CT Only: Spinward Flex Courier

[Spinward Flow]

If a medic generates a notable better outcome, you'd think that ships would carry medics, and raise the price of their low passage, vs the bargain basement "best price off of Regina -- but you can die" ticket.

And that a low passage passenger would be willing to pony up the marginal extra fee to ensure there's a qualified medic aboard.

You'd think that ... but the Rules As Written (RAW) do not incorporate any such economics, so you would be looking at House Rules in order to implement such a scheme.

Medical-2 skill is all that's needed to get a +1 DM on the 2D6=5+ survival roll. Since low passengers pay for their passage prior to embarking aboard a ship, rather than after disembarking at the destination, survival of low passengers is "not required" in order to generate revenue from low passengers. So in the coldly calculating spreadsheet analysis of the accounting department of a merchant line, Medical-2+ skill is an advantage only to the line's "reputation" (which game mechanically generates no extra revenue by default) while at the same time costing the merchant line more in increased crew salary and thus operational overhead costs. This means that any accounting department that is in the habit of "shaving and clipping the beans it counts" will by economic imperatives for profit rely on Medical-1 skill and simply allow more low passengers to die during transit ... since that's the more profitable outcome as a matter of (in)human resources policy. :coffeesip:

1st Rule of Acquisition
Once you have their money, you never give it back.

109th Rule of Acquisition
Dignity and an empty sack is worth the sack.

 

[bookwyrm]

I guess if you carry enough Low Passengers to pay the Ships Medic and generate a decent profit... which is same thing you do with High Passengers and a Steward.

I came across a thread somewhere, where revenue per ton versus costs was discussed. I did some calculations with some ship builds, and it was very eye opening. not to mention kind of fun running the numbers. very helpful when deciding on more cargo space or passenger space when making a ship from scratch. not to mention 1G or 2G, Jump 1, 2, or 3. more or less crew, and all kinds of other questions. glad I know how to use a calculator.

also, considering both ships are sharing the same random rolls for cargo, with one ship generating Credits with X-Mail and the other with Passengers, it's interesting to see how different Systems affect the rolls, and thus profits, for better or worse.

and I really enjoy your analysis and commentary on the fortunes & misfortunes of the ships and crew.

 

[Condottiere]

Instead of lottery, performance bonus.

Low berthers only pay half on freezing, and half (escrowed) if they are unposicled alive at their destination.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I guess if you carry enough Low Passengers to pay the Ships Medic and generate a decent profit... which is same thing you do with High Passengers and a Steward.

I came across a thread somewhere, where revenue per ton versus costs was discussed. I did some calculations with some ship builds, and it was very eye opening. not to mention kind of fun running the numbers. very helpful when deciding on more cargo space or passenger space when making a ship from scratch. not to mention 1G or 2G, Jump 1, 2, or 3. more or less crew, and all kinds of other questions. glad I know how to use a calculator.

Credit for the thoughts and ideas that formed the basis for this "penny ante" low end bottom of the barrel scraping for profitability in a starship are largely an outcome of having read the Starships Comparative Potential Mercantile Revenue and Jump 1 vs Jump 2 ships in the CT Imperium threads discussing (at length!) various aspects of starship economics under LBB rules.

{waves hand while using Psionics}
These seem to be the links you're looking for ...

also, considering both ships are sharing the same random rolls for cargo, with one ship generating Credits with X-Mail and the other with Passengers, it's interesting to see how different Systems affect the rolls, and thus profits, for better or worse.

Indeed...

That's part of the reason for running the Race to Profitability in the first place, as originally outlined, because it's only when you run both ship types through the "exact same circumstances" (which in this case means, dice rolls) do you start to see how the different design features impact operations and thus indirectly the revenue/cost balance that yields overall profitability over the course of an entire trading route. As designed, the Spinward Flex Courier is capable of being more profitable in the more "marginal" star systems, thanks to the revenue density (and reliability) of x-mail, with cargo (standard and/or speculative) simply being "bonus" revenue on top of x-mail.

The Far Trader is capable of generating a lot more revenue (7 high/mid passengers, 4 low passengers, 61 tons of cargo space) than the Spinward Flex Courier can (5 tons of x-mail, 40 tons of cargo) ... and yet the Far Trader has so far consistently had higher operating costs eating into those higher revenues, which up through Ficant has resulted in slightly lower profit margins overall for the Far Trader despite (or perhaps, because of?) the higher revenue generating capacity. So why isn't the Far Trader "winning this contest hands down" when the very structure of the race has been "rigged" in favor of the Far Trader's preferred business model? Why isn't the Far Trader "winning with a clean pair of heels" (so to speak) in this Race to Profitability?

Well ... the answer lies in the construction and capabilities of both starships ... and that answer isn't quite as obviously apparent when simply staring at a LBB5 styled High Guard USP code. I mean, when a starship of almost the same total tonnage (194 vs 200) and has HALF the tonnage devoted to transport that you do (45 tons vs 91 tons) is able to "stay ahead" on profit margin when dealing with identical opportunities and circumstances ... the only way that can happen depends entirely upon the specific design details for both starships and how well each is "optimized" for the trade route being run.

5 tons (x-mail) + 40 tons (internal cargo) = 45 tons
28 tons (7 staterooms) + 2 tons (4 low berths) + 61 tons (internal cargo) = 91 tons

And yet the "smaller" starship is currently ahead on profit margin up through Ficant on this trade route from and to D'Ganzio. It's incumbent upon the rest of us Merchant Princes to figure out WHY that is even possible ... especially since the Spinward Flex Courier isn't even being used to its full potential(!). o:

Case in point ... if the Spinward Flex Courier were permitted by the rules of the race to transport External Cargo as well as Internal (only) Cargo, the Far Trader would be losing the Race to Profitability by even more than it already is. And if Interplanetary Trade and x-mail deliveries were permitted by the rules of the race ... even if it's relevant only a few times during the race ... that's pretty much Game, Set, Match in the Race to Profitability versus a Far Trader, mainly because the interplanetary stuff is a realm that a Far Trader with a 1G drive is at such a severe disadvantage in a contest with a 6G drive starship (it's not even close).

And if you're lamenting the fact that the Far Trader doesn't have a fuel purification plant (because it's a LBB2 design) ... adding one as an aftermarket modification would reduce the Far Trader's cargo capacity by 9 tons, which is a non-trivial amount. In practice, over the course of this race, that would have basically meant a 10 ton reduction in cargo transported on 6 of the jumps made so far, for a loss of Cr ~60,000 in gross revenue (which is about Cr 30,000 after 50% subsidy rake) ... while avoiding Cr ~66,500 in refined fuel costs AND removing the opportunity to misjump(!). So if the Far Trader had a fuel purification plant onboard, it would have "already paid for itself" in profit margin terms just from simple avoidance of fuel costs, so that's a pretty big contributor to why the Far Trader isn't generating as healthy a profit margin over time as you might otherwise have assumed from the start.

and I really enjoy your analysis and commentary on the fortunes & misfortunes of the ships and crew.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Case in point ... if the Spinward Flex Courier were permitted by the rules of the race to transport External Cargo as well as Internal (only) Cargo, the Far Trader would be losing the Race to Profitability by even more than it already is. And if Interplanetary Trade and x-mail deliveries were permitted by the rules of the race ... even if it's relevant only a few times during the race ... that's pretty much Game, Set, Match in the Race to Profitability versus a Far Trader, mainly because the interplanetary stuff is a realm that a Far Trader with a 1G drive is at such a severe disadvantage in a contest with a 6G drive starship (it's not even close).

If the Far Trader were permitted to transport "external cargo", run the numbers for an A2 with a 200 ton underslung cargo pod. It pretty much would be a 400Td Subsidized Merchant done right, but with 10 tons of fuel it doesn't need.* Net cost is about MCr8 more than the canonical Type R.

Honestly, I'd be ok trying to grind out a profit with one of those**, but it'd need to frequent worlds with high cargo volume to keep the hold full.



* Put those 10Td in demountable tanks, and leave them out when in the 400Td configuration (that is, 10 more tons cargo).
** It's profitable, but uninspiring as a platform for adventuring.

 

[bookwyrm]

I took a look at those threads, and I think I read one of them before. plus, I have read other threads with similar discussions. kind of makes me happy I have T20. although there are more options for generating revenue on the bulk cargo side of things, it still isn't easy making profits in practice.

I ran numbers for a Jump-1 route for the Khuur League in Gateway to Destiny. used a custom ship with fuel purifier and a mix of cargo & passengers. even though I saved lots of Credits on fuel, there were times I flew with few or no cargo and flew with few or no passengers. barely made a profit at the end of the year, and that was with a new ship. and that was with just using the average numbers. since random rolls could be rolled badly a lot, routes that cut it close for profits could end up having a ship going bankrupt.

as a player, it kind of made me go a little crazy seeing all these premade ships without fuel purifiers. in T20, there is a 10% chance to misjump when using unrefined fuel. so a merchant captain wanting to save money using unrefined fuel would have an average of 2.5 misjumps a year on a 25 jumps per year model. this is in addition to any misjumps from failed astrogation checks or poor maintenance. if I was the person sending my goods to another world, I wouldn't want to send my goods on ships using unrefined fuel on a regular basis, I'd go out of business. well, 10% chance for misjump is bad for every one, military, government, private, or commercial.

I started Traveller with some friends in high school, I think the 81 CT version? really liked the Alien Modules! so I only really know the differences between T20 & CT, but it's been so long...

another thing I like about this thread is that the ideas and information learned can be applied to any of the rules systems to figure things out. I haven't done any tests between 2 ships as different as these, so this thread is really cool.

 

[Spinward Flow]

If the Far Trader were permitted to transport "external cargo", run the numbers for an A2 with a 200 ton underslung cargo pod. It pretty much would be a 400Td Subsidized Merchant done right, but with 10 tons of fuel it doesn't need.* Net cost is about MCr8 more than the canonical Type R.

Honestly, I'd be ok trying to grind out a profit with one of those**, but it'd need to frequent worlds with high cargo volume to keep the hold full.

* Put those 10Td in demountable tanks, and leave them out when in the 400Td configuration (that is, 10 more tons cargo).
** It's profitable, but uninspiring as a platform for adventuring.

The A2 Far Trader is a LBB2 ship design ... meaning that the drives it is using are:
Jump-B (2)
Maneuver-A (1)
Power Plant-A (1)

What is the drive performance for those drives on any hull over 200 tons?

I think I can spot a ... flaw ... in your plan to allow a Far Trader to operate as a Tug for external cargo, both in the interstellar context and the interplanetary context.

Why?
Because if you add even a single ton above 200 to a LBB2 design ship, the Rules As Written (RAW) default the ship to the next hull category upwards, the 400 ton hull ... and A drives are not powerful enough to "do anything" for hulls between 201 and 400 tons.

So in order to achieve the performance you're referencing here, Grav_Moped, you would need what amounts to a "A2.5" Far Trader loaded with all B drives (jump-2, maneuver-2, power plant-2) so as to have enough "excess drive capacity" to act as a jump-1/maneuver-1 Tug for external loads of up to 200 tons external capacity.
Fair warning though, upgrading to "All B" drives on a Far Trader (so BBB instead of BAA) will cost an extra 5 tons of drive displacement, an extra MCr 12 in base construction cost, and another 10 tons of fuel (because of the 10Pn fuel tonnage rule for LBB2 power plants). That reduces the Far Trader from 61 tons of internal cargo down to 46 tons of internal cargo ... and if you add a fuel purification plant (TL=9, 9 tons, MCr 0.36) so as to sidestep the misjump problem, your Far Trader is down to only 37 tons of internal cargo space remaining. At that point, you might as well add 6 more Low Berths (total 10) plus another stateroom (total 8 passengers) and just have 30 tons of cargo space remaining.

Of course, at that point, you might as well just use a 400 ton hull in the first place with "All B" drives, rather than mucking about with a 200 ton A2.5 Far Trader with a 200 ton external cargo capacity.

The point I'm making here is that LBB2 starship designs, especially at the low end of the tonnage scale, just simply do not make good Tug ships because of how their drives interact with external loads. LBB5 starship designs, especially with "overpowered" drives, make excellent Tug designs due to how the rules for drive performance are percentage of total displacement based, rather than being table lookup based.

For example, a 200 ton starship with a 6G maneuver drive costs 17% of total displacement or 34 tons total. If I wanted to calculate how much displacement that 34 tons of maneuver drive could power at 1G, I simply do this:
34 / 0.02 = 1700 - 200 = 1500 tons external load

That's because 1G maneuver requires 2% of total tonnage, and 34 tons is 2% of 1700 tons ... of which 200 tons is the baseline starship, meaning such a ship would have a 1500 ton external cargo load capacity and be able to maneuver at 1G acting as a Tug for that external load while using a 6G maneuver drive for a 200 ton ship.

This is precisely the method I used to calculate the reduction in drive performance numbers when adding external cargo to my Courier starship designs ... all thanks to how custom drives "work" under the hood when using LBB5 drives instead of LBB2 drives.

Hope that makes sense.

I took a look at those threads, and I think I read one of them before. plus, I have read other threads with similar discussions. kind of makes me happy I have T20. although there are more options for generating revenue on the bulk cargo side of things, it still isn't easy making profits in practice.

This is true.
The real "proof" of profitability is to put a starship through its paces on an actual route ... one of those "rubber meets road" kinds of things.

I ran numbers for a Jump-1 route for the Khuur League in Gateway to Destiny. used a custom ship with fuel purifier and a mix of cargo & passengers. even though I saved lots of Credits on fuel, there were times I flew with few or no cargo and flew with few or no passengers. barely made a profit at the end of the year, and that was with a new ship. and that was with just using the average numbers. since random rolls could be rolled badly a lot, routes that cut it close for profits could end up having a ship going bankrupt.

This is a point that is specifically called out in LBB7 Merchant Prince, where it notes that Fledgling Lines are rarely profitable (only 1 out of 10 succeed), so being able to grind out a consistent profit on the margins regardless of manifest capacity (passengers, cargo, etc.) can be VERY VALUABLE to a low end operator desperately trying to stay away from bankruptcy on routes that are, shall we say ... less than prime trading territory.

Which is where my insight about the economics of X-mail comes into play ... because if you can get a starship's operating costs below what you can earn in revenue from x-mail alone you'll be able to make a profit almost anywhere and everywhere you go. Once you've got that piece of the economic puzzle sorted out, everything else is pretty much "gravy" at that point, as I'm trying to demonstrate here in this thread with the Race to Profitability.

The challenge, however, is that the revenue generated by X-mail is pretty "dense" by tonnage (Cr 5000 per ton for 5 tons), but is actually quite limited in absolute amount quantity. If you're going to consistently turn a profit on X-mail only, your operating costs need to be under either Cr 25,000 per X-mail delivery (because you get paid on delivery) when either bank financed or paid off ... or under Cr 12,500 per X-mail delivery when operating under subsidy (because of 50% gross receipts rake for the subsidizing government).

To put it mildly, getting operating costs under Cr 25k/12.5k per X-mail delivery when needing to pay for berthing fees, crew salaries, life support, fuel (occasionally) and of course annual overhauls then becomes a rather complex web of interlocking aspects and factors going into starship design and usage. This is why the 194 ton Courier designs I've made (TL=11 and TL=13 now) are specifically built to reduce operational overhead costs as much as possible so as to be able to consistently turn a profit when the starship is either paid off or operating under subsidy. Once I figured out that Cr 25k/12.5k "ceiling" on reliable revenue, I had a target I needed to get "under" in order to be reliably profitable ... and if you can profit reliably, your business can expand, even if it might take a long time to do so.

as a player, it kind of made me go a little crazy seeing all these premade ships without fuel purifiers. in T20, there is a 10% chance to misjump when using unrefined fuel. so a merchant captain wanting to save money using unrefined fuel would have an average of 2.5 misjumps a year on a 25 jumps per year model. this is in addition to any misjumps from failed astrogation checks or poor maintenance. if I was the person sending my goods to another world, I wouldn't want to send my goods on ships using unrefined fuel on a regular basis, I'd go out of business. well, 10% chance for misjump is bad for every one, military, government, private, or commercial.

Fuel Purification Plants are one of the gigantic leaps forward that LBB5 allowed, since it meant you didn't need "naval or scout drives" for ships in order to be able to reliably avoid misjumps after wilderness refueling.

another thing I like about this thread is that the ideas and information learned can be applied to any of the rules systems to figure things out. I haven't done any tests between 2 ships as different as these, so this thread is really cool.

In which case, I consider my investment in and efforts at illumination and education on this topic through this thread well repaid.

Knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied, not merely added.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Arkadia E546845 – 6 (G) to Garda-Vilis ^X B978868 – A S (G)
World size: 5 (6300km)
100 diameters = 630,000km

Origin (Arkadia): Starport E, Size 5, Population 8
Destination (Garda-Vilis): Starport B - Scout Base, Size 9, Population 8
DM: +3 (passenger), +1 (cargo), -4 (tech level), +0 first die (speculative cargo)
Passengers: 3D-1D High, 3D-1D Middle, 4D Low
Cargo: 1D+4 Major, 1D+5 Minor, 1D-2 Incidental
Starship Encounters: E 2D (departure, 11-12 is pirate), B 2D+1 (arrival)
Gas Giant: Arkadia data entry contains no information on distance to gas giants (2) from the mainworld

Passengers
3D-1D-1 = 16–5-1 = 10 High
3D-1D-1 = 13-3-1 = 9 Middle
4D-1 = 11-1 = 10 Low

Cargo
1D+1 = 3+1 = 4 Major (40, 10, 60, 30 ton lots)
1D+2 = 6+2 = 8 Minor (30, 30, 20, 20, 5, 15, 25, 25 ton lots)
1D-5 = 1-5 = 0 Incidental

Speculative Cargo buy)
23 Aluminum. Cr 1000 per ton (base price), DM: +0 price modifier. 190 tons
Buy price (2D+0=8): 110% base price (Cr 209,000 total)




Far Trader

Breakout from jump at ~100 diameters from Arkadia/Vilis occurs at 23h 119-1105, ~630,000km from Arkadia.
Transit to the type E "starport" on the surface of Arkadia is 630,000km, which at 1G takes 265 minutes (5 hours). During this descent to Arkadia (2D6=9) there is a starship encounter with a 100-ton Scout/Courier departing Arkadia for a jump point, which responds to a courtesy hail from the Far Trader with an automated computer reply that the ship belongs to the Detached Duty Office of the IISS before closing the channel. Subsequent hails receive no additional response.

By 4h 120-1105 the Far Trader has successfully parked at the landing field on the surface of Arkadia.
The Far Trader has 60 tons cargo to unload, which takes 300 minutes (5 hours), during which the 2 high passengers, 5 middle passengers and 4 low passengers disembark by 9h 120-1105.
Of the 4 low passengers, their survival (5+ on 2D6) rolls are 4, 7, 10 and 9, resulting in 1 fatality again.

Berthing Fees: Cr 100 for 6 days​

Fuel state aboard the Far Trader is that 40 tons were used for a single jump-2 and the power plant has been operational for 10 days (3.6 tons), leaving only 6.3 tons of unrefined fuel remaining in the fuel tanks upon arrival at the "starport" on Arkadia which has no refueling facilities. This is sufficient fuel to keep the power plant operational for the next 17.5 days. The captain plans to fly the Far Trader to the planetary ocean on day 3 for wilderness refueling before returning to the "starport" to await the arrival of any cargo and passengers. Use of unrefined fuel will make it possible to misjump to Garda-Vilis.

Since Arkadia has an early atomic age tech level (TL=6) and a type E starport, arrangements for bookings of passengers and cargo will require a full 2 days of negotiations and will not all arrive until 12h 126-1105. On 123-1105, after completing routine 16 hour maintenance of the drives, the Far Trader spends 3 hours flying to the ocean (1 hour), wilderness refueling the fuel tanks to full (1 hour), and then flying back to the "starport" (1 hour). The captain also pays out a half month of crew salaries 3 days early so the crew can afford to "waste some of their pay" outside the starship, if they're inclined to take some leave. All crew are to report fit for duty early 126-1105. Since the Far Trader will be planetside for more than 6 days, an additional Cr 100 must be paid in berthing fees to the "starport" authority.

Crew salaries cost (2 weeks): Cr 6950
Berthing Fees: Cr 100 for 7th day​

The captain books 7 high passengers, 4 low passengers, along with one major cargo of 60 tons. A speculative cargo of aluminum is on offer that displaces almost as much tonnage as the entire Free Trader which the captain declines to purchase.

Life Support cost: Cr 20,000 (10 staterooms), Cr 400 (4 low berths)
Passenger revenue: Cr 70,000 (high), Cr 4000 (low)
Cargo Transport revenue: Cr 60,000 (60 tons)​

Passengers and cargo are brought onboard starting at 12h 126-1105 with the last passenger and cargo embarked 5 hours later by 17h 126-1105.

The Far Trader immediately lifts off and begins the outbound transit of 630,000km to the jump point, which at 1G takes 265 minutes (5 hours). During this transit to the jump point (2D6=10) there is a starship encounter with a 200-Free Trader. Notice of the availability of the 190 ton aluminum speculative cargo opportunity becomes a matter of jocularity between the two captains of 200 ton starships.

At 22h 126-1105, the Far Trader initiates jump-1 to Garda-Vilis/Vilis (2D6=7) and there is no misjump.
Time spent in jump will be 150 hours.
Breakout from jump at ~100 diameters from Garda-Vilis/Vilis will occur at 2h 133-1105.

Total gross costs in Arkadia system: Cr 27,550
Total gross revenue in Arkadia system: Cr 134,000
Remaining revenue after subsidy: Cr 67,000
Net profit in Arkadia system: Cr 39,450
Total net profit from 0h 001-1105 through 2h 133-1105: Cr 18,470,475​

Spinward Flex Courier

Breakout from jump at ~100 diameters from Arkadia/Vilis occurs at 15h 113-1105, ~630,000km from Arkadia.
Transit to the type E "starport" on the surface of Arkadia is 630,000km, which at 6G takes 109 minutes (2 hours). During this descent to Arkadia (2D6=9) there is a starship encounter with a 100-ton Scout/Courier departing Arkadia for a jump point, which responds to a courtesy hail from the Spinward Flex Courier with an automated computer reply that the ship belongs to the Detached Duty Office of the IISS before closing the channel. Subsequent hails receive no additional response.

By 17h 113-1105 the Spinward Flex Courier has successfully parked at the landing field on the surface of Arkadia.
The Spinward Flex Courier has (up to 5 tons of) x-mail and 40 tons cargo to unload, which takes 225 minutes (4 hours) and is completed by 21h 113-1105.

Berthing Fees: Cr 100 for 6 days
X-mail Delivery revenue: Cr 25,000 (LBB2.81, p9)​

Fuel state aboard the Spinward Flex Courier is that 38.8 tons were used for a single jump-2 and the power plant has been operational for 9.5 days (4 tons), leaving only 7.7 tons of unrefined fuel remaining in the fuel tanks upon arrival at the "starport" on Arkadia which has no refueling facilities. This is sufficient fuel to keep the power plant operational for the next 18.5 days. The captain plans to fly the Spinward Flex Courier to the planetary ocean on day 3 for wilderness refueling before returning to the "starport" to await the arrival of any cargo and x-mail.

Since Arkadia has an early atomic age tech level (TL=6) and a type E starport, arrangements for bookings of passengers and cargo will require a full 2 days of negotiations and will not all arrive until 0h 120-1105. On 116-1105, after completing routine 16 hour maintenance of the drives, the Far Trader spends 3 hours flying to the ocean (1 hour), wilderness refueling the fuel tanks to full (1 hour), and then flying back to the "starport" (1 hour). Fuel purification will be completed days ahead of liftoff for the jump point. All crew are to report fit for duty late 119-1105. Since the Spinward Flex Courier will be planetside for more than 6 days, an additional Cr 100 must be paid in berthing fees to the "starport" authority.

Berthing Fees: Cr 100 for 7th day​

The captain books (up to 5 tons of) x-mail along with one major cargo of 40 tons. A speculative cargo of aluminum is on offer that displaces almost as much tonnage as the entire Spinward Flex Courier which the captain declines to purchase.

Life Support cost: Cr 4,000 (2 staterooms)
Cargo Transport revenue: Cr 40,000 (0 tons)​

X-mail and cargo are brought onboard starting at 0h 120-1105 with loading completed 4 hours later by 4h 120-1105.

The Spinward Flex Courier immediately lifts off and begins the outbound transit of 630,000km to the jump point, which at 6G takes 109 minutes (2 hours). During this transit to the jump point (2D6=10) there is a starship encounter with a 200-Free Trader. Notice of the availability of the 190 ton aluminum speculative cargo opportunity becomes a matter of jocularity between the two captains, particularly when the Spinward Flex Courier captain boldly claims that their starship could have lifted the aluminum load into orbit and made an interplanetary delivery with it (if there was another settlement in-system away from Arkadia to deliver the aluminum to), but not an interstellar transportation of it (or at least, not in a single jump). Sadly, Arkadia doesn't have enough technology to support even a rudimentary space program (TL=6), so there are no other ports of call within the system. The Free Trader captain sincerely doubts the Spinward Flex Courier could have accomplished this (presumed) feat of transportation and much mutual ribbing ensues over the comm channel.

At 6h 120-1105, the Spinward Flex Courier initiates jump-1 to Garda-Vilis/Vilis.
Time spent in jump will be 150 hours.
Breakout from jump at ~100 diameters from Garda-Vilis/Vilis will occur at 12h 126-1105.

Total gross costs in Arkadia system: Cr 4200
Total gross revenue in Arkadia system: Cr 65,000
Remaining revenue after subsidy: Cr 32,500
Net profit in Arkadia system: Cr 28,300
Total net profit from 0h 001-1105 through 12h 126-1105: Cr 18,477,950​

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well well well! Now isn't this interesting!
Looks like the Garda-Vilis, Arkadia, Ficant stretch of this route has really been allowing the Far Trader to finally start "cleaning up" their balance sheet with full manifests of cargo and passengers again (finally).

Team Far Trader has now managed to offset, to the point of nearly erasing(!), almost all of the profit gains that Team Spinward Flex Courier was able to amass from D'Ganzio through Choleosti. It's been quite a sight to see as Team Far Trader is finally managing to catch up and make this look like an actual race! At this point, Team Spinward Flex Courier is only Cr 7475 in the lead in the Race to Profitability!

Ah ... but Garda-Vilis is coming up next, and once again Team Far Trader is going to have additional logistical hurdles to clear (orbital shuttle service, refined fuel purchase) that Team Spinward Flex Courier can simply step over as if those challenges were nothing to them, thanks to their powerful maneuver drive and onboard fuel purification plant! And beyond Garda-Vilis, there's the passenger and cargo "drought" in the Choleosti and Margesi systems before getting back to "industrialized civilization" at Vilis(!).

So, the question still stands ... Which Team Will Reign Supreme after crossing the finish line back at D'Ganzio upon completion of their annual overhaul? It's not too late to place your bets, folks!

We now pause this trideo broadcast for station identification.
You're watching the Imperial Trade Alternative Network (ITAN) ... we build the best data walls so you don't have to.
We know.
We've tested.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The A2 Far Trader is a LBB2 ship design ... meaning that the drives it is using are:
Jump-B (2)
Maneuver-A (1)
Power Plant-A (1)

What is the drive performance for those drives on any hull over 200 tons?


I think I can spot a ... flaw ... in your plan to allow a Far Trader to operate as a Tug for external cargo, both in the interstellar context and the interplanetary context.

Why?
Because if you add even a single ton above 200 to a LBB2 design ship, the Rules As Written (RAW) default the ship to the next hull category upwards, the 400 ton hull ... and A drives are not powerful enough to "do anything" for hulls between 201 and 400 tons.

So in order to achieve the performance you're referencing here, Grav_Moped, you would need what amounts to a "A2.5" Far Trader loaded with all B drives (jump-2, maneuver-2, power plant-2) so as to have enough "excess drive capacity" to act as a jump-1/maneuver-1 Tug for external loads of up to 200 tons external capacity.
Fair warning though, upgrading to "All B" drives on a Far Trader (so BBB instead of BAA) will cost an extra 5 tons of drive displacement, an extra MCr 12 in base construction cost, and another 10 tons of fuel (because of the 10Pn fuel tonnage rule for LBB2 power plants). That reduces the Far Trader from 61 tons of internal cargo down to 46 tons of internal cargo ... and if you add a fuel purification plant (TL=9, 9 tons, MCr 0.36) so as to sidestep the misjump problem, your Far Trader is down to only 37 tons of internal cargo space remaining. At that point, you might as well add 6 more Low Berths (total 10) plus another stateroom (total 8 passengers) and just have 30 tons of cargo space remaining.

Of course, at that point, you might as well just use a 400 ton hull in the first place with "All B" drives, rather than mucking about with a 200 ton A2.5 Far Trader with a 200 ton external cargo capacity....

I've always assumed the A2 had a 2G maneuver drive when built under '81 rules (as in A3: Twilight's Peak, but not DA6: Night of Conquest -- the latter is a '77 design). Upgrading from 1G to 2G doesn't require any additional fuel or power plant, since it already has Pn=2 because of the Jump Drive. The difference is just the maneuver drive upgrade: 2Td and MCr4.

The 61Td cargo is what's left after installing one turret and setting aside 1Td for the second turret, not installed.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I've always assumed the A2 had a 2G maneuver drive when built under '81 rules

Well, let's test that notion, shall we?

The installed power plant must be of a letter type at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter).

In all cases, the power plant letter must equal or exceed either the maneuver drive letter or the jump drive letter, whichever is higher.

TYPE A2 FAR TRADER 
A-8456 Empress Nicholle  A2-22211R1-000000-00000-0  MCr59.56  200 tons 
                                                   Crew=3. TL=9.
                                                  Book 2 Design.
Passengers=7. Low=4. Cargo=61. Fuel=50. Hardpoints=2. Agility=0.

Now, I don't know about you and what you're seeing ... but what I'm reading is that the A2 Far Trader is a LBB2.77 design with Jump-B, Maneuver-A and Power Plant-A drives yielding a performance of Jump-2, Maneuver-1 and Power Plant-1 according to the USP code provided at the back of LBB Supplement 7.

Drives BAA displace 7, 1 and 10 tons according to LBB2.77 for 17 tons of drives which exceeds the 15 tons of drives in a standard 200 ton hull, so the Far Trader uses a custom 200 ton hull under LBB2.77 rules.

Computer is a model/1bis displacing 1 ton and the bridge requires 20 tons.
2 tons are allocated for fire control.
50 tons are allocated to fuel tankage (40 for jump-2, 10 for power plant-1).
40 tons are allocated to 10 staterooms and 2 tons for 4 low berths.
4 tons are allocated to an embarked Air/Raft.

200 - 17 - 21 - 2 - 50 - 42 - 4 = 64 tons remaining for cargo



But let's assume you're right.
Let's assume the Far Trader has Jump-2, Maneuver-2 and Power Plant-2 like you're stipulating. What happens?

Drives BBB displace 7, 3 and 15 tons according to LBB2.77 for 25 tons of drives which exceeds the 15 tons of drives in a standard 200 ton hull, so the Far Trader uses a custom 200 ton hull under LBB2.77 rules.

Computer is a model/1bis displacing 1 ton and the bridge requires 20 tons.
2 tons are allocated for fire control.
60 tons are allocated to fuel tankage (40 for jump-2, 20 for power plant-2).
40 tons are allocated to 10 staterooms and 2 tons for 4 low berths.
4 tons are allocated to an embarked Air/Raft.

200 - 25 - 21 - 2 - 60 - 42 - 4 = 46 tons remaining for cargo



How much more likely does your scenario sound to you?

I don't know about you, Grav_moped, but I'm much more likely to lend credence to the notion that Far Traders mount BAA drives in a LBB2.77 build context and that some of the "missing tonnage" is used for the Jump Governor.

Jump Governor: It is possible to procure a jump governor for ships produced according to Book 2. It allows such a ship to utilize fuel more efficiently; instead of consuming all fuel when performing a jump, regardless of jump number, the ship will consume fuel equal to 0.1MJn, where Jn is the actual jump number used, rather than the maximum jump number available. Available at any industrial world with tech level 10 or higher. Cost: Cr300 000. Mass: 1 ton. Ships produced according to this book already have the jump governor as part of their drives.

Still leaves 2 tons of "wasted space" on a BAA drives configuration of an unarmed A2 Far Trader, which ought to have 63 tons of cargo space, not 61 per RAW (unless if I'm missing something else, which is always possible I suppose ).
However, as per RAW, major cargo ships in increments of 1D6*10 tons, minor cargo ships in increments of 1D6*5 tons, and incidental cargo ships in increments of 1D6 tons ... so cargo capacities that aren't increments of 5 or 10 tons can only be used for incidental and/or speculative cargo capacity ... and incidental cargoes are only available from worlds with a population code of 6 or higher (and die modifiers for destination and tech level differences can easily zero out incidental cargo availability).

This in turn means that cargo capacities in increments of 10 tons are the most efficient, with capacities in increments of 5 tons being almost but not quite as efficient, and "leftover" capacities in less than 5 tons being much less efficient in terms of how much cargo is on offer to transport. Operationally speaking, it is often going to be a best practice to have cargo capacities divisible by 10 (optimal) or 5 (almost as good) with any remaining available tonnage being devoted to passengers (either staterooms or low berths) depending on the availability of steward capacity for high passengers (since you can only have 8 high passengers per steward). So once you've hit the limit of 8 passengers per steward, any remaining 0.5-5 tons of cargo capacity ought to be devoted to low passenger berths, from a raw economics of starship design point of view, simply due to differential revenue densities of revenue per ton.



My point being that 60 tons of cargo and 10 low berths ought to make for a better "mix" on a BAA drive Far Trader than 63 tons of cargo and only 4 low berths (or even 65 tons of cargo and no low berths at all) ... if I were trying to redesign the Far Trader from scratch.
Of course, if I were to attempt to redesign the Far Trader from scratch, I would use LBB5.80 instead of a combination of LBB2.77 and LBB5.79 for the Jump Governor ... but that's a different conversation.

It also means that my assumptions about a BBB drives configuration unarmed A2 Far Trader yields only 45 tons for cargo after installing the Jump Governor (a workaround to avoid burning through 40 tons of fuel for jump-1 on LBB2.77 drives) ... which incidentally exactly matches the 45 tons dedicated on the Spinward Flex Courier to x-mail (5 tons) and cargo (40 tons).

In which case, a BBB drives Far Trader ... in that context, is trading ...

1. A fuel purification plant
2. A 6G maneuver drive
3. A dual turret armed with a missile rack and a sandcaster manned by a gunner
4. A model/2 computer
5. A 40 ton inflatable fuel bladder
6. No passenger capacity
7. Can carry 5 tons of X-mail (armed and has a gunner)
8. 2 crew (Pilot, Gunner)

... for ...

1. No fuel purification
2. A 2G maneuver drive
3. No installed turrets and no gunner
4. A model/1bis computer
5. No inflatable fuel bladder
6. 7 passengers and 4 low berths
7. Cannot carry 5 tons of X-mail (no armament, no gunner)
8. 3 crew (Pilot, Engineer, Steward/Medic)

The net result of those differences is a reduction in the purchase price of the BBB drives Far Trader ~1/3 below that of the Spinward Flex Courier in exchange for a massive increase in risk during operations (misjump, pirate attack/boarding/cargo confiscation, passenger availability).

Sure the Spinward Flex Courier COSTS MORE TO BUY ... but it operates much more predictably, reliably and safely than going with the "cheap" option of a Far Trader that could be lost to a misjump or a pirate attack (or a bank for not earning enough profit to finance the loan).

Let me put it this way ... when the difference in Total Price To Buy is only MCr ~40 ... would you rather own a ship that you'll probably still have in operational condition after 40 years (so a MCr 1 per year premium on purchase price amortized over 40 years) ... or would you rather save that MCr ~40 and have about a 50/50 chance of losing the entire ship (and the investment in it) after 1-4 years of operation? o:

"Safe(r) bet for the long haul" versus "needs lots of insurance to cover loss, damages and/or repossession" ... which would you choose as a merchant prince if you had a choice? :coffeesip:

 

[Spinward Flow]

Also, just for clarity, I'm going to rule that for any refueling operation (wilderness or at a starport) takes 1 minute per ton of fuel intake, which given the 1 hour blocks of time I'm working with functionally translates into a minimum of 1 hour per refueling, regardless of fuel state, for both starships.

Well, looks like I finally stumbled upon the answer I was looking for (and couldn't find! ) despite searching for it all the way back at the beginning of this Race to Profitability ... and I had to go to LBB5.79, p32 to find it (I found it when trying to look up the Jump Governor for the post above).

Fuel Purification Plant: Unrefined fuel can be refined on board ship using this installation. Such a plant can process one ton of gas in a minute (or one ton of water in ten minutes)

So ... I've been using 1 minute per ton for fuel purification from both gas giants (gas) and ocean (water) wilderness refueling because I couldn't find this rule anywhere in either LBB5.80 High Guard or LBB A5 Trillion Credit Squadron.
However, if I were to run a campaign like this Race to Profitability in the future, I would be honor bound to rule that fuel purification takes 1 minute per fuel ton when skimming a gas giant and 10 minutes per fuel ton when scooping a water ocean for fuel.

Since during the course of this race there has been only one instance where a gas giant was skimmed instead of a water ocean (Spinward Flex Courier at D'Ganzio to start the race) and the transit distance involved took multiple days, I'm not going to go back and quibble over changing the wilderness refueling times recorded in the race for ocean refueling. Furthermore, since the only time a quick liftoff after an ocean refueling was even an option (at Tavonni) a 16 hour routine drive maintenance was also being conducted concurrently with the refueling.

50.5 tons @ 1 minute per ton = 50.5 minutes (1 hour)
50.5 tons @ 10 minutes per ton = 505 minutes (9 hours)

Point being, since the 16 hour drive maintenance checks exceed the 1 hour to draw water from the ocean plus another 9 hours to purify the fuel for use (total, 10 hours) there really isn't another point in the race where this difference would have mattered or upset the timetables of operations.

Yes, most of the wilderness refueling that has happened thus far has been from water oceans on planets, but the 10 hour process to draw and purify fuel from ocean water can be done concurrently with routine 16 hour drive maintenance checks and can definitely be completed in time prior to jump when needing to wait additional days after refueling for cargo to arrive at the starport for loading.

So an oversight on my part for not having found this specific rule sooner (in the obsolete edition of High Guard no less!) ... but also not one that will have any material bearing on the outcome of the race.



Also, just for quick reference for anyone else following this thread, in order for a refuel+purify cycle to take longer than 16 hours (960 minutes) from a water ocean, you need to be drawing more than 87 tons of fuel from a water ocean.

87 tons water @ 1 ton per 1 minute = 87 minutes
87 tons water purification @ 1 ton per 10 minutes = 870 minutes
Total: 957 minutes (15.95 hours)



As a further refinement of the "how fast can a ship scoop fuel" rule, presumably larger ships are capable of scooping more fuel per minute (bigger ship, bigger fuel scoops), so as a matter of simplification, it might be easiest to just simply rely on the hull size code to determine how many tons of fuel a ship can scoop per minute.

100 ton ship = hull size code 1 = 1 ton fuel scoop per 1 minute
200 ton ship = hull size code 2 = 2 tons fuel scoop per 1 minute
1000 ton ship = hull size code A = 10 tons fuel scoop per 1 minute
1,000,000 ton ship = hull size code Y = 32 tons fuel scoop per 1 minute

This simplification then of course breaks down under 100 tons with size code zero, so a caveat extension to the rule would be required.

50 ton ship = hull size code 0 = 1 ton fuel scoop per 2 minutes
20 ton ship = hull size code 0 = 1 ton fuel scoop per 5 minutes

Basically a 1 ton of fuel per (100/hull tons) minutes fuel scoop rate for boats under 100 tons.



Just one more Referee Resource to add to the Bonfire of the Vanities on parade in this topic thread, I suppose.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Well, let's test that notion, shall we?

....
Now, I don't know about you and what you're seeing ... but what I'm reading is that the A2 Far Trader is a LBB2.77 design with Jump-B, Maneuver-A and Power Plant-A drives yielding a performance of Jump-2, Maneuver-1 and Power Plant-1 according to the USP code provided at the back of LBB Supplement 7.

Supplement 7 is using 1977 rules, which means LBB2 '81 broke the design (power plant is too small under the later rules).

Adventure 3 (1980) is apparently using LBB2: 1981 rules.
"The Empress Nicholle: The starship owned by the merchant captain is a type A2 far trader, 200 tons... It has six staterooms... and four low berths; cargo capacity is 61 tons... one triple turret... the ship carries an air/raft..." (p.5)
Fuel tankage is 60 tons. (p.6).

Type A2 Far Trader (200Td, J2/2G)
"Empress Nicholle" from Adv 3
(LBB2 ’81 construction rules)
Tons   MCr  Item
----   ---   ----
 20    1    Bridge 
  1    4    Comp 1/bis 
 24    3    6 Staterooms
 15   20    Jump Drive B (J2)
  7   16    Power Plant B (Pn2)
  3    8    M-Drive B (2G)
 40         Jump Fuel  
 20         Powerplant Fuel 
      22    Hull (Streamlined) 
       0.2  Hardpoints (2)
  1    2    Turret (1, LMS)
  1         [Reserved for #2 Turret]
  2    0.2  Lo Berths 4 ea
  4    0.6  Air/Raft
 62         Cargo
Totals:
200Td, MCr77 (MCr69.3 in volume)

Note that the tonnage matches exactly if either 1Td is set aside for the second turret (as listed above) OR if the Mod/1bis computer is replaced by a Mod/2 (but not both).
Replacing the MD-B with a MD-A would free up an additional 2Td cargo that isn't in the ship description.

Edit: Got the computer specs wrong. Mod/1bis is 1Td, MCr 4.

Note that this results in 1 more ton of cargo than called for in the text, even with 1Td reserved for a turret on the second hardpoint.
If it was J2/1G, it would have yet another two tons of cargo space for a total of 64 tons.

Not sure what that 1Td discrepancy is -- maybe a HG '77 Jump Governor? Adv 3 came after HG '77 but before LBB2 '81, so it's possible.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It has six staterooms

There's the discrepancy.
6 staterooms for 3 crew (without gunner) or 4 crew (with gunner) means that the high/mid passenger capacity is basically 2-3 instead of 6-7 when you have 10 staterooms.
An extra 4 staterooms (6+4=10) costs an extra 16 tons.
61-16=45

The point still stands.

 

[Grav_Moped]

There's the discrepancy.
6 staterooms for 3 crew (without gunner) or 4 crew (with gunner) means that the high/mid passenger capacity is basically 2-3 instead of 6-7 when you have 10 staterooms.
An extra 4 staterooms (6+4=10) costs an extra 16 tons.
61-16=45

The point still stands.

The point was that the '81 version (per Adv 3) is J2/2G using matched Size B drives. It can't be J2/1G or there would be more room for cargo than the listed components allow for.

Which means it could drag a 200Td cargo pod to Jump Limit and haul it at Jump-1, if LBB2 allowed such things.

Also, it looks like you're using the LBB2 '77 version to compare with your flex courier under HG '81...

Type A2 Far Trader (200Td, J2/2G)
"Scotian Huntress" from DA 6
(LBB2 ’77 construction rules)
Tons   MCr  Item
----   ---   ----
 20    1    Bridge 
  1    4    Comp 1/bis 
 40    5    10 Staterooms
 15   20    Jump Drive B (J2)
  4    8    Power Plant A (Pn1)
  1    4    M-Drive A (1G)
 40         Jump Fuel  
 10         Powerplant Fuel 
      22    Hull (Streamlined) 
       0.2  Hardpoints (2)
  2    5    Turrets (2 LL)
  2    0.2  Lo Berths 4 ea
  4    0.6  Air/Raft
 61         Cargo
Totals:
200Td, MCr70 (MCr63 in volume)

Also, I made an error on the Adv 3 version: computer was sized as a Mod/2, should have been a Mod/1bis (now fixed in original post). After accounting for the second turret, it should have a 62Td cargo bay, not 61Td. As noted in the edited post above, maybe that extra 1Td was for a HG '77 Jump Governor?

 

[Grav_Moped]

And I just had a blindingly-obvious-in-hindsight realization: The LBB2 power plant fuel requirement was an extension of (or consistent with, at least) the first edition's small craft fuel expenditure rates.

Small craft used a constant amount per G regardless of tonnage (I vaguely recall it's about 0.1 ton fuel per G per turn, but I could have that wrong -- but it definitely was a constant per G rather than per G-ton thrust). Starships kind of did too, but they had an absurdly high number of G-turns capability -- something like 200 -- so in practice it'd never matter.

If fuel burn per G-turn is a fixed amount instead of per G-ton, and the only drive that uses the power plant is the maneuver drive, then of course the power plant requirement will be a fixed amount per Pn because Pn=Gs.

They just didn't fix it in the second edition despite changing what the power plant was declared to be doing.

Or, to put it another way, they fixed the non-proportional fuel burn rate in small craft in second edition LBB2 by building them in LBB5 (mostly). They didn't do the same for starships using LBB2 build rules.

 

[mike wightman]

It's 10kg of fuel per g for smallcraft - they state it is 1/100th of a ton in the ship construction chapter, yet more evidence for the original 1000kg per ship ton equivalence in 77 rules.

A ship with 10 tons of fuel has 288 burns - each burn is ten minutes at 1g, or put another way 48 hours of continuous thrust (that's about 34.7kg of fuel per burn). Note that there was no four week duration for power plant fuel back in 77 edition.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The point was that the '81 version (per Adv 3) is J2/2G using matched Size B drives. It can't be J2/1G or there would be more room for cargo than the listed components allow for.

I think that we're both in agreement that the LBB2 (both) starship construction rules are ... substantially incompatible ... with the LBB5 (both) starship construction rules ... primarily due to the massive shift in paradigm from a lookup table based system (intended to be easy to use for beginners) to a more expansive formula based system (intended to be more challenging and rewarding to use by experts).

Which means it could drag a 200Td cargo pod to Jump Limit and haul it at Jump-1, if LBB2 allowed such things.

LBB2 starship construction with "standard letter drives" is basically a system that pretty effectively "shuns" external loads and Tug type uses of ships. The lookup table method of determining drive performance simply isn't "fine grained" enough to extrapolate well into external loading conditions (at least not until you get up into the larger hull sizes where there is some "wiggle room" depending on drive selection for external loading).

It's not that LBB2 "disallows" external loading of ships ... more like the way the drive performance system is organized in LBB2 leaves less (to no) room for external loading to "work" as a proposition. It CAN be done, sure ... but doing so often times winds up being a cost with little to no benefit because of how external loading (almost) "works" under LBB2's drive performance lookup table.

By contrast, LBB5 displacement formula makes external loading performance relatively simple to calculate (as I've already demonstrated) and thereby make use of.

Spinward Flex Courier  XF-1626621-030000-00002-0   MCr 109.8752  194 tons
    batt bearing                   1         1                     TL=13.
    batteries                      1         1                    Crew=2.
Passengers=0 (1 possible). Cargo=45. Fuel=50.5. EP=11.64. Agility=6. FPP.
Jump-1, Maneuver-5 with 0.1-41.5 tons external cargo added.
Jump-1, Maneuver-4 with 41.6-97 tons external cargo added.
Jump-0, Maneuver-4 with 97.1-105.8 tons external cargo added.
Jump-0, Maneuver-3 with 105.9-218.2 tons external cargo added.
Jump-0, Maneuver-2 with 218.3-465.6 tons external cargo added.
Jump-0, Maneuver-1 with 465.7-1455 tons external cargo added.

Attempting to pull the same trick using LBB2 rules would require Maneuver-F (6G) in a 200 ton hull and external loading would produce this performance profile cross-comparison of maneuver drive performance under external loading between the 2 systems ... LBB2 @ 200 tons vs LBB5 @ 194 tons.

6G	0 tons external	0 tons external
5G	-	0.1-41.5 tons external
4G	-	41.6-97.0 tons external
3G	0.1-200 tons external	105.9-218.2 tons external
2G	200.1-400 tons external	218.3-465.6 tons external
1G	400.1-600 tons external (LBB2.77)	465.7-1455 tons external
1G	600.1-800 tons external (LBB2.81)	465.7-1455 tons external

So it definitely Can Be Done™ under LBB2 rules (the different versions of LBB2 use different drive number tables, making things extra confusing) ... but because LBB2 is lookup table driven rather than math formula driven like LBB5 is, the external loading performance profiles for LBB2 drives are "less granular" and thus ultimately much less "efficient" at dealing with external loading considerations (and therefore, logistics).

In that respect, I personally consider LBB2 construction rules to be "simplified beyond the point of usable extension" like I'm doing here with the notion of having a ship act as a Tug for loads that can exceed the tonnage of the ship itself in a way that is ... useful ... for being able to think about the problem (and what you can do with and achieve using the "spare" capacity).

Also, it looks like you're using the LBB2 '77 version to compare with your flex courier under HG '81...

Type A2 Far Trader (200Td, J2/2G)
"Scotian Huntress" from DA 6
(LBB2 ’77 construction rules)
Tons   MCr  Item
----   ---   ----
 20    1    Bridge 
  1    4    Comp 1/bis 
 40    5    10 Staterooms
 15   20    Jump Drive B (J2)
  4    8    Power Plant A (Pn1)
  1    4    M-Drive A (1G)
 40         Jump Fuel  
 10         Powerplant Fuel 
      22    Hull (Streamlined) 
       0.2  Hardpoints (2)
  2    5    Turrets (2 LL)
  2    0.2  Lo Berths 4 ea
  4    0.6  Air/Raft
 61         Cargo
Totals:
200Td, MCr70 (MCr63 in volume)

Ah, there's the error that I made! I got the jump and power plant lookups backwards.

In LBB2.81, the sequencing on p22 is Jump, Maneuver, Power Plant.
In LBB2.77, the sequencing on p11 is Power Plant, Maneuver, Jump.
So pick drives from the same columns in both cases and you'll come to the WRONG conclusion (like I did) with confidence. :CoW:

So BAA drives displace 15, 1, 4 tons ... not 7, 1, 10 tons like I had previously calculated (by reading the charts wrong).

Which then conclusively puts the nail into the coffin of the notion that the Far Trader has BBB drives and 61 tons of cargo space ... because it can't. In order to have all of the elements it does, a Far Trader's drive performance MUST BE Jump-2, Maneuver-1, Power Plant-1 using LBB2.77 construction rules using BAA drives in order to have 61 tons of cargo space. This also means (annoyingly enough) that the jump drive should be using 40 tons of fuel every jump, regardless of jump number, and in order to have jump fuel usage "match" the jump number then a Jump Governor would need to be installed ... which would bring the available cargo space down to 60 tons instead of 61 tons if we want to be REALLY NITPICKY about it. :CoW:



And yes ... you're correct ... I'm making a direct comparison between a LBB5.80 starship design and a LBB2.77 (as it turns out) starship design between my Spinward Flex Courier and the Type A2 Far Trader.
And no, I'm not going to apologize for making that comparison.

If both starship designs are "valid" within the same Traveller universe(s), then the performance comparison between them is also valid.

I am quite deliberately and explicitly pitting a MCr 70 (MCr 63 in volume production) to purchase starship of almost equal tonnage (200 vs 194) against a MCr 137.344 (MCr 109.8752 in volume production) ... just to see how the two starships perform under what amount to "identical" conditions ... because the Conventional Wisdom™ holds that the cheaper starship (the Far Trader) with less internal tonnage "wasted" on (excessive) drive capacity ought to be the more profitable starship to own, operate and grow a business with (hands down, no questions asked!).

My contention is ... in actual (campaign) practice, the answer to that question is neither as straightforward nor as simple to calculate as it might at first appear when looking at the two ships side by side and comparing their USP codes. I'm now in the process of proving that assertion over the course of an actual trade route, accounting for ACTUAL trade opportunities along that route, so as to witness HOW the various aspects of starship design ALL interact with each other to affect the bottom line on a balance sheet. And if I can conclusively demonstrate that a Spinward Flex Courier design can essentially "break even" with a Far Trader on profit for a merchant line while operating under subsidy ... while the Far Trader is operating at its maximum capacity under its preferred (interstellar) business model and the Spinward Flex Courier is operating below maximum capacity (because the ship is capable of "more" that isn't being "used" in this comparison) under an (interstellar only) business model that does NOT play to the Spinward Flex Courier's strengths and ideal use case possibilities ... well ... let's just say that if my starship design can "keep pace in the race" while operating at below full potential in that race ...

Yeah ... sometimes you just have to prove you can DO MORE than what the competition is capable of before potential buyers will even give you the time of day.
Ain't broke, don't fix ... and all that jazz.

 

[Grav_Moped]

What I was trying to get at -- clearly, it wasn't clearly -- in talking about the changes in 2nd Ed. is that the changed build rules affect design decisions. The Far Trader one builds under '81 rules is different from one built under '77 rules because the engineering tradeoffs are different. (Also, a '77-rules Far Trader is illegal under '81 rules as written because its power plant and fuel tanks are too small.)

More to the point, if you allow external cargo as a way to enhance revenue, you have to allow it for all ships -- and in LBB2 of any edition, the optimal amount of external cargo is whatever brings total tonnage up to the maximum the drives can push. At least until you get past about 200 tons total capacity and start having trouble filling the hold with cargo on a regular basis, anyhow.

Which then conclusively puts the nail into the coffin of the notion that the Far Trader has BBB drives and 61 tons of cargo space ... because it can't. In order to have all of the elements it does, a Far Trader's drive performance MUST BE Jump-2, Maneuver-1, Power Plant-1 using LBB2.77 construction rules using BAA drives in order to have 61 tons of cargo space. This also means (annoyingly enough) that the jump drive should be using 40 tons of fuel every jump, regardless of jump number, and in order to have jump fuel usage "match" the jump number then a Jump Governor would need to be installed ... which would bring the available cargo space down to 60 tons instead of 61 tons if we want to be REALLY NITPICKY about it.

I've listed the reconstructed line-item breakdowns of two canonical Far Traders, one from each edition of LBB2.
The '77 version is J2/1G, the '81 version is J2/2G. I don't know whether either matches the S7 version.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What I was trying to get at -- clearly, it wasn't clearly -- in talking about the changes in 2nd Ed. is that the changed build rules affect design decisions. The Far Trader one builds under '81 rules is different from one built under '77 rules because the engineering tradeoffs are different. (Also, a '77-rules Far Trader is illegal under '81 rules as written because its power plant and fuel tanks are too small.)

Exactly. What was permitted before (LBB2.77) is not allowed later (LBB2.81) so that's something of a sticking point if as a Referee you're aiming for consistency.

More to the point, if you allow external cargo as a way to enhance revenue, you have to allow it for all ships

I would (obviously), if I were the Referee of a campaign.
I would put a stipulation on it such that only Major Cargo can be transported either internally or externally (the major cargo containers are "space rated" is the idea), while Minor and Incidental Cargo can be transported internally only (minor and incidental cargo containers are NOT "space rated" and thus require internal cargo stowage).

Where you start to run into problems (as a matter of logistics) is if you need to make a surface to orbit transfer with an external cargo and what drive number the additional mass/displacement "degrades" performance down to with the external load. As a Referee, the simplest solution is to just use integer numbers of G acceleration to determine the breakpoints in performance (like I've done with the Spinward Flex Courier). So you can go from 2G down to 1G (for example) ... but you can't go from 1G down to 0.5G, since the game mechanics don't properly recognize 0.5G as being an option for drive performance.

Yes yes, I know ... Annic Nova ... fractional G maneuver performance ...
{dramatic hand wave while using psionics}
"These are not the drives you're looking for..."

So it's not that I'm "disallowing" (or would even want to allow) external loads in a Tug operational sense ... it's that the baseline drive performance of the "standard" merchant ships from LBB2 (77 and 81) tend to rely on jump-1 and/or 1G maneuver drives ... which simply don't have the necessary CAPACITY to be operated in a Tug configuration for carrying external loads.

ANY ship with enough "excess" drive capacity can act as a Tug for external loads (jump and/or maneuver) ... but you need to have enough drive capacity to be able to pull off the stunt in the first place ... and the Far Trader simply doesn't have enough "excess" drive capacity to be able to haul external loads without compromising its drive performance (or if you prefer an alternative explanation, its hull integrity, due to the stresses and strain of accelerating external loads that "unbalance" the maneuver drive's performance too much).

Or to quote what a mildly obscure philosopher once said, in explanation of the Far Trader's shortcomings in external load carrying capacity ...

"THIS is wrong tool. No, no ... not good. No. Never use this."

and in LBB2 of any edition, the optimal amount of external cargo is whatever brings total tonnage up to the maximum the drives can push. At least until you get past about 200 tons total capacity and start having trouble filling the hold with cargo on a regular basis, anyhow.

When consulting the maximum drive potential table, tonnage of custom hulls is rounded up to the next higher figure.

Also listed are various tonnage levels for hulls; any tonnage which exceeds a listed level should be read at the next higher level.

There's a reason why I say that if you add 1 external ton to a 200-ton LBB2 ship, its drive performance changes to function as if the drives were in a 400 ton hull ... because that's how the LBB2 rules work.

A custom 201 ton hull uses the 400 ton hull drive performance lookup per the Rules As Written, quoted above.
What's the difference between a 200 ton hull with 1 ton of external load ... and a 201 ton hull with zero tons of external load?
Correct answer: nothing ... aside from the fact that once the 1 ton of external load is removed from the 200 ton hull, LBB2 drive performance changes to use the 200 ton hull lookup rather than the 400 ton hull lookup.

So LBB2 starships CAN haul external loads ... IF ... they have enough drive performance to yield a 1+ on the lookup table when "stepping up" to the next hull size (or next few hull sizes in the case of drives on the high end of performance for the base hull size).