Starships, Explosions, and Mortgages

[veltyen]

There is a point made in the write-up of the Theseus paradox that may have some import.

Registration numbers are often attached to specific items in modern vehicles. It is how these vehicles have a legal trade in parts. Therefore if only that component survives the vehicle can exist again.

For example in most cars there are two registered components, the chasis and the engine. The engine can be changed over (you just need to register the new number) but the chasis counts as the car.

40 years is a long time for a stressed hull. Maybe that is what needs replacing/recertification at this point in time. Make recertification a painful experience (takes 6 months, rarely succeeds, requires removal of all non-hull components for example) and most entities will strip the ship for parts and buy a new one.

While you will just be buying a new superstructure and transferring all of the pre-existing components accross in some cases, this is still a new ship as the remade/recertified hull would have a different registration, even though the functionality, crew, and a large proportion of the original components are the same.

In some places the "failed" hulls may be reused. For example the hull may have lesser requirements for recertification if it is system-only rather then an interstellar. Poor systems especially may gobble these up for planetary defense rather then building purpose specific defense craft. It also fits the "Monitors are often surplussed Naval vessels".

That means the "life" of a freetrader may involve 40 years of system hopping, rebirth for 40 years as a ground landing capable system defense vessel, then 40 years as an orbital only SDB, before being wrecked as it is no longer certifiable in any manner.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by veltyen:

40 years is a long time for a stressed hull. Maybe that is what needs replacing/recertification at this point in time. Make recertification a painful experience (takes 6 months, rarely succeeds, requires removal of all non-hull components for example) and most entities will strip the ship for parts and buy a new one.

Oddly enough, I feel the hull, especially in the case of the higher tech hulls, is the most survivable component on the ship, the one most likely to last the longest.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Hmm, in an 80-year mortgage, if we cut the freight-rate to Cr500/dTon, and cut Mid-Passage to Cr5000 and High-Passage to Cr7000, and also cut life-support costs (by a large but as yet unknown amount), but leave crew salaries alone . . . hmmm, it'll bear thinking about. Cutting the standard freight-rate in Charted Space would be a big boost for interstellar trade under the GT:Far Trader model. If you slash costs by half, more people will do business (not that I was satisfied with the GT:Far Trader model of interstellar trade, despite its grounding in economics; primarily because it doesn't match up with written canon about trade in the 3I and Charted Space in general).

 

[kaladorn]

Let us also presume that maintenance costs escalate as a function of age and the likelihood of expensive large-scale system failures (such as blowing all your zuchai crystals on jump entrance or something) goes up. This makes up for the lower mortgage, to some extent, and helps keep player incomes in line too.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Straybow, what about J-space barnacles and such? (What's in Jumpspace?) Seriously, I think a lot of the wear and tear would be the fit of things - all those stresses, alternate heating/cooling, etc. would tend to make things not as tight as they should be. Oh yeah, it's fixable, but every fix will be a little less permanent than the one before. Wouldn't happen over 40 years, though.

I think veltyen is basically right on the reason for the 40-year mortgage: about right for what people are willing to pay vs. recoouping costs, etc. After all, cars (in USA) are typically financed over 3-5 years, but the cars (with care) can last 15 (or even 75, with EXTREME care) years!

And, it is probably true that most craft would get brought down a notch after the first or second 40-year mortgage. Most used cars (again, in the US) start at a couple of years old. Those are bought by people who just can't afford a new car, but they still have some money. You get to 5- to 7-year old cars, and they are bought by high school kids with jobs (whose parents won't buy them the car). You get 10+ year old cars bought by folks who have a hard time keeping a roof over their head, or the guy who owns four old cars (only one of which runs at a time) and spends a lot of time at junk yards and tinkering.

Just my .02Cr.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

So then some players might want to take out a second mortgage and refinance their ships to lower payments.

Kind of like taking out a consolidation loan on your house (they do live there most of their lives after all).

The players wealth is tied up in their ships.

 

[kaladorn]

Look less at car financing and more at container ships or tractor trailers or trains perhaps. At least for merchants.

So, I'm guessing that 40 years might represent the time a bank might want to get its investment returned over. OTOH, with some competition, you could get 50, 60, 70 year mortgage at higher interest rates. Lower overall monthly payments, better profitability for the bank in the long run, and the player ends up paying more over the whole term, but he ends up paying it slower.

The truth is 40 years is probably a nice easy number to work with. But variety is the spice of life. If you want to do the math, I can see banks that have siezed ships with 25 years paid off on their mortgage offering a 30 or 40 year mortgage to refinance the resale. It'd keep them from having to write off the remaining 15 years plus it means they could make more money on interest probably.

I think it is interesting, if somebody else cares to do some number crunching analyis

 

[veltyen]

Originally by RainOfSteel:
Oddly enough, I feel the hull, especially in the case of the higher tech hulls, is the most survivable component on the ship, the one most likely to last the longest.

That may be the case, the point is you may need to prove that the hull is in perfect working order. This means deep scans, reverb tests the whole nine yards in trying to determine if the hull is fatigued. The process of recertification will fail acording to the Imperial Star Flight Certification Boards recommended guidelines. How many on this board have shares in Starship Manufacturing Conecerns?

Think aircraft and freighter fatigue concerns. The hull is only as tough as is needed, any extra strength would merely be used to lighten those structures. All aircraft could be built with heavier componenets these days, but why would you when greater profit lies in greater capacity, and you can use that greater strength to carry extra load.

 

[kaladorn]

Hmmm, you can justify that stance. But you can equally justify very good scanning and modelling technology at TL10+ permitting very easy analysis of the hull situation even given the abysmal state of computing in Traveller. And for every one that has a stake in the starship manufacturing companies, one could have a stake in merchant shipping lines that don't benefit from this kind of approach.

In short, you can make the answer whatever you want.

Also, keep in mind that a space ship hull faces heating and cooling, but unless it is an airframe, faces less stress than a plane or boat (well, this assumes you aren't slamming away at 4Gs...).

There is equally no reason to assume that 3I engineering (naval architecture) has not found ways to design a ship that experiences far less stress and so lasts 120 years. Similarly, there is no reason to suggest that the materials of the 3I aren't good enough to make such a hull.

A lot of naval ships *do* last longer than 40 years.

FWIW, I've been aboard boats well over 40 years old (some hundreds, and still seaworthy). I've been aboard planes over 30 and still doing active military duty. So, I don't see any reason to believe some group of future folks that are as far advanced from us (TL12-13) as we are from basic sword swingers (TL2-3) isn't going to be able to do thing with ship architecture and materials science that seem like magic to us today. And a 40 year lifespan for a hull is distinctly not magic.

Having said that, if you want to explain the 40 year mortgage and enforce 40 year limits on certifications, your arguments are fine. But they are not exactly necessarily the way science would dictate... not necessarily indicative of canonical fact. (Note, I make no claim that longer than 40 year lifespans are canonical fact either...)

I guess it boils down to what do you want in your TU. Like TheGingerBeer, I think I like the idea of merchants running around in 80, 120, even 200 year old hulls... family ships, or just well maintained older ships. Perhaps some new parts, new avionics, maybe a new computer, but essentially still the same old workhorse it always was.

 

[whartung]

If Starships have reasonable immortality and maintenance rate, then cash starved and hungry budding Free Traders would be buying used ships up in droves and not locking themselves into barely tenable mortgages for new ships, or even better, simply leasing them. Depreciation and maintenance is a lot less (ideally) than actually buying one if you can manage the cash flow (and it's all about cash flow doncha know).

A Free Trader isn't like a house. It doesn't appreciate in value, why buy one at all and pay all that money? Or why not simply buy a used ship from Bobs Certified Pre-Owned Free Traders, and save a large chunk of change.

All of the arguments against a Free Trader being profitable rely on the fact that a FT costs so much in the first place. I mean, hiring a more experienced engineer and a 40 yr old starship at 50% the cost of new is money in the bank.

Heck, most airlines lease their planes today, don't they?

I had an interesting conversation with a Canadian F-18 maintenance guy at an air show. They plan on keeping their F-18's for 25-30 years, and every, I guess, 2000 hours or so (every couple of years), tear the plane apart completely and put it back together again.

Now, a Free Trader isn't an F-18, and should be more basic and more easily maintained. But, the point is that much like folks remodel their houses, or swap out components on their vehicles tells me that when you approach it from a cash flow point of view vs an equity issue, ships should be reasonably immortal with the occasional big refit.

Obviously, today, large sea going vessels have a limited useful life and are eventually scrapped, but it would be interesting what the primary motivator is for that. Typically I think it's simply tax reasons, you can't depreicate it any more, can't write it off any more, and the cost of a new one plus write off is less than maintaining the old one and you get a more modern and more efficient design instead.

 

[kaladorn]

When refit costs and the inefficiencies of older engines, etc. start to come into play, then you start seeing people think about a replacement. For passenger ships or even for cargo ships, age can be a factor in getting custom... in the case of passengers, people want the latest amenities and safety features and communications, and in the case of cargo transport, newer double hull construction for oil as case in point, may be either mandated or else just be a good idea that reduces the cost to insure the cargo transport hence making it more attractive.

A ship can obviously fight this situation by dropping the rate it charges, hence making it more attractive, but reducing its profitability.

At some point, the escalating maintenance and operating costs, the costs to add new features which can be prodigious in scope and expense, and the insurance and passenger/customer confidence issues may well drive the owners to scrap a ship or sell it off to some fringe line that wants to run grain loads between worlds in a backwater system.

The Canadian Hercules fleet (they are cargo haulers) is the world's oldest fleet of these planes with the most miles on them. They get regularly repaired but their upkeep cost has went up over the years. They're also sometimes maintenance downchecked when they are vitally necessary. This has been a problem for Canada several times. A traveller equivalent would be you saving a bunch buying the 60 year old ship, but every once and a while, you might default on a cargo because some key component goes *even though* you have a crack engineer.

Additionally, as ships age, getting parts for them may become more challenging and expensive (or just not possible) forcing refits, upgrades, or decomissioning.

So, having old ships is a very neat idea, but they come with perils and at some point, it'll be time to get something newer. But it makes a great starter for an adventuring group.

 

[roygbiv]

Originally posted by veltyen:
There is a point made in the write-up of the Theseus paradox that may have some import.

I have yet to read it. Will try tonight.


40 years is a long time for a stressed hull.

I have to disagree with you there. Dude, we're talking about bonded superdense!

But maybe you have a different idea of what that comprises, though I have two pieces of canon on my side. The GT ruleset is specific: ships which are regularly maintained don't suffer any significant deterioration until after about 180 years.

Someone else has suggested that we consider TNE's Equipment Maintenance rules. Well I think that also supports my case because some 70 years elapsed between the release of Virus and the beginning of the TNE time period. This means that a vessel who had been completed in 1130 could be recovered and put to use at the grand old age of 70. Ships which had already been in service are also being reactivated and some of them have to be approaching 100 years old at that point.

Guys: I don't really want to start with the rules lawyership and I'm not proposing something that will break any of the existing trade systems. Instead, what I'm suggesting is a way for a bunch of miscrean--er--player characters to get a hold of a functioning starship without having to form their own mercantile concern. Remember, this is not supposed to be Adventures in Accurate Accounting, unless you play with a bunch of economic gearheads.

So that I don't hijack this thread, I'll start a new topic which outlines my optional (read IMTU). method of ship procurement.

 

[roygbiv]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Could you provide a more detailed example (including numbers and lots of connect-the-dots examples) of how that works?

Will do, in another thread.

 

[Border Reiver]

Here, here! Good show that man Biv.

Just a thought when it comes to hulls, the UK's Polaris fleet, the Resolution Class SSBN managed nearly 25 years of service without getting in too much of a state. I suspect bonded superdense hulls would last at least ten times as long and manufacturing techniques 3000 years from now will be pretty good. My only concern is corporations building in redudancy so that you need to upgrade to the latest model 2/bis or that the jump drive will fail the day after the warranty runs out.

 

[veltyen]

I have to disagree with you there. Dude, we're talking about bonded superdense!

Which weighs more, a kg of steel or a kg of marshmellow.

A case in point, I am not a small person and I have recently started to ride to work. I have been trying to obtain stronger wheels/spokes to support my mass (I am 197cm tall and 140kg or so). Amongst production parts this isn't possible. While titanium alloys and high grade steel are available, and these materials are MUCH stronger then low-grade steel or aluminium, it is very difficult to obtain a stronger wheel.

Why? The extra tensile properties of the materials used are squandered by using less of the material.

So "Bonded Superdense" doesn't help you, it may as well be pig iron from the point of strength and fatigue. There will just be a lot less of it.

 

[kaladorn]

Hard to say, veltyen. What's marshmellow?

And I have to say 'that depends'. An AV of 40 (MT terms) requires a certain amount of X, Y or Z, (metals). The amounts Xa, Ya, Za will depend on the properties of X, Y and Z respectively.

But, if you build a hull of equal thickness (not AV), then you will have a different hull.

Plus just because there is less of something doesn't mean it will last less long, of necessity. That makes some pretty big assumptions right there.

For instance, we use a lawnmower that is older than me, and I'm 36. It has cut *a lot* of grass, but with regular maintenance, it has lasted a stupendous length of time. I recently terminated a refrigerator (and I could have had it fixed) that was night on 25 years old. My car has 9 years on it and looks almost like new despite 150,000 miles.

So, with regular maintenance, mechanical systems can last a long, long time.

Maybe there should be some sort of 'robustness' factor in the design sequence so that you could design that ship that can last 120 years vs the one that starts coming apart after 40.

Another example is my combat boots from my days as an infanteer. I got out of the armed forces 18 years ago (I served about a year when I was 17-18). They're the best boots I've ever owned and show no signs of wearing out (eventually I'll wear off the tread, but the leather with regular maintenance about once a year is holding up very well.

I've got straight razors that Grandad used in 1918 in the Trenches.

So, things can survive well beyond the estimated lifespan.

The Hercules I talked about earlier were supposed to have about a 15 year lifespan. Some must be close to 40 now. Canada is the king of life extension projects! My FN (when I was in the service) was 31 years old and worked just fine thanks!

 

[jasper]

Lets talks socks. My dad gave me a pair of his military green socks in 82 just before I left for basic. He retired in 70. I threw out around 95 because I had finally worn a hole in the heel. the Military socks I was issued at basic did not last my first term. Some times you just have to remember some stuff is just a game rule and drive on.

 

[Border Reiver]

I still have my first pair of boots and socks from 86. I barely wear the boots now as I have no reason to but the socks are still going strong though I have darned them several time, an essential military skill.

Lets face it some thing are just built to last. My first L1A1 SLR came with wooden funiture dating it back to the 60's.

The British Army still uses a MFDC/AFDC portable firing computer which is essentially a Hewlett Packard Scientific Calculator from the early 80's which has been ruggedized. They worked great as long as you kept the batteries warm (stuffing them down your underwear worked well).

George MacDonald-Fraser once asked what the remote peoples of the world would do when the last Lee-Enfield wore out? Well it still hasn't happened yet as evidenced in pictures from Afghanistan, Sudan, Algeria et al. But it seems the answer to that is pick up an AK-47 and carry on as they have for the past 500 years.

As Jasper says, it's just a game. Some ships are buckets and others are the Queen Mary.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by cweiskircher:
So then some players might want to take out a second mortgage and refinance their ships to lower payments.

I wonder if, in the long-term minded and economically stagnant version of the Imperium that seems to be the OTU, will the contract with the bank even allow refinancing? Won't the bank just simplify by disallowing that from the beginning to keep all the money for itself? I mean, it's not exactly like there are financial laws that provide for disclosure, or even fairness.

 

[whartung]

One of the problems with things like parts availability boils down to the ubiquity of the product involved.

It's easy to get caught up in details that there are several competing ship component manufacturers, and that just because I have a TL-12 power plant doesn't mean I can get parts from any TL-12 Starport. Or heck that I can get them at any higher TL Starport.

"I don't want FOP God damnit, I'm a Dapper Dan man!"

"Watch you language sir, this is a public store. We don't carry Dapper Dan, only FOP. We can order it and it'll be here in a couple of weeks."

"Well what a geographic oddity we have here. Two weeks from everywhere!"

Now I don't think anyone really runs their game with concerns about parts availability (save for dramatic purposes). But as presented I can get parts at any A or B starport for my ships.

Regarding technical obsolesence, I think we can agree that a TL-12 hull would be dramatically different from a TL-15 hull, but then this just brings up the whole issue about TL diferentiation anyway.

If you have well connected worlds with grade A starports, why they aren't all selling the same TL-15 products is beyond me (save where there is no benefit at all). With the percieved volume of trade taking place, beyond foodstuffs may as well import anything you can't manufacture, because TL improves not just product capability, but also quality and, most notably, manufacturing. Despite the fact that our modern cars are just better in all sorts of ways, we can build them faster and cheaper with modern assembly techniques, thus giving them a price advantage over a lower tech competitor.

The only things keeping TL products out are basically shipment costs. Looking at modern container freight, we can see that while shipping is an expense, it's still cheaper to build overseas and ship it, than build locally.

So, I really think its important to get a handle on the ship market. If ships are immortal, players shouldn't be buying new ones, and they should cost 50%-70% of new.

And since the monthly economic burden is less on a used ship, the players could "afford" a missed cargo now and then due to a maintenance issue.