CT Only: Rift X-Courier

[willtron3030]

Note that the exact same concept is how Battle Riders+Battle Tenders work for naval combat assets (think about it...).

The paradigm is the same, but civilian shipping is looking for a different economy. And it's only reasonable for established routes between hi-pop worlds.

If it was easier/cheaper to make a huge drive than several smaller ones... that's not OTU, but now I have to ponder it.

 

[robject]

That's an ATU I'm willing to play with.

Have you looked at Orbital: 2100 by Zozer Games?

 

[willtron3030]

Have you looked at Orbital: 2100 by Zozer Games?

Hah! Buying it now.

I can already guess the "Ways to Die in Space": asphyxiation, too hot, too cold, thirst, hunger, injury, illness, and weird stuff.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The paradigm is the same, but civilian shipping is looking for a different economy. And it's only reasonable for established routes between hi-pop worlds.

First you have to recognize the possibility.
Then you have to build something to take advantage of the possibility.
Then you have to use it ... test it ... prove it ... and then incrementally refine the product to better take advantage of the possibility.

And then ... when you've done all of that ... you can look at what it's going to take to turn a profit while doing it.

As for being only reasonable for established routes between high population worlds ... well, that's kind of the places where the passengers are in the first place, so not that surprising. But yes, the first place you aim for is the "expensive" luxury market, test out the business before figuring out how you can broaden the appeal to more of a "ordinary Traveller" mass market type of model.

It's kind of like how if you want to break into a new market as a niche product, as a business you usually start high and then come down as expertise and economies of scale kick in while you come down the cost curve. Rarely does a new product or service break in at the very bottom rung low end of the market so as to work its way UP in price point. Usually you start at a high price point and use what you learn to figure out how to work your way DOWN to lower price points while still delivering the same services.

My point was that there was precedent for the idea of interstellar passenger service "as shipped cargo" utilizing starships to provide Transport As a Service™ for your otherwise "immobile staterooms" is something that CAN work ... on slim margins with bank financing but on reasonably healthy profit margins if the containers and staterooms can be purchased outright in bulk, enough so that merchants without starships could become interested in building a fledgling line of passenger services and get their start using less than MCr 8 (and then start making money).

The model has already been proven in the non-commercial military sphere of operations (see: Battle Rider, Tender for reference).
The next challenge is to figure out how to profit off the idea in the civilian commercial market.
I'm merely taking the first tentative steps towards that goal ... here ... in this thread, much like how I took the first tentative steps towards the notion of using my Spinward Flex Courier (and by extension, Spinward X-Courier also) as interplanetary fuel tanker tugs. In this case I'm looking at the interstellar "cargo" tug potential as well, up to and including the potential possibility of passenger services run by 3rd parties who do not own starships themselves.

"In every revolution, there's one man with a vision."
- Captain James T. Kirk, Mirror Mirror

 

[whartung]

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.

They call that "a train".

Trains are trains because of the nature of trains, and thus the limitations of the medium.

Outside of trains, I don't know any modern equivalent of a modular system for moving passengers, they all seem to be purpose built.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Why stop there - use a 5000t hull and you get a population code

"Oooh, that's not a good roll. Your Engineering Section is 'Balkanized'".

 

[aramis]

They call that "a train".

Trains are trains because of the nature of trains, and thus the limitations of the medium.

Outside of trains, I don't know any modern equivalent of a modular system for moving passengers, they all seem to be purpose built.

Some Boeing jets are convertible between cargo, passenger, and mixed without refit.
Specifically, certain versions of the Boeing 707 and 747 have the forward seating sections on removable sections, allowing the forward main-deck cargo door to load cargo containers when the seats are not installed. A few have been built with all the seating on such modules, allowing free conversion between modes, provided the seats are stored where & when needed.
I've been on 707's with the forward 8 rows replaced, and others with the forward 14 rows removed to make room for cargo on main deck. I've seen a 747 in the process of taking them out at Anchorage International (PANC)...

 

[Condottiere]

1. Bulkheadized.

2. Speaking of engineering, the big ticket item for small starships is the jump drive, and that has a minimum default tonnage.

3. If you decide to be a gig rider in lieu of volume you don't need and don't want to pay for, you have to find a freighter with a large enough hold that can take it, it's likely to be containerized plus ten percent, so twenty two tonnes, at a kilobux per parsec, so twenty two kilobux, plus the cost of a stateroom per crew member.

 

[whulorigan]

"Oooh, that's not a good roll. Your Engineering Section is 'Balkanized'".

It's never a good situation when your Maneuver Division is in a cold war with the Power Plant division.

 

[Spinward Flow]

3. If you decide to be a gig rider in lieu of volume you don't need and don't want to pay for, you have to find a freighter with a large enough hold that can take it, it's likely to be containerized plus ten percent, so twenty two tonnes, at a kilobux per parsec, so twenty two kilobux, plus the cost of a stateroom per crew member.

LBB5.80, p32 ... small craft are carried at tonnage on ships 1000 tons and under.
So 22 tons of cargo to transport a 20 ton small craft only happens on ships 1001+ tons and up.

20 tons of cargo space is pretty reliably "easy to come by" since that is a fairly standard major/minor cargo size combination and most merchant ships will be able to accommodate a small craft of that size in their hold temporarily.

And finally, if the small craft has 4 ton starship stateroom(s) instead of 2 ton small craft cabin(s) then there is no need to buy any passenger tickets for "room and board" on the transporting starship during time spent in jumpspace. For a 1 man/2man small craft, that's doable within a 20 ton hull (assuming it isn't massively armored) ... and if it is massively armored, bump it up to a 30 ton small craft and you can still make everything fit inside.

 

[whartung]

Some Boeing jets are convertible between cargo, passenger, and mixed without refit.

Well of course, so are military cargo jets.

How many of these would you put "high passengers" in? Or, heck, any commercial passengers?

It's one thing to bolt some chairs to some rails, and quite another to refit to a high level of fit and finish, as well as things like sound proofing and other insulations.

Obviously desperate people will take whatever transport is available if the need is urgent, but when given a choice, folks appreciate and give patronage to those experiences that address create comforts.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well of course, so are military cargo jets.

How many of these would you put "high passengers" in? Or, heck, any commercial passengers?

It's one thing to bolt some chairs to some rails, and quite another to refit to a high level of fit and finish, as well as things like sound proofing and other insulations.

Obviously desperate people will take whatever transport is available if the need is urgent, but when given a choice, folks appreciate and give patronage to those experiences that address create comforts.

You keep using that those words. I do not think it they mean what you think it they mean.
For one thing, you keep dragging in "objections" that have absolutely nothing to do with either starship design or merchant passenger availability rules. At BEST you're talking about mere flavor/fluff text concerns ... which is some might thin gruel you've got there to stake a categorical "in all possible cases, in all universes" objection to.

That thin gruel you've got there that you keep clinging to so desperately can certainly be the case for a particular setting (such as a single adventure as a plot hook or just simple flavor text), but it's not going to be a universal condition across all of Charted Space. Trying to pull a "seen one, seen 'em all" on this point is just not going to cut it, I'm afraid.

I mean, aramis just finished detailing personal experience with precisely this happening in the Real World™ on real aircraft (presumably for real profit motives)!

I've been on 707's with the forward 8 rows replaced, and others with the forward 14 rows removed to make room for cargo on main deck. I've seen a 747 in the process of taking them out at Anchorage International (PANC)...

Just because you want to turn your nose up at the idea (and sniff dismissively and obviously at it) doesn't mean that everyone in Charted Space will.

You may think the whole idea is stupid ... but that doesn't change the fact that it WORKS.
How WELL it works is a different matter and largely a function of the professionalism (and cash flow) of the people involved ... kind of like with any other (economic) endeavor you can think of.

If the modules are well maintained by the crew/staff ... then they are WELL MAINTAINED ... by definition.
If they're not ... then they're not ... obviously.
Tautology is tautological and all that.

But those factors are downstream of the shipyard and construction and have to do with the "quality" and care of ownership, as opposed to being a deal breaker regardless of any other considerations or accommodation for capacity and capabilities.
At that point, your flavor/fluff text objections are more properly directed at the owner/operator(s) of a cargo module passenger line for being greedy "slum lords" with their business practices ... rather than at the fundamental concept of the business model which doesn't "mandate" that kind of neglectful attitude from the outset by default.

Note that the same "lousy upkeep" complaint can be leveled at ANY potential merchant ship (Free Trader, Far Trader, etc.) if the captain and crew don't keep up with their maintenance duties.
Is that some kind of "standard practice" or default expectation passengers should have for EVERY merchant ship in existence, regardless of crew (or history)?
The obvious answer to that question is NO ... but that doesn't stop some crews from being substandard and/or cutting corners where they can to save a few credits (and hope no one notices).
Basically, not absolutely every merchant operator is a greedy "slum lord" type by default (shocking, I know).

Just because something CAN happen doesn't mean it always WILL happen ... let alone that it ought to be the default assumption in ALL cases as a starting point ... with all exceptions to that expectation conveniently ignored so as to sustain prejudice in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Some people will do that (of course) ... but not everyone will.
Some minds are more ... open ... than others.
Just like how some merchant operators place a greater emphasis on customer service, satisfaction and employee retention than others (who knew, right?) so as to grow their core competencies and reputation rather than slice them to the bone (and keep on cutting).

Your turn (again).

 

[mike wightman]

So I am the captain of a free trader.

You come to me and say - I want you to transport 10 passengers as cargo in my specially designed container for Cr.40,000

I would tell you to go do one and offer to carry those passengers at mid passage rates but with high passage service and thus get Cr.57,000.

Put another way - how do you convince a starship to lose money carrying your passengers when they could make money carrying them themselves?

Course you could always just turn up to the free trader and say I want my 40t cargo pod transported and not tell them what's inside. Would you have to declare it to the starport authority though?

Remember the numbers that are rolled for passengers are what are available to a free trader and you should be limited to those numbers too.

But I do like the idea of passenger modules - a modular cutter module would be the first thing I would consider. It adds something to the concept of trading without a starship...

The main thing will be to set yourself up on a network of worlds that can provide enough passengers at every world that you never have to ship your container empty.

 

[Condottiere]

As Captain, you're responsible for the cargo, coming and going.

First of all, I rather doubt they like a fusion reactor not under their control running riot in their cargo hold.

Then you have liability, whether civil or criminal, regarding the state of their passengers, so even if they let you run that fusion reactor, probably with a rather massive security deposit, you'll probably have to sign a number of waiver clauses regarding safety.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Put another way - how do you convince a starship to lose money carrying your passengers when they could make money carrying them themselves?

How is the starship losing money?

Remember the numbers that are rolled for passengers are what are available to a free trader and you should be limited to those numbers too.

That's not the way I've ever looked at those random passenger generation tables.

The tables give the number of passengers wanting to travel on YOUR ship going to YOUR destination.
The tables never even once (in CT, specifically) factor in anything like ... "these are all the passengers in the world, merchants fight over who gets them."

I mean, the Rules As Written (RAW) never at any time imply, impute or suggest anything along the lines of "if there's another starship in port going where you're going, cut the cargo and passenger opportunities in half" to account for multiple ships chasing after a finite pool of cargo and passengers (that they then have to share). Everything about the RAW is from the perspective of "here's what matters for YOUR ship" with everything else outside of that being handwaved away (because it's relevant to OTHER ships, not yours).

So basically, you're looking at this from a glass half empty/half full perspective, while I'm taking the Dilbert approach of using a redundant glass (so to speak) and assuming there's more passengers available per world than what a single ship can manage to capture (and corner the market on) for itself.

Or are you trying to tell me that a world with 10 billion sophonts (population: A) only has up to 13 high passengers per week (total!) wanting to book passage to another star system of 100 million or more sophonts (population: 8+) when the two worlds have equal tech levels?
That kind of answer "works" when it's up to 13 high passengers per starship making the trip.
The answer is prima facie ridonkulous in the extreme if it's up to 13 high passengers for ALL starships in port at the same time making that trip.

I mean, at that point, you're talking about a pretty literal "one in a billion" people wanting to travel interstellar by high passage.

Pull the other one, guv'nah.
Most starports serving population: A mainworlds have more than 13*52=676 high passengers per year passing through their terminals.

Regina/Regina/Spinward Marches is population code: 8 and claims an annual passenger volume of 669,000 for its starport.
669,000 / 52 = 12,865 per week
Somehow, I think the total population of high passengers is better than 0.1% per week for the whole world ... don't you?

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I am the captain of a free trader.

You come to me and say

"I've got 80 low berths loaded with passengers that I need transported to where you're going and I've already covered the life support costs for all 80 of them. I'll need to purchase 40 tons of cargo space on your ship to transport them all to your destination."

And as the captain of the free trader you say ... what, exactly?

Point being, if you don't have a problem with shipping 80 (occupied) low berths as cargo ... why would you have trouble shipping 10 (occupied) staterooms as cargo?

But I do like the idea of passenger modules - a modular cutter module would be the first thing I would consider. It adds something to the concept of trading without a starship...

Exactly.
Start thinking more broadly than just a single use case.

If you take the Rider+Tender approach, you can even build what amount to "interplanetary cruises" using modular staterooms where the modules are delivered (with the passenger in them) to the various ports of call so they don't have to find local hotel accommodations (you've got your stateroom) and the Tender simply moves the modules around the system on interplanetary maneuver drives.

Take it one step further and you've got (literal) "package holiday tours" to other star systems as an option.

Use the box ... to think outside the box ... {waves hands mysteriously while pretending to use psionics}

 

[mike wightman]

I don't think you understand what I am getting at.

Why would a free trader carry your passengers as cargo rather than take those passengers themselves? They make more money from the passenger tickets than they do from taking them as 4 tons of cargo equivalent.

I agree that the number of passengers you roll are the passengers available to your ship/transport pod, which is why I have said I agree with you - this could be a way to ship passengers in the same way you can set up freight shipping and speculative trade without a starship. But you will have to ensure that you can make money on the return trips.

So are you going with them, relying on a colleague on the other worlds to arrange the next lot of passengers or some other method of ensuring your passenger pods are full on every trip?

 

[aramis]

Well of course, so are military cargo jets.

How many of these would you put "high passengers" in? Or, heck, any commercial passengers?

The 707s? The section removed is 1st class. Seriously. If you don't know what to look for you;'ll miss it when seating is installed. The giveaway is that it's got a cargo door on main deck. The front two rows of coach are also removable, and most of the time, Alaska Air puts the last two of 1st class in place of of the first two of coach. Oh, and there's no forward fresher on those. (I suspect it's still installed, but since it's just behind the cockpit, and there is a partition between first class and the cargo, they don't let you through.) The galley on that sub-model is aft.

I can't speak to the 747s, as I've only seen them being removed from a good distance in person, and on TV. I've been on a 747 only twice in my life. It's fun to watch them slide out... but I was easily 500m away.

It's not like the HH3 nor C130 (both of which I've been aboard in flight) and the web-seating. The Boeing passenger modules are standard seating on removable flooring that slide out of the deck through the cargo door. Complete with onboard audio, power, and air.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Why would a free trader carry your passengers as cargo rather than take those passengers themselves?

Because those passengers already signed on with someone else and are thus not available for ... poaching ... to be carried as passengers on your own manifest. So you can either transport the cargo being offered ... or find some other cargo to fill that 40 tons with.
40 tons of cargo is still 40 tons of cargo revenue, no matter what the contents are, if you're transporting them on contract on someone else's behalf.

See, you're falling into the fallacy of assuming the passengers involved are "yours" (somehow) and are available for the taking (as passengers, not as cargo).
They aren't.
For one thing, the "passengers as cargo" merchant would need to refund all their tickets (yeah, right) so all those passengers could then turn around and give YOU their money for the trip.
However, if the tickets are not refunded (go figure...) due to cancellations by passengers to "switch carriers" to the same destination, they're going to wind up paying more individually for you to "swipe" them from your competitor who is offering to transport them in cargo pods.

So for you, as a Free Trader captain ... the offer is to transport 40 tons of cargo or nothing ... not 40 tons of cargo revenue or double that in high passenger ticket revenue if you "steal" those passengers from your competitor.

But you will have to ensure that you can make money on the return trips.

Correct. As an operator you need to be able to ensure "reciprocal bookings" on both ends in order to keep the passenger modules "full" on each trip for maximum profit margins. However, that's a "good business model" proposition, rather than a "shipyard construction" type of problem.

So are you going with them, relying on a colleague on the other worlds to arrange the next lot of passengers or some other method of ensuring your passenger pods are full on every trip?

Depends on the scale of your operation.

 

[robject]

Because those passengers already signed on with someone else and are thus not available for ... poaching ... to be carried as passengers on your own manifest.

Well, if they are my captain's passengers, then they are the ones that I rolled for my free trader captain. Therefore, the captain will accept Cr8,000 per mid passenger and Cr10,000 per high.

If he's outfitted his ship with grapples, then he could tack on a passenger pod if there are more passengers than he has room for. But I'm not sure if he will let a strange pod attach itself to his ship.

See, you're falling into the fallacy of assuming the passengers involved are "yours" (somehow) and are available for the taking (as passengers, not as cargo).
They aren't.

Because "passengers on his own manifest" == "his passengers".

On the other hand, if these are not the ones that I rolled for my free trader captain, then this is just freight, no different than any other cargo container. The shipper assumes all liability, and the captain himself has a liability waiver, countersigned by the shipper. They will file both papers with the starport authority.