Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Previously, on @Spinward Flow's Lower Technology Naval Architect Office Follies ...
And now, the continuation ...
And now, the continuation ...
CT Only: TL=11-12 300 ton J2-3 5G Modular Couriers
- Thread starter Spinward Flow
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
So ... Modular Cutters ... are standardized around 30 ton Modular Cutter Modules ... 
Short answer? EXPENSIVE starships.
Big power plants before TL=13 under LBB5.80 are just so enormous (and commensurately expensive)!
We're talking over MCr200+ in volume production ... which is about 5.7x the cost of an A1 Free Trader and 3.5x the cost of an A2 Far Trader.
It's also about 2.2x the cost of of a 400 ton Type-R Subsidized Merchant and just under the price of a 600 ton Type-M Subsidized Liner!
That's a LOT of capital/credits to tie up in engineering spaces for a 300 ton starship!
Slightly longer answer? 200+ ton starships need a lot more crew than sub-200 ton starships do (go figure, eh?).
When you go from needing 2 crew to 7 or 8 crew, that makes a pretty big difference in terms of accommodations (read: staterooms/cabins). When you've got a 33% drive fraction (jump-3, maneuver-5, power plant-5 @ TL=12) and a 35% fuel fraction (3 parsecs plus 4 weeks of operations), every 4 ton stateroom added to the ship requires 4/(1-0.33-0.35)=12.5 tons of additional hull capacity. So 6 extra 4 ton staterooms amounts to an extra 75 tons of needed total hull capacity right there. That means bigger (and therefore, more expensive) drives and a requirement for more engineers to maintain those drives meaning more crew ... so once you cross the 200 ton crew requirements threshold, the ship tonnage tends to inflate upwards extremely quickly (and that gets expensive, fast!).
Larger crews also mean higher operating overhead costs (life support and crew salaries on a monthly basis, annual overhaul maintenance on a yearly basis) which then compels a requirement for more revenue tonnage needed for transport in order to pay the bills and break even on recurring costs (never mind paying back the construction costs of the starship). It creates a vicious cycle in which there is a dependency on increasing volumes of cargo trade in order to sustain increasingly large overhead costs, creating vulnerabilities to a potential lack of cargo in need of ready transport. When demand for revenues remains constant, disruptions in the supply of revenue can be quite a setback to the profit/loss margin. Larger capacities may be more profitable when fully loaded, but are also susceptible to slumps in quantities of cargo needing to be shipped. However, the simplest and most reliable means to combat these slumps in supply problems is a larger jump range, putting more destinations within reach from each point of origin, allowing crews to better pick and choose which destination they want to ship to next. With more options available it becomes a more reliable prospect that there's going to be a full load up to your capacity needing to be shipped somewhere.
Long story short ... there's a LOT of factors to consider when designing a starship that needs to survive "on its own" with austere support services (limited tech level base, intermittent to non-existent system defense patrols suppressing piracy, wilderness refueling, etc.) and a mailman's determination that the deliveries MUST GET THROUGH without being intercepted and/or confiscated by hostile actors (including competitors who are not above turning pirate themselves when they think no one else is watching).
I've explored some of these themes and design philosophies in my previous efforts at starship designs linked in the post above for anyone who wants to read my past blathered ramblings on concerning the subject.
In the past, my focus was on keeping the ships small so as to keep the crews small and the cost to buy/own as small as possible while still building in as much flexibility and capability as possible into the designs. That meant hull code: 1 sub-200 ton starships were the way to go in order to leverage low operating costs balanced against guaranteed revenue returns (Cr25,000 for delivering mail) in order to generate profits reliably on almost every jump.
Now the challenge is to figure out a way to replicate that performance profile with a ship in the hull code: 2+ range of 200+ tons.
Can it be done?
Let's find out, shall we?
- What if someone designed a starship around the same basic idea as being a 30 ton cutter module transporter?
- What if the ship was designed to transport those modules both internally (for atmospheric entry) and externally (trading jump and maneuver capacity for extra loading of more cutter modules)?
- What kind of range could such a starship have, and how important would it be to have a wider array of options for your next port of call?
- Would a jump/maneuver tug styled starship be capable of transporting those modules safely/securely AND still be able to make a profit while doing so?
- Is there a "sweet spot" of capability for being able to compete with a Revolver class Modular Liner in the Dee Six class Downport delivery market along with other applications such as mail delivery, fuel tanker services, passenger transport, cargo hauling ... and so on and so forth?
- What about the threat of piracy (both FOR
and AGAINST)? - Where is the break even point in terms of profits on cargo transportation given recurring overhead costs in normal service?
- Can flexibility in the containerized transport of modular cutter modules make for a compelling (and therefore profitable) business case to a would be merchant prince?
Short answer? EXPENSIVE starships.
Big power plants before TL=13 under LBB5.80 are just so enormous (and commensurately expensive)!
We're talking over MCr200+ in volume production ... which is about 5.7x the cost of an A1 Free Trader and 3.5x the cost of an A2 Far Trader.
It's also about 2.2x the cost of of a 400 ton Type-R Subsidized Merchant and just under the price of a 600 ton Type-M Subsidized Liner!
That's a LOT of capital/credits to tie up in engineering spaces for a 300 ton starship!
Slightly longer answer? 200+ ton starships need a lot more crew than sub-200 ton starships do (go figure, eh?).
When you go from needing 2 crew to 7 or 8 crew, that makes a pretty big difference in terms of accommodations (read: staterooms/cabins). When you've got a 33% drive fraction (jump-3, maneuver-5, power plant-5 @ TL=12) and a 35% fuel fraction (3 parsecs plus 4 weeks of operations), every 4 ton stateroom added to the ship requires 4/(1-0.33-0.35)=12.5 tons of additional hull capacity. So 6 extra 4 ton staterooms amounts to an extra 75 tons of needed total hull capacity right there. That means bigger (and therefore, more expensive) drives and a requirement for more engineers to maintain those drives meaning more crew ... so once you cross the 200 ton crew requirements threshold, the ship tonnage tends to inflate upwards extremely quickly (and that gets expensive, fast!).
Larger crews also mean higher operating overhead costs (life support and crew salaries on a monthly basis, annual overhaul maintenance on a yearly basis) which then compels a requirement for more revenue tonnage needed for transport in order to pay the bills and break even on recurring costs (never mind paying back the construction costs of the starship). It creates a vicious cycle in which there is a dependency on increasing volumes of cargo trade in order to sustain increasingly large overhead costs, creating vulnerabilities to a potential lack of cargo in need of ready transport. When demand for revenues remains constant, disruptions in the supply of revenue can be quite a setback to the profit/loss margin. Larger capacities may be more profitable when fully loaded, but are also susceptible to slumps in quantities of cargo needing to be shipped. However, the simplest and most reliable means to combat these slumps in supply problems is a larger jump range, putting more destinations within reach from each point of origin, allowing crews to better pick and choose which destination they want to ship to next. With more options available it becomes a more reliable prospect that there's going to be a full load up to your capacity needing to be shipped somewhere.
Long story short ... there's a LOT of factors to consider when designing a starship that needs to survive "on its own" with austere support services (limited tech level base, intermittent to non-existent system defense patrols suppressing piracy, wilderness refueling, etc.) and a mailman's determination that the deliveries MUST GET THROUGH without being intercepted and/or confiscated by hostile actors (including competitors who are not above turning pirate themselves when they think no one else is watching).
I've explored some of these themes and design philosophies in my previous efforts at starship designs linked in the post above for anyone who wants to read my past blathered ramblings on concerning the subject.
In the past, my focus was on keeping the ships small so as to keep the crews small and the cost to buy/own as small as possible while still building in as much flexibility and capability as possible into the designs. That meant hull code: 1 sub-200 ton starships were the way to go in order to leverage low operating costs balanced against guaranteed revenue returns (Cr25,000 for delivering mail) in order to generate profits reliably on almost every jump.
Now the challenge is to figure out a way to replicate that performance profile with a ship in the hull code: 2+ range of 200+ tons.
Can it be done?
Let's find out, shall we?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Bottom line is that in order to evade "most" of the Adventure Class Starship (ACS) grade ship-to-ship opposition in a CT context, you're looking at the following "must be faster than this" threat matrix in terms of maneuver drive when it comes to running the gauntlet (in Imperial space, which I'm merely using for reference here):
Only 1 small craft (Pinnace) and the CE Close Escort are capable of 5G (and if the Close Escort is "encumbered with L-Hyd drop tanks, it's limited to 4G).
That means that a starship capable of 5G maneuver can "outrun" 12.5 of the 18 craft appearing on that list, since those 12.5 of them are limited to 4G and below (the CE is a swing role case depending on drop tanks).
This means that on the economics tradeoffs, 5G maneuver capacity is a fair compromise.
Even with 6G maneuver, you can't automatically break off by acceleration (under LBB5.80 combat rules) from an Agility=6 opponent anyway without inflicting damage upon them (which brings its own consequences), so investing in 6G maneuver is really only meaningful against Pinnaces and Close Escorts (without drop tanks) in terms of ship-to-ship combat avoidance. However, anything 4G and lower can be outmaneuvered by 5G and those are going to form the bulk of the piracy threat to any starship (not the entirety of it, but certainly the most common).
The flipside to this thinking is that small craft can be configured with 6G and modest weaponry to fly harassment and maintain contact with a high-G merchant capable of successfully breaking off by acceleration from a pirate attack. While this is indeed true, the countermeasure against this tactic (again, under LBB5.80 combat rules) is not so much "more maneuver drive" but instead a more powerful computer. With the exception of the Heavy Fighter, which effectively has a model/6 computer equivalent on board, most other small small craft commonly encountered are going to have limited computer power at their disposal (the CE Gig has a model/2 computer equivalent, most others will be model/0 equivalents). Evan a "modest" investment in more computer power than the minimum required to jump will have a remarkably positive effect on the offense/defense threat matrix against craft that can't afford to match that level of computer power.
On the offensive side, a model/4 computer is at a +4 to hit before subtracting -to hit for the opponent's computer model number.
Having a model/4 computer on your side against a model/2 computer on a harassing small craft then amounts to a -8 to be hit yourself and a -6 to hit the attacking small craft (after factoring in size modifiers and their Agility=6) when fighting a CE Gig (for example). At that point, the CE Gig probably can't score hits on your ship (need 13+ on 2D), while if your Gunner can roll 12 on 2D you could hit the CE Gig for damage using a missile ... meaning that you can (theoretically) hurt them while they can't hit you. Against other small craft with even less computer power backing up their weaponry, the ship-to-ship comparison becomes even more unfair to the harassing small craft.
So it's not just a matter of needing a "big maneuver drive" to run away from everything ... you also want to have a "big computer" so as to tilt the scales of the offense/defense balance more in your favor in a way that reduces the chances of needing expensive repairs for damage taken in ship-to-ship combat. In other words, credits spent up front on damage avoidance can indeed be credits you would have needed to spend anyway (possibly even more than once!) with a less capable (and thus cheaper to buy) starship. After all, if your entire ship is seized by pirates and confiscated/stolen from you ... how much money did you "save" by buying something (that) cheap in the first place?
My point is that when it comes to starships, you do quite literally Get What You Paid For.
If you "skimp" on security (maneuver drives, computer model, armaments, crew size, etc.) in order to be as "cheap" as possible on procurement costs, don't be surprised if your ownership of such a starship gets "taken away from you" at some point by force. If you're an "easy target" for a hostile takeover attempt, you can't claim ignorance of the risks involved every time you get overtaken and boarded. Some will claim that such hazards are "the price of doing business" while others will claim that your first mistake was going where the pirate attack occurred (so stay in the safer systems to ply your trade if you can't handle the risk involved in losing it all). However, for my Naval Architect Office commission fees ... the proper answer is "don't be an easy target" like that.
The problem with such a response is (of course) that "not being an easy target" costs credits.
Lots and lots of credits.
Construction costs go UP while revenue tonnage fraction goes DOWN with every measure involved in "pirate proofing" a starship that you want to keep.
Security "isn't free" when it comes to starship designs.
That's just the way thecookie empire crumbles.
The "trick" of course is being able to afford those extra security measures while still being able to turn a profit as you ply your business between the stars.
When you can manage it, it's a fairly Good Trick™ since it means that your ship and your crew can operate in relative safety in regions where other competing ships and crews would be at risk, pushing them out of those regions of space. Being able to operate profitably on a consistent basis in an otherwise hostile environment has certain knock on benefits in terms of clearing out competition, allowing your starship and crew to corner the market in places where others rarely want to jump.
The secret sauce to that is being small enough to be able to continue breaking even when opportunities are lean and meager, while still being large enough to really profit when opportunity comes knocking. When you're in the business of Feast or Famine as far as trading opportunities are concerned, you need to be able to survive the famines long enough to get to feast, while still being a difficult prey to bring down yourself should anyone come hunting for you.
The following two starship designs are yet another attempt to realize that elusive ideal at the low end of the technological spectrum (TL=11-12).
I'm still of the opinion that this "low end" market segment is sorely underserved, creating a fantastic opportunity for the right starship design to clean up and create markets in places that other traders have effectively abandoned in favor of more lucrative (and presumably, safer) destinations. There are a lot of underdeveloped (and thus, underserved) worlds out there, particularly along the fringes, that could really use better freighters serving them than "the local bulk carriers" (cheap 1G/2G ships) that get picked off by pirates all too easily.
The problem is ... designing starships capable of this feat.
Well ... here's my attempt to meet that challenge, while also including some Quality Of Life features into the bargain.
- 10 ton Fighter = 6G
- 20 ton Launch = 1G
- 20 ton CE's Gig = 6G
- 30 ton Slow Boat = 3G
- 30 ton Ship's Boat = 6G
- 40 ton Slow Pinnace = 2G
- 40 ton Pinnace = 5G
- 50 ton Troop Transport = 3G
- 50 ton Cutter = 4G
- 50 ton Heavy Fighter = 6G
- 95 ton Shuttle = 3G
- 100 ton Type-S Scout/Courier = 2G
- 200 ton System Defense Boat = 6G
- 300 ton Type-CE Close Escort = 5G (4G with L-Hyd drop tanks)
- 400 ton Type-P Corsair = 3G
- 400 ton Type-T Patrol Cruiser = 4G
- 800 ton Type-C Mercenary Cruiser: 3G
- 1250 tons Type-CC Colonial Cruiser: 4G
Only 1 small craft (Pinnace) and the CE Close Escort are capable of 5G (and if the Close Escort is "encumbered with L-Hyd drop tanks, it's limited to 4G).
That means that a starship capable of 5G maneuver can "outrun" 12.5 of the 18 craft appearing on that list, since those 12.5 of them are limited to 4G and below (the CE is a swing role case depending on drop tanks).
This means that on the economics tradeoffs, 5G maneuver capacity is a fair compromise.
Even with 6G maneuver, you can't automatically break off by acceleration (under LBB5.80 combat rules) from an Agility=6 opponent anyway without inflicting damage upon them (which brings its own consequences), so investing in 6G maneuver is really only meaningful against Pinnaces and Close Escorts (without drop tanks) in terms of ship-to-ship combat avoidance. However, anything 4G and lower can be outmaneuvered by 5G and those are going to form the bulk of the piracy threat to any starship (not the entirety of it, but certainly the most common).
The flipside to this thinking is that small craft can be configured with 6G and modest weaponry to fly harassment and maintain contact with a high-G merchant capable of successfully breaking off by acceleration from a pirate attack. While this is indeed true, the countermeasure against this tactic (again, under LBB5.80 combat rules) is not so much "more maneuver drive" but instead a more powerful computer. With the exception of the Heavy Fighter, which effectively has a model/6 computer equivalent on board, most other small small craft commonly encountered are going to have limited computer power at their disposal (the CE Gig has a model/2 computer equivalent, most others will be model/0 equivalents). Evan a "modest" investment in more computer power than the minimum required to jump will have a remarkably positive effect on the offense/defense threat matrix against craft that can't afford to match that level of computer power.
- Hull code: 1 through A (100-1999 tons) are -1 to be hit
- Agility=5 is -5 to be hit
- Model/4 computer is -4 to be hit
On the offensive side, a model/4 computer is at a +4 to hit before subtracting -to hit for the opponent's computer model number.
Having a model/4 computer on your side against a model/2 computer on a harassing small craft then amounts to a -8 to be hit yourself and a -6 to hit the attacking small craft (after factoring in size modifiers and their Agility=6) when fighting a CE Gig (for example). At that point, the CE Gig probably can't score hits on your ship (need 13+ on 2D), while if your Gunner can roll 12 on 2D you could hit the CE Gig for damage using a missile ... meaning that you can (theoretically) hurt them while they can't hit you. Against other small craft with even less computer power backing up their weaponry, the ship-to-ship comparison becomes even more unfair to the harassing small craft.
So it's not just a matter of needing a "big maneuver drive" to run away from everything ... you also want to have a "big computer" so as to tilt the scales of the offense/defense balance more in your favor in a way that reduces the chances of needing expensive repairs for damage taken in ship-to-ship combat. In other words, credits spent up front on damage avoidance can indeed be credits you would have needed to spend anyway (possibly even more than once!) with a less capable (and thus cheaper to buy) starship. After all, if your entire ship is seized by pirates and confiscated/stolen from you ... how much money did you "save" by buying something (that) cheap in the first place?
My point is that when it comes to starships, you do quite literally Get What You Paid For.
If you "skimp" on security (maneuver drives, computer model, armaments, crew size, etc.) in order to be as "cheap" as possible on procurement costs, don't be surprised if your ownership of such a starship gets "taken away from you" at some point by force. If you're an "easy target" for a hostile takeover attempt, you can't claim ignorance of the risks involved every time you get overtaken and boarded. Some will claim that such hazards are "the price of doing business" while others will claim that your first mistake was going where the pirate attack occurred (so stay in the safer systems to ply your trade if you can't handle the risk involved in losing it all). However, for my Naval Architect Office commission fees ... the proper answer is "don't be an easy target" like that.
The problem with such a response is (of course) that "not being an easy target" costs credits.
Lots and lots of credits.
Construction costs go UP while revenue tonnage fraction goes DOWN with every measure involved in "pirate proofing" a starship that you want to keep.
Security "isn't free" when it comes to starship designs.
That's just the way the
The "trick" of course is being able to afford those extra security measures while still being able to turn a profit as you ply your business between the stars.
When you can manage it, it's a fairly Good Trick™ since it means that your ship and your crew can operate in relative safety in regions where other competing ships and crews would be at risk, pushing them out of those regions of space. Being able to operate profitably on a consistent basis in an otherwise hostile environment has certain knock on benefits in terms of clearing out competition, allowing your starship and crew to corner the market in places where others rarely want to jump.
The secret sauce to that is being small enough to be able to continue breaking even when opportunities are lean and meager, while still being large enough to really profit when opportunity comes knocking. When you're in the business of Feast or Famine as far as trading opportunities are concerned, you need to be able to survive the famines long enough to get to feast, while still being a difficult prey to bring down yourself should anyone come hunting for you.
The following two starship designs are yet another attempt to realize that elusive ideal at the low end of the technological spectrum (TL=11-12).
I'm still of the opinion that this "low end" market segment is sorely underserved, creating a fantastic opportunity for the right starship design to clean up and create markets in places that other traders have effectively abandoned in favor of more lucrative (and presumably, safer) destinations. There are a lot of underdeveloped (and thus, underserved) worlds out there, particularly along the fringes, that could really use better freighters serving them than "the local bulk carriers" (cheap 1G/2G ships) that get picked off by pirates all too easily.
The problem is ... designing starships capable of this feat.
Well ... here's my attempt to meet that challenge, while also including some Quality Of Life features into the bargain.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Modular Courier
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=11 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-2 (9 tons, MCr36, Capacitor storage: 3 tons = 108 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 9+42+45=96 tons
Fuel: 75 tons (2 parsecs = 60 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (7 tons, MCr0.034) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 67 tons (5 tons mail vault, 2 tons incidental cargo, 2x 30 ton modular cutter module berths)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
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):
Jump-2 cargo capacity: 67 tons maximum
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=11 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-2 (9 tons, MCr36, Capacitor storage: 3 tons = 108 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 9+42+45=96 tons
Fuel: 75 tons (2 parsecs = 60 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (7 tons, MCr0.034) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
- 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
- 1 Pulse Laser (code: 1)
- 1 Missile (code: 1)
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
- Pilot-1
- Navigator-1
- Engineering-2 (chief)
- Engineering-1
- Engineering-1
- Steward-1
- Medic-2
- Gunnery-1
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 67 tons (5 tons mail vault, 2 tons incidental cargo, 2x 30 ton modular cutter module berths)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Code:
Modular Courier XP-3235541-030000-10001-0 MCr210.5552 300 tons
batteries bearing 1 1 1 TL=11.
batteries 1 1 1 Crew=8.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=67. Fuel=75. EP=15. Agility=4. FPP. PL.
Jump-1, Maneuver-4 @ up to 381 tons total (+81 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-3 @ up to 450 tons total (+150 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-3 @ up to 525 tons total (+225 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-2 @ up to 840 tons total (+540 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-1 @ up to 2100 tons total (+1800 tons external)Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
- Total Cost: MCr263.194
- 20% Down Payment: MCr52.6388
- Architect Fees: MCr2.63194
- Construction Time: 56 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr263,194 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Total Cost: MCr210.5552
- 20% Down Payment: MCr42.11104
- Construction Time: 45 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr210,556 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Life Support: Cr0 due to regenerative life support workshop+laboratory
- Minimum Crew Salaries: Cr15,000 per 2 weeks (LBB2.81, p8)
- 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 (Cr300 per hour), minimum 12 hours (Cr3600) (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 + 15,000*(26/25) + (263,194/25) = Cr26,228
- Paid off revenue: 2,000 + 25,000 = Cr27,000 = 2 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr772 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (28,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr26,500 revenue = 28 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr272 profit
- Overhead costs: 0 + 100 + 15,000*(26/25) + (210,556/25) = Cr24,123
- Paid off revenue: 0 + 25,000 = Cr25,000 = 0 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr817 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (24,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr25,500 = 24 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr317 profit
- Cr5,263,880 per year (Cr210,556 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are sufficient to recoup the base cost of volume construction costs over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
- Cr12,633,612 per year (Cr505,333 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are required to pay off bank loan financing over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
Jump-2 cargo capacity: 67 tons maximum
- 5 tons mail vault
- 2 tons incidental cargo internal
- 2x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
- 5 tons mail vault
- 2 tons incidental cargo internal
- 2x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
- 5x 30 tons modular cargo modules external
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Modular Courier
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=12 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-3 (12 tons, MCr48, Capacitor storage: 4.5 tons = 162 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 12+42+45=99 tons
Fuel: 105 tons (3 parsecs = 90 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (6 tons, MCr0.032) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 35 tons (5 tons mail vault, 1x 30 ton modular cutter module berth)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
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):
Jump-3 cargo capacity: 35 tons maximum
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=12 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-3 (12 tons, MCr48, Capacitor storage: 4.5 tons = 162 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 12+42+45=99 tons
Fuel: 105 tons (3 parsecs = 90 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (6 tons, MCr0.032) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
- 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
- 1 Pulse Laser (code: 1)
- 1 Missile (code: 1)
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
- Pilot-1
- Navigator-1
- Engineering-2 (chief)
- Engineering-1
- Engineering-1
- Steward-1
- Medic-2
- Gunnery-1
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 35 tons (5 tons mail vault, 1x 30 ton modular cutter module berth)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Code:
Modular Courier XP-3235541-030000-10001-0 MCr220.1536 300 tons
batteries bearing 1 1 1 TL=12.
batteries 1 1 1 Crew=8.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=35. Fuel=105. EP=15. Agility=4. FPP. PL.
Jump-2, Maneuver-4 @ up to 381 tons total (+81 tons external)
Jump-2, Maneuver-3 @ up to 400 tons total (+100 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-3 @ up to 525 tons total (+225 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-2 @ up to 600 tons total (+300 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-2 @ up to 840 tons total (+540 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-1 @ up to 2100 tons total (+1800 tons external)Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
- Total Cost: MCr275.192
- 20% Down Payment: MCr55.0384
- Architect Fees: MCr2.75192
- Construction Time: 56 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr275,192 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Total Cost: MCr220.1536
- 20% Down Payment: MCr44.03072
- Construction Time: 45 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr220,154 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Life Support: Cr0 due to regenerative life support workshop+laboratory
- Minimum Crew Salaries: Cr15,000 per 2 weeks (LBB2.81, p8)
- 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 (Cr300 per hour), minimum 12 hours (Cr3600) (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 + 15,000*(26/25) + (275,192/25) = Cr26,708
- Paid off revenue: 2,000 + 25,000 = Cr27,000 = 2 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr292 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (29,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr27,000 revenue = 29 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr292 profit
- Overhead costs: 0 + 100 + 15,000*(26/25) + (220,154/25) = Cr24,507
- Paid off revenue: 0 + 25,000 = Cr25,000 = 0 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr493 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (25,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr25,000 = 25 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr493 profit
- Cr5,503,840 per year (Cr220,154 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are sufficient to recoup the base cost of volume construction costs over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
- Cr13,209,216 per year (Cr528,369 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are required to pay off bank loan financing over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
Jump-3 cargo capacity: 35 tons maximum
- 5 tons mail vault
- 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
- 5 tons mail vault
- 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
- 3x 30 tons modular cargo modules external
- 5 tons mail vault
- 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
- 10x 30 tons modular cargo modules external
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
So, the first thing I'm sure people are noticing is ... that's not a whole lot of weaponry (Sand, Pulse Laser, Missile in a single turret) built into this design.
There's only a single hardpoint, when a 300 ton starship could have 3 hardpoints.
This is true ... but that line of thinking is also a trap.
Don't feel bad, it's one that I've fallen into plenty of times before.
Since internal tonnage is at such a premium in this design (only 35-37 tons left over for cargo out of a 300 ton starship!) the question of adding more turrets and more weaponry needs to be looked at in terms of tradeoffs. What needs to be given up in order to add more weapons and what are you getting in return for that tradeoff? This is something that can be quantified during the starship design process.
In terms of ton for ton/EP for EP ... it would certainly be possible to exchange the model/4 computer for a model/2 or 2bis and turn around and spend those 2 tons of savings on fire control for another couple of triple turrets. That would then allow triple sand (code: 4), triple pulse laser (code: 2) or triple beam laser (code: 3), and triple missile (code: 2) turrets to be installed instead. Total EP cost would still be EP=3, so no change in overall agility and the overall price of the starship would come way down (MCr27 to MCr36 reduction on computer, add MCr2.6 per extra turret) ... so what's the problem?
Well, there's two problems ... basically.
The first is that reducing a computer model by -2 to gain a +1 code factor is self defeating in terms of offense/defense throughput under LBB5.80 combat rules. You're trading a -2 to be hit yourself and a +2 to hit your attackers for a +1 code factor that only makes a difference on the lasers and sandcasters, not on the missiles (code:1-2 use the same to hit threshold under LBB5.80). You lose more than you gain by making this choice ... essentially.
The second is that by adding extra turrets you add a need for extra Gunners to the crew. That means you need more tonnage to accommodate those extra Gunners (1 per turret under LBB2.81 crew rules). So you don't just need 1 ton for fire control for each extra turret, you also need 2 tons for starship cabins to house those extra Gunners ... which if you're adding 2 turrets is 4 tons that aren't just lying around somewhere tied up in an air/raft (that you "don't need").
In other words, as a simple matter of "throughput" inside the LBB5.80 combat rules, it's "better" to have fewer weapons backed by a more powerful computer than it is to have more weapons backed by a less powerful computer.
Besides, at Long Range (where all combat starts using LBB5.80) you're better off declaring use of Emergency Agility=5 (if not externally loaded) at the start of a ship-to-ship combat for defensive purposes and relying on your missile attack and sandcaster defense backed by a more powerful computer to be a bigger threat to any would be attacker while attempting to Break Off By Acceleration so as to limit your exposure to combat. It's the difference between single shot sniping from defensive cover versus spray and pray while making yourself an easy target as a preferred engagement strategy.
Additionally, the solo triple turret certainly LOOKS non-threatening (both on sensors and when viewed through game mechanics) for most ships in a LBB5.80 context, partly because the offensive code factor: 1 on the laser and missile will only inflict automatic critical hits on small craft (that fail to get the message). Critical hits can quickly result in "mission kills" for most attacking craft, but they also can seriously harm any potential salvage potential that a (shall we say, less than scrupulous) operator might want to recover from a disabled attacker. The point that I'm getting at here is that "non-lethal" weaponry like I've installed here has its place when there is enough computer power behind it to make those "non-lethal" hits still good enough to disable an attacker. When they can't hit you, but you can hit them, you don't need overwhelming force in order to decide a battle (and overwhelming force could reduce your profit potential in salvage after the battle is finished, if you catch my drift).
Ton for ton, better computers are more valuable and arguably more effective than simply adding more weapons ... until you hit the limit of what computer you can have at your tech level. The downside to such an approach is that ton for ton computers are more EXPENSIVE than more weapons (and crew) in terms of construction costs, so ... pick your poison I guess.
Which then brings up the question ... why have a laser at all (and why a pulse laser)?
Why not just use a triple missile turret and ditch the sandcaster and laser entirely?
Well, two reasons (okay, two and a half).
The first reason is that sandcasters are actually moderately effective when combined with a "useful" quantity of relative computer in your favor under LBB5.80 combat rules. This means that against lower computer power opposition, the sandcaster becomes a somewhat effective defensive option. Spending MCr0.25 on a sandcaster that saves your ship from needing to be laid up in a starport for repairs (that could get expensive!) is a fairly decent tradeoff. It also helps to cut down the number of "lucky hits" that your Pilot might not be able to evade.
The second reason is that lasers are offensive and defensive weapons (defensive in the anti-missile role) and when facing off against an opponent where you have them so heavily outclassed in agility+computer that it's somewhat impossible for your opponent to hit you, you can afford to NOT use Emergency Agility, power up the laser and bring some extra firepower to the engagement without sacrificing your near invulnerable "can't touch this" evasive capacity.
The extra half reason is ... prospecting and mining.
One of the possible use role cases for these ships is to use them as workhorse Belters. Load them up with modular cutter modules to support the expedition and off you go. With powerful 5G maneuver drives capable of hauling up to 1800 tons of external load at 1G ... prospecting, salvage, underway resupply and even search & rescue operations can be possible mission roles simply by swapping out the modular cutter modules for the task at hand.
But for prospecting and mining, you need a Mining Laser for controlled precision mining work ... and the best option there is the Koenig Mk 4 AL-AM adaptor kit that allows the crew of a ship to install a laser attenuation unit in a turret mounted pulse laser. This conversion gives the crew the ability to rapidly change from a mining laser to a pulse laser and back again.
So ... pulse laser as standard equipment, along with a sandcaster, is more useful in more situations than having a triple missile turret to fight other ships, boats and small craft with.
There's only a single hardpoint, when a 300 ton starship could have 3 hardpoints.
This is true ... but that line of thinking is also a trap.
Don't feel bad, it's one that I've fallen into plenty of times before.
Since internal tonnage is at such a premium in this design (only 35-37 tons left over for cargo out of a 300 ton starship!) the question of adding more turrets and more weaponry needs to be looked at in terms of tradeoffs. What needs to be given up in order to add more weapons and what are you getting in return for that tradeoff? This is something that can be quantified during the starship design process.
In terms of ton for ton/EP for EP ... it would certainly be possible to exchange the model/4 computer for a model/2 or 2bis and turn around and spend those 2 tons of savings on fire control for another couple of triple turrets. That would then allow triple sand (code: 4), triple pulse laser (code: 2) or triple beam laser (code: 3), and triple missile (code: 2) turrets to be installed instead. Total EP cost would still be EP=3, so no change in overall agility and the overall price of the starship would come way down (MCr27 to MCr36 reduction on computer, add MCr2.6 per extra turret) ... so what's the problem?
Well, there's two problems ... basically.
The first is that reducing a computer model by -2 to gain a +1 code factor is self defeating in terms of offense/defense throughput under LBB5.80 combat rules. You're trading a -2 to be hit yourself and a +2 to hit your attackers for a +1 code factor that only makes a difference on the lasers and sandcasters, not on the missiles (code:1-2 use the same to hit threshold under LBB5.80). You lose more than you gain by making this choice ... essentially.
The second is that by adding extra turrets you add a need for extra Gunners to the crew. That means you need more tonnage to accommodate those extra Gunners (1 per turret under LBB2.81 crew rules). So you don't just need 1 ton for fire control for each extra turret, you also need 2 tons for starship cabins to house those extra Gunners ... which if you're adding 2 turrets is 4 tons that aren't just lying around somewhere tied up in an air/raft (that you "don't need").
In other words, as a simple matter of "throughput" inside the LBB5.80 combat rules, it's "better" to have fewer weapons backed by a more powerful computer than it is to have more weapons backed by a less powerful computer.
Besides, at Long Range (where all combat starts using LBB5.80) you're better off declaring use of Emergency Agility=5 (if not externally loaded) at the start of a ship-to-ship combat for defensive purposes and relying on your missile attack and sandcaster defense backed by a more powerful computer to be a bigger threat to any would be attacker while attempting to Break Off By Acceleration so as to limit your exposure to combat. It's the difference between single shot sniping from defensive cover versus spray and pray while making yourself an easy target as a preferred engagement strategy.
Additionally, the solo triple turret certainly LOOKS non-threatening (both on sensors and when viewed through game mechanics) for most ships in a LBB5.80 context, partly because the offensive code factor: 1 on the laser and missile will only inflict automatic critical hits on small craft (that fail to get the message). Critical hits can quickly result in "mission kills" for most attacking craft, but they also can seriously harm any potential salvage potential that a (shall we say, less than scrupulous) operator might want to recover from a disabled attacker. The point that I'm getting at here is that "non-lethal" weaponry like I've installed here has its place when there is enough computer power behind it to make those "non-lethal" hits still good enough to disable an attacker. When they can't hit you, but you can hit them, you don't need overwhelming force in order to decide a battle (and overwhelming force could reduce your profit potential in salvage after the battle is finished, if you catch my drift).
Ton for ton, better computers are more valuable and arguably more effective than simply adding more weapons ... until you hit the limit of what computer you can have at your tech level. The downside to such an approach is that ton for ton computers are more EXPENSIVE than more weapons (and crew) in terms of construction costs, so ... pick your poison I guess.
Which then brings up the question ... why have a laser at all (and why a pulse laser)?
Why not just use a triple missile turret and ditch the sandcaster and laser entirely?
Well, two reasons (okay, two and a half).
The first reason is that sandcasters are actually moderately effective when combined with a "useful" quantity of relative computer in your favor under LBB5.80 combat rules. This means that against lower computer power opposition, the sandcaster becomes a somewhat effective defensive option. Spending MCr0.25 on a sandcaster that saves your ship from needing to be laid up in a starport for repairs (that could get expensive!) is a fairly decent tradeoff. It also helps to cut down the number of "lucky hits" that your Pilot might not be able to evade.
The second reason is that lasers are offensive and defensive weapons (defensive in the anti-missile role) and when facing off against an opponent where you have them so heavily outclassed in agility+computer that it's somewhat impossible for your opponent to hit you, you can afford to NOT use Emergency Agility, power up the laser and bring some extra firepower to the engagement without sacrificing your near invulnerable "can't touch this" evasive capacity.
The extra half reason is ... prospecting and mining.
One of the possible use role cases for these ships is to use them as workhorse Belters. Load them up with modular cutter modules to support the expedition and off you go. With powerful 5G maneuver drives capable of hauling up to 1800 tons of external load at 1G ... prospecting, salvage, underway resupply and even search & rescue operations can be possible mission roles simply by swapping out the modular cutter modules for the task at hand.
But for prospecting and mining, you need a Mining Laser for controlled precision mining work ... and the best option there is the Koenig Mk 4 AL-AM adaptor kit that allows the crew of a ship to install a laser attenuation unit in a turret mounted pulse laser. This conversion gives the crew the ability to rapidly change from a mining laser to a pulse laser and back again.
So ... pulse laser as standard equipment, along with a sandcaster, is more useful in more situations than having a triple missile turret to fight other ships, boats and small craft with.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The next thing that I'm sure some people are going to pick up on is ... what's up with that crew roster?
Why is there a Steward onboard when there are no passengers?
Why is there a Medic-2 required instead of only Medic-1 skill needed ... and why is the Medic classified as an "officer" who gets a 4 ton stateroom instead of a 2 ton cabin?
Well, the answer to all of those questions involve the next two items in the design plans ...
Basically, these ships feature more of a closed cycle life support system that is more akin to Environmental Control Type V-c standards (using CT context design parameters), so this is where some generous House Ruling comes into play, since I'm borrowing ideas from Fire, Fusion & Steel via the wiki page (linked) for the notion of how to represent this in CT.
The Workshop: Regenerative Life Support Recycling would function as Environmental Control Type V-a on its own:
According to CT Beltstrike, p 3 ... extra reserve life support consumables (not just food and water but also scrubbers, filters, life support spares ... the lot) require 1 ton of displacement per 150 person/weeks of additional life support endurance. For our intents and purposes, assuming that a crew leaves the ship for 2 weeks every year while annual overhaul maintenance is being done, that means that 1 ton of "extra life support" is sufficient to supply 1 person for 3 years (or 3 people for 1 year) ... at a cost of Cr150,000 per ton. Note that Cr150,000 for 150 person/weeks is exactly equivalent to the standard stateroom life support cost of Cr 2000 per 2 weeks for 1 person (or Cr1000 per person/week). So the Beltstrike pricing is functionally equivalent to stateroom life support costs per person/weeks, the rules simply specify how much tonnage is involved. The implication being that the "standard 2 weeks" of stateroom life support requires (2/150=0.0133) tons of displacement per person, which is a small enough quantity for CT to handwave it as not being worth keeping track of (and even if doubled for double occupancy is still less than 0.03 tons per 4 ton stateroom, so still trivial).
Between the Workshop and the Laboratory (both 4 tons each), that's the equivalent of 8 tons of "reserve life support capacity" (more or less) with a demand load of 8 persons aboard. In other words, if that same tonnage allocation were devoted purely towards a Beltstrike styled life support consumables reserve, there would be enough life support capacity to sustain a crew of 8 for 3 years before needing to resupply ... which then suggests it's possible to build ships for long duration exploratory missions (annual overhaul requirements notwithstanding).
I then take that understanding of tonnage equivalency to endurance spent and figure the following:
Basically, to have a higher quality of Environmental Control, more tonnage needs to be devoted to Workshop+Laboratory spaces per person being supported ... AND ... the minimum endurance for the systems needs to be 50 weeks (basically 1 year) per person, so it can be recharged/rebalanced/maintained as part of the annual overhaul that (should) happen every year to keep the whole thing cycling properly. The precise "mix" of Workshop+Laboratory doesn't need to be anything specific, I'm just figuring that BOTH are needed to "complete the cycle" of a regenerative life support system (and I'm leaning on the Hummingbird precedent here for that understanding, even though it's a MgT2 design rather than CT).
Requiring BOTH a Workshop AND and Laboratory (4 tons each, minimum, MCr0.5 each just like a stateroom), converting their combined tonnage into a total of person/weeks (8*150=1200) and then dividing that total by the number of crew (1200/8=150) and then dividing that again by 1/2/3/5/7 until reaching a minimum of 50 weeks in order to determine which "class" of Type V-* Environmental Control that represents (3=V-c) given the population it needs to support (8) seems like a self-balancing solution to me since it scales up and scales down somewhat seamlessly. If using Workshop(s) only with no Laboratory, Environmental Control is limited to Type V-a ... so a Laboratory: Biome is also required in order to reach Type V-b and above. That combination helps make it difficult for smaller starships to find leftover tonnage for this purpose (they don't have the displacement to spare).
Personally, I would also stipulate that a Fuel Purification Plant also be required for processing unrefined fuel, since some of the byproducts of the life support waste cycle (not all, but some) could be usefully processed/treated through the fuel purification plant for sorting and precipitation by elements and compounds (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, sodium, methane, etc.) before being returned to the life support system as elemental and molecular feedstocks for chemical recombination and reuse. In other words, if a fuel purification plant is installed it can be used as a supplementary adjunct to help treat life support cycle waste for reuse (I mean, if the system is there, why waste it?) when it isn't busy processing unrefined fuel (which isn't a full time job anyway). Waste oxygen from refining scooped water for fuel could be cycled into the life support system to replace losses, for example.
Ah ... but that still doesn't explain the additional crew requirements ... I hear you cry.
Don't worry, I'm getting there.
The reason for Medic-2 being the minimum instead of Medic-1 is because of the regenerative life support system workship+laboratory setup. A higher Medic skill is required to ensure that the symbiotic relationship between the crew and the biome supported aboard the ship doesn't fall out of balance. The precedent I look to for this assumption is the +1DM to survival when resuscitating a low berth occupant, which requires a skill threshold of Medic-2 skill.
So my reasoning here is that a Medic-2 skill is the minimum for a regenerative life support system in order to maintain Health & Wellness of the crew as a matter of training and expertise needed.
Which then leads to the Steward.
The Steward is there as the "other part" of sustaining the regenerative life support system balance ... namely, you need a Good Cook™ to make it all worthwhile (and it's even better if they're a Foodie, especially if they're skilled at it). The Steward coordinates with the Medic to keep the nutritional balance of the meals sourced from the regenerative life support system both appetizing and well balanced. The Steward takes care of the "crew morale" and psychological aspects of the system in a "people person" kind of way that no amount of Bedside Manner from a Medic can properly match.
In addition to being the Ship's Cook and preparing meals for everyone (including the Steward themself) the Steward also performs "housekeeping" duties aboard ship as if every member of the crew were a High Passenger, raising the quality of life and standard of living for everyone aboard, improving crew morale. This in turn allows the crew to more actively focus on their own respective roles, freeing them from some of the mundane tasks of maintaining a starship.
Usually you don't see Service Crew assignments until starships get to be over 1000 tons (LBB5.80, p33) ... but in this case it "just felt right" for Quality of Life reasons to include one here, even though as designed there are no passengers aboard who would require the services of a Steward.
Why is there a Steward onboard when there are no passengers?
Why is there a Medic-2 required instead of only Medic-1 skill needed ... and why is the Medic classified as an "officer" who gets a 4 ton stateroom instead of a 2 ton cabin?
Well, the answer to all of those questions involve the next two items in the design plans ...
- Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
- Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Basically, these ships feature more of a closed cycle life support system that is more akin to Environmental Control Type V-c standards (using CT context design parameters), so this is where some generous House Ruling comes into play, since I'm borrowing ideas from Fire, Fusion & Steel via the wiki page (linked) for the notion of how to represent this in CT.
The Workshop: Regenerative Life Support Recycling would function as Environmental Control Type V-a on its own:
However, in order to reach Environmental Control Type V-b, a Laboratory: Regenerative Life Support Biome needs to be added as well (I'm thinking):
Now, this is where things start getting interesting, because the next step up in the (environmental food) chain is Environmental Control Type V-c:
And this is where the increased Medic skill requirement and the Steward (who otherwise wouldn't need to be there, usually) comes into the picture ... and why the Medic-2 skill posting is an officer aboard. But first, a couple additional points of consideration for comparison and context.
According to CT Beltstrike, p 3 ... extra reserve life support consumables (not just food and water but also scrubbers, filters, life support spares ... the lot) require 1 ton of displacement per 150 person/weeks of additional life support endurance. For our intents and purposes, assuming that a crew leaves the ship for 2 weeks every year while annual overhaul maintenance is being done, that means that 1 ton of "extra life support" is sufficient to supply 1 person for 3 years (or 3 people for 1 year) ... at a cost of Cr150,000 per ton. Note that Cr150,000 for 150 person/weeks is exactly equivalent to the standard stateroom life support cost of Cr 2000 per 2 weeks for 1 person (or Cr1000 per person/week). So the Beltstrike pricing is functionally equivalent to stateroom life support costs per person/weeks, the rules simply specify how much tonnage is involved. The implication being that the "standard 2 weeks" of stateroom life support requires (2/150=0.0133) tons of displacement per person, which is a small enough quantity for CT to handwave it as not being worth keeping track of (and even if doubled for double occupancy is still less than 0.03 tons per 4 ton stateroom, so still trivial).
Between the Workshop and the Laboratory (both 4 tons each), that's the equivalent of 8 tons of "reserve life support capacity" (more or less) with a demand load of 8 persons aboard. In other words, if that same tonnage allocation were devoted purely towards a Beltstrike styled life support consumables reserve, there would be enough life support capacity to sustain a crew of 8 for 3 years before needing to resupply ... which then suggests it's possible to build ships for long duration exploratory missions (annual overhaul requirements notwithstanding).
I then take that understanding of tonnage equivalency to endurance spent and figure the following:
- 3 years endurance for Type V-a Environmental Control (divide by 1)
- 1.5 years endurance for Type V-b Environmental Control (divide by 2)
- 1 year endurance for Type V-c Environmental Control (divide by 3)
Basically, to have a higher quality of Environmental Control, more tonnage needs to be devoted to Workshop+Laboratory spaces per person being supported ... AND ... the minimum endurance for the systems needs to be 50 weeks (basically 1 year) per person, so it can be recharged/rebalanced/maintained as part of the annual overhaul that (should) happen every year to keep the whole thing cycling properly. The precise "mix" of Workshop+Laboratory doesn't need to be anything specific, I'm just figuring that BOTH are needed to "complete the cycle" of a regenerative life support system (and I'm leaning on the Hummingbird precedent here for that understanding, even though it's a MgT2 design rather than CT).
Requiring BOTH a Workshop AND and Laboratory (4 tons each, minimum, MCr0.5 each just like a stateroom), converting their combined tonnage into a total of person/weeks (8*150=1200) and then dividing that total by the number of crew (1200/8=150) and then dividing that again by 1/2/3/5/7 until reaching a minimum of 50 weeks in order to determine which "class" of Type V-* Environmental Control that represents (3=V-c) given the population it needs to support (8) seems like a self-balancing solution to me since it scales up and scales down somewhat seamlessly. If using Workshop(s) only with no Laboratory, Environmental Control is limited to Type V-a ... so a Laboratory: Biome is also required in order to reach Type V-b and above. That combination helps make it difficult for smaller starships to find leftover tonnage for this purpose (they don't have the displacement to spare).
Personally, I would also stipulate that a Fuel Purification Plant also be required for processing unrefined fuel, since some of the byproducts of the life support waste cycle (not all, but some) could be usefully processed/treated through the fuel purification plant for sorting and precipitation by elements and compounds (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, sodium, methane, etc.) before being returned to the life support system as elemental and molecular feedstocks for chemical recombination and reuse. In other words, if a fuel purification plant is installed it can be used as a supplementary adjunct to help treat life support cycle waste for reuse (I mean, if the system is there, why waste it?) when it isn't busy processing unrefined fuel (which isn't a full time job anyway). Waste oxygen from refining scooped water for fuel could be cycled into the life support system to replace losses, for example.
Ah ... but that still doesn't explain the additional crew requirements ... I hear you cry.
Don't worry, I'm getting there.
The reason for Medic-2 being the minimum instead of Medic-1 is because of the regenerative life support system workship+laboratory setup. A higher Medic skill is required to ensure that the symbiotic relationship between the crew and the biome supported aboard the ship doesn't fall out of balance. The precedent I look to for this assumption is the +1DM to survival when resuscitating a low berth occupant, which requires a skill threshold of Medic-2 skill.
So my reasoning here is that a Medic-2 skill is the minimum for a regenerative life support system in order to maintain Health & Wellness of the crew as a matter of training and expertise needed.
Which then leads to the Steward.
The Steward is there as the "other part" of sustaining the regenerative life support system balance ... namely, you need a Good Cook™ to make it all worthwhile (and it's even better if they're a Foodie, especially if they're skilled at it). The Steward coordinates with the Medic to keep the nutritional balance of the meals sourced from the regenerative life support system both appetizing and well balanced. The Steward takes care of the "crew morale" and psychological aspects of the system in a "people person" kind of way that no amount of Bedside Manner from a Medic can properly match.
In addition to being the Ship's Cook and preparing meals for everyone (including the Steward themself) the Steward also performs "housekeeping" duties aboard ship as if every member of the crew were a High Passenger, raising the quality of life and standard of living for everyone aboard, improving crew morale. This in turn allows the crew to more actively focus on their own respective roles, freeing them from some of the mundane tasks of maintaining a starship.
Usually you don't see Service Crew assignments until starships get to be over 1000 tons (LBB5.80, p33) ... but in this case it "just felt right" for Quality of Life reasons to include one here, even though as designed there are no passengers aboard who would require the services of a Steward.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Just in case anyone doesn't like the idea of having a regenerative life support system onboard like I've outlined above, or disagree with the reasoning and rationales I've used to extend CT in this direction … there is a way to "revert" the ship designs back to an open cycle life support model that requires Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person.
Reverting back to a more "pure" CT design that does not incorporate such ideas needs only 28 tons of displacement to be spent on crew accommodations and life support for 7 crew. You wind up with a spare 2 ton Cabin that doesn't need to be occupied (unless you move the one Gunner into it to free up a stateroom) but the overall construction price of the ships detailed remains completely unchanged. That's because on a ton for ton basis, the prices for Staterooms, Cabins, Workshops and Laboratories are exactly the same per ton (MCr0.5 per 4 tons).
So if the regenerative life support system offends your sensibilities as a Referee of Classic Traveller ... there is a way around that "problem" that doesn't disrupt the overall starship design. At worst, you wind up with 2 tons left over to put in the cargo bay and a MCr0.25 price reduction on single ships (and a slightly different architect's fee price). A relatively easy "fix" if that's your inclination for YTU play.
However, such a reversion is going to have some rather interesting side effects on the profitability margin of the ship designs in actual operations.
The biggest factor is the fact that life support at Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person is relatively expensive.
For 8 people, that's Cr16,000 per jump or the equivalent of raising the break even overhead cost by another +16 tons of cargo per jump if the ship isn't under subsidy.
Under subsidy, it raises the break even overhead point by an additional +32 tons of cargo per jump.
If you remove the Steward from the crew, that's still Cr14,000 per 2 weeks, or +14 tons of cargo unsubsidized versus +28 tons of cargo per jump under subsidy just to break even. That starts getting "expensive" in terms of the actual internal cargo capacities of both designs (67 tons @ J2, or 35 tons @ J3, with 5 of those tons hopefully dedicated towards a mail vault for "revenue dense" mail contracts).
So just purely in terms of cost comparison ... what is the price of paying for life support consumables every 2 weeks 25 times a year?
Well, for 7 people, it's Cr14,000*25=Cr350,000 per year.
For 8 people, it's Cr16,000*25=Cr400,000 per year.
After 40 years, that's a total of MCr14 for 7 people ... or MCr16 for 8 people.
And that's just life support ... crew salaries are extra on top of that!
Okay ... but what about this regenerative life support system I've outlined. What does that cost?
Well, the one I've built for these ships costs ... MCr1 at the time of construction for the workshop+laboratory.
Annual overhaul maintenance on the workshop+laboratory combination will cost ... MCr0.001 per year.
So over 40 years, that regenerative life support system will cost MCr1.04 just for the engineering ... crew salaries are extra on top of that.
THAT was the deciding factor for me in this instance.
The economics, by which I mean credit costs on the balance sheet, of supporting an open loop life support system wound up being 13.5-15.4x the life cycle cost of a closed loop life support system when viewed over the totality of a ship's 40 year expected operational lifespan.
It's kind of like the difference that a fuel purification plant can make in a starship's profitability margins. There's an upfront cost in tonnage and credits to install the system, but the cost avoidance factor for installing one essentially "pays for itself" within only a few jumps, after which it's all upside and profit from then on. Same deal with the regenerative life support idea here. Sure it "costs more" up front in terms of tonnage and crew requirements the way I'm implementing the idea here, but the cost avoidance factor with the regenerative life support setup I've outlined means that the system basically "pays for itself" within 3 years, after which it's all upside and profit from then on (for the next 37 years).
That kind of cost avoidance then makes it a LOT easier for the per jump economics and operational break even points to make a lot more sense given the limited internal cargo capacity of both designs. Going to the trouble of balancing a regenerative life support system for a crew of 8 in a way that actually improves both the bottom line on the balance sheet ledgers AND the quality of life experience for crews on board these ships is something that I would consider a win-win-win.
As starship designers, we often times try to pile on the workload of manning the ships we design onto as few people as possible in order to maximize the tonnage fraction available to other systems (drives, computers, weapons, defenses, fuel, cargo, etc.). I'm certainly guilty of it myself, thinking that so long as "the rules allow it" that must make it okay. Crew are "low density wasted tonnage and expenses" a lot of the time, so there is every incentive to load them up with as much work as they can bear. After all, it makes the ships we design "more efficient" in their allocation of tonnage within them.
But then when you start looking beyond the spreadsheet of requirements and the blueprints for the deck plans and you start asking yourself ... where are the people with the skills needed to do this going to come from? I know that I've scoured LBB1.81, LBB4, LBB5.80, LBB6, LBB7 and even LBB S4 for even notional ideas as to what sorts of careers make it possible to have the Skill-2/Skill-2 combos needed for dual role crew ... and in a lot of cases, if you're using the career systems in character generation faithfully, it's going to be exceptionally hard to come up with a lot of those Skill-2/Skill-2 combinations we would like to have available to us as starship designers. Recruiting people with THOSE specific skill combinations can wind up being an unreasonable challenge. Sometimes, the combination of skills is nearly impossible to get from the career paths available in LBB4, LBB5.80, LBB6 and LBB7 due to how career rolls and skills get so segregated within them.
At that point you start thinking in terms of recruiting and the chore of headhunting and how difficult it would be to be able to "staff up" some of the most highly compacted crew rosters where everyone is filling two roles aboard ship.
And then you start wondering what the quality of life aboard would be like ... basically working the equivalent of two jobs for long hours every day. Sure, with enough skill in both roles you can do it (Skill-2/Skill-2) ... but that doesn't necessarily imply that such working conditions would be pleasant, or even that you would be getting paid more than if you were given only a single role to fill.
Best example of this dual skill for less pay phenomenon that I can think of is Pilot/Gunner (which male Aslan tend to get shoehorned into as it turns out).
And then you get paid 75% of that because you're filling 2 roles (per LBB2.81 p16).
Cr7700*0.75=Cr5775 per month
So basically, if you were "just a Pilot-2" you could command a salary of Cr6600 per month, but because you're a Pilot-2/Gunner-2 filling two roles (and pulling double duty?) you get paid less than a single role Pilot-1.
Sounds great for the bean counters back at the accounting office(!), but it's pretty lousy for you that you get paid less for higher skill levels while pulling double duty.
Certainly feels like a Quality Of Life downgrade to me.
I'm similarly hard pressed to think of anyone who would willingly seek out such employment under those conditions.
Some combinations make sense, such as Pilot/Navigator (except for Aslan with their gender differentiation on skills) for example, while others do not, especially with the random opportunities that result from character generation through various careers.
So although crew morale and well being and quality of life aboard ships isn't something that CT puts much effort at all into, since CT simply outlines the requirements and stops there, I would like to think that with just a little bit of extra thought and attention (and a whole lot of word count!) it is possible to design starships and crew requirements that feel like they would be the kind of places that people would actually WANT to live and work in, rather than simply being somewhere they HAVE TO live and work in (because that's their job role and somebody's got to do it).
I would like to think that living aboard a Modular Courier that features actual fresh biome air and water daily along with freshly grown food that is prepared by a Foodie who knows their stuff and can make delicious fresh cooked meals every day(!) with what's available ... I would like to think that would be the kind of thing to inspire better than average crew morale, camaraderie and loyalty to a fine ship and all who set sail in her.
Sometimes it's the littlest things that count the most ... once you can make ends meet on your balance sheets.
- Remove the Steward from the crew.
- Remove the Workshop and Laboratory.
- Convert 4 of the 2 ton Cabins into 4 ton Staterooms.
- Reduce the Medic skill required from 2 to 1.
Reverting back to a more "pure" CT design that does not incorporate such ideas needs only 28 tons of displacement to be spent on crew accommodations and life support for 7 crew. You wind up with a spare 2 ton Cabin that doesn't need to be occupied (unless you move the one Gunner into it to free up a stateroom) but the overall construction price of the ships detailed remains completely unchanged. That's because on a ton for ton basis, the prices for Staterooms, Cabins, Workshops and Laboratories are exactly the same per ton (MCr0.5 per 4 tons).
So if the regenerative life support system offends your sensibilities as a Referee of Classic Traveller ... there is a way around that "problem" that doesn't disrupt the overall starship design. At worst, you wind up with 2 tons left over to put in the cargo bay and a MCr0.25 price reduction on single ships (and a slightly different architect's fee price). A relatively easy "fix" if that's your inclination for YTU play.
However, such a reversion is going to have some rather interesting side effects on the profitability margin of the ship designs in actual operations.
The biggest factor is the fact that life support at Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person is relatively expensive.
For 8 people, that's Cr16,000 per jump or the equivalent of raising the break even overhead cost by another +16 tons of cargo per jump if the ship isn't under subsidy.
Under subsidy, it raises the break even overhead point by an additional +32 tons of cargo per jump.
If you remove the Steward from the crew, that's still Cr14,000 per 2 weeks, or +14 tons of cargo unsubsidized versus +28 tons of cargo per jump under subsidy just to break even. That starts getting "expensive" in terms of the actual internal cargo capacities of both designs (67 tons @ J2, or 35 tons @ J3, with 5 of those tons hopefully dedicated towards a mail vault for "revenue dense" mail contracts).
So just purely in terms of cost comparison ... what is the price of paying for life support consumables every 2 weeks 25 times a year?
Well, for 7 people, it's Cr14,000*25=Cr350,000 per year.
For 8 people, it's Cr16,000*25=Cr400,000 per year.
After 40 years, that's a total of MCr14 for 7 people ... or MCr16 for 8 people.
And that's just life support ... crew salaries are extra on top of that!
Okay ... but what about this regenerative life support system I've outlined. What does that cost?
Well, the one I've built for these ships costs ... MCr1 at the time of construction for the workshop+laboratory.
Annual overhaul maintenance on the workshop+laboratory combination will cost ... MCr0.001 per year.
So over 40 years, that regenerative life support system will cost MCr1.04 just for the engineering ... crew salaries are extra on top of that.
THAT was the deciding factor for me in this instance.
The economics, by which I mean credit costs on the balance sheet, of supporting an open loop life support system wound up being 13.5-15.4x the life cycle cost of a closed loop life support system when viewed over the totality of a ship's 40 year expected operational lifespan.
It's kind of like the difference that a fuel purification plant can make in a starship's profitability margins. There's an upfront cost in tonnage and credits to install the system, but the cost avoidance factor for installing one essentially "pays for itself" within only a few jumps, after which it's all upside and profit from then on. Same deal with the regenerative life support idea here. Sure it "costs more" up front in terms of tonnage and crew requirements the way I'm implementing the idea here, but the cost avoidance factor with the regenerative life support setup I've outlined means that the system basically "pays for itself" within 3 years, after which it's all upside and profit from then on (for the next 37 years).
That kind of cost avoidance then makes it a LOT easier for the per jump economics and operational break even points to make a lot more sense given the limited internal cargo capacity of both designs. Going to the trouble of balancing a regenerative life support system for a crew of 8 in a way that actually improves both the bottom line on the balance sheet ledgers AND the quality of life experience for crews on board these ships is something that I would consider a win-win-win.
As starship designers, we often times try to pile on the workload of manning the ships we design onto as few people as possible in order to maximize the tonnage fraction available to other systems (drives, computers, weapons, defenses, fuel, cargo, etc.). I'm certainly guilty of it myself, thinking that so long as "the rules allow it" that must make it okay. Crew are "low density wasted tonnage and expenses" a lot of the time, so there is every incentive to load them up with as much work as they can bear. After all, it makes the ships we design "more efficient" in their allocation of tonnage within them.
But then when you start looking beyond the spreadsheet of requirements and the blueprints for the deck plans and you start asking yourself ... where are the people with the skills needed to do this going to come from? I know that I've scoured LBB1.81, LBB4, LBB5.80, LBB6, LBB7 and even LBB S4 for even notional ideas as to what sorts of careers make it possible to have the Skill-2/Skill-2 combos needed for dual role crew ... and in a lot of cases, if you're using the career systems in character generation faithfully, it's going to be exceptionally hard to come up with a lot of those Skill-2/Skill-2 combinations we would like to have available to us as starship designers. Recruiting people with THOSE specific skill combinations can wind up being an unreasonable challenge. Sometimes, the combination of skills is nearly impossible to get from the career paths available in LBB4, LBB5.80, LBB6 and LBB7 due to how career rolls and skills get so segregated within them.
At that point you start thinking in terms of recruiting and the chore of headhunting and how difficult it would be to be able to "staff up" some of the most highly compacted crew rosters where everyone is filling two roles aboard ship.
And then you start wondering what the quality of life aboard would be like ... basically working the equivalent of two jobs for long hours every day. Sure, with enough skill in both roles you can do it (Skill-2/Skill-2) ... but that doesn't necessarily imply that such working conditions would be pleasant, or even that you would be getting paid more than if you were given only a single role to fill.
Best example of this dual skill for less pay phenomenon that I can think of is Pilot/Gunner (which male Aslan tend to get shoehorned into as it turns out).
- Pilot pay per month: Cr6000 for Skill-1
- Gunner pay per month: Cr1000 for Skill-1
And then you get paid 75% of that because you're filling 2 roles (per LBB2.81 p16).
Cr7700*0.75=Cr5775 per month
So basically, if you were "just a Pilot-2" you could command a salary of Cr6600 per month, but because you're a Pilot-2/Gunner-2 filling two roles (and pulling double duty?) you get paid less than a single role Pilot-1.
Sounds great for the bean counters back at the accounting office(!), but it's pretty lousy for you that you get paid less for higher skill levels while pulling double duty.
Certainly feels like a Quality Of Life downgrade to me.
I'm similarly hard pressed to think of anyone who would willingly seek out such employment under those conditions.
Some combinations make sense, such as Pilot/Navigator (except for Aslan with their gender differentiation on skills) for example, while others do not, especially with the random opportunities that result from character generation through various careers.
So although crew morale and well being and quality of life aboard ships isn't something that CT puts much effort at all into, since CT simply outlines the requirements and stops there, I would like to think that with just a little bit of extra thought and attention (and a whole lot of word count!) it is possible to design starships and crew requirements that feel like they would be the kind of places that people would actually WANT to live and work in, rather than simply being somewhere they HAVE TO live and work in (because that's their job role and somebody's got to do it).
I would like to think that living aboard a Modular Courier that features actual fresh biome air and water daily along with freshly grown food that is prepared by a Foodie who knows their stuff and can make delicious fresh cooked meals every day(!) with what's available ... I would like to think that would be the kind of thing to inspire better than average crew morale, camaraderie and loyalty to a fine ship and all who set sail in her.
Sometimes it's the littlest things that count the most ... once you can make ends meet on your balance sheets.
Just note that GURPS Cutter book has modular starships based on the 30 ton modules.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
That's nice.
I don't have GURPS.
But I do have CT (and I'm not afraid to use it)!
Have at thee!
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
So I was looking my designs over again (I have a habit of doing that, even after posting them) and wondering if I might have overlooked anything ... and wouldn't you know it, an idea cropped up.
Perhaps I should have defined the cargo space to be used by the 30 ton modular cutter modules as hangar space instead of being merely cargo space? It would cost more (Cr2000 per ton under LBB5.80 p32) to switch from cargo (which is "free" on cost) to actual (ordinary) launch facilities and berths ... but it also made more sense than the strictly "dump them into the cargo bay and shut the bay doors" option.
Then I started thinking ... well wait a minute.
The TL=12 J3 version could reduce fuel capacity from 3 parsecs down to 2 parsecs (while keeping the J3 drive) and convert the 30 tons of fuel saved into yet another 30 ton berth. That way, the J2 and J3 versions would both have the same number of module berths (2), except that the J3 version would simply need to use one of those modules for fuel in order to manage a Jump-3.
So it was at that point that I went back to LBB A5, p14 to look up the rules on Demountable Tanks (internal and external) and found that the cost of internal Demountable Tanks were Cr1000 per ton, while externals were Cr500 per ton, but they both "took too long" in a mercantile context to install and remove (they both took a week to swap by a starport, 2 weeks for a crew on their own).
However, from my perspective, this means that a hangar facility (at Cr2000 per ton per LBB5.80 p32) "allows" for quick swapping of the contents of the hangar, since it contains all of the berthing equipment to secure the carried craft (basically, the hangar is an "upgrade" versus a demountable fuel tank) while ALSO permitting the the co-mingling of fuel capacity such that fuel inside the carried craft "count" as fuel available to the starship's drives for jump purposes so there is a "shared" fuel capacity while docked and berthed (and obviously, "connected").
In other words, by defining 60 tons of internal displacement as being hangar space for 2x modular cutter modules, rather than being (merely) cargo space, it became possible to specify one of those modules as a fuel module and add back 30 tons of fuel capacity restoring 3 parsec range to the J3 version via a workaround. Both the J2 and J3 designs have 75 tons of internal fuel capacity for 2 parsecs of range and 4 weeks of standard power plant endurance ... but additional range could be achieved simply by loading a fuel tank modular cutter module (MCr1 each, per the wiki page for them). Slightly more expensive on construction than just doing 3 parsecs on internal fuel only (an extra MCr1.06 to be exact), but also ... ultimately ... a design that has more commonality with the "older" J2 version while also being more flexible overall, since the module for the extra fuel could be optionally carried externally if the internal hangar space is needed for some other purpose for some reason (insert adventure hooks here).
This then permitted a "collapsible fuel tank by another means" type of performance.
Each internally berthed 30 ton modular cutter module loaded with 30 tons of fuel added added 1 parsec of range to the design.
You start with 2 parsecs of internal fuel range by default.
You can load up to 2 modules into the hangars which can increase interstellar range by up to 2 more parsecs ... so max range, 4 parsecs on internal fuel only (external fuel options add a LOT of extra options!).
I then added the construction of a pair of 30 ton Modular Cutter Modules of the to the construction costs for each design (2x Cargo @ MCr4 for the J2 version versus 1x Cargo and 1x Fuel @ MCr3 for the J3 version) so that when delivered each ship would start out with the internal 2 modules they would need to begin operations with and could customize towards those operations.
I then took things a step further and specified that there were additional external launch and berthing slots for hosting additional 30 ton modules externally (5x for J2 or 10x for J3), because that is the external loading capacity for J1 in both designs. These external facilities still cost Cr2000 per ton of external capacity but do not take up internal volume (being external docking berths), so external loading reductions in drive performance metrics apply when these external berthing slots are filled. This also in turn means that the jump drive is explicitly designed to account for the loading of these external module berths without requiring (extensive) additional preparations, such as use of a jump net (or whatever) to secure and encapsulate them (correctly) within the starship's jump field when jumping.
A follow on expectation from using hangar facilities (Cr2000 per ton) rather than cargo spaces (Cr0 per ton) for the hosting of all of these 30 ton modules is that not only can fuel tankage be freely cross-linked between them in the case of fuel modules (MCr1 each) just like with Demountable Tanks (internal or external) but also there is an expectation of personnel access to them as well for boarding and disembarking, if necessary. In other words ... access to the modules during flight should be expected, with the requisite airlocks and security procedures being available. Additionally, all of the external berthing spaces are designed to also be compatible with standard 30 ton L-Hyd drop tanks (that use the same form factor as the 30 ton modular cutter modules) so that special procedures needed for use of drop tanks can be minimized.
The original designs were essentially the starship only, "ready" for transport of modular cutter modules as straight cargo (only), meaning that whatever is in them is probably inaccessible during fight (limited access) and any externally carried modules would require EVA in order to reach them outside the ship. That's "fine" for a prototype as a proof of concept, but to really refine the starship's operations in a maximally "crew friendly" kind of way would require some additional work and modification/evolution of the basic concept. One of those "back to the drawing board" moments that doesn't require a clean sheet of paper, just another evolution in refinement to what you've already got.
These two new redesigns are essentially the same starship design, but "tweaked" to be more explicitly a modular cutter modules "tender" of sorts, with 2 internal hangars for 2 modules explicitly (and those 2 modules are included as part of the starship's construction) with full fuel and personnel connectivity (which the J3 version takes advantage of with a fuel module loaded by default) ... but also with 5 or 10 (J2 or J3 version) additional such berthing slots facilitated and designed for on the exterior of the starship, all of which also feature full fuel and personnel connectivity access just like the internal hangar bays.
This more ... fulsome ... design effort then makes it possible to load these ships up with Cargo Modules filled with up to 7 starship staterooms each (with 2 tons remaining for low berths and/or additional baggage/cargo space) and operate as passenger liners on trade routes that can support such ventures. Whether or not to purchase additional modules to occupy the available external berthing slots in support of dedicated business venture prospects is left entirely up to the discretion of the the owners and operators of these starships.
So, without further belaboring of the point, here's what happens when these ideas get put into practice.
Perhaps I should have defined the cargo space to be used by the 30 ton modular cutter modules as hangar space instead of being merely cargo space? It would cost more (Cr2000 per ton under LBB5.80 p32) to switch from cargo (which is "free" on cost) to actual (ordinary) launch facilities and berths ... but it also made more sense than the strictly "dump them into the cargo bay and shut the bay doors" option.
Then I started thinking ... well wait a minute.
The TL=12 J3 version could reduce fuel capacity from 3 parsecs down to 2 parsecs (while keeping the J3 drive) and convert the 30 tons of fuel saved into yet another 30 ton berth. That way, the J2 and J3 versions would both have the same number of module berths (2), except that the J3 version would simply need to use one of those modules for fuel in order to manage a Jump-3.
So it was at that point that I went back to LBB A5, p14 to look up the rules on Demountable Tanks (internal and external) and found that the cost of internal Demountable Tanks were Cr1000 per ton, while externals were Cr500 per ton, but they both "took too long" in a mercantile context to install and remove (they both took a week to swap by a starport, 2 weeks for a crew on their own).
However, from my perspective, this means that a hangar facility (at Cr2000 per ton per LBB5.80 p32) "allows" for quick swapping of the contents of the hangar, since it contains all of the berthing equipment to secure the carried craft (basically, the hangar is an "upgrade" versus a demountable fuel tank) while ALSO permitting the the co-mingling of fuel capacity such that fuel inside the carried craft "count" as fuel available to the starship's drives for jump purposes so there is a "shared" fuel capacity while docked and berthed (and obviously, "connected").
In other words, by defining 60 tons of internal displacement as being hangar space for 2x modular cutter modules, rather than being (merely) cargo space, it became possible to specify one of those modules as a fuel module and add back 30 tons of fuel capacity restoring 3 parsec range to the J3 version via a workaround. Both the J2 and J3 designs have 75 tons of internal fuel capacity for 2 parsecs of range and 4 weeks of standard power plant endurance ... but additional range could be achieved simply by loading a fuel tank modular cutter module (MCr1 each, per the wiki page for them). Slightly more expensive on construction than just doing 3 parsecs on internal fuel only (an extra MCr1.06 to be exact), but also ... ultimately ... a design that has more commonality with the "older" J2 version while also being more flexible overall, since the module for the extra fuel could be optionally carried externally if the internal hangar space is needed for some other purpose for some reason (insert adventure hooks here).
This then permitted a "collapsible fuel tank by another means" type of performance.
Each internally berthed 30 ton modular cutter module loaded with 30 tons of fuel added added 1 parsec of range to the design.
You start with 2 parsecs of internal fuel range by default.
You can load up to 2 modules into the hangars which can increase interstellar range by up to 2 more parsecs ... so max range, 4 parsecs on internal fuel only (external fuel options add a LOT of extra options!).
I then added the construction of a pair of 30 ton Modular Cutter Modules of the to the construction costs for each design (2x Cargo @ MCr4 for the J2 version versus 1x Cargo and 1x Fuel @ MCr3 for the J3 version) so that when delivered each ship would start out with the internal 2 modules they would need to begin operations with and could customize towards those operations.
I then took things a step further and specified that there were additional external launch and berthing slots for hosting additional 30 ton modules externally (5x for J2 or 10x for J3), because that is the external loading capacity for J1 in both designs. These external facilities still cost Cr2000 per ton of external capacity but do not take up internal volume (being external docking berths), so external loading reductions in drive performance metrics apply when these external berthing slots are filled. This also in turn means that the jump drive is explicitly designed to account for the loading of these external module berths without requiring (extensive) additional preparations, such as use of a jump net (or whatever) to secure and encapsulate them (correctly) within the starship's jump field when jumping.
A follow on expectation from using hangar facilities (Cr2000 per ton) rather than cargo spaces (Cr0 per ton) for the hosting of all of these 30 ton modules is that not only can fuel tankage be freely cross-linked between them in the case of fuel modules (MCr1 each) just like with Demountable Tanks (internal or external) but also there is an expectation of personnel access to them as well for boarding and disembarking, if necessary. In other words ... access to the modules during flight should be expected, with the requisite airlocks and security procedures being available. Additionally, all of the external berthing spaces are designed to also be compatible with standard 30 ton L-Hyd drop tanks (that use the same form factor as the 30 ton modular cutter modules) so that special procedures needed for use of drop tanks can be minimized.
The original designs were essentially the starship only, "ready" for transport of modular cutter modules as straight cargo (only), meaning that whatever is in them is probably inaccessible during fight (limited access) and any externally carried modules would require EVA in order to reach them outside the ship. That's "fine" for a prototype as a proof of concept, but to really refine the starship's operations in a maximally "crew friendly" kind of way would require some additional work and modification/evolution of the basic concept. One of those "back to the drawing board" moments that doesn't require a clean sheet of paper, just another evolution in refinement to what you've already got.
These two new redesigns are essentially the same starship design, but "tweaked" to be more explicitly a modular cutter modules "tender" of sorts, with 2 internal hangars for 2 modules explicitly (and those 2 modules are included as part of the starship's construction) with full fuel and personnel connectivity (which the J3 version takes advantage of with a fuel module loaded by default) ... but also with 5 or 10 (J2 or J3 version) additional such berthing slots facilitated and designed for on the exterior of the starship, all of which also feature full fuel and personnel connectivity access just like the internal hangar bays.
This more ... fulsome ... design effort then makes it possible to load these ships up with Cargo Modules filled with up to 7 starship staterooms each (with 2 tons remaining for low berths and/or additional baggage/cargo space) and operate as passenger liners on trade routes that can support such ventures. Whether or not to purchase additional modules to occupy the available external berthing slots in support of dedicated business venture prospects is left entirely up to the discretion of the the owners and operators of these starships.
So, without further belaboring of the point, here's what happens when these ideas get put into practice.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Modular Courier
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=11 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-2 (9 tons, MCr36, Capacitor storage: 3 tons = 108 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 9+42+45=96 tons
Fuel: 75 tons (2 parsecs = 60 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (7 tons, MCr0.034) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 7 tons (5 tons mail vault, 2 tons incidental cargo)
Internal 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 2 (60 tons, MCr0.12)
30 ton Modular Cutter Modules: 2 (MCr4, 2 cargo modules)
External 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 5 (MCr0.3)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
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):
Jump-2 cargo capacity: 67 tons maximum
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=11 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-2 (9 tons, MCr36, Capacitor storage: 3 tons = 108 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 9+42+45=96 tons
Fuel: 75 tons (2 parsecs = 60 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (7 tons, MCr0.034) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
- 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
- 1 Pulse Laser (code: 1)
- 1 Missile (code: 1)
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
- Pilot-1
- Navigator-1
- Engineering-2 (chief)
- Engineering-1
- Engineering-1
- Steward-1
- Medic-2
- Gunnery-1
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 7 tons (5 tons mail vault, 2 tons incidental cargo)
Internal 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 2 (60 tons, MCr0.12)
30 ton Modular Cutter Modules: 2 (MCr4, 2 cargo modules)
External 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 5 (MCr0.3)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Code:
Modular Courier XP-3235541-030000-10001-0 MCr214.0912 300 tons
batteries bearing 1 1 1 TL=11.
batteries 1 1 1 Crew=8.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=7. Fuel=75. EP=15. Agility=4. FPP. PL.
2x 30 ton Modular Cutter Cargo Modules internal launch facilities and berths occupied.
5x 30 ton Modular Cutter Cargo Modules external launch facilities and berths available.
Jump-1, Maneuver-4 @ up to 381 tons total (+81 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-3 @ up to 450 tons total (+150 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-3 @ up to 525 tons total (+225 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-2 @ up to 840 tons total (+540 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-1 @ up to 2100 tons total (+1800 tons external)Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
- Total Cost: MCr267.614
- 20% Down Payment: MCr53.6228
- Architect Fees: MCr2.67614
- Construction Time: 56 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr267,614 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Total Cost: MCr214.0912
- 20% Down Payment: MCr42.81824
- Construction Time: 45 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr214,092 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Life Support: Cr0 due to regenerative life support workshop+laboratory
- Minimum Crew Salaries: Cr15,000 per 2 weeks (LBB2.81, p8)
- 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 (Cr300 per hour), minimum 12 hours (Cr3600) (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 + 15,000*(26/25) + (267,614/25) = Cr26,405
- Paid off revenue: 2,000 + 25,000 = Cr27,000 = 2 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr595 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (28,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr26,500 revenue = 28 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr95 profit
- Overhead costs: 0 + 100 + 15,000*(26/25) + (214,092/25) = Cr24,264
- Paid off revenue: 0 + 25,000 = Cr25,000 = 0 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr736 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (24,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr24,500 = 24 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr236 profit
- Cr5,352,280 per year (Cr214,092 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are sufficient to recoup the base cost of volume construction costs over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
- Cr12,845,472 per year (Cr513,819 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are required to pay off bank loan financing over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
Jump-2 cargo capacity: 67 tons maximum
- 5 tons mail vault
- 2 tons incidental cargo internal
- 2x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
- 5 tons mail vault
- 2 tons incidental cargo internal
- 2x 30 tons modular cargo modules internal
- 5x 30 tons modular cargo modules external
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Modular Courier
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=12 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-3 (12 tons, MCr48, Capacitor storage: 4.5 tons = 162 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 12+42+45=99 tons
Fuel: 75 tons (2 parsecs = 60 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (6 tons, MCr0.032) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 5 tons (5 tons mail vault)
Internal 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 2 (60 tons, MCr0.12)
30 ton Modular Cutter Modules: 2 (MCr3, 1 fuel module, 1 cargo module)
External 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 10 (MCr0.6)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
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):
Jump-3 cargo capacity: 35 tons maximum
Ship Type: XP (Express, Provincial)
TL=12 (LBB5.80)
Tonnage (custom hull): 300 tons
Configuration: 2 (Cone, streamlined, MCr33)
Fuel Scoops (MCr0.3)
Armor: 0
Jump-3 (12 tons, MCr48, Capacitor storage: 4.5 tons = 162 EP maximum)
Maneuver-5 (42 tons, MCr21)
Power Plant-5 (45 tons, MCr135, EP: 15, Surplus EP: +0 @ Agility 4, Emergency Agility: 5)
Total Drives: 12+42+45=99 tons
Fuel: 75 tons (2 parsecs = 60 tons) (4 weeks operations = 15 tons, up to 20 weeks powered down)
Fuel Purification Plant: 200 ton capacity (6 tons, MCr0.032) (LBB5.80, p27, 36)
L-Hyd drop tank fittings (MCr0.01) (LBB A5, p14)
Hardpoints: 1 (MCr0.1) (LBB2.81, p15 and p23)
Triple Turrets: 1 (MCr1) (LBB2.81, p23)
Triple Turret: Sandcaster, Pulse Laser, Missile (1 ton, MCr1.5, EP: 1) (LBB5.80, p25)
Batteries:
- 1 Sandcaster (code: 3)
- 1 Pulse Laser (code: 1)
- 1 Missile (code: 1)
Computer: 4 (Code: 4, 4 tons, MCr30, TL: A, EP: 2)
Crew required: 3 officers, 5 ratings
- Pilot-1
- Navigator-1
- Engineering-2 (chief)
- Engineering-1
- Engineering-1
- Steward-1
- Medic-2
- Gunnery-1
Cabins: 5 single occupancy (10 tons, MCr1.25)
Workshop: regenerative life support recycling (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Laboratory: regenerative life support biome (4 tons, MCr0.5)
Internal Cargo: 5 tons (5 tons mail vault)
Internal 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 2 (60 tons, MCr0.12)
30 ton Modular Cutter Modules: 2 (MCr3, 1 fuel module, 1 cargo module)
External 30 ton Modular Cutter Module Small Craft Berths and Launch Facilities: 10 (MCr0.6)
Waste Space: 0 tons
Code:
Modular Courier XP-3235541-030000-10001-0 MCr223.1296 300 tons
batteries bearing 1 1 1 TL=12.
batteries 1 1 1 Crew=8.
Passengers=0. Low=0. Cargo=7. Fuel=75. EP=15. Agility=4. FPP. PL.
1x 30 ton Modular Cutter Fuel Module internal launch facilities and berth occupied.
1x 30 ton Modular Cutter Cargo Module internal launch facilities and berth occupied.
10x 30 ton Modular Cutter Cargo Modules external launch facilities and berths available.
Jump-2, Maneuver-4 @ up to 381 tons total (+81 tons external)
Jump-2, Maneuver-3 @ up to 400 tons total (+100 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-3 @ up to 525 tons total (+225 tons external)
Jump-1, Maneuver-2 @ up to 600 tons total (+300 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-2 @ up to 840 tons total (+540 tons external)
Jump-0, Maneuver-1 @ up to 2100 tons total (+1800 tons external)Interplanetary Travel (distance, acceleration, time) (link)
Single production
- Total Cost: MCr278.912
- 20% Down Payment: MCr55.7824
- Architect Fees: MCr2.78912
- Construction Time: 56 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr278,912 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Total Cost: MCr223.1296
- 20% Down Payment: MCr44.62592
- Construction Time: 45 weeks (LBB A5, p33)
- Annual Overhaul: Cr223,130 (LBB2.81, p8)
- Life Support: Cr0 due to regenerative life support workshop+laboratory
- Minimum Crew Salaries: Cr15,000 per 2 weeks (LBB2.81, p8)
- 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 (Cr300 per hour), minimum 12 hours (Cr3600) (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 + 15,000*(26/25) + (278,912/25) = Cr26,857
- Paid off revenue: 2,000 + 25,000 = Cr27,000 = 2 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr143 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (29,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr27,000 revenue = 29 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr143 profit
- Overhead costs: 0 + 100 + 15,000*(26/25) + (223,130/25) = Cr24,626
- Paid off revenue: 0 + 25,000 = Cr25,000 = 0 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr374 profit
- Subsidy revenue: (25,000 + 25,000) / 2 = Cr25,000 = 25 tons cargo plus 5 tons mail = Cr374 profit
- Cr5,578,240 per year (Cr223,130 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are sufficient to recoup the base cost of volume construction costs over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
- Cr13,387,776 per year (Cr535,512 per 2 weeks 25 times per year) average profits are required to pay off bank loan financing over 40 years in order to break even on all costs.
Jump-3 cargo capacity: 35 tons maximum
- 5 tons mail vault
- 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
- 5 tons mail vault
- 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
- 3x 30 tons modular cargo modules external
- 5 tons mail vault
- 1x 30 tons modular cargo module internal
- 10x 30 tons modular cargo modules external
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
So ... I've been doing a little bit more thinking on these ship designs and a question that I ought to have asked in retrospect came to mind.
What if I'd used LBB2.81 standard drives instead of LBB5.80 custom drives?
Well, the first result of such a comparison is that a 300 ton hull is a remarkably bad place to start the comparison from (because of how LBB2 handles drives to hulls in the performance lookup chart) ... but that's something that can be resolved with a little bit more work (and some more MCr thrown onto the bonfire of the vanities).
The LBB5.80 version would require another crew member (+1 Engineer) to manage the larger drive required, but other than that a bump up to 400 tons so as to a cross comparison between standard drives and custom drives (LBB2 vs LBB5) in a 400 ton form factor has a LOT of promise ... especially in terms of external towing capacity with the standard drives.
Offer only valid in settings that permit LBB2 (presumably 81 version) standard drives to be "valid" in those settings ... which some do not (such as the Distant Fringe which is LBB5 designs only so as to limit the setting to Jump-2 more effectively).
Back to the Naval Architect's Office I go ...
What if I'd used LBB2.81 standard drives instead of LBB5.80 custom drives?
Well, the first result of such a comparison is that a 300 ton hull is a remarkably bad place to start the comparison from (because of how LBB2 handles drives to hulls in the performance lookup chart) ... but that's something that can be resolved with a little bit more work (and some more MCr thrown onto the bonfire of the vanities).
The LBB5.80 version would require another crew member (+1 Engineer) to manage the larger drive required, but other than that a bump up to 400 tons so as to a cross comparison between standard drives and custom drives (LBB2 vs LBB5) in a 400 ton form factor has a LOT of promise ... especially in terms of external towing capacity with the standard drives.
- TL=12 Custom Drives
- Limited to Jump-3 max
- +100 tons external Jump-2 max in a 300 ton starship hull
- +300 tons external Jump-1 max in a 300 ton starship hull
- TL=11 Standard K Drives
- Limited to Jump-5 max
- E-H drives offer +600 tons external Jump-1in a 400 ton starship hull
- J-K drives offer +1600 tons external Jump-1 in a 400 ton starship hull
Offer only valid in settings that permit LBB2 (presumably 81 version) standard drives to be "valid" in those settings ... which some do not (such as the Distant Fringe which is LBB5 designs only so as to limit the setting to Jump-2 more effectively).
Back to the Naval Architect's Office I go ...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Well, I've revised my thoughts on regenerative life support ... and under my new more fulsome understanding, the above designs would only qualify as Environmental Control Type V-b ... not Environmental Control Type V-c.
LINK to update on thinking around the notion of regenerative life support modeling in CT starship designs.
And based on some preliminary examination of the subject ... 400 tons is looking like a very sweet spot for an updated Environmental Control Type V-c build with a crew of 12 and a bump up on the computer model and hardpoints allocations ...
LINK to update on thinking around the notion of regenerative life support modeling in CT starship designs.
And based on some preliminary examination of the subject ... 400 tons is looking like a very sweet spot for an updated Environmental Control Type V-c build with a crew of 12 and a bump up on the computer model and hardpoints allocations ...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Well I wasn't expecting THAT to happen.
With the LBB5.80 custom drives, I've been operating in a regime where 33% of the hull tonnage was spent on TL=12 drives (3/5/5) and 35% was spent on fuel. In a 400 ton form factor, that yields 132 tons of drives requiring 4 Engineers and 140 tons of fuel ... for a total of 272 tons spent on custom drives and fuel for up to 400 tons of external capacity at Jump-1.
Swapping over LBB2.81 standard drives, I wind up with TL=10 H-drives for jump, maneuver and power plant (4/4/4) In a 400 ton form factor, that yields 85 tons of drives requiring 3 Engineers and 200 tons of fuel ... for a total of 285 tons spent on standard drives and fuel for up to 600 tons of external capacity at Jump-1.
But the REAL kicker is that the LBB2.81 4/4/4 standard drives cost MCr96 less than the LBB5.80 3/5/5 custom drives.
If I were to switch the LBB5.80 custom drives over to being 4/4/4 that would be a 28% drive fraction (112 tons, still needs 4 Engineers) requiring 176 tons of fuel.
112+176 (+4 Engineers) > 85+200 (+3 Engineers)
In other words, the custom drives require more tonnage and more crew in the 400 ton form factor than the comparison standard drives do, even with the less efficient fuel formula for the standard drive power plant.
Basically, it comes down to standard drives being better for towing external loads through jump.
The custom drives are better at towing external loads through interplanetary maneuvers.
At which point, the question then becomes which is better to optimize for when it comes to external load capacity? Jump or Maneuver?
With the LBB5.80 custom drives, I've been operating in a regime where 33% of the hull tonnage was spent on TL=12 drives (3/5/5) and 35% was spent on fuel. In a 400 ton form factor, that yields 132 tons of drives requiring 4 Engineers and 140 tons of fuel ... for a total of 272 tons spent on custom drives and fuel for up to 400 tons of external capacity at Jump-1.
Swapping over LBB2.81 standard drives, I wind up with TL=10 H-drives for jump, maneuver and power plant (4/4/4) In a 400 ton form factor, that yields 85 tons of drives requiring 3 Engineers and 200 tons of fuel ... for a total of 285 tons spent on standard drives and fuel for up to 600 tons of external capacity at Jump-1.
But the REAL kicker is that the LBB2.81 4/4/4 standard drives cost MCr96 less than the LBB5.80 3/5/5 custom drives.
If I were to switch the LBB5.80 custom drives over to being 4/4/4 that would be a 28% drive fraction (112 tons, still needs 4 Engineers) requiring 176 tons of fuel.
112+176 (+4 Engineers) > 85+200 (+3 Engineers)
In other words, the custom drives require more tonnage and more crew in the 400 ton form factor than the comparison standard drives do, even with the less efficient fuel formula for the standard drive power plant.
Basically, it comes down to standard drives being better for towing external loads through jump.
The custom drives are better at towing external loads through interplanetary maneuvers.
At which point, the question then becomes which is better to optimize for when it comes to external load capacity? Jump or Maneuver?
You are allowed to mix-n-match ...Basically, it comes down to standard drives being better for towing external loads through jump.
The custom drives are better at towing external loads through interplanetary maneuvers.
At which point, the question then becomes which is better to optimize for when it comes to external load capacity? Jump or Maneuver?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
For clarity ... I'm comparing all custom drives (LBB5.80) against all standard drives (LBB2.81) inside a 400 ton hull.
There is no mixing and matching of custom plus standard drives within the same hull.
I am honestly at a loss as to how this could be misinterpreted as a mix and match ... especially with this explicitly stated ...
Similar threads
