size of two 24m x 24m x 48m cans.

And the same drayage that brings big cans planetside could set these down to upgrade a starport, seed a colony, etc.
 
Back
Top