• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

CT Only: TL=10 J4 4G 400 ton LSP Clipper

Spinward Flow

SOC-14 1K
The LSP Clipper, known to its enthusiasts as the "Lisper" and to its detractors as the "Lithper" (deliberately lisping the enthusiast's nickname for the class), may possibly be one of the most successful failures in the long history of Ling-Standard Products.

In essence, the LSP Clipper began as merely a design modification of the older Modular Tug class that had been in limited intermittent production during the Second Frontier War (615-620) in the Spinward Marches at LSP's shipyards. In response to a Request For Proposal (RFP) put to industry by the IISS for logistics services in support of the (then new) Express Boat Network that was being built out on the orders of (then regent, later empress) Arbellatra (from 624 until completion in 718) in anticipation of future support requirements, Ling-Standard Products submitted a design proposal for review.

Although higher technology was available (up to TL=13 at that time, with TL=14 advancements soon to be reached by ~700), since the IISS Communications Office was standardizing their Express Network operations around more easily obtainable and therefore widely maintainable TL=10 standards, Ling-Standard Products offered what has now become known as the LSP Clipper design in an attempt to meet the specifications laid out by the IISS and which would share that technological standard to streamline supply chains and industrial support requirements on that common standard.

What happened next is essentially ancient history now by 1105.
In short, the IISS never acted on their RFP and never moved forward with the plan for a dedicated logistics hauler ship to support Express Network buildout and sustainment of operations. To their credit, the IISS Operations Office rightly decided that a significant fraction of the "step and fetch" work of shuttling supplies at interplanetary scales could be accomplished by Type-S Scout/Couriers operating as "maneuver tugs" for up to 3 Modular Cutter Modules units at a time, eliminating a substantial part of the rationale for the RFP in the first place. Larger loads of interstellar cargo hauling could be supplied by Type-M Subsidized Liners capable of bringing 18-21 personnel and up to another 4 Modular Cutter Modules loaded with supplies for work sites under construction, eliminating the other part of the rationale for the RFP through use of an already existing and proven starship design that was already readily available. So with no real remaining reason to invest in any of the submissions offered in the RFP, the entire program was terminated without a single prototype ever having been tested by the IISS. A lot of bureaucratic wrangling ensued that essentially strangled the project until it was formally terminated in 653.

By corporate standards, LSP in effect "lost" the competition for the RFP contract for logistics support with the IISS (as did everyone else who submitted proposals to it) … but unlike many of the other competitors, LSP had actually gone ahead and constructed a prototype and had been putting it through testing to prove out the engineering and correct any design flaws. The prototype design for what eventually became the LSP Clipper went through several evolutionary revisions in repeated attempts to interest the IISS over a decade, none of which the IISS Operations Office were willing to commit funding to. So by 654, LSP had a thoroughly tested refit design that worked … and no buyer wanting to invest in acquiring it.

In desperation to recoup at least some of the costs that had gone into developing the prototype, LSP started shopping the (then still) new design around to other potential interested parties. The IN feigned polite interest until the matter of funding for deployment in support of navy logistics as a proof of concept in operations became a sticking point, at which feigned interest became deliberate stonewalling. The IN wasn't interested in obtaining any low tech hand-me-downs from their "kid brother" service (the IISS) that had already declined to acquire the starship class.

What happened next was either apocrypha or the luckiest chance meeting one could ever have, but somehow the Ministry of Colonization learned about the prototype redesign and became intensely interested. The wide range of possible mission profiles that redesign offered and enabled, particularly in austere locations with next to no infrastructure support in place yet, resulted in a commitment to fund the continued development work on the prototype including field testing the prototype. If the prototype worked as well as advertised, starting with delivery of E Two class pre-fab Downports as well as Dee Six class Downports on multiple worlds, the Ministry of Colonization was prepared to put the design into limited production in support of their operations.

It worked.
They did.
The LSP Clipper design project was saved, much to the relief of the staff who had worked on it for over a decade by then ... and the rest, is a part of LSP's long history of successes and failures.

At first, sightings of LSP Clippers (quickly dubbed "Lispers" on comm channels) were rare enough to be noteworthy since their design and performance profile were definitely out of the ordinary. With nearly all of ships produced being taken by the Ministry of Colonization and assigned specific duty runs shunting cargo freight, they were not a common sight. Then an enterprising merchant prince approached LSP with a request to purchase one for private commercial use. What started off as a whimsical purchase turned into a remarkably profitable business opportunity. Within a decade, LSP was starting to receive additional inquiries about the pricing and availability of "Lispers" from their shipyards. Then world governments began to take an interest in acquiring copies of the design for subsidy contracts with merchant captains looking to move up into more diverse and lucrative market opportunities. By ~800 the LSP Clippers were in continuous volume production at multiple LSP shipyards to meet diversifying demand for the class.

LSP Clippers are today (as of 1105) considered one of the more unusual merchant transport starship designs that can be encountered along the fringes of Imperial controlled space. The LSP shipyards at Lunion/Lunion, Strouden/Lunion, Glisten/Glisten and Mora/Mora are the primary producing yards for the Spinward Marches and Deneb sectors, while the LSP shipyard at Tobia/Tobia maintains volume production to sustain contact and trade with the Islands Cluster in Reft sector. LSP Clippers can jump from Tobia/Tobia/Trojan Reach across the Great Rift and reach Pamraeltan/Mobin/Reft in as little as 10 jumps through the Islands Cluster, offering a vital communications lifeline that does not rely on passage through the Corridor sector.
 
One of the primary goals of the LSP Clipper redesign of the older Modular Tug class was to tweak the older class sufficiently to incorporate the inclusion of an actual small craft for logistical support of loading and unloading operations under austere conditions (type E or X starports tend to lack infrastructure, and type D starports can often times be lacking in adequate facilities for docking and undocking of Modular Cutter Modules quickly and reliably). At first, the idea was to simply "find enough displacement" to fit an entire Modular Cutter (complete with Cargo Module) into the hangar bay, however doing so would require scrounging up another 20 tons of displacement volume from a starship design that was already quite crowded to begin with. The solution came in the form of better testing of the fuel demands needed for adequate endurance of the drives (jump, reactionless maneuvering, reaction thrust maneuvering) and some adjustment to the allocation of crew quarters.

By adding a small craft (at first a standard Modular Cutter) the need for an additional pilot and gunner was created if the parent LSP Clipper were to not be deprived of her only pilot and only gunner while the Modular Cutter was deployed and flying freely separate from the LSP Clipper. The addition of these 2 crew members in turn meant that an additional steward would be needed for management of the regenerative life support biome producing food and recycled air/water for the crew, increasing the number of additional crew over the baseline of the previous design by 3 persons. With internal space at a premium, it was decided to convert 3 of the single occupancy staterooms assigned to junior crew members into double occupancy in order to accommodate the additional crew needed. Fortunately the original regenerative life support biome systems for the Modular Tug was originally designed with potential crew growth in mind and thus were able to absorb the increase in demand for life support regeneration without needing an extensive redesign of the entire life support system array.

One side effect of adding a second gunner to the crew roster was that it became possible to provide manning for a second triple mixed turret while the Modular Cutter was docked. With some judicious reallocation of internal space arrangements, it also became possible to add that second hard point and triple turret to the redesign as a standard feature, making the ship a harder target to tangle with in space combat, particularly in light of the relatively powerful model/4 computer required to manage the jump drives.

Real world testing of the power plant fuel consumption profile for the Modular Tug had revealed that the original design parameters had been overly generous and conservative, resulting in a significant excess of fuel capacity for HEPlaR maneuvering beyond 1000 diameters of the nearest gravity well. An experimental recompute of a reduced fuel capacity more in line with how a transport ship like the LSP Clipper would typically be operated wound up yielding a savings of 18 tons of fuel displacement relative to the older design. Operational testing with the prototype demonstrated that a 7.5 day continuous 4G HEPlaR endurance was quite adequate for a starship capable of micro-jumping within a system, rather than needing the previous 30 day continuous 4G HEPlaR burn capacity.

With a combination of adjusting internal bulkheads to reclaim displacement tonnage previously allocated to fuel and cargo, the LSP Clipper design team were able to scavenge the additional displacement needed to expand the internal hangar bay up to the requisite 50 tons in order to host a Modular Cutter with a Modular Cutter Module loaded aboard. Routine testing of the arrangement demonstrated that it was possible for the Modular Cutter to safely transfer the Modular Cutter Module carried between the internal hangar bay and the external docking attachment points for external towing and transit as well as atmospheric entry.

It was then decided to test the proposition of arming the Modular Cutter to determine its capability at offering a screen defense capability and the results of those tests were both pathetic and miserable against simulated pirate attacks. The Modular Cutter's deficiencies as a fighting craft basically came down to two factors.
  1. Minimal computer support (both offensive and defensive)
  2. A lack of armor protection against incoming damage
Surface damage resulting from simulated weapons fire exchanges were depressingly likely to happen. When such hits did occur they would often times result in a "mission kill" disabling of the Modular Cutter, resulting in a rescue/hostage/ransom outcome for the 2 person crew aboard, if not outright destruction from the critical hits that would be received. As a fighter screen element against a determined attacker, the Modular Cutter was a speed bump at best and a costly liability at worst.😢

Attempts were even made to simulate exchanges of fire without the cargo module installed, but the Modular Cutter continued to underperform in mock battle testing (omitting the module improved neither acceleration nor evasive agility performance and the model/1 computer was still an enormous liability against better equipped attackers). Something needed to be done or the entire LSP Clipper project might fail except in the most permissive and well supported of environments (which the Modular Tug was already more than adequate for).
 
It was at this point in the design process that one of the junior engineers floated the idea of redesigning the Modular Cutter in order to achieve the necessary performance goal the project was trying to meet.

The mockery that this proposal yielded was both swift and profuse, until the junior engineer took a blueprint of a Modular Cutter, cut the forward compartment off the front and stuck it onto the back end of craft and announced the opportunity for a "mid-engine drive" layout where the Modular Cutter Module trailed aft of the drive section rather than being the mid section clamped to a spine. By shifting the module aft, it would then become possible to adequately up armor everything forward of the standard Modular Cutter Module so as to create an Armored Gig that when not encumbered with towing a 30 ton module behind it could achieve up to 6G performance and possibly even have enough room left over in it for a better computer, improving both offensive and defensive combat potential.

The tradeoff? Instead of having 4G of maneuver capacity at all times (with and without module), such a redesigned small craft would be capable of up to 6G without module and probably limited to 2G while encumbered with a single module (adequate for VTOL performance at the surface of most high gravity terrestrial worlds). An armored 6G performance profile in combat combined with a 2G performance profile in non-combat situations was deemed worth the risk of designing a new small craft capable of better supporting the LSP Clipper's mission profile for needing to enter unsecured (or even just poorly secured) space where system defense could be thin to nonexistent (or just never nearby when you needed some) and cargo support infrastructure for deliveries could be severely lacking at the bottom of a gravity well.

Once the basic idea for an Armored Gig with sufficient maneuver towing capacity to handle an aft trailing Modular Cutter Module was laid before the design team, and that such a redesign was within reach using the same technology level as the LSP Clipper, what had previously seemed impossible suddenly became theoretically doable (albeit challenging).

Project work shifted to enable the new small craft redesign effort.

One of the hard design constraints was that the new combination of Armored Gig and docked trailing Modular Cutter Module needed to fit interchangeably within the exact same dimensions as the standard Modular Cutter's general form factor in order to limit the redesign work that would be needed on the LSP Clipper, which had already had its interior layout altered to accommodate a Modular Cutter inside its internal hangar bay. The design team were loathe to reopen that can of worms again, so retaining the same overall dimensions inside the hangar bay put some needed limitations into the small craft's proposed layout.

Ultimately, after some abortive attempts to rebalance the structural loads through the "mid engine" redesign, a multi-function breakthrough was achieved in the arrangement of the drive elements and armor reinforcing such that the two element factors complemented rather than contradicted each other. At first, testing of the prototype Armored Gig proceeded with a single Modular Cutter Module docked longitudinally aft of the drive section through atmospheric entries, landings and launches. During these tests it was noticed that the "airlock slice" of the craft aft of the drive compartment could not only accommodate a Modular Cutter Module in a longitudinal orientation but also when docked perpendicular to the Armored Gig's hull.

With the maneuver drive reactionless Thruster Plates and HEPlaR exhaust in a + oriented cruciform arrangement, so long as an even number of 2 or 4 Modular Cutter Modules were docked perpendicular to the hull in a balanced port/starboard X oriented cruciform between the exhaust plumes to balance the pitch and yaw moments, it should be possible for the Armored Gig to tow 2-5(!) Modular Cutter Modules in an unstreamlined configuration at 1G outside of atmosphere. The armored hull and redesigned drive arrangement of the Armored Gig design made this relatively unorthodox option not only possible but something a few engineers had to keep rechecking several times to make sure there wasn't a hidden design flaw (and those that did exist were relatively easy to fix through iterative testing to further evolve the engineering).

Mock combat test results involving the Armored Gig prototype were much more favorable, with even simulated triple beam lasers below TL=13 unable to score critical hits thanks to the crystaliron armor toughening up the hull, dramatically improving survivability. Being able to maneuver at 6G with full agility and computer model/2 also radically reduced the number of hits being taken in test engagements, compounding the survivability gains. Even better yet, some surface hits against the Armored Gig were rated as being "ineffective" despite making contact, further bolstering the confidence of test crews and engineers, especially in comparison to the almost automatic "mission kill" results that had been recorded with the Modular Cutter in previous tests due to critical hits.

Since the IISS was dragging their feet on showing interest in the LSP Clipper project, the design and engineering teams were given ample time and opportunity to proof their design decisions through prototype testing and build up a considerable number of design changes and improvements … until they essentially ran out of things to tweak and fix, at which point the IISS promptly decided they weren't going to follow up with any of the RFP options that had been presented to them (not even to test the LSP Clipper that had finally been developed). After all, the fastest way to get a sponsor to change their mind about a project is to deliver exactly what they asked for (and then some). :cautious:

Ironically, it wasn't the IN that rode to the rescue for the LSP Clipper project, but rather the Ministry of Colonization who were able to more properly appreciate the relative "luxury" of a rough and ready "frontier hauler" that could be loaded up with Modular Cutter Modules (that could be filled with almost ANYTHING needed) for delivery to 4 parsecs (1 module), 2 parsecs (14 modules) or 1 parsec (21 modules) away for each jump. Use of L-Hyd drop tanks could easily double (or in extreme cases even triple) those ranges, making it possible to (relatively) affordably reach star systems with support, supplies and personnel that would have been too difficult, hazardous or costly when using other starship classes.

After fighting off a few pirate attacks en route to making deliveries at colony worlds using their Armored Gigs, the Ministry of Colonization began to realize they had a "winner" of a starship design on their hands and placed additional orders with LSP for more ships. Perhaps it was rumors leaking out from the would be pirates after those attempts that prompted other parties to become interested in the starship class and the capabilities hidden within her flexible external cargo hauling capacity combined with the quality of life and crew amenities aboard ("fresh professionally home cooked meals daily" produced from the regenerative biome recycling aboard goes a long way in crew satisfaction surveys, apparently). (y)

Over three centuries later, LSP Clippers are still in volume production at selected LSP shipyards in 1105, and are even used by LSP itself for transshipment of goods away from the main trade routes into more backwater regions of fringe sectors (such as the Spinward Marches and Trojan Reach, among others).

One unfortunate side effect of the modular starship plus armored fighter combination being as effective as they are at fighting off most low level pirate attacks is that the class also makes for an excellent commerce raider when equipped with boarding modules. The challenge, of course (as always), lies in the acquisition. Pirates who are able to obtain an LSP Clipper will often times have the means to convert them into a most effective Corsair, which can even potentially give a Type-T Patrol Cruiser a serious challenge under the right circumstances (especially when guile and subterfuge can be brought into play, creating ambush opportunities). 🏴‍☠️
 
LSP Clipper
Ship Type: AT (Merchant-A, Transport)
TL=10 (LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard drives using CT Beltstrike fuel formula for HEPlaR maneuvering)

Tonnage (custom hull): 400 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr44)
Armor: 0

Jump-H (code: 4, 45 tons, MCr80, TL=10, Capacitor storage: 4 tons = 144 EP maximum)
Maneuver-H (code: 4, 15 tons, MCr32, TL=10)
Power Plant-H (code: 4, 25 tons, MCr64, TL=10, EP: 16, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 3, Emergency Agility: 4)
Total Drives: 45+15+25 = 85 tons (LBB2.81, p22)

Fuel: 182 tons = (Tonnage/100) * (Parsecs*10 + Pn*0.25*weeks + G*0.05*days)
  • 160 tons = 4 parsecs range
  • 16 tons = 4 weeks power plant endurance and 4G reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells
  • 6 tons = 7.5 days additional HEPlaR 4G reaction maneuver reserve beyond 1000 diameters of gravity wells
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.4)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (8 tons, MCr0.036) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)

Hardpoints: 2 (MCr0.2) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 2 (MCr2) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
  • 2 Sandcaster (code: 3)
  • 2 Pulse Laser (code: 1)
  • 2 Missile (code: 1)
Bridge (20 tons, MCr2)
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL=10, EP: 2)
Crew (skills) required: 5 officers, 6 ratings
  1. Pilot-2 (chief)
  2. Ship's Boat-1
  3. Navigator-1
  4. Engineering-2 (chief)
  5. Engineering-1
  6. Engineering-1
  7. Steward-2 (purser)
  8. Steward-1
  9. Medic-2
  10. Gunnery-2 (chief)
  11. Gunnery-1
Staterooms: 5 single occupancy (20 tons, MCr2.5)
Staterooms: 3 double occupancy (12 tons, MCr1.5)
Environmental Control Type V-c capacity: up to 12 persons for 50 weeks
  • 1x Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.6)
  • 2x Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (8 tons, MCr1.2, hydroponics and carniculture)
Internal Cargo Bay: 5 tons
Internal Hangar Bay
  • 1x Armored Gig Berth Ordinary Launch Facilities: 20 tons capacity (20 tons, MCr0.04) (LBB5.80, p32)
    • 1x Armored Gig (20 tons, MCr30.5, TL=10)
  • 1x Modular Cutter Module Berth Ordinary Launch Facilities: 30 tons capacity (30 tons, MCr0.06) (LBB5.80, p32)
External Docking Attachment Points
  • Up to 20x Modular Cutter Modules Ordinary Launch Facilities: 600 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr1.2, 10x dorsal, 10x ventral, remains streamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
Waste Space: 0 tons

Armored Gig
Ship Type: GA (Gig, Armored)
TL=10 (LBB5.80)

Tonnage (custom hull): 20 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr2.2)
Armor (code: 7, 4.8 tons, MCr4.8)

Maneuver-6 (3.4 tons, MCr1.7)
Power Plant-6 (3.6 tons, MCr10.8, EP: 1.2, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 3.4+3.6=7 tons

Fuel: 1.2 tons = 4 weeks power plant endurance and 6G reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells

Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Dual Turret: 1 (MCr0.5) (LBB2.81, p23)
Dual Turret: Sandcaster, Missile (1 ton, MCr1, EP: 0) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
  • 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
  • 1 Missile (code: 1)
Bridge (4 tons, MCr0.1, includes 2 acceleration couches)
Computer: 2 (Code: 2, 2 tons, MCr9, TL: 7, EP: 0)
Crew required: 2 ratings
  1. Ship's Boat Pilot-1
  2. Gunnery-1
External Docking Attachment Points
  • 1x Modular Cutter Module Ordinary Launch Facilities: 30 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.06, 1x aft, remains streamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
  • Up to 4x Modular Cutter Modules Dispersed Structure Launch Facilities: 120 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.24, 2x port, 2x starboard, becomes unstreamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Code:
LSP Clipper         AT-3244442-030000-10001-0   MCr237.7968     400 tons
  batteries bearing             2     2   2                       TL=10.
  batteries                     2     2   2                     Crew=11.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=5. Hangar=50. Fuel=182. EP=16. Agility=3. PL.
1x Modular Cutter Cargo Module (30 tons, MCr2, TL=10).
600 tons capacity external docking ordinary launch facilities.
Jump-2, Maneuver-2 @ up to 800 tons total (+400 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-1 @ up to 1000 tons total (+600 tons external)

Armored Gig         GA-0206621-730000-00001-0   MCr24.4          20 tons
  batteries bearing             1         1                       TL=10.
  batteries                     1         1                      Crew=2.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=1.2. EP=1.2. Agility=6.
Maneuver-5 @ up to 24 tons total (+4 tons external)
Maneuver-4 @ up to 30 tons total (+10 tons external)
Maneuver-3 @ up to 42 tons total (+22 tons external)
Maneuver-2 @ up to 68 tons total (+48 tons external)
Maneuver-1 @ up to 170 tons total (+150 tons external)
Single production
  • Total Cost (Clipper+Armored Gig+Module): MCr264.746+30.5+2 = MCr297.246
  • 20% Down Payment: MCr59.4492
  • Architect Fees: MCr2.97246
  • Construction Time: 64 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
  • Annual Overhaul: Cr297,246 (LBB2.81, p8)
Volume production (80% single production cost)
  • Total Cost (Clipper+Cutter+Module): MCr211.7968+24.4+1.6 = MCr237.7968
  • 20% Down Payment: MCr47.55936
  • Construction Time: 52 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
  • Annual Overhaul: Cr237,797 (LBB2.81, p8)

  • Life Support: Cr0 due to regenerative life support Environmental Control Type V-c (up to 12 persons for 50 weeks capacity)
  • Minimum Crew Salaries: Cr21,000 per 2 weeks (LBB2.81, p11, p16)
  • Surface to Orbit Shuttle Costs: Cr10 per cargo ton, Cr20 to 120 per passenger (LBB2.81, p9)
  • Fuel: Cr500 per ton (refined), Cr100 per ton (unrefined), Cr0 (skimmed) (LBB2.81, p7)

  • Mail Delivery: Cr5,000 revenue per ton on delivery (Cr25,000 max) (LBB2.81, p9)
  • Interstellar Cargo Transport: Cr1000 per ton to declared destination (LBB2.81, p8-9)
  • Interplanetary Charters (12+ hours): Cr1 per hour per ton of ship (Cr400 per hour), minimum 12 hours (Cr4800) without external loading (external loads add Cr1 per hour per ton) (LBB2.81, p9)
  • Interstellar Charters (2 weeks): Cr900 per ton of cargo, Cr900 per low passage berth, Cr9000 per high passage berth (LBB2.81, p9)
  • Imperial subsidies reduce gross revenue receipts by 50% for passengers, cargo and mail (LBB2.81, p7)

Single production economic break even per 2 weeks for annualized costs (including life support, berthing fees, crew salaries and annual overhaul costs) @ 25 jumps per year (25*14=350 days):
  • Overhead costs: 0 + 100 + 21,000*(26/25) + (297,246/25) = Cr33,830
    • Paid off revenue: Cr34,000 = 34 tons cargo = Cr170 profit
    • Subsidy revenue: 68,000 / 2 = Cr34,000 revenue = 68 tons cargo = Cr170 profit
Volume production economic break even per 2 weeks for annualized costs (including life support, berthing fees, crew salaries and annual overhaul costs) @ 25 jumps per year (25*14=350 days):
  • Overhead costs: 0 + 100 + 21,000*(26/25) + (237,797/25) = Cr31,452
    • Paid off revenue: Cr32,000 = 32 tons cargo = Cr548 profit
    • Subsidy revenue: 63,000 / 2 = Cr31,500 = 63 tons cargo = Cr48 profit

  • Cr5,944,920 per year (Cr237,797 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits needed to recoup the base volume construction costs over 40 years in order to break even.
  • Cr14,267,808 per year (Cr570,713 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits needed to pay off bank loan volume construction costs over 40 years in order to break even.

Jump-4, Maneuver-4 cargo capacity: 35 tons maximum = Cr31,500 interstellar charter
  • 5 tons cargo internal
  • 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
Jump-2, Maneuver-2 cargo capacity: 435 tons maximum = Cr391,500 interstellar charter
  • 5 tons cargo internal
  • 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
  • 400 tons cargo capacity external
Jump-1, Maneuver-1 cargo capacity: 635 tons maximum = Cr571,500 interstellar charter
  • 5 tons cargo internal
  • 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
  • 600 tons cargo capacity external
 
So here's a business model case for using the LSP Clipper that would make way too much sense for a megacorp operation.

The LSP Clipper is just the "transport" to other systems.
The "real" business opportunity is the "middleman" providing all the Modular Cutter Modules to transport as a way of streamlining the LSP Clipper's operations to operate on a faster than normal turnaround time scale.

Basically, the cargo for destinations gets containerized into Modular Cutter Modules in preparation for pickup. This is happening BEFORE the LSP Clipper arrives in system. Normally once a ship announces its destination, it takes 4 days after that for cargo and passengers to be marshaled and present themselves for loading/boarding at the starport. With a third party operation working "starship-less" all of that cargo can be delivered to the starport for loading into Modular Cutter Modules at the starport and stacked pending the arrival of an LSP Clipper bound for a specific destination.

In other words, the cargo is "already delivered and ready to go" inside the Modular Cutter Modules before the LSP Clipper has even arrived.

Ocean water skimming would require 1820 minutes (30h20m) to refine and would thus be the main source of delay between jumps.
Gas giant skimming would require 182 minutes (3h2m) to refine but would only be practical in locations where the starport is orbiting a gas giant (on a moon or a station).
Failing either option, starport fuel would be required, but could be purchased as unrefined rather than refined to save on cost and simply refine it aboard using the fuel purification plant.

Standard operating procedure would be:
  1. Breakout from jump
  2. Maneuver to the starport
  3. Unload Modular Cutter Modules at the starport
  4. Wilderness refuel (if practical) or purchase unrefined starport fuel (if wilderness refueling is unavailable)
  5. Return to starport
  6. Complete 16 hour routine drive maintenance checks
  7. Load new Modular Cutter Modules bound for announced destination
  8. Maneuver to jump point
  9. Jump to next destination system
Under ordinary circumstances, all of the above could be completed in 3 days ... rather than the more typical 6-7 days that tramp freighters tend to use for their operational tempo when out of jump space. Such an operational tempo is closer to the cycle speed for XBoats (jumping every ~10 days) rather than tramp freighters (jumping every 14 days).

That would mean that theoretically speaking, an LSP Clipper simply operating in a transport capacity for Modular Cutter Modules and leaving the "filling" of those modules to third parties could potentially jump up to 35 times per year, not just 25 times per year.
35 * 10 days = 350 + 14 days annual maintenance = 364 days per year
25 * 14 days = 350 + 14 days annual maintenance = 364 days per year
How does this happen?
Simple, the Modular Cutter Modules are themselves loaded and readied for transport before the LSP Clipper even arrives.
Once the LSP Clipper shows up, it refuels and does a quick swap of Modular Cutter Modules bound for the next destination.

Now think about that in terms of a megacorp wanting to move cargo off the main routes in order to service new markets. Having a starship design that can "quick change" its cargo load in order to make up to +10 more jumps per year can quickly yield up to an extra +6000 tons of cargo hauling capacity from a single ship each year, or nearly an extra quarter million tons maximum capacity over 40 years. For a megacorp like Ling-Standard Products that can "add up" on the balance sheets in the accounting departments as a hidden advantage for the design thanks to the rapid turnaround capacity made possible by standardization on Modular Cutter Modules for cargo transport to interstellar as well as interplanetary destinations. It has the potential to make the LSP Clipper even more of a "hidden bargain asset" than it might at first appear, compared to the more conventional alternatives. :unsure:
 
I was thinking about the Armored Gig design I made for the LSP Clipper and wondered how it would "evolve" at higher tech levels ... specifically TL=12-13 when the armor type switches from Crystaliron (TL=10-11) over to Superdense (TL=12-13), along with the improvement in fusion power "density" at TL=13.

Quick answer:
  • Armor: 7 @ TL=10
  • Armor: 11 @ TL=12
  • Armor: 9 @ TL=13 so as to have enough spare tonnage to add a 2 ton small craft stateroom
Now I know that most people reading this forum would look at the idea of putting a 2 ton small craft stateroom into an armored fighter/maneuver tug as a waste of tonnage, especially if the armor factor hasn't hit the technological max (of 13 @ TL=13).

Well, I have an answer for that point.

Per LBB5.80 p35:
Staterooms: Crew and passenger couches allow temporary transportation, up to a maximum of 36 turns in combat (12 hours), and 24 hours for routine operations. For longer periods, staterooms must be provided. Small craft staterooms allow sleeping and privacy at two tons each, Cr100,000. Such staterooms may allow double occupancy (each person has the facilities for half a day) on non-commercial flights.
So a small craft with Acceleration Couches only is going to be a short ranged small craft, able to venture no more than 24 hours away from its base capable of providing life support. Now in most "tethered" operational scenarios in which the Armored Gig is intended to be kept near a parent ship or in nearby orbital maneuvering patterns, this won't be a problem ... but for longer duration patrols, such as Search & Rescue operations and/or supplementary fighter sweeps to expand a sensor net, that limited crew life support can potentially become a liability.

By adding a small craft stateroom to the design, (crew) endurance can be extended from 1 day to 28 days allowing for extended patrols. Such a modification then allows for a diversification of deployment options, opening up new roles and therefore potential new market opportunities. With a stateroom aboard, the TL=13 Armored Gig becomes a reasonably decent low end runabout fighter craft that can be deployed as an adjunct to System Defense Boats freeing up resources for wider coverage. Additionally, the basic "docking slice" at the aft end of the hull enables the Armored Gig to easily dock with almost any other craft for either boarding or maneuver tug services, while the Modular Cutter Module options enable an extraordinarily wide variety of potential mission profiles (starting with fuel shuttle and moving on up the food chain).

The Armored Gig is intended to be essentially an "armed civilian" small craft capable of engaging in combat with low end threats (merchants and pirates, usually) that can be acquired relatively cheaply and pressed into service for commerce protection by starport authorities constrained by limited budgets and limited access to higher technologies, in addition to use by starships such as the LSP Clipper.
 
Armored Gig
Ship Type: GA (Gig, Armored)
TL=10 (LBB5.80)

Tonnage (custom hull): 20 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr2.2)
Armor (code: 7, 4.8 tons, MCr4.8)

Maneuver-6 (3.4 tons, MCr1.7)
Power Plant-6 (3.6 tons, MCr10.8, EP: 1.2, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 3.4+3.6=7 tons

Fuel: 1.2 tons = 4 weeks power plant endurance and 6G reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells

Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Dual Turret: 1 (MCr0.5) (LBB2.81, p23)
Dual Turret: Sandcaster, Missile (1 ton, MCr1, EP: 0) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
  • 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
  • 1 Missile (code: 1)
Bridge (4 tons, MCr0.1, includes 2 acceleration couches)
Computer: 2 (Code: 2, 2 tons, MCr9, TL: 7, EP: 0)
Crew required: 2 ratings
  1. Ship's Boat Pilot-1
  2. Gunnery-1
External Docking Attachment Points
  • 1x Modular Cutter Module Ordinary Launch Facilities: 30 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.06, 1x aft, remains streamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
  • Up to 4x Modular Cutter Modules Dispersed Structure Launch Facilities: 120 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.24, 2x port, 2x starboard, becomes unstreamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Total Cost: MCr30.5 (single production), MCr24.4 (volume production)
Code:
Armored Gig         GA-0206621-730000-00001-0   MCr24.4          20 tons
  batteries bearing             1         1                       TL=10.
  batteries                     1         1                      Crew=2.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=1.2. EP=1.2. Agility=6.
Maneuver-5 @ up to 24 tons total (+4 tons external)
Maneuver-4 @ up to 30 tons total (+10 tons external)
Maneuver-3 @ up to 42 tons total (+22 tons external)
Maneuver-2 @ up to 68 tons total (+48 tons external)
Maneuver-1 @ up to 170 tons total (+150 tons external)


Armored Gig
Ship Type: GA (Gig, Armored)
TL=12 (LBB5.80)

Tonnage (custom hull): 20 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr2.2)
Armor (code: 11, 4.8 tons, MCr6.72)

Maneuver-6 (3.4 tons, MCr1.7)
Power Plant-6 (3.6 tons, MCr10.8, EP: 1.2, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 3.4+3.6=7 tons

Fuel: 1.2 tons = 4 weeks power plant endurance and 6G reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells

Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Dual Turret: 1 (MCr0.5) (LBB2.81, p23)
Dual Turret: Sandcaster, Missile (1 ton, MCr1, EP: 0) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
  • 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
  • 1 Missile (code: 1)
Bridge (4 tons, MCr0.1, includes 2 acceleration couches)
Computer: 2 (Code: 2, 2 tons, MCr9, TL: 7, EP: 0)
Crew required: 2 ratings
  1. Ship's Boat Pilot-1
  2. Gunnery-1
External Docking Attachment Points
  • 1x Modular Cutter Module Ordinary Launch Facilities: 30 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.06, 1x aft, remains streamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
  • Up to 4x Modular Cutter Modules Dispersed Structure Launch Facilities: 120 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.24, 2x port, 2x starboard, becomes unstreamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Total Cost: MCr32.42 (single production), MCr25.936 (volume production)
Code:
Armored Gig         GA-0206621-B30000-00001-0   MCr25.936        20 tons
  batteries bearing             1         1                       TL=12.
  batteries                     1         1                      Crew=2.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=1.2. EP=1.2. Agility=6.
Maneuver-5 @ up to 24 tons total (+4 tons external)
Maneuver-4 @ up to 30 tons total (+10 tons external)
Maneuver-3 @ up to 42 tons total (+22 tons external)
Maneuver-2 @ up to 68 tons total (+48 tons external)
Maneuver-1 @ up to 170 tons total (+150 tons external)


Armored Gig
Ship Type: GA (Gig, Armored)
TL=13 (LBB5.80)

Tonnage (custom hull): 20 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, integral fuel scoops, MCr2.2)
Armor (code: 9, 4.0 tons, MCr4.8)

Maneuver-6 (3.4 tons, MCr1.7)
Power Plant-6 (2.4 tons, MCr7.2, EP: 1.2, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 6, Emergency Agility: 6)
Total Drives: 3.4+2.4=5.8 tons

Fuel: 1.2 tons = 4 weeks power plant endurance and 6G reactionless maneuver within 1000 diameters of gravity wells

Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Dual Turret: 1 (MCr0.5) (LBB2.81, p23)
Dual Turret: Sandcaster, Missile (1 ton, MCr1, EP: 0) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
  • 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
  • 1 Missile (code: 2)
Bridge (4 tons, MCr0.1, includes 2 acceleration couches)
Computer: 2 (Code: 2, 2 tons, MCr9, TL: 7, EP: 0)
Crew required: 2 ratings
  1. Ship's Boat Pilot-1
  2. Gunnery-1
Small Craft Stateroom: 1 (2 tons, MCr0.1)
External Docking Attachment Points
  • 1x Modular Cutter Module Ordinary Launch Facilities: 30 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.06, 1x aft, remains streamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
  • Up to 4x Modular Cutter Modules Dispersed Structure Launch Facilities: 120 tons capacity (0 tons, MCr0.24, 2x port, 2x starboard, becomes unstreamlined when used) (LBB5.80, p32)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Total Cost: MCr27.9 (single production), MCr22.32 (volume production)
Code:
Armored Gig         GA-0206621-930000-00002-0   MCr22.32         20 tons
  batteries bearing             1         1                       TL=13.
  batteries                     1         1                      Crew=2.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=0. Fuel=1.2. EP=1.2. Agility=6.
Maneuver-5 @ up to 24 tons total (+4 tons external)
Maneuver-4 @ up to 30 tons total (+10 tons external)
Maneuver-3 @ up to 42 tons total (+22 tons external)
Maneuver-2 @ up to 68 tons total (+48 tons external)
Maneuver-1 @ up to 170 tons total (+150 tons external)
 
Note that a small craft stateroom includes one acceleration couch (seats are required if cabin is not included, therefore the cabin includes the couch). If you want to munchkin it up a little, that means that a SC stateroom could borrow 0.5Td from the bridge -- but you might not want to go there if you're planning on double-occupancy.
 
Economic break even formula for annualized costs (including life support, berthing fees, crew salaries and annual overhaul costs)
Cost calculation
  • CPD = LS + BFD + FC + (CS*13/DPY) + (CC/1000/DPY) + (CC*CM/40/DPY) + (BFA/DPY)
    • CPD = Cost Per Destination (in Cr), round up to nearest integer
    • LS = Life Support (in Cr) per destination (Cr0 for stock LSP Clipper and Armored Gig)
    • BFD = Berthing Fees (in Cr) per Destination (Cr100 for 6 days, Cr100 more per +1 days)
    • FC = Fuel Cost (in Cr) to refuel (Cr500 per ton refined, Cr100 per ton unrefined, Cr0 per ton wilderness)
    • CS = Crew Salaries (in Cr) per month (Cr42,000 for stock LSP Clipper plus one Armored Gig)
    • DPY = Destinations Per Year
    • CC = Construction Cost in credits (Cr297,246,000 single production, Cr237,796,800 volume production)
    • CM = Construction Multiplier (x0 Subsidized, x1 Paid Off, x2.4 Bank Loan Financing, over 40 years)
    • BFA = Berthing Fees Annual (extra berthing fees for warehousing the ship at idle during extra crew vacation days annually)
Required revenue to reach profit average per destination calculation
  • CTE = CPD / RD
    • CTE = Cargo Tons Equivalent, round up to nearest integer
    • RD = Revenue Divisor
      • 500 subsidized non-charter
      • 450 subsidized charter
      • 1000 paid off or loan non-charter
      • 900 paid off or loan charter

Tables of profit points when allowing 15 days for annual overhaul maintenance within each year (365-15=350 days maximum)
Note: 252 / 365 = 69% (~70% minimum required time on route each year for subsidy contracts)
  • 4-6 days berthed at starport (7+ days increase berthing fees)
  • 8 days per maneuver plus jump including routine 16 hour drive maintenance checks after breakout (2x jumps possible with extra fuel)
  • Mail Delivery modifier (5 tons cargo internal converted to dedicated Mail Vault)
    • Subsidized CTE reduced by -10 (-11) tons, Paid Off CTE and Bank Loan CTE reduced by -20 (-22) tons.
Single Production (transport only cargo tonnage revenue to reach break even profit)
DPY (tempo) + vacation daysCPDSubsidized CTE (charter)CPDPaid Off CTE (charter)CPDBank Loan CTE (charter)
29 (4+8 days) = 348 + 229,18159 (65) tons285,428286 (318) tons644,173645 (716) tons
26 (5+8 days) = 338 + 1232,56066 (73) tons318,373319 (354) tons718,512719 (800) tons
25 (6+8 days) = 350 + 033,83068 (76) tons331,076332 (368) tons747,221748 (831) tons
24 (6+8 days) = 336 + 1435,27371 (79) tons344,904345 (384) tons778,388779 (865) tons
18 (6+8 days) = 252 + 9847,47095 (106) tons460,311461 (512) tons1,038,2901039 (1154) tons
20 (4+8+8 days) = 340 +1042,28885 (94) tons413,845414 (460) tons934,026935 (1038) tons
16 (5+8+8 days) = 336 +1452,860106 (118) tons517,306518 (575) tons1,167,5321168 (1298) tons
15 (6+8+8 days) = 330 + 2056,417113 (126) tons551,827552 (614) tons1,245,4011246 (1384) tons
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 8671,046143 (158) tons690,308691 (768) tons1,557,2761558 (1731) tons

Volume Production (transport only cargo tonnage revenue to reach break even profit)
DPY (tempo) + vacation daysCPDSubsidized CTE (charter)CPDPaid Off CTE (charter)CPDBank Loan CTE (charter)
29 (4+8 days) = 348 + 227,13155 (61) tons232,129233 (258) tons519,125520 (577) tons
26 (5+8 days) = 338 + 1230,27361 (68) tons258,924259 (288) tons579,035580 (644) tons
25 (6+8 days) = 350 + 031,45263 (70) tons269,249270 (300) tons602,165603 (670) tons
24 (6+8 days) = 336 + 1432,79666 (73) tons280,501281 (312) tons627,288628 (697) tons
18 (6+8 days) = 252 + 9844,16189 (99) tons374,435375 (417) tons836,817837 (930) tons
20 (4+8+8 days) = 340 +1039,31579 (88) tons336,561337 (374) tons752,706753 (837) tons
16 (5+8+8 days) = 336 +1449,14499 (110) tons420,702421 (468) tons940,882941 (1046) tons
15 (6+8+8 days) = 330 + 2052,454105 (117) tons448,782449 (499) tons1,003,6411004 (1117) tons
12 (6+8+8 days) = 264 + 8666,092133 (147) tons561,502562 (624) tons1,255,0761256 (1395) tons

LSP Clipper cargo capacity by drive performance
  • Jump-4, Maneuver-4 = 35 tons maximum
    • 5 tons cargo internal
    • 1x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
  • Jump-2, Maneuver-2 = 435 tons maximum
    • 5 tons cargo internal
    • 1x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
    • 400 tons cargo capacity external
  • Jump-1, Maneuver-1 = 635 tons maximum
    • 5 tons cargo internal
    • 1x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
    • 600 tons cargo capacity external
If CTE is over capacity max then speculative cargo is required to sustain profits at that DPY with that drive performance
If CTE is under capacity max then transport revenue alone is enough to ensure net profits at that DPY with that drive performance
 
I think I've developed a powerful new tool for being able to judge the economic "value" of merchant ships in a variety of trading scenarios. :unsure:

So ... how do you use the information I've computed above to judge "how close to break even" a starship is under various conditions? :rolleyes:
Well I'm glad you asked! 😁

Stay awhile and listen ...



First, you have to run the formulas to generate the data that goes into the table.
If someone with better programming skills than I have wants to create a web page that takes in the parameters for the variables and outputs a XenForo formatted post text with everything spreadsheet computed ... that would be lovely. 🥰

Now that I've got the "template" for the format and know how to write the formulas for it, I can program it into a calculator app and run them (one at a time) by hand to transcribe into a post ... but it would be a lot nicer to have an automated tool that does a lot of the work involved for composing a Post Ready output that can just be copy/pasted into the forums here.

Anyway ... back to the story.

I've set up the cost formula to determine the Levelized Cost of Operations (LCoO) in such a way as to compute how much revenue needs to be generated at each delivery destination in order for an operator to completely break even on the cost of the ship (recurring overhead costs, construction, etc.) across a "standard" 40 year operational lifespan with regular annual overhaul maintenance completed within each year (so a maximum of 350 "working days" per year).

The basic idea here is that if a ship can earn more credits per destination delivery than the computed break even amount it is long term profitable to operate for the controlling interest operating the ship. So to be profitable, the ship simply needs to earn more than the CPD (Cost Per Delivery) at the operational tempo it is being run at to make deliveries.

Make more deliveries each year, running at a higher operational tempo, and the CPD goes down allowing profits to go up.
So the margin between the CPD and your revenue earned for that delivery is your "enduring profit margin" on that shipment.

Everybody with me so far? :rolleyes:



So the CPD is in credits and the CTE (Cargo Tons Equivalent) show how much transportation revenue needs to be earned in order to be minimally profitable above the break even mark.

If a ship has a cargo capacity below the computed CTE, then even with a full shipping manifest it will be operating at a loss and not balancing the books on its full expenses. This shortfall CAN be overcome through speculative trading, but how "large" that shortfall is can determine how "likely" it is for an operator to be able to make up the difference through speculative trading. So a small deficit can be overcome, while a large deficit is a much harder hill to climb.



The other important information that can be derived from the chart is how much shipping volume is necessary before profits are a possibility in the absence of speculative trading. This then gives a sense as to what kind of a "floor" on cargo tonnage needs to be available to move in order to generate revenue to balance out the costs of operations (reliably). Empty holds do not pay the bills. :mad:

And lastly, the tempo of operations ... how quickly you intend to turn your ship around at each destination ... can have a surprising impact on how many destinations you can deliver to each year. Another variable is how "dedicated" an operator is to making deliveries. For instance, "part time" operators (and also adventurers, go figure ... :rolleyes:) may not want to spend all their available time every year making deliveries of cargo here there and everywhere. Yes, the crew gets what amounts to 15 days paid vacation (mandatory) each year when the ship goes in for annual overhaul maintenance ... but what if they want "more time off" than just 2 weeks per year? There tends to be a LARGE difference in operational tempo for Merchant Class Ships (MCS) who just want to pile up profits transporting goods ... and Adventure Class Ships (ACS) who want to do a bit of trading on the side to support their penchant for going off on adventures (possibly even leaving the ship behind berthed at a starport so as to go on an expedition to somewhere). So that's where the DPY (Deliveries Per Year) comes into the tables.



The last variable is how the construction of the ship is financed.
  • Was the construction subsidized by a government, obligating operator to contractually spend ~70% of each year making deliveries to an approved list of systems?
  • Was the ship "fully paid for" upon delivery (hence, Paid Off) with all monies up front (which megacorporations and other "deep pockets" can do to avoid bank loan interest payments on top of principal) and is thus "wholly owned" by a private party?
  • Was the ship financed using a Bank Loan to pay for construction?
Each of these construction financing possibilities have different impacts on the total LCoO that needs to be divided up by the DPY over the planned 40 year operational life of the starship (operations past 40 years are essentially "pure gravy" on profit potential).



Put all of those factors together and you get the tables I've computed above.
The next trick then becomes interpreting that data (usefully). ;)
 
So let us say that I'm an operator who has decided to acquire an LSP Clipper under a government subsidy contract.
Where are my break even CTEs in that scenario?

Well ... @ Jump-4 ... I've only got 35 tons of cargo capacity to play with and for a Volume Production version of an LSP Clipper the minimum CTE break even point is at 55 tons. So operating in a "clean" configuration (with no external cargo loading) enabling Jump-4 performance my ship would always operate at a loss while merely transporting (other people's) cargo. I would need to use speculative cargo profits in order to make up the operational shortfall of running my shipping business in that manner.

However ... @ Jump-2 ... I've got 435 tons of cargo capacity (400 tons of which are external to the ship, reducing drive performance to J2/M2) and the absolute highest CTE possible for a subsidized LSP Clipper constructed in Volume Production is only 99 tons when operating under interstellar charters making 18 deliveries per year (and spending only 252 days per year on it :oops:) leaving time to go off and have adventures. Furthermore, with L-Hyd drop tank rentals from type A/B starports, the CTE for 2J2 is only 147 tons (not including drop tank rental costs) ... still well below my ship's 435 ton cargo capacity. So with even with a 1/4 full hold (1J2) or a 1/2 full hold (2J2) devoted to transporting cargo, my ship can earn a profit ... and any unfilled cargo space can be "spent" on speculative cargo to pile on even more profit on top of what I'm getting just from the baseline cargo transport revenue.

And of course, @ Jump-1 making deliveries to adjacent systems along a Main, the profit potential is even higher ... provided a sufficient supply of cargo to transport (up to 635 tons maximum). :whistle:🚬



So then, what about an LSP Clipper that gets Paid Off upon delivery from the shipyard by Deep Pockets™?
Where are my break even CTEs in that scenario?

Well ... @ Jump-4 ... I've only got 35 tons of cargo capacity to play with and for a Volume Production version of an LSP Clipper the minimum CTE break even point is at 233 tons (a -198 CTE margin). So operating in a "clean" configuration (with no external cargo loading) enabling Jump-4 performance my ship would always operate at a substantial loss while merely transporting cargo for revenue. I would need to use speculative cargo profits in order to make up the operational shortfall of running my shipping business in that manner (dicey, but doable).

However ... @ Jump-2 ... I've got 435 tons of cargo capacity (400 tons of which are external to the ship, reducing drive performance to J2/M2) and the absolute highest CTE possible for a LSP Clipper constructed in Volume Production making single jumps to destinations is only 417 tons when operating under interstellar charters making 18 deliveries per year (and spending only 252 days per year on it) leaving time to go off and have adventures. Furthermore, with L-Hyd drop tank rentals from type A/B starports, the CTE for 2J2 starts getting pretty "borderline" with the profit potential in the 15-20 deliveries to destinations per year range after factoring in drop tank rental costs, so it would be best to "pick and choose" speculative cargo opportunities and know where the best arbitrage rates are to be found for all the various commodities (don't just reflexively buy everything that's offered). So again, the opportunities for profit are present (you just need to know where to go in order to find them).

And of course, @ Jump-1 making deliveries to adjacent systems along a Main, the profit potential is even higher ... provided a sufficient supply of cargo to transport (up to 635 tons maximum) again.

So although the CTEs are higher in the Paid Off scenario than in the Subsidized scenario, in the Paid Off situation the operator gets to keep 100% of the profits ... while in the Subsidized scenario revenues are subject to a 50% rake by the subsidizing government. So depending on the specifics and context, which is more profitable than the other as far as operator take home profit can vary quite a bit.



So then ... what about an LSP Clipper that gets acquired via Bank Loan Financing? :unsure:
Where are my break even CTEs in that scenario?

Well ... @ Jump-4 ... I've only got 35 tons of cargo capacity to play with and for a Volume Production version of an LSP Clipper the minimum CTE break even point is at 520 tons (a -485 CTE margin :oops:) at the highest operational tempo. So operating in a "clean" configuration (with no external cargo loading) enabling Jump-4 performance my ship would always operate at a SUBSTANTIAL LOSS :eek: while merely transporting cargo. I would need to use speculative cargo profits in order to make up the operational shortfall of running my shipping business in that manner (and that speculation had better be making an average profit of nearly MCr0.5 per delivery or around MCr15 per year!). So while there might be intermittent opportunities for this to happen, it's not something you would want to "bet the farm on" happening consistently every time you jump.

However ... @ Jump-2 ... I've got 435 tons of cargo capacity (400 tons of which are external to the ship, reducing drive performance to J2/M2) and all of the CTEs are still in excess of my maximum cargo capacity. 😭 So on pure cargo transportation revenue, my ship will STILL be operating at a loss (just not as much of a loss I would be at Jump-4) and would still need profits from speculative cargo to make up the shortfall. However, since the gap between the CTE needed and my cargo capacity is much smaller, it is still theoretically possible to make up the difference by savvy speculative cargo trading, which can include high volume items. So speculative trading is the key to staving off bankruptcy.

Finally, @ Jump-1 the CTEs finally fall below the 635 ton cargo capacity (600 tons of which are external to the ship, reducing drive performance to J1/M1) that it is possible to turn a profit on mere cargo transportation revenues with no speculative cargo required ... depending on the operational tempo of deliveries to destinations (of course).



In all of these scenarios, the differences depend on the method of financing construction and the break even tipping point for where profits begin to emerge on the balance sheet ledger contingent upon operational tempo. More deliveries per year make for higher profit totals ... assuming you can fill your hold and manifest each time. However, the sheer volume of cargo needed in order to reach that break even profit goal can in turn be prohibitive when it comes to making deliveries to systems that cannot generate the volume of cargo your ship needs for its operations. As a general rule of thumb, when high volumes of cargo are needed, it is best to avoid jumping to mainworlds with a Population: 4- because of the -4DM on cargo availability (LBB2.81, p11).
 
What I find particularly fascinating about this economic analysis is what it says about the difference between internal and external cargo shipping options (if your Referee allows external cargo at all). My personal contention is that only Major Cargo would be considered suitable for loading into Modular Cutter Modules that the operator of the LSP Clipper doesn't own for shipment external to the ship's hull. If an LSP Clipper operator provides their own Modular Cutter Modules for use in transporting external cargo (in effect, "permanently" reducing drive performance while those modules are retained) then Major, Minor and even Incidental Cargo can be transported externally.

Which then brings up the question ... why bother?
Why not just buy an 800 ton or 1000 ton starship with the same drives and performance? :unsure:
Why bother with this whole "external cargo" business?

Well, the answer is that an 800 or 1000 ton hull costs a bit more (not a whole lot more, but the cost is there) ... and such larger ships aren't as inherently flexible in what they can "DO" for their price tag. If the hold is empty, their drive performance doesn't increase. They're stuck with whatever drive performance they get at their hull size permanently, while the LSP Clipper can "grow or shrink" the amount of displacement its (standard, not custom) drives need to move depending on demand and circumstances. In a clean configuration, with 160 tons of L-Hyd drop tank fuel, an LSP Clipper can even make 2J4 one way (with a TL=10 starship no less!) carrying up to 35 tons of cargo internally. For extremely revenue dense cargoes, that can potentially be a profitable capability. You can't do that (at TL=10) with an 800 or 1000 ton starship ... the capability for that kind of performance just simply isn't there to begin with at those hull sizes at that tech level.

And then there's the Third Party Charter angle.
This is going to get a little complicated, so bear with me here.



Let's say that there's a Third Party who simply wants to charter your LSP Clipper to transport their goods between star systems "on the regular" (so to speak). The Third Party merchant will supply the cargo to ship ... so as the LSP Clipper operator, all you have to do is move it.

Basically what's going to be going on is that the Third Party is a "non-starship merchant" who essentially owns a lot of shipping containers (in this case, Modular Cutter Modules) to load up with cargo. The Third Party has offices on 2+ worlds that want to trade goods and they simply need the services of a starship to transport those goods for them exclusively. Basically the Third Party does all the legwork of "scaring up business" and the LSP Clipper operator gets chartered to move it as fast as possible.

In that kind of ongoing charter arrangement scenario, you could even have a Third Party charter an LSP Clipper for multiple deliveries (possibly an entire year's worth on a rolling renewwal basis!) and since the Third Party is taking delivery of the cargoes "externally" to the LSP Clipper's operations, the entire delivery system of getting the cargoes to the starport (essentially the 4 day wait) gets "outsourced" to the Third Party to handle and deal with. All the LSP Clipper needs to do is arrive ... unload the Modular Cutter Modules it's carrying for handover to the Third Party ... load the next set of Modular Cutter Modules has been holding pending your ship's arrival ... and you're ready to depart in just a couple of days, rather than spending most of week attempting to find cargoes wanting to be shipped aboard your LSP Clipper.

Basically, the "outsourcing" of lining up cargoes for shipment to local Third Party dealers under interstellar charter for your starship via use of Modular Cutter Modules makes it possible to increase your operational tempo through faster unloading and loading times (the Armored Gig can be used as a 2G capable "module crane" for rapid unloading and loading of deliveries than would be possible for a "mere" Tramp Merchant, even when used as an orbital shuttle). So although the revenue per ton shipped is lower under charter, the increase in turnaround time by "outsourcing" the acquisition of cargoes to ship to Third Party Vendors via contracting can result in higher overall profits for the LSP Clipper operator simply by virtue of the increase in operational tempo.

The Paid Off CTE of 25 DPY in 350 days is 270 tons at a 6+8 day operational tempo (standard tramp merchant).
The Paid Off CTE under interstellar charter to Third Party Vendors of 29 DPY in 348 days is 258 tons at a 4+8 day operational tempo.
In this context, 29 deliveries of "guaranteed" tonnage offers better profit margins on pure transport revenue than 25 deliveries where you're needing to drum up all that business yourself (and might not always be able to).

Also, look at it from the Third Party Vendor point of view.
Instead of needing to buy an entire starship, crew it and pay for the operating expenses (which are considerable) ... all the Third Party has to do as a "non-starship merchant" is ... invest in Modular Cutter Modules to carry their cargoes. A single LSP Clipper can carry up to 20 such modules, so an individual Third Party interested in "going into business' shipping cargoes only needs to pay MCr2 per 30 ton module ... a cost of only Cr69,333 per ton when amortized over 40 years (including annual overhaul maintenance of the module 40 times). At a Cr100 profit margin between the Cr1000 per ton shipping price and the Cr900 per ton charter price, an individual module only needs to be used 694 times to break even on the shipping price arbitrage. However, the Third Party can engage in speculative cargo trading too(!) and fill up their modules with speculative cargoes that can be sold for WAY MORE profit than a mere Cr100 per ton in other systems!

And since the Third Party Vendor is an office operation (rather than a Traveling Salesman passenger operation) with offices in multiple systems, they can control the flow of goods to their own advantage in interstellar arbitrage of speculative goods transfers. Maximum investment needed to Jump-1 charter an LSP Clipper is MCr40 per world the Third Party has an office on (which is practically "a steal" for the quantity of cargo that would enable them to move).

All they need is way to get the goods from Here to There. :cool:

Enter the LSP Clipper ... designed to haul "a lot of stuff" between star systems as quickly and efficiently as possible at the lowest tech level (TL=10) that is easy to sustain and maintain using baseline "Interstellar Community" technology that ought to be widely available using standardized containers in the form of Modular Cutter Modules.

And if a lowly Third Party Vendor can find a business case making use of all that (external) cargo capacity ... so can a megacorporation with Deep Pockets™ and cargo to move like LSP. 💰
 
This starship design is being retconned out of existence and "de-canonized" (for whatever that's worth) by the author (me), in favor of a superior design that I will be posting ... Soon™.
 
Back
Top