CT Only: Rift X-Courier

[robject]

T5 Book 2. Let's design a 30t passenger pod.

Give it no bridge, and assign it a single console for control.
Life support? Say ten person-months, and include Luxury appointments (for high passengers) as well as Adaptable (for other sophont types).
Add small spaces for a Clinic and a Counsellor (they're trapped in a box for however long).
We'll add one stateroom for a Steward, who can work as needed as a medic/counsellor.

We have room for three passengers. A 35t pod would be able to carry four passengers.

By default, these have landing skids and lifters. They could potentially land from orbit. No need for the ship carrying it to descend.

Passenger Pod Q-3B00 MCr 7.4 (30 tons)
Passenger Pod Q-3B00 MCr 8.5 (35 tons)

Crew comfort: +1

   Tons     Component                                MCr    Notes
-------     -----------------------------------    -----    --------------------
     30     Braced Hull, lifters, 0 a/l free         0.8    B, lifters, 0 a/l free
      1     Non-bridge Console                       0.2    Custom Console
      1     Life Support Standard                      1    10 person-months
      1     Life Support Luxury                        1    10 high passengers
      1     Life Support Adaptable                     1    10 sophonts
      2     Clinic                                     1
      2     Counsellor                               0.2
      6     Steward Suite                            0.4    fresher + safe
      0     Cargo Hold Basic                           0
    0.5     Shared Fresher                           0.5    4 passengers
      6     3x Standard Stateroom                    0.3    #3 1 passenger.    <--- 4 staterooms in the 35t version
      8     2x Passenger Commons                       0    #2           <--- 10t common space in the 35t version
      1     Grapple                                    1    1 pair per 35t

 

[robject]

Things get better with a 50 ton passenger pod. 8 passengers. I might be tempted to say that the unit of passenger-carrying is a 50 ton module.

By default, this thing has landing skids and lifters. It could potentially land itself from orbit. No need for the ship carrying it to descend.

Passenger Pod Q-5B00 MCr10.1

Crew comfort: +1

   Tons     Component                                MCr    Notes
-------     -----------------------------------    -----    --------------------
     50     Braced Hull, lifters, 0 a/l free         1.5    B, lifters, 0 a/l free
      1     Non-bridge Console                       0.2    Custom Console
      1     Life Support Standard                      1    10 person-months
      1     Life Support Luxury                        1    10 high passengers
      1     Life Support Adaptable                     1    10 sophonts
      2     Clinic                                     1
      2     Counsellor                               0.2
      6     Steward Suite                            0.4    fresher + safe
      0     Cargo Hold Basic                           0
     16     8x Standard Stateroom                    0.8    #8 1 passenger
      1     Common Fresher                             1    10 passengers
     17     Passenger Commons                          0
      2     2x Grapple                                 2    #2 1 pair per 35t

 

[robject]

My Conclusions

1. Passenger sections are most efficient in groups of 8, to minimize the steward's cost.
   
   
2. The ideal unit of passenger-carrying seems to be the 50 ton section at about MCr 10. This provides space for 8 passengers and support. The cost is smaller when built into starships (maybe 45 tons at MCr 6) due to shared infrastructure.
   
   
3. Traders are, in a way, built around integral 45 tons of passenger-support space (with regular variation).
   
   
4. Larger transports tend to gravitate towards 8-passenger multiples, each approximately 40 tons, more or less.
   
   
5. Multiple 8-passenger sections gain a small amount of efficiency. For example, life support is more efficient with more people, and clinics and counsellor spaces can handle a large number of people.
   
   
6. "Passenger modules" are essentially underpowered small craft and nonstarships.

 

[Grav_Moped]

This still has the "XBoat Tender carrying Scout/Couriers" problem: what shape is the passenger pod? A 50Td block that fits into a Subsidized Merchant might not fit into an Free or Far Trader. And it'd have to get in through the cargo doors, and presumably have some way for the passengers and crew to get in and out -- even when the rest of the cargo hold is full.

(If you're building ships around the concept, they're close/dispersed (per HG) structure so it's not really an issue.)

 

[robject]

Using pod hulls for passenger modules has many benefits.

As smallcraft, they can launch, land, even reach orbit.

As pod hulls, their power supply lasts for a year before needing a recharge and maintenance.

 

[robject]

This still has the "XBoat Tender carrying Scout/Couriers" problem: what shape is the passenger pod? A 50Td block that fits into a Subsidized Merchant might not fit into an Free or Far Trader. And it'd have to get in through the cargo doors, and presumably have some way for the passengers and crew to get in and out -- even when the rest of the cargo hold is full.

(If you're building ships around the concept, they're close/dispersed (per HG) structure so it's not really an issue.)

Right - they'll be Cluster or Braced hulls, essentially the HG Close/Dispersed hull.

You'd have variants that fit particular form factors - that's no problem, because standard ship designs are so common. Just like there are many different Launch shapes, to fit particular ships.

Now, fitting through the cargo doors is another matter entirely. The Beowulf's cargo doors might not have enough clearance for a passenger pod. All that means is that the Beowulf is out of luck. On the other hand, the March-class Subsidized Merchant has those big 'ol cargo doors in the back that can accept anything. I think the Marava's doors are on the side, and similarly large enough to accept a pod. If so, that would just about fill the entire cargo hold, except for incidental lots perhaps.

There's also the grapple option. Stick a few grapples on the side of your ship, and you could attach pods to them. Your jump drives would have to be powerful enough to carry the additional tonnage... note that the Leviathan works with demountable barge hulls in this way.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Right - they'll be Cluster or Braced hulls, essentially the HG Close/Dispersed hull.

You'd have variants that fit particular form factors - that's no problem, because standard ship designs are so common. Just like there are many different Launch shapes, to fit particular ships.

True, but for independent operators the problem is the availability of a compatible hull when passengers show up.

On the other hand, you could game the system by having your Free Trader carry a passenger module operated by a nominally independent (but actually captive) company, so both the ship and the module-owner get rolls on the passenger table.

 

[robject]

True, but for independent operators the problem is the availability of a compatible hull when passengers show up.

If this is commonplace in the referee's game, then the starport has a ready supply, OR the broker has a supply, OR the factor for whom the players work has a supply. And so on.

On the other hand, you could game the system by having your Free Trader carry a passenger module operated by a nominally independent (but actually captive) company, so both the ship and the module-owner get rolls on the passenger table.

Yes -- and at that point we're talking about how the referee is running his games. I would've allowed that in some of my games. That opens up interesting plot twists. But if my players and I agreed to play by the book, then that wouldn't work.

 

[Spinward Flow]

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.

This.
They're not "your" passengers, they're "someone else's passengers" that just so happen to be getting transported (as freight) aboard your starship.

Passenger sections are most efficient in groups of 8, to minimize the steward's cost.
The ideal unit of passenger-carrying seems to be the 50 ton section. This provides space for 8 passengers and support.

Agreed.
Different editions of Traveller will diverge on the preferred tonnage to accomplish this objective (as you've already found out).

My CT solution (detailed upthread) is 10 staterooms accounting for 40 tons of displacement. This can easily be accounted for as the equivalent to 10x 4C32/B standard cargo containers holding one stateroom each with a "universal airlock" on one end of the 6m x 3m x 3m container which can all be daisy chained together to form a "common hallway" between them all.

Traders are, in a way, built around integral 50 tons of passenger space.

Coincidence?

Multiple 8-passenger sections gain a small amount of efficiency.

Correct again.
Since you only need 1 medic per 120 passengers (per LBB2.81), you only need a medic in the first block of 40 tons/10 staterooms. If you add a second block of 40 tons you will only need 9 staterooms (8 high passengers plus 1 steward) leaving you 4 extra tons which could potentially be used for 8 low berths.

1st 40 ton block = 8 high passengers + 1 steward + 1 medic = 10 staterooms
2nd through 8th 40 ton blocks = 8 high passengers + 1 steward + 8 low passengers = 9 staterooms + 8 low berths (each)
8 blocks of 40 tons = 320 tons = 64 high passengers + 56 low passengers = 120 passengers + 8 stewards + 1 medic
73 staterooms = MCr 36.5
56 low berths = MCr 2.8
320 tons hull (configuration: 4) = MCr 19.2
Total CT cost (as independent hulls): MCr 58.5 for 320 tons (Cr 182,813 per ton), not including 80% discount for volume production

This still has the "XBoat Tender carrying Scout/Couriers" problem: what shape is the passenger pod?

Standard 4C32/B cargo container for each stateroom ... so 6m x 3m x 3m each ... and just daisy chain one end of them together using a 6-way airlock (forward, up, down, port, starboard connections, while aft is into the stateroom space). Use an iris valve instead of a sliding door for access to the stateroom (since an iris valve can be locked for privacy and is a pressure door).

So ... a bunch of standard cargo boxes (configuration: 4, close structure).
In terms of 1.5m² deck plans, they're each 4x2 squares in size, with 3x2 squares being the stateroom and the remaining 1x2 squares on one end being the airlock.

Using pod hulls for passenger modules has many benefits.

Many HIDDEN benefits ... yes.

As smallcraft, they can launch, land, even reach orbit.

You'll need controls (bridge and/or computer) plus a power plant and maneuver drives to do that in a lot of cases (in CT certainly, other editions may have different rules I'm not aware of that could be taken advantage of).

Right - they'll be Cluster or Braced hulls, essentially the HG Close/Dispersed hull.

As I've been saying all along.

True, but for independent operators the problem is the availability of a compatible hull when passengers show up.

Hence why you use a standard cargo container form factor for this to completely sidestep any configuration issues.
So long as they can all be daisy chain stacked with one end pointing towards each other, you can create "hallways" between cargo module units made from airlocks (which can be optionally left open).

On the other hand, you could game the system by having your Free Trader carry a passenger module operated by a nominally independent (but actually captive) company, so both the ship and the module-owner get rolls on the passenger table.

Since when have Merchant Princes been ... averse ... to "gaming the system" as you cite?
To be fair, though, the real challenge in such a setup is going to be the cooperation and coordination between the two "companies" as far as this kind of thing is concerned. However, again, that's getting into the logistics of execution challenges, rather than being any kind of engineering challenge for the shipyard to overcome during construction of said passenger modules.

 

[robject]

This.
They're not "your" passengers, they're "someone else's passengers" that just so happen to be getting transported (as freight) aboard your starship.

From my captain's point of view, he is legally shipping Meat in a custom refrigerator at Cr1,000 per ton.

As with all other cargo,
* It is completely separate and hermetically sealed off from the rest of the ship
* It is not opened up once the ship is underway. There is no other option there. This is not Firefly.
* The "scot-free legal agreement" would have to be strongly supportive of the players, due to their valid concern about hijackers and face-hugging aliens.

The process is therefore relatively transparent to the Traveller freight rules.

 

[robject]

My CT solution (detailed upthread) is 10 staterooms accounting for 40 tons of displacement. This can easily be accounted for as the equivalent to 10x 4C32/B standard cargo containers holding one stateroom each with a "universal airlock" on one end of the 6m x 3m x 3m container which can all be daisy chained together to form a "common hallway" between them all.

CT leaves loose ends. You could use HG's smallcraft design rules with full-size staterooms*, and just leave out the drives. Then you could handwave the power requirements based on a Fusion+ module and built-in lifters for some stability control and whatnot. You might even know life support requirements (?). But you still don't know what your passenger comfort levels are, and if they're cooped up in a container, you'll be subjecting civilians to something like the Xboat Effect. So you need a steward equipped to also be medic and counsellor. But at that point you're better off using T5, because it has everything you need without going the Fire, Fusion, and Steel route.

Or you can handwave it. I fit 8 passengers and a steward into 50 tons. 40 tons will lower the demand, but then again if you're at a high pop world that should be OK. So that might be a correct strategy.**

Regardless, if it just becomes a freight container, and its nature is transparent to the game, then that seems to minimize the fuss. In effect it becomes a personal interpretation of what can be carried as freight.


* Actually the 4-ton stateroom is a 2-ton stateroom plus 2 tons of common space, right?

** The problem then becomes how to determine the number of passengers willing to travel aboard a freight container as Meat. The rules don't say.

 

[robject]

It strikes me that this problem is properly divided into two smaller problems, namely:

(1) If this is just freight (e.g. "Meat") then the current rules handle it transparently.

(2) If this is not "just freight", then how do you determine the number of passengers willing to travel aboard a freight container? The rules don't say.

 

[whartung]

See, here's the discontinuity.

There's a reason the game is played with a referee. There's a reason the rules are meant to be used as guidelines by the referee.

You make the tacit assumption that because you can make some edge case contraption, that the all of the other rules apply. "Says here I get Xd6 passengers. Doesn't say anything about having to clean the toilets, having to run air filters, having to cut the mold off the bread. It says "Xd6 passengers". It says here I can cram High Passengers in to the same, stale, horrible state room as Middle Passengers. Stateroom costs the same no matter what passage booked. So why do I have to give them anything special. Is there a "reputation DM"? No, there is not.

I show up, I get XXX passengers. Says so on page 11. No medic for low passage. What's another 8% mortality rate of low passage vs the bottom line. Thankfully, the TAS doesn't publish those ratings. So definitely saving that Cr. I mean, I don't use Low Passage, no skin off my nose.

I used to read those "Creepshow" kind of comic books, like most any kid.

One stood out about a miserly department store owner. Choice lines from the story include him telling his Demonstrator to not show the wind up toys more than 3 times, because they break. And the line after he told to the sign painter to makes signs about "XX% off!" everywhere, when the guy said "But you raised prices for this sale!".

In the end, after a successful sale, he gave the employees the "bonus" he promised - a single dime. The demonstrator and sign painter then quit.

To save money on the want ad, the miser abbreviated the word "Demonstrator" to "demon", and, of course, that's what he got. Lesson learned.

While no doubt there have been endless combinations of the things people have to done to aircraft, boats, cars, buses, small houses, etc. doesn't mean they're a good idea in the large. They're niche applications for niche markets.

The assumption is that you niche ideas will find wide range favor, that all of the general ways and means apply to your extra specialized profit milking, breakpoint pushing, "19999 ton", buck saving schemes have a place in the general market. That the reception will be the same.

That's where the referee steps in and puts the kabosh on things as unsustainable, unrealistic in the market, etc. Like when the players find that trading "honey run" between 2 or 3 systems that rack up endless, painless profits. Either the referee has the jump drive blow a gasket at an inopportune time, or the game may as well end. "Let's roll dice until I'm sick of accumulating millions of Cr." Fun times.

"Your jump drive just exploded mid-jump. You're stuck in deep space."

"But I have the engineer and the fuel and the DMs, that's impossible!"

"Yea, surprised me too, but here you are."

"But the rules say this can't happen."

"Yea, it's a wonder, but if you look out the window, you don't see any stars of planets, and your jump tank is dry."

"How do we survive this?"

"Yea, dunno. You tell me."

So, all the plans are great and fun until the jump drive gives out.

 

[Spinward Flow]

(1) If this is just freight (e.g. "Meat") then the current rules handle it transparently.

The rules handle the cargo boxes transparently, because the contents of those boxes can be anything.

(2) If this is not "just freight", then how do you determine the number of passengers willing to travel aboard a freight container? The rules don't say.

Standard passenger availability table (LBB2, p11) works as a starting point.
If you're using a different edition of Traveller than CT, simply refer to the standard passenger table for that edition of the rules.
Done.

if they're cooped up in a container, you'll be subjecting civilians to something like the Xboat Effect.

XBoat pilots get stuck in what amounts to solitary confinement for a 1 year tour of duty, with only occasional reprieves aboard Tenders (where they're "let out for good behavior" before getting put back in their cell ice cream cone XBoat. Point is there's no communication nor contact with anyone else while they're in jumpspace.

You don't get that effect when you daisy chain a bunch of stateroom cargo modules together, especially when one of the people nearby is your Steward who you'll probably see on a daily basis.

So it's basically the difference between solitary confinement for a week versus breakfast served to you in bed every day by a steward for a week (metaphorically speaking). Not exactly a 1 to 1 comparison there. Solitary confinement versus having a servant at your beck and call.

Actually the 4-ton stateroom is a 2-ton stateroom plus 2 tons of common space, right?

It varies.
Even on the Type-S vs Type-J deck plans, individual stateroom sizes can vary from 2-3 tons (4 squares to 6 squares) per stateroom.

In this instance I'm talking about 3x2 square staterooms with an adjoining 1x2 square airlock/hallway that connects in 5 directions, so bulkheads all around each stateroom and iris valves to each stateroom that can be locked for privacy.

 

[Fovean]

@SpinwardFlow, If you take a look at the MgT rules you’ll find steerage class passages - 4 people per stateroom on bunks, no steward required. At roughly 30% the cost of a high passage, steerage could make you an extra 10-20% per stateroom, and every steward you eliminate is an extra four passages you can sell.

Oh and only 10kg cargo allowance per passenger. I think you skipped the part where high passengers get a baggage allowance of 1000kg each.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Oh and only 10kg cargo allowance per passenger. I think you skipped the part where high passengers get a baggage allowance of 1000kg each.

I'm pretty sure the 1000kg allotment is meant to be a passenger-facing perk rather than a ship-operator-facing requirement. That is, if you buy a high passage ticket, you get to bring 1000kg of stuff; mid-passengers have to pay for cargo space if they're bringing that much luggage. But as a ship operator, you don't actually need to set aside 1Td of cargo space for each high passenger.

 

[robject]

Standard passenger availability table (LBB2, p11) works as a starting point.
If you're using a different edition of Traveller than CT, simply refer to the standard passenger table for that edition of the rules.
Done.

So: fine for games, but that's a house rule. Why not just rule that you can find as many passengers as you want?


Assume a 40 ton container that has 10 staterooms in it.
Assume we use standard pax avail to fit people into it.
Then, we use standard pax again for a second container.

Now we're shipping 20 people in the hold of a Beowulf for every jump.
The captain owns these containers through shell corporations, so he's receiving 20 x (8,000 - 2,000) = 120,000 credits each jump.


What's that? You can't always find 10 pax? No problem:

Assume a 4 ton container that has 1 stateroom in it.
Assume we use standard pax avail to fit a person into it.
Then, we use standard pax avail again for the remaining 19 containers.

Voila, I betcha we'll get close to 20 pax pretty often.


Not making enough money? 120K/80t = Cr1500 per ton, middle passage rates.

I can do a little better.


Instead, let's use 1 ton containers, each with 2 low berths.
Use the low pax avail process to fill 80 of these containers. (Assume we have 80 tons of cargo hold, as in a Beowulf).

Now we're shipping 160 corpsicles. Every. Single. Jump.

Same arrangement as before, only now the captain makes Cr 160,000 each jump. Cr2000 per ton of cargo. Now we're talkin.

 

[Spinward Flow]

If you take a look at the MgT rules

Sadly, I do not have access to the MgT rules myself, hence why I pontificate on everything from a CT perspective. Fortunately, CT is the "easiest" to translate into other editions as needed/desired.

 

[robject]

Let's figure Captain Sunbeard transports 160 corpsicles every jump, making Cr160,000 before expenses.

No crew to pay -- he runs the ship himself.

Life support (for himself) is Cr 4,000 per month (CT, assuming two trips per month -- TTB p142).
The monthly mortgage on a Beowulf is Cr155,000. (TTB p142).
Fuel cost is Cr 60,000 per month (CT, two trips per month).
Berthing costs are around Cr200 per month (two trips).

Monthly costs are roughly Cr 219,200.
Monthly income is Cr 320,000.

Monthly surplus ==> Cr 100,800. Approximate.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Hold on a second.

In the context of the LBB2/LBB7 trade game, a 50-ton passenger module at Cr1000/Td is just 50 tons of cargo that would have been generated by the available-cargo rules. That is, it's cargo that would have happened anyhow.

It's not displacing duplicating passenger supply, it's displacing subsumed into cargo supply.

Whether Staterooms as a Service is a viable business proposition (that is, as a form of cargo speculation without actually owning a starship) is a separate matter. It probably is, because Traveller rules as written don't charge enough for cargo shipped more than one parsec.

Edit: strikethrough/italics