Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
One difference between our spaceships and an aeroplane is the need for balancing the load and aerodynamics.
CT Only: Rift X-Courier
- Thread starter Spinward Flow
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I would imagine there still has to be a balancing of load on a starship even with its artificial gravity, acceleration compensation and gravitic maneuver drive.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Certainly should with the manoeuvre drives, or reactionary rockets, I think, aligned along the centre of gravity.
As for the rest, whether engines or cargo, it seems to be ignored.
As for the rest, whether engines or cargo, it seems to be ignored.
Ok. So where is their baggage stored? I doubt your average high passenger would be okay with keeping it in their stateroom…
I vaguely recall this being a popular role-play hook for a while there… the put-upon steward having to dig something out of the cargo hold for a fussy high passenger…
IMTU I’ve often had a stretch of 1dton cages near the crew airlock to the hold for this. Price of doing business.
Well, most ships seem to be laid out symmetrically so it’s pretty easy to assume that even distribution is kind of baked in.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
By the rules as written for CT 1000kg is one ton of cargo...
I know people don't like it, and argue against it, but it is right there in the trade rules in every CT iteration 77, 81, TTB, ST.
I know people don't like it, and argue against it, but it is right there in the trade rules in every CT iteration 77, 81, TTB, ST.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Middle passage (100kg baggage) = Cr 8000 revenue - Cr 2000 life support = Cr 6000 profit / 4 tons = Cr 1500 per ton profit
High passage (1000kg baggage) = Cr 10,000 revenue - Cr 2000 life support - Cr 1500 steward salary per 2 weeks - Cr 1000 cargo tonnage loss = 5500 profit / 5 tons = Cr 1100 per ton profit
If you have 8 high passengers you "lose" 8 tons of cargo capacity (that you aren't getting paid for losing).
Cr 80,000 revenue - Cr 16,000 life support - Cr 1500 steward salary per 2 weeks - Cr 8000 cargo tonnage loss = Cr 54,500 / 40 tons = Cr 1362.5
So, basically ... if high passengers require an extra 1 ton of cargo space be set aside for their luggage (which they don't need to pay for in additional ticket price) then by economic definition high passage will be a revenue loser to middle passage accommodations.
Cr 1500 per ton vs Cr 1362.5 per ton (best case comparison.
And that's not even including the fact that you can fit 9 middle passengers into 9 staterooms instead of trying to fit 8 high passengers plus 1 steward into 9 staterooms.
Just one of those weird little wrinkles in the passenger economics when using the RAW.
High passage (1000kg baggage) = Cr 10,000 revenue - Cr 2000 life support - Cr 1500 steward salary per 2 weeks - Cr 1000 cargo tonnage loss = 5500 profit / 5 tons = Cr 1100 per ton profit
If you have 8 high passengers you "lose" 8 tons of cargo capacity (that you aren't getting paid for losing).
Cr 80,000 revenue - Cr 16,000 life support - Cr 1500 steward salary per 2 weeks - Cr 8000 cargo tonnage loss = Cr 54,500 / 40 tons = Cr 1362.5
So, basically ... if high passengers require an extra 1 ton of cargo space be set aside for their luggage (which they don't need to pay for in additional ticket price) then by economic definition high passage will be a revenue loser to middle passage accommodations.
Cr 1500 per ton vs Cr 1362.5 per ton (best case comparison.
And that's not even including the fact that you can fit 9 middle passengers into 9 staterooms instead of trying to fit 8 high passengers plus 1 steward into 9 staterooms.
Just one of those weird little wrinkles in the passenger economics when using the RAW.
RIght, the question is whether you're allowed to turn away HP for MP.
There's this nit on Page 4
And, of course, the dichotomy that typically "luxury" goods are sold at a higher profit, but lower numbers (which is why you'd want to develop or HP traffic than MP).
The Steward is pretty much a fixed cost though. Can you have a passenger ship without a Steward, or does that simply disqualify you from taking HP at all.
The steward also washes away with volume. 1 Steward per 8 passengers, so in that case, they only cost 188/passenger.
80,000 revenue - 16,000 life support - 8,000 cargo - 1,500 Steward / 32 tons = 1703 per ton.
If the Steward is a fixed cost, always there, then for a full boat of 8 passengers, replacing an MP with an HP is always higher margin.
With 8 MP and the steward, its 1421 per ton, and goes up to 1703 as you replace MP with HP.
Even with just 1 passenger, a single MP is 109 per ton (32 tons fixed for passengers, even if empty), a single HP is 171.
So, in the end, a Steward is a good investment.
It seems.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
I made an error.
9x Middle Passengers: (72,000 revenue - 18,000 life support (9) - 1000 cargo)/36 tons=Cr 1472.222 per ton ... not including Medic.
9 middle passengers generate more net profit than 8 high passengers do.
8x High Passengers: (80,000 revenue - 18,000 life support (9) - 8000 cargo - 1500 steward)/36 tons=Cr 1458.333 per ton ... not including Medic.
9x Middle Passengers: (72,000 revenue - 18,000 life support (9) - 1000 cargo)/36 tons=Cr 1472.222 per ton ... not including Medic.
9 middle passengers generate more net profit than 8 high passengers do.
Same place the contents of the ship's locker go, and the same place the space for the airlocks and laundry facilities come from. (That is, it gets handwaved because this is a game, not a simulation.)
If you need something a bit more concrete than that, it gets stuffed in around the rest of the cargo or there's a secure locker in the cargo hold that could hold the luggage.
Last edited:
"Steward: If high passengers are carried, then a steward is required." ( LBB2 '81 p.16)
This says nothing about mid-passengers, so presumably you can book mid-passengers without one.
So, I played with this a bit.
You're right, we were forgetting to count the steward in the costs.
I did a couple of crude sims, I think they're accurate.
Given a Pop 7 world, with a ship with 9 staterooms available.
A Pop 7 world, which rolls 3D-2D for HP and 3D-1D for MP.
Then, I made random trips, filling HP and then MP staterooms with a steward, or just filling with MP.
100 runs.
Lo is the lowest profit.
Hi is highest profit.
m is median
a is average
tot is total profit
5 runs of mixed HP and MP
5 runs of MP only
So, in the large, in this case, while the HP can potentially lose money, on the whole it's more profitable than the MP only runs.
I tried it on a Pop 5 world (2D-1D and 3D-2D) and the mix did even better.
Profitability math so you can check it
Interesting outcome.
You're right, we were forgetting to count the steward in the costs.
I did a couple of crude sims, I think they're accurate.
Given a Pop 7 world, with a ship with 9 staterooms available.
A Pop 7 world, which rolls 3D-2D for HP and 3D-1D for MP.
Then, I made random trips, filling HP and then MP staterooms with a steward, or just filling with MP.
100 runs.
Lo is the lowest profit.
Hi is highest profit.
m is median
a is average
tot is total profit
5 runs of mixed HP and MP
Code:
lo 375.000000 hi 1458.333333 m 1305.555556 a 1218.888889 tot 121888.888889
lo -97.222222 hi 1458.333333 m 1305.555556 a 1233.888889 tot 123388.888889
lo -97.222222 hi 1458.333333 m 1319.444444 a 1179.444444 tot 117944.444444
lo 236.111111 hi 1458.333333 m 1291.666667 a 1207.500000 tot 120750.000000
lo -97.222222 hi 1458.333333 m 1277.777778 a 1198.611111 tot 119861.1111115 runs of MP only
Code:
lo 138.888889 hi 1472.222222 m 1222.222222 a 1085.555556 tot 108555.555556
lo 0.000000 hi 1472.222222 m 1138.888889 a 1054.722222 tot 105472.222222
lo 0.000000 hi 1472.222222 m 1138.888889 a 1006.666667 tot 100666.666667
lo 0.000000 hi 1472.222222 m 1138.888889 a 1066.111111 tot 106611.111111
lo 0.000000 hi 1472.222222 m 1055.555556 a 1002.222222 tot 100222.222222So, in the large, in this case, while the HP can potentially lose money, on the whole it's more profitable than the MP only runs.
I tried it on a Pop 5 world (2D-1D and 3D-2D) and the mix did even better.
Profitability math so you can check it
Code:
(defun profit (hp mp staterooms stewards)
(let* ((steward-cost (* stewards 1500))
(total-tonnage (* staterooms 4))
(hp-revenue (* hp 10000))
(mp-revenue (* mp 8000))
(total-revenue (+ hp-revenue mp-revenue))
(hp-tonnage (* hp 1))
(mp-tonnage (truncate (fceiling (* mp 0.1))))
(total-cargo (+ hp-tonnage mp-tonnage))
(total-cargo-cost (* total-cargo 1000))
(life-support (* 2000 (+ mp hp stewards))))
(/ (- total-revenue life-support
total-cargo-cost steward-cost 0.0) total-tonnage)))
Code:
(profit 8 0 9 1) ; 8 HP 0 MP 9 Staterooms 1 Steward
1458.3333333333333
(profit 0 9 9 0) ; 0 HP 9 MP 9 Staterooms 0 Stewards
1472.2222222222222Interesting outcome.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
So your conclusions align with mine on the raw profitability per ton *IF* High Passage is assumed to "claim" 1 ton of cargo space from the hold per high passenger which cannot then be used for cargo transport (revenue).
My personal interpretation is that the "1 ton baggage allowance" is permitted to be stored within the stateroom's 4 displacement tons design allowance, rather than "requiring" an additional 1 ton of cargo hold space be set aside per high passenger to account for baggage (and if they don't use all of that allowance, then and only then can the captain use that cargo tonnage for revenue generating transport).
Alter this assumption to not deduct from cargo hold capacity and you get this:
8x High Passengers: (80,000 revenue - 18,000 life support (9) - 1500 steward)/36 tons=Cr 1680.555 per ton ... not including Medic.
9x Middle Passengers: (72,000 revenue - 18,000 life support (9) - 1000 cargo)/36 tons=Cr 1472.222 per ton ... not including Medic.
So if you're not deducting cargo capacity to accommodate high passenger baggage allowances, high passengers pull ahead of middle passengers when the passenger manifest is full on the 8 to 9 ratio.
Another thing to consider is that although 1000kg sounds like a LOT of mass/volume, once you stop talking about liquid hydrogen that starts becoming a relatively small volume. For example, 1000kg of liquid water (specific gravity: 1) would occupy 1m3 ... not the 14m3 we use for starship displacement and deck plans. Most baggage brought onboard by passengers is rarely going to exceed a specific gravity of 1 (water density), so 1000kg of baggage could wind up being anywhere from 0.2-5m3 in volume typically, which is easily accounted for in the "closet space" allowance of an individual stateroom (a 1x1 square on the deck plan of 1.5m x 1.5m of floor area). There may be exceptions (of course, aren't there always?
) but for those exceptions where a high passenger needs more volume for their baggage beyond what can be accommodated in the stateroom closet, they would be obliged to purchase cargo hold space just like anyone else (is my thinking on the subject).
Then there’s no point in declaring baggage allowances at all.
I agree 1000kg doesn’t necessarily mean 14 cubic meters but if it all fits in a closet who cares? It’s meaningless fluff instead of possible role-play opportunities.
And what self-respecting high passenger will stand for their luggage being crammed in a cubby hole when that should be set aside for the week’s outfits?
I agree 1000kg doesn’t necessarily mean 14 cubic meters but if it all fits in a closet who cares? It’s meaningless fluff instead of possible role-play opportunities.
And what self-respecting high passenger will stand for their luggage being crammed in a cubby hole when that should be set aside for the week’s outfits?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Um ... that IS the week's outfits ...
No, I think the "full load" use case is a red herring.
If you looked at the rest of the post, when used in "real world operations(tm)", the High Passage and Mid Passage mix nets about 20% more than just Mid Passage.
The only time pure MP come close is in the A population bracket (3D HP, 4D MP), where you're almost assured a full load every time.
All of the other population numbers, mixed HP and MP has better margins over time, even if, in the example cited above, it's possible to actually lose money on a run.
The MP style does have a maximal higher profit potential per run, but the median and average number for mixed HP and MP are roughly 20% higher.
The "best" (highest total profit) run of MP only was:
Code:
lo 138.888889 hi 1472.222222 m 1222.222222 a 1085.555556 tot 108555.555556
Code:
lo -97.222222 hi 1458.333333 m 1319.444444 a 1179.444444 tot 117944.444444
But probably 9 HP are more profitable than 9 MP, as the steward per 8 HP, as I understand rules, means that you don't need a second one until you have 16 HP. So, not having run the numbers, probably 15 HP is the maximum profit for passengers...
But see that if you use merchant Prince, all of this is shadowed by the profits you may make by carrying speculative cargo, that can give easily give you about 3-4 kCr per ton of benefits (and even more, as in some golden pair cases it can reach (forgive me to quote this again):
If you're not using Merchant Prince (basic trader rules in LBB3) that may not be so profitable, as speculative availability is too scarce and random. In MgT trade rules it may also be, as you'll always find good products in many places.
Last edited:
ITTR having read somewhere 1 steward for 40 MidPsgrs, but I cannot find it where, and maybe it was from MT or another edition... In any case, is too low a number to really matter too much...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
And curiously enough, I just finished posting today a TL=13 Aslan J4 merchant ship that could be used as a testbed for the economics throughput from loading ramp to loading ramp on a J5 ship. The fact that it's designed for long range in the Great Rift actually has very little impact on the final throughput construction cost pricing. At most you might want to dial back the power plant from 5 to 4, ditch the weapons (a gunner) and still wind up with a (human) crew of 5 (pilot, navigator, chief engineer, engineer, medic) so no real change there, and probably downgrade the computer from model/5 to model/4. Total tonnage savings would be 16.8 tons after the downgrades (so go from 64 tons of cargo to 78 tons of cargo) and construction cost savings would be MCr 33.7 (mostly power plant and computer downgrades). Everything else would stay almost as is ... except the crew salaries would be Cr 10,700 per 2 weeks, so only modestly lower than the armed version.
Point being, my Aslan J4 merchant ship would at least get you "close" to the details involved in a J4 trade route if you were so inclined to "road test" the possibilities. Not saying you have to be so inclined ... just that if you are (for fun), there's a ready made starship you could use to do the job so as to "ballpark" the results.
