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

Wanted: Curmudgeony Grognards (to talk TL 5-7 Rockets)

That's an extra two kilostarbux that the freetrader captain might be loath to part with.
Think of it this way.
If you upgrade to 2G, it'll cost your J1/1G Free Trader another 5 tons of engineering (meaning you can't use a standard hull anymore, you have to use a custom hull). You'll also lose another 10 tons to increased fuel requirements.

So you're looking at a loss of 15 tons of revenue tonnage (5+10) at an increased cost of an extra MCr12 in drive construction costs, and another MCr12 for switching from a standard hull to a custom hull. That's basically a +54.5% increase in the construction cost of a Free Trader ... just to stuff a 2G drive into it, at a cost of an extra MCr24 (12+12).

15 tons of cargo capacity lost equates to losing Cr15,000 per jump just by itself ... never mind the increase to the construction and annual overhaul maintenance costs of trying to shoehorn bigger drives into a 200 ton hull.

Looked at from that perspective ... Cr2k-4k "every so often" for orbital transfers on a FEW worlds that are Size: 8+ is a small price to pay for having more cargo capacity and lower construction costs, annual overhaul costs and bank mortgage financing costs ... especially since you don't have to pay it every single time every place you go.

Let's just take the Worst Case Scenario and make a straight up comparison.

If you had to pay Cr4000 for round trip orbital shuttle service (down+up) on 200 tons of starship ... how many such shuttle flights would you need to book in order to break even against the MCr24 increase in construction costs it would take to upgrade to a 2G drive (never mind the loss of cargo ticket revenues, that's extra!).

24,000,000 / 4000 = 6000

Just to break even, your Free Trader to would need to make 6000 orbital transfers as cargo to and from a planetary surface just to break even with the increased construction cost involved.

Even if a Free Trader is making 35 jumps PER YEAR (a 2 days normal space, 8 days jump space cycle) ... over 40 years ... you would only be able to make 1400 round trips in orbital transfer services. Last I checked (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) ... but 1400 falls far short of 6000. I mean, I could be wrong ... but I don't think I am on that point.

So don't think about it in terms of "two kilobux extra" when orbital transfer services are needed ... think of it as being able to buy a starship 1/3 CHEAPER to construct and maintain, with a larger revenue tonnage fraction, that only needs such services RARELY. Given the tradeoffs involved, the orbital shuttle costs start sounding like a "smart business play" compared to the alternative when dealing with the extreme low end merchant transport shipping range.



So the moral of the story is that the classical Vilani J1/1G Free Trader is more of an "interstellar shuttle" with decent specs for use as a microjumper in-system to distant planets and moons ... but one that implicitly relies on some pretty substantial "outsourcing" of support and infrastructure to make it work as a reliable profit generator. It's when you try to push it into the Tramp Merchant role that you start running into the limitations of the basic design. You can operate Free Traders as speculators (and turn a profit with them) ... but you're basically "gambling" with your own money if you do that, which CAN be done, but there are no guarantees that you'll be able to continue any runs of profits indefinitely/reliably that way.
 
People can tolerate 10 G for "minutes" with the correct orientation, so let's set that as our acceleration.
8 km/s Orbital Velocity requires a 320 km long Barrel and 10 G for 80 seconds.
"People" can tolerate ≈ highly trained young healthy individuals in g-suits can tolerate.
Granma not so much, I believe...

320 km barrel sounds rather impractical. A 2 G shuttle is much easier. Once we have effectively unlimited magical thrust from grav or m-drives, access to orbit is dirt cheap. No massive infrastructure project can compete.


Thanks, that was a very nice way of pointing out the mistake in my howitzer calculation.
 
Hmm you could build a fairly cheap 3g shuttle using a standard hull with C drives, or a cheaper still 2g 200t shuttle with B drives but 5t of wasted space.
 
Think of it this way.
If you upgrade to 2G, it'll cost your J1/1G Free Trader another 5 tons of engineering (meaning you can't use a standard hull anymore, you have to use a custom hull). You'll also lose another 10 tons to increased fuel requirements.
Agreed, that is cost prohibitive.

If we already have the PP, because of a higher jump drive, it's still not a trivial cost to upgrade the M-drive for the few worlds that require it.
 
Hmm you could build a fairly cheap 3g shuttle using a standard hull with C drives, or a cheaper still 2g 200t shuttle with B drives but 5t of wasted space.
2 G is almost the same cost and payload as a Free Trader, 3 G is another MCr 10...

With a trip every hour, instead of every two weeks, the cost per trip is low, in the region of a few Cr per trip.
 
2 G is almost the same cost and payload as a Free Trader, 3 G is another MCr 10...

With a trip every hour, instead of every two weeks, the cost per trip is low, in the region of a few Cr per trip.
All true ... but the range is limited.
Depending on how far away stuff needs to go, that may or may not be all that useful.
 
Not at all. The "freighter that blasted out of Mos Eisley" did so on unplanned short notice under its own power, rather than relying on an assist from port infrastructure.
Take it up with the novelization, I’m throwing an idea out there for people who might want an option and providing attribution, not comparing Star Wars trivia appendages.
 
That's an extra two kilostarbux that the freetrader captain might be loath to part with.

You'd really need a good reason to go dirtside, if you can't pull out with your boo[st]raps.
Should only be an issue if you take a ground-to-ground freight deal, which should only happen at D/E starports to size/g equivalent 8. A repulsor lift implies at least C starport to me, so very few interactions of D7- to C8. Otherwise orbit to orbit, problem solved.

Chump change to at least not running empty. Being short on profit is better then 100% cost only run.

The other scenario is of course a big speculative score, in which case six or seven figure paydays means repulsor/shuttle fees are peanuts.
 
"People" can tolerate ≈ highly trained young healthy individuals in g-suits can tolerate.
Granma not so much, I believe...

320 km barrel sounds rather impractical. A 2 G shuttle is much easier. Once we have effectively unlimited magical thrust from grav or m-drives, access to orbit is dirt cheap. No massive infrastructure project can compete.


Thanks, that was a very nice way of pointing out the mistake in my howitzer calculation.
If there was a mistake in your howitzer, I didn’t notice it. A howitzer is LOTS OF GEES in a shorter barrel (the ISS would hit a 300 km barrel pointed up) so I was offering a “human rated” alternative.

As far as “magic tech“ destroying EVERYTHING interesting, they would just use the Air Raft until they could afford a bigger shuttle (for any solution to any problem). :(
 
As far as “magic tech“ destroying EVERYTHING interesting, they would just use the Air Raft until they could afford a bigger shuttle (for any solution to any problem). :(
Yes, we tend to forget just how fantastic the humble air/raft is.

Once we learn how to build, say, space elevators, it will just be an intellectual curiosity as grav vehicles will be faster and cheaper.

Transporting goods to/from an orbital factory would cost about as much as transporting it to the other side of a city, i.e. not much.
 
1. Grandma got crushed by acceleration - current ruleset has it, or at least my interpretation of it, between seventy to one hundred forty percent of Terran gravity norm is bearable.

2. Space elevator - or, how about the world's longest roller coaster.
 
"People" can tolerate ≈ highly trained young healthy individuals in g-suits can tolerate.
Granma not so much, I believe...
I'm kinda wondering how that works if you have intertial dampers....
I can picture a grav-lev track instead of mag-lev, and 320km isn't that long for a high tech society with grav construction equipment and fusion torches to fuse the terrain.
Then you accell everything in the launch vehicle equally, so no percieved accelleration
 
1. Grandma got crushed by acceleration - current ruleset has it, or at least my interpretation of it, between seventy to one hundred forty percent of Terran gravity norm is bearable.
What part of the “current rule set” has it? (And which is the CURRENT rule set … MgT or T5?)
[Not arguing, just curious.]
 
Traveller Companion has defined standard gravity between seventy to one hundred forty percent.

I believe takeoff acceleration for most airliners is one hundred twenty percent.
 
Not being an engineer, but fairly frequent flyer, I'd say it's that feeling you develop in your chest as you're pressed back into your seat.

Presumably, there's some synchronicity.

Maybe more relatable would be a description of driving down the highway, which would be how many miles per hour?
 
Not being an engineer, but fairly frequent flyer, I'd say it's that feeling you develop in your chest as you're pressed back into your seat.

Presumably, there's some synchronicity.

Maybe more relatable would be a description of driving down the highway, which would be how many miles per hour?
The distinction I was making is that commercial jets do not have 1G acceleration capability (that is, thrust>=mass). Some fighter jets do -- for example, an F-16 without external stores can go nose-up and keep going indefinitely (it's thrust/weight yields something like 1.1G).

A passenger's perception of acceleration will exceed 1G because it starts at 1G just sitting there [Insert geometry thing showing sums of vectors here.]
 
Back
Top