CT Only: Spinward Courier

[Spinward Flow]

You and I are just not going to see eye to eye on the interplanetary aspect.

Again, the Rules As Written (RAW) in LBB2 are distance agnostic for transport. Jump-1 or Jump-6 doesn't matter (per LBB2 RAW), it's still Cr 1000 per ton of cargo. The ipso facto implication of that then becomes ... Jump-0 is also Cr 1000 per ton of cargo ... and Jump-0 equals interplanetary rather than interstellar.

Other then a spreading favors through control of mail franchise scenario, a small craft is just so much cheaper that the whole valuation of what it costs for M-drive delivery drops precipitously.

Hence why I'm now exploring the Tender+Boat variation for the requisite cross-testing of the proposition relative to the first test case of the concept and business model embodied in the "all in one" starship Spinward Courier design.

After all, first I needed to figure out if the concept worked AT ALL before I could then start iterating on the basic features to develop even MORE capability at even lower cost (and even at lower tech levels!).

Just an off-the-shelf 6-G Ship's Boat is MCr 16

It's also poorly optimized for the use case I'm chasing after here, since it devotes too much tonnage to fuel (6.5 tons o and is a short range passenger hauler with nothing but acceleration couches (24 hour life support limit). 24 hours at 6G will almost reach 0.75 AU ... which is almost, but not enough range for reliable interplanetary travel. The power plant may run for weeks/months, but the life support won't hold out that long. Also, the default 30 ton Ship's Boat is unarmed and doesn't have a computer ... and mail deliveries require the vessel be armed (with a Gunner) and armament on a small craft requires a computer (bridge is optional, but the computer is not). So the stock Ship's Boat has a bridge but no computer.

whatever subsector polity paying for the mail contract can subsidize one such small craft per system for four systems and still come in under the price of one of your inter/intrasystem couriers

You're missing some of the necessary conversion costs that would be required (add a computer, swap accelerations couches for cabins, reduced fuel capacity. Not saying it can't be done (because it obviously could), but once you're done with those conversions the price isn't MCr 16 anymore. Right now, the LBB5.80 version I'm looking at is weighing in at just under MCr 25 per copy for the first ship of class, which then becomes MCr 20 in quantity production for additional copies (to contrast with your MCr 16 reference point).

plus reconfigure for passenger/staterooms or extra cargo in addition to the mail vault.

Exactly. That reconfiguration won't be done for free.

Something like 3/8 of the cost of the fast jump courier

More like 33% the price.
The problem though is that while systems with a type A or B starport of a matching tech level or higher can maintain a Mail Boat locally, star systems with a type C or below starport would not have the facilities to perform annual maintenance, so the only option for such star systems would be either a Spinward Courier jumping into the system and out again after making deliveries or a Tender+Mail Boat combination doing essentially the same thing. Without a type A or B starport, the longevity of even a small craft drops precipitously if annual maintenance cannot be performed, uh ... annually.

- to underscore my perception of what likely would happen, the subsidizing polity could reduce the mail delivery cost to Cr12000 and still have more profit baked in per local run. And if the full Cr25000 is paid, there will be small craft flocking to cover the market.

You're certainly welcome to gimp the profit potential of YTU however you see fit as a Referee.

Assuming the full price is paid for the mail rounds, the ONLY reason to not have local small craft delivery is that the outlying colonies are too sparse to support bi-weekly or monthly mail runs.

If they have a type C or below starport, they can't perform the annual maintenance that allow the small craft to continue operating reliably beyond their first year. It's not just a matter of financing ... there's also logistical support that needs to be accounted for as well. Without that annual maintenance capacity (requires tech level equal to or higher than the build tech level) then the useful lifespan of the small craft is severely curtailed.

Another point- by dropping from 6-G to 4-G, absolutely no other changes, the ship gains 10 tons of cargo or other repurposing and sheds MCr 15 in cost. On average that's going to be a per month mortgage drop of Cr 62500. The ship owner/operator gets a Cr31250 'bonus' of lower costs vs. losing one interplanetary run still puts them ahead AND having a more versatile ship seems no-brainer to me.

It's a no brainer if you never have to avoid pirates with a 4G maneuver drive.

Finally, I literally don't get your critique of how building in speculation/charter is going to ruin the whole concept.

Because speculation/charter isn't necessarily compatible with high tempo "touch and go" rapid mail delivery models of operations. This is where the swap to a Tender+Mail Boat configuration has a lot of advantages, since the Mail Boat can do the speedy "touch and go" mail deliveries with minimal parking time at each port of call (because faster is better for profit margins!) while the Tender "stays parked" at the mainworld to negotiate cargo shipments. You also have enough crew with the Tender+Mail Boat concept to be able to split up like that to cover more possibilities by having people in different places doing different things at the same time.

They aren't GOING to get optimal routes, that's why they got a subsidy in the first place.

No, the subsidy is there to tell the bank financing division to go prey on someone else with their usurious rates for repayment of the purchase cost on the ship.

But you can roll speculative cargo no matter where you are. The rules state you can buy partial lots so filling up the hold should be no problem in most cases. Many of the deals will have bad buy/sell trade code DM pairs you walk away from, it won't be gravy runs, but definitely doable- all it takes is a few per year to upgrade or a few years eventually pay off the debt. Plus be able to fit in an ATV, a fighter or other gear and you've got a nice light shenanigans ship.

Which is exactly the build scenario I'm finding with the Tender+Mail Boat combo.

Do the one-day turnround for bad speculation routes and not even try, hang for the couple days for the speculation try then stay for the loading or not.

The biggest challenge is trying to keep the overhead costs below Cr 12,400 per 2 weeks so as to account for "worst case scenario" situations where there's only a single world to deliver to and there is no cargo to transport so as a crew you have to break even on a single mail delivery alone. If overhead costs can be kept below that limit, that means that anything and everything you can do above and beyond that "worst case scenario" then becomes pure profit.

As for the more desirable speculation mail routes vs. not, well, that's what carousing bribery and admin are for, no? I expect there is a whole mail route pecking order/patronage system as to who gets them. Seniority? Best bribe? Best mailman/secret agent service to the Glorious Polity? MOAR play options!

NOW you're starting to see the potential for campaign ideas and setting potential for what would otherwise seem to be a rather hum-drum premise for a Traveller setting. I'm simply providing the hardware for use in the setting ... how you populate it as a Referee is where the possibilities start becoming almost endless.

Like I said in my original write up, I know that a "mail delivery" campaign sounds incredibly dull as a seed for an adventure campaign ... until you start thinking about the flows of information, rumors and gossip that you'll be able to pour into it, along with plenty of opportunities for patronage, side contracts and even charter scenario opportunities. It also doesn't have to be done as a subsidy (that's merely the most obvious/easy way to do it) since the mail delivery business could be a private venture.

Again, I see the Tender+Mail Boat option as having more opportunities for shenanigans (as you put it) to be possible, hence why I'm studying the differences it makes very closely.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Again, the Rules As Written (RAW) in LBB2 are distance agnostic for transport. Jump-1 or Jump-6 doesn't matter (per LBB2 RAW), it's still Cr 1000 per ton of cargo. The ipso facto implication of that then becomes ... Jump-0 is also Cr 1000 per ton of cargo ... and Jump-0 equals interplanetary rather than interstellar.



Hence why I'm now exploring the Tender+Boat variation for the requisite cross-testing of the proposition relative to the first test case of the concept and business model embodied in the "all in one" starship Spinward Courier design.

After all, first I needed to figure out if the concept worked AT ALL before I could then start iterating on the basic features to develop even MORE capability at even lower cost (and even at lower tech levels!).



It's also poorly optimized for the use case I'm chasing after here, since it devotes too much tonnage to fuel (6.5 tons o and is a short range passenger hauler with nothing but acceleration couches (24 hour life support limit). 24 hours at 6G will almost reach 0.75 AU ... which is almost, but not enough range for reliable interplanetary travel. The power plant may run for weeks/months, but the life support won't hold out that long. Also, the default 30 ton Ship's Boat is unarmed and doesn't have a computer ... and mail deliveries require the vessel be armed (with a Gunner) and armament on a small craft requires a computer (bridge is optional, but the computer is not). So the stock Ship's Boat has a bridge but no computer.

Single starship stateroom is 4Td, free for stock small craft (LBB2 '81, p.17). Without a computer, small craft have a -1DM to hit and cannot add gunner skill as a +DM. (LBB2 '81, p. 40). LBB5 requires a computer if weapons are to be used. If a bridge is not included, downrate the computer by 1 Mod/#.

You're missing some of the necessary conversion costs that would be required (add a computer, swap accelerations couches for cabins, reduced fuel capacity. Not saying it can't be done (because it obviously could), but once you're done with those conversions the price isn't MCr 16 anymore. Right now, the LBB5.80 version I'm looking at is weighing in at just under MCr 25 per copy for the first ship of class, which then becomes MCr 20 in quantity production for additional copies (to contrast with your MCr 16 reference point).

Again, internal fittings are free for stock small craft. Otherwise, consider using a computer instead of the bridge, and going with something slightly smaller at a higher TL to cut the power plant size and cost.

Exactly. That reconfiguration won't be done for free.

But it will. There is no cost associated with a "mail vault". It's just 5Td set aside for mail (even if unused on a given flight). And on the stock canon small craft, the interior fittings are free.

More like 33% the price.
The problem though is that while systems with a type A or B starport of a matching tech level or higher can maintain a Mail Boat locally, star systems with a type C or below starport would not have the facilities to perform annual maintenance, so the only option for such star systems would be either a Spinward Courier jumping into the system and out again after making deliveries or a Tender+Mail Boat combination doing essentially the same thing. Without a type A or B starport, the longevity of even a small craft drops precipitously if annual maintenance cannot be performed, uh ... annually.

This is an issue. Not a huge one, as the mothership will also need annual service. If they're operating independently, plan ahead to reserve cargo space on a ship that'll be passing through (Cr30K, twice). Heck, someone could make a profitable career out of being a mobile smallcraft mechanic/engineer... (lean on MgT2's High Guard "shipyard" rules for space stations, but scale it down to small-craft size and stuff it into a Subsidized Merchant or something -- maybe just a Free Trader with a stockpile of tools and parts* and a 200Td inflatable habitat module for a workspace).


*Yeah, yeah, it really ought to be a Maker Device but I'm thinking old-school here because it's more "cinematic". This is the Sci-Fi version of a motorcycle mechanic dragging a 5th-wheel trailer loaded with spares and Snap-On tools to Sturgis and Daytona Bike Week.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Single starship stateroom is 4Td, free for stock small craft (LBB2 '81, p.17).

Um, that sounds really sketchy from a design rules standpoint. o:
Plus I'm using LBB5.80, not LBB2.81 to build my ships.

Without a computer, small craft have a -1DM to hit and cannot add gunner skill as a +DM. (LBB2 '81, p. 40). LBB5 requires a computer if weapons are to be used. If a bridge is not included, downrate the computer by 1 Mod/#.

Again, internal fittings are free for stock small craft. Otherwise, consider using a computer instead of the bridge, and going with something slightly smaller at a higher TL to cut the power plant size and cost.

Although this CAN be done to shave the balance sheet financial considerations, I seriously question the "value" of such cost cutting when it comes to the need to fight off and/or escape from pirates. Something that I'd (conveniently?) forgotten was that small craft when hit in combat are extremely prone to taking critical hits if not armored under LBB5.80 combat rules. Even a Factor-1 weapon that connects with an unarmored small craft will automatically inflict 1 critical hit. Combine this with the danger(s) of lowering the effective computer model number as a -DM to offense and defense(!) under LBB5.80 combat rules and this kind of cost cutting is just about BEGGING for destruction and/or disabling results in any combat scenario. The combat risks just start becoming too great, in my personal opinion, for the small craft.

This is why I'm now looking at the Tender+Mail Boat option with a more critical and skeptical eye towards viability.

The "all in one" starship version has a better computer (model/2 versus 1 or 0) and has 6G maneuver available at all times. This makes intercepts by pirates forcing a combat situation much more difficult to attempt and/or accomplish ... and even if combat can be forced, the Spinward Courier is unlikely to be hit due to the combination of agility plus computer under LBB5.80 combat rules when facing most pirate attackers (compromised Type-T Patrol cruiser, Corsair, captured Close Escort, etc.).

This is not the case for the Tender+Boat variation. If engaged by a single attacking pirate, the Boat would be launched and put on the front line so as to keep the Tender in reserve under LBB5.80 combat rules. The first combat round would feature the Tender attempting to break off by acceleration while the Boat is forced to remain engaged in combat so the attacker cannot pursue the Tender. Then after the Tender has successfully broken off, the Boat can attempt to break off by acceleration as well to end the combat ... but this has a problem.

Breaking off by acceleration requires the combat round to happen at long range, and all combats automatically start at long range in the first combat round (LBB5.80, p39) ... so break off from combat by acceleration is automatically an option at the end of the first combat round. But in order to keep the combat range long in combat rounds 2+ the Boat would need to win initiative for that combat round so as to determine the range for that combat round (short or long). So in rounds 2+ of the combat, if the Boat loses initiative and the attacker chooses short range, breakoff by acceleration is no longer an option until the Boat wins initiative and can choose long range for the combat round. This then means that while covering for the Tender to escape, it is possible for the Boat to become "trapped" in combat and repeatedly attacked if initiative is lost to the attacker. Without the means to flee from combat, the Boat is at serious risk of being repeatedly attacked ... and without armor is seriously at risk of being disabled/destroyed by critical hit(s) before it can break off and escape.

In other words, there's a kind of "High Guard" styled situation when the Tender and Boat are operating together and the Boat needs to screen the Tender from an attacker until the Tender can escape. That kind of "picket duty" can then result in something of a "brawl" that the Boat cannot necessarily easily disengage from ... and with low computer factor is far less likely to win or escape from unscathed. The combat damage risk(s) simply become too great to responsibly discount at the design stage. Granted, such a "High Guard" styled circumstance would primarily happen after breakout from jump and maneuvering to the mainworld, or when maneuvering away from the mainworld to reach a jump point, since the rest of the time the Tender would be most likely safely berthed at the starport/spaceport and the Boat would be free to operate independently and therefore not have the responsibility of drawing fire away from the Tender long enough for the Tender to escape.

The counter to this problem would be armor, but armor costs tonnage and MCr, both of which are in short supply. Again, it CAN be done, but it largely offsets a lot of the cost savings I was looking at in order to achieve the degree of "pirate proofing" that I was able to accomplish with the Spinward Courier design. So the compromise winds up being lower purchase cost but higher complexity, higher overhead costs and much higher risk in the event of a pirate attack (and it's almost inevitable that there will eventually be some kind of pirate incident at some point).

So I'm needing to reevaluate a lot of my operational assumptions about the Tender+Boat variation so as to include the necessity of armoring the Boat against pirate attacks in order to make it something that can get entangled in combat and not be destroyed/disabled from a single weapon hit.

In other words, you may save now ... but at the expense of possibly losing everything later. :toast:

Hope that makes sense.

But it will. There is no cost associated with a "mail vault". It's just 5Td set aside for mail (even if unused on a given flight). And on the stock canon small craft, the interior fittings are free.

There are multiple reasons why I vastly prefer LBB5.80 over LBB2.81.

This is an issue. Not a huge one, as the mothership will also need annual service. If they're operating independently, plan ahead to reserve cargo space on a ship that'll be passing through (Cr30K, twice). Heck, someone could make a profitable career out of being a mobile smallcraft mechanic/engineer... (lean on MgT2's High Guard "shipyard" rules for space stations, but scale it down to small-craft size and stuff it into a Subsidized Merchant or something -- maybe just a Free Trader with a stockpile of tools and parts* and a 200Td inflatable habitat module for a workspace).

*Yeah, yeah, it really ought to be a Maker Device but I'm thinking old-school here because it's more "cinematic". This is the Sci-Fi version of a motorcycle mechanic dragging a 5th-wheel trailer loaded with spares and Snap-On tools to Sturgis and Daytona Bike Week.

While you might be able to get away with that kind of thing in MgT2, you certainly can't do that under the RAW of CT LBBs ... and since I'm operating purely in the CT LBB starship design rules (specifically, LBB5.80 exclusively) I would not consider such an option to be "legal" in CT. It might be in later evolutions of the Traveller ruleset, but it certainly isn't in the one that I'm working within the boundaries of.

 

[whartung]

The PC only has to make the down payment with a subsidized ship.

Who owns the ship?

Why would the Govt purchase the ship and give it to the pilot?

Why would the Govt simply not just buy the ship, and salary the crew? How is this profitable/efficient for the Govt?

A subsidy is to encourage business to enjoin in risky or less profitable markets. The subsidy is there to cover those risks. This seems to be neither. It's written up as a "sure thing".

ANY entity, public or private (or even a public/private partnership) that can operate a Spinward Courier in either a paid off or subsidized financial condition is basically guaranteed to make profits. So if you can buy one with "cold hard cash" and fully pay it off upon delivery as a private business entity, you'll earn back the cost of buying the ship in 20-25 years without a 50% subsidy rake. If you can find systems (like Regina) that have numerous population centers on multiple worlds within the system, you could be making multiple MCr per year in profits just making mail deliveries. In other words, as a private entity, once you can pay for 1 of these ships, you can make enough deliveries to be able to buy 2 of these ships after 40 years because of the profit margin.

After 40 years, they're going take the cash, shove in to an account, move to Tahitian III, and use the money to pay for drinks with umbrellas in them.

In other words, there is the opportunity for slow but steady and reliable compounding growth over time. It's not a "get rich quick" scheme like hitting the jackpot on speculation ... but it is also a business model that is really hard to screw up (and if you do, it's basically a matter of incompetence).

If there's little risk, there should be little reward.

T-Bills pay low interest for a reason.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Who owns the ship?

Seriously? o:
LBB2.81 p7.

Why would the Govt purchase the ship and give it to the pilot?

Seriously? o:

Why would the Govt simply not just buy the ship, and salary the crew? How is this profitable/efficient for the Govt?

It's called a public/private partnership that yields profit sharing (50/50 even!) for both the public entity (the subsidizing government) and the private entity (the crew and their backers, if any).

Or a more "modern" interpretation is ... outsourcing and subcontracting.

A subsidy is to encourage business to enjoin in risky or less profitable markets. The subsidy is there to cover those risks. This seems to be neither. It's written up as a "sure thing".

So ... you're complaining that a new business model that hasn't been detailed yet in the history of these forums isn't "risky enough" to warrant being subsidized?

Seriously? o:

Let me get this straight.
Between a choice of subsidizing a "sure thing" or subsidizing a risk that can lose money ... why are you insisting that only the risky business models are "worthy" of being subsidized?

After 40 years, they're going take the cash, shove in to an account, move to Tahitian III, and use the money to pay for drinks with umbrellas in them.

Well, that's ONE option ... but by no means the exclusive only possible outcome.

If there's little risk, there should be little reward.

It's like the old saying goes, right?
Build a better mousetrap and ... get denounced for upsetting the established and entrenched market forces that everyone else is completely invested in and fully committed to supporting.

 

[whartung]

Between a choice of subsidizing a "sure thing" or subsidizing a risk that can lose money ... why are you insisting that only the risky business models are "worthy" of being subsidized?

Because if it's a "sure thing" there's no reason to subsidize the risk.

Again, the point of the subsidy is to make profitable, an unprofitable enterprise because of the larger societal good that it provides.

If a ship is going out to Nova Terra, but routinely comes back empty, thats a big red flag for a ship operator. A Govt might subsidize that trip to cover the costs of the trip back so that Nova Terra can get regular shipments. Left to the market, "no one" would go to Nova Terra because of the shipping rates. At best, it would be irregular. Great for farm equipment, not so great for fresh peaches.

The way you've stated this, the mail delivery is routine. The runs are normally profitable (especially if you're zipping all across the system). The market will happily fill that need, there's no need for a subsidy.

The market, in general, rejects inefficiency. If someone is making bank doing something, AND (and!) there's no corruption involved (or that can be overcome), someone else will come in who is hungrier and do it for cheaper.

At best, the Govt may CONTRACT the shipping. USPS contracts mail shipping with FedEx to the tune of $1.7B a year. Clearly even at $1.7B, it's not worth the USPS time and money to run its own flight operations. At the same time, FedEx has to compete for the business. I have no doubt UPS and other carriers routinely bid on those contracts with the USPS.

As a general rule, if you do enough of something, it eventually gets cheaper to do it "in house" than to contract it out. Amazon is a perfect example of this. Amazon is hosting it's own fleet of aircraft and ground vehicles to facilitate delivery. Not something your normal "bookstore" does. Walmart doesn't even do that (because it's delivery business is not as large as Amazons). But even then, they outsource to other parties where it's cheaper to do so, like rural America.

Contracts are not subsidies. Contracts save the USPS money. USPS doesn't own any of the FedEx fleet.

It's like the old saying goes, right?
Build a better mousetrap and ... get denounced for upsetting the established and entrenched market forces that everyone else is completely invested in and fully committed to supporting.

Correct, but make no mistake others will learn from the discovery and use your grand designs against you. And also consider that simply because you did some spreadsheet worked and noodled this out, the Imperium is a 1000 year old construct, with trillions of people that can use spreadsheets and noodle things like this out.

We've all played those honey runs in Book 2 trade between Ag and Ind worlds moving Radioactives or whatever. But those are not durable. The market will not stand idly by and simply watch you do that.

Whenever someone comes up with some milk run, one must muse "why isn't everyone doing this". Indeed. Why not?

"Sir Robin: That's easy!"

 

[Spinward Flow]

Because if it's a "sure thing" there's no reason to subsidize the risk.

Again, the point of the subsidy is to make profitable, an unprofitable enterprise because of the larger societal good that it provides.

Because ... heaven forbid! ... subsidies awarded by a government DARE NOT make a profit on their operations! :rant:

Look I think we have a fundamental disconnect of understanding here.

You're saying that subsidies should be reserved for the unprofitable ONLY routes ... because if a route is profitable, then it shouldn't be subsidized (or at a bare minimum, shouldn't have to be subsidized because it is profitable).

I'm saying that subsidies can be awarded for both profitable AND unprofitable routes ... but when given the option of subsidizing a profitable route a government wouldn't pass on the opportunity. After all, profits "over here" on the balance sheet enables losses "over there" while still being able to balance the books (or the budget, as the case may be).

The sticking point that I've given you in this regard is that I've designed a ship and a business plan of operations that is reliably profitable *IF* the starship is either paid off or subsidized ... but it's not profitable (enough) if needing to make (usury rate) bank mortgage payments on the regular. So the economics wind up being something where there is a huge barrier to entry (initial price to pay off), but if you can get past that hurdle it's all gravy baby[/b] from then on.

The function of the subsidy is to simply bring the "payoff" date forward from 40 years after delivery (with bank financing) to the date of new build construction delivery from the shipyard. The tradeoff for going the subsidized route is that the subsidizing government is entitled to a 50% rake of all gross receipts, while the crew is responsible for all overhead and maintenance costs of the ship out of their 50% share of the gross receipts. I just simply found a way to guarantee that so long as there is a single port of call to deliver to (even if it's a type E or X starport, or even a type Y spaceport) after jumping into a system, a profit can be made on that jump ... and if there's more than one port of call to deliver to in the system, then every additional mail delivery beyond the first one is very nearly pure profit, even under a subsidy.

The only point of speculation is how much profit is there to be made after each jump, rather than risking the possibility that there won't be any profit to be made at all (not enough passengers/cargo revenue to break even on overhead for the trip).

The way you've stated this, the mail delivery is routine. The runs are normally profitable (especially if you're zipping all across the system). The market will happily fill that need, there's no need for a subsidy.

The subsidy allows (market) players to enter the market at a lower startup cost of entry. Rather than needing to pay "full price" for the starship up front in order to be profitable from the beginning, all that a (market) player would need to put up front with a subsidy would be the down payment cost of buying a copy of the Spinward Courier.

It doesn't take genius level market analysis to figure out that if the "barrier to entry" is MCr 60.904 (full price after down payment) or MCr 12.1808 (down payment only) before profits can be made ... well ... the lower entry point will make it easier for more ships and crews (at 2 per Spinward Courier) into service running these routes. And best of all, everybody wins!

The market, in general, rejects inefficiency. If someone is making bank doing something, AND (and!) there's no corruption involved (or that can be overcome), someone else will come in who is hungrier and do it for cheaper.

There's a reason why I listed 15 "preferred" routes through the Spinward Marches that I considered the most interesting (and plausible). There are of course LOTS of other possible routes ... far too many for me to be able to detail ... just in the Spinward Marches alone.

We've all played those honey runs in Book 2 trade between Ag and Ind worlds moving Radioactives or whatever. But those are not durable. The market will not stand idly by and simply watch you do that.

Whenever someone comes up with some milk run, one must muse "why isn't everyone doing this". Indeed. Why not?

Because it depends on the specifics of the economies of scale involved. This is one of those curious factors I noticed happening when contemplating scaling up the basic Spinward Courier design I developed from 100 to 200 tons ... just to see what would happen.

And the very first thing that happened was the the costs of both overhead and maintenance basically more than doubled (3x the crew means nearly 3x the life support and crew salary costs to service). The added tonnage then created a 31 ton cargo bay (5 tons of which is the Mail Vault, so 26 tons for cargo remaining) ... but the first ship in class price was now above MCr 151 per ship at TL=13, so pretty steep all things considered (the power plant ALONE cost MCr 72 for 24 tons , which is almost half the price of the entire starship!). With a crew of 6 (Pilot, 2x Engineers, Medic and 2x Gunners for 2 turrets on a 200 ton ship), life support ALONE would cost Cr 12,000 per 2 weeks, even before adding crew salaries on top of that ... which if you're paying attention means that with a 50% subsidy rake of gross receipts, there is simply NO POSSIBLE WAY for a 200 ton mail courier starship to break even (let alone make a profit for the crew after expenses are covered!) on making a single mail delivery to a single port of call in a system before jumping out.

In other words, the fundamental challenge of "reliably make a profit everywhere, no matter where you go, so long as there is a population code: 1+" winds up being failed in the 200 ton upscaling. This then tells me (as a designer) that there is a "sweet spot" where the economic work out, but only in the 100-199 ton displacement regime, because at 200 tons and up the increase in crew size means you can't make a profit in star systems where there is only a single mail delivery to the mainworld ... and that's it.

So 100-199 tons means you don't have to have any Engineers on board (Engineers are only required on ships 200 tons and up) and you don't need a Medic (also only required on ships 200 tons and up). Navigators are only required on ships over 200 tons. Gunners are 1 per turret, and under 200 tons there can only be 1 turret. Source for these rules is LBB2.81, p16.

So the practical upshot is that in the 100-199 ton range, a starship with Jump-2, Maneuver-6 and Power Plant-6 only needs a crew of 2 (Pilot, Gunner) when armed ... and that minimal crew manning is then what enables low life support costs and crew salaries that can then fit under the Cr 12,500 revenue to crew "cap" for making a single mail delivery per jump, thereby guaranteeing profits on every jump to populated star systems.

Just out of curiosity, I tried upscaling the Spinward Courier from 100 tons with 1 ton remaining for cargo ... up to 190 tons (!) ... just to see what would happen.

Result?

Let's just say that things are getting REALLY INTERESTING ... enough so that I'm going to need to continue in another post so I don't hit the 10,000 character per post limit.

 

[Spinward Flow]

First ship in class price increased from MCr 76.13 to over MCr 135 (I haven't done a detailed enough build analysis to really nail it down, I'm just previewing the results in the online TCS designer) ... which is only to be expected, since the drives increase in size and cost with the increase in displacement. But the amount of cargo space increased from 6 tons (5 of which would be the Mail Vault) to 43.8 tons (5 of which would be the Mail Vault). That means that a 190 ton upscaled Spinward Courier would have 38.8 tons of cargo available, plus the Mail Vault. And it's at this point that a weird synergy of divergent opportunities arise.

With 38.8 tons of cargo available in a 190 ton J2/6G performance starship, 2 parsecs of jump requires 38 tons of fuel ... meaning that the cargo bay could have a 38 ton collapsible fuel tank installed (leaving 38.42 tons of usable cargo space) in order to enable 4 parsec range(!) when not carrying cargo by performing a 2 Jump-2 transit. Being able to "self-deploy" across 4 parsecs of distance by "flexing" the cargo bay capacity from cargo to fuel then makes an incredible range of possible route options suddenly viable. Additionally, it means that with planning, crews need not be necessarily forced into refueling after every single jump, due to the option of carrying additional fuel reserves instead of cargo.

Furthermore, because of the way that fuel essentially transfers out of the collapsible bladder in the cargo hold into the "main" internal tanks after jumping (to refuel those main internal tanks) the loss of cargo capacity in exchange for fuel reserves only affects the first jump of the two, but not the second.

Fully fueled for 4 parsec range (190 ton upscaled version):
11.4 tons power plant fuel (4 weeks)
38 tons jump fuel (2 parsecs)
38 tons collapsible fuel tank in cargo bay (2 parsecs)

Fuel consumption for jump is 19 tons per parsec, so a Jump-1 drains 19 tons and a Jump-2 drains 38 tons plus another 2.85 tons for power plant operation at full power. Just for illustration purposes, let's presume needing to travel 4 parsecs in 2 jumps. So the first Jump-2 produces this result:
8.55 tons power plant fuel (3 weeks)
0 tons jump fuel
38 tons collapsible fuel tank in cargo bay

Spend some time transferring fuel (a few hours, which can happen during the standard 16 hours of maintenance on drives after breakout from jump, LBB5.80, p17) and you achieve this fuel state:
8.55 tons power plant fuel (3 weeks)
38 tons jump fuel
0 tons collapsible fuel tank in cargo bay (cargo bay can be used for cargo)

After this, the ship can then Jump-2 again, after which this is the fuel state:
5.7 tons power plant fuel (2 weeks)
0 tons jump fuel
0 tons collapsible fuel tank in cargo bay (cargo bay can be used for cargo)

This kind of "flexing" the contents of the cargo bay so as to be either fuel or cargo then makes it much easier to plan around systems where the mainworld lacks water oceans, there is no gas giant in the system and the starport is type E or X (meaning, no fuel facilities available). Examples of such systems in the Spinward Marches include:

• Saxe / Five Sisters
• Flexos / District 268
• Callia / Glisten
• Heroni / Rhylanor

So not exactly common, but can be a real fuel resupply problem if not planned for in advance ... particularly on Jump-1 mains if starships are designed to require refueling after every jump. Arriving in a system where fuel is not readily available anywhere can easily leave a ship and crew effectively stranded, unable to jump.

So having a cargo bay larger than the fuel tankage needed to jump and fitting that cargo bay with a collapsible fuel tank is just one of those "you would have to be stupid NOT to do it" kinds of things if you're keeping the 38 tons of cargo space open and available.

Another option would be to instead fill the 38.8 ton cargo bay with 9 starship staterooms (36 tons, MCr 4.5) so as to be able to carry 8 high passengers and 1 steward/medic. This would leave 2.8 tons of cargo space left over, which could even be used for up to 5 low berths (2.5 tons, MCr 0.25). At that point, you essentially have passenger service on top of your mail delivery service (since you still have the Mail Vault). LBB2.81, p7-8 stipulates that life support costs only need to be paid for occupied staterooms and low berths, so there is no additional expense if the passenger manifest is less than full. Interplanetary charters are priced at Cr 1 per hour per ton of ship (so Cr 190 per hour with the 190 ton design, minimum 12 hours) ... but interstellar charters produce revenue at a rate of Cr 900 per ton of cargo space, Cr 900 per low berth and Cr 9000 per high passage berth ... so interstellar charters would be an additional profit opportunity, in addition to mail deliveries. The mail deliveries (and their scheduling) would be the primary revenue stream keeping the ship profitable for the crew, with the passenger service basically amounting to almost pure profit on top of the mail deliveries. Being able to offer "first class (high) plus steerage class (low)" accommodations for a limited number of passengers on a "going my way?" basis depending on where the ship is going next could be parlayed into a potentially lucrative side business ... and also be a way for crews to come into contact with Patrons with sideline business opportunities ...



So what I'm taking away from that bit of "napkin math" is that while the 100 ton version works pretty well as a Proof of Concept for the idea and the business model, it is perhaps a bit too narrowly focused on JUST X-mail deliveries to the exclusion of all else. However, scaling up the idea to 190 tons (a decidedly odd and non-standard tonnage indeed! o yields a large enough cargo bay volume to diversify the ship into a number of additional roles ... including the potential for "adventuresome shenanigans" which expands the useful possibilities and customization options enormously. The 190 ton version basically doubles the price of the 100 ton version, but the added flexibility of the increased cargo space has the potential to dramatically increase the profitability of the overall design. For one thing, if the crew go in for speculation using the cargo bay, they're basically going to be gambling with their own share of the profits (rather than the government's share of the profits) if they're operating under subsidy. Additionally, if the increase in profit potential is large enough, the 190 ton version of the ship could potentially either recoup its purchase price in less than 40 years while subsidized or allow for the ship to be profitable even under bank financing in private hands. I'll have to do the necessary work up and number crunching to know for sure ... so that will be a new post when it happens, rather than a continuation of this thread for the 190 ton version of this build.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Um, that sounds really sketchy from a design rules standpoint. o:
Plus I'm using LBB5.80, not LBB2.81 to build my ships.

It's not sketchy, it's flexible. It makes sense in the context of LBB2: starships are big money, small craft are (in LBB2) often starship accessories, small craft fittings are a rounding error.

While you might be able to get away with that kind of thing in MgT2, you certainly can't do that under the RAW of CT LBBs ... and since I'm operating purely in the CT LBB starship design rules (specifically, LBB5.80 exclusively) I would not consider such an option to be "legal" in CT. It might be in later evolutions of the Traveller ruleset, but it certainly isn't in the one that I'm working within the boundaries of.

The point is to build a mobile "Class B Starport", or at least a mobile version of its smallcraft overhaul component. Scaling it down from MgT's conception, which probably assumes that the shipyard component of a space station has an associated planetside industrial base from which to draw, is going to take a lot of house-ruling to make it work. But it at least provides a simple framework to build a set of house rules for this, which Classic lacks entirely.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The point is to build a mobile "Class B Starport", or at least a mobile version of its smallcraft overhaul component. Scaling it down from MgT's conception, which probably assumes that the shipyard component of a space station has an associated planetside industrial base from which to draw, is going to take a lot of house-ruling to make it work. But it at least provides a simple framework to build a set of house rules for this, which Classic lacks entirely.

Reply to this novel idea posted in the other thread you made.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Just out of curiosity, I tried upscaling the Spinward Courier from 100 tons with 1 ton remaining for cargo ... up to 190 tons (!) ... just to see what would happen.

Just for shizzle, I tried bumping up the overall tonnage of the starship to 195 tons, just to see what would happen.

Result?
40.9 tons of cargo space and 39 tons of fuel needed for jumps of 2 parsecs.

With a 40 ton collapsible fuel tank installed, that leaves exactly 40.5 tons of cargo space remaining ... and if the collapsible fuel tank is drained of 1 parsec worth of jump fuel (19.5 tons) then 40.5-20.5=20 tons of cargo space available. So the "flex" conditions for extra fuel reserve in the cargo bay wind up producing the following alternatives during standard operations:

1. 0.5 tons cargo available / 40 tons of extra fuel (2 parsecs)
2. 21 tons of cargo available / 19.5 tons of extra fuel (1 parsec)
3. 40.5 tons of cargo available / 0 tons of extra fuel (0 parsecs)

Since the reserve fuel capacity (40 tons) exceeds the amount of fuel needed for 2 parsecs of jump, the extra 1 ton of fuel reserve can be used to sustain the power plant for a little bit longer past the baseline 4 weeks of operations (power plant-6 for a 195 ton ship consumes ~0.418 tons of fuel per 24 hours). So just a little bit of extra endurance margin if it's absolutely needed in order to reach a refueling point (starport, spaceport or wilderness).

However, from a cargo shipping standpoint, having either 20 or 40 tons of cargo space available is very useful from a major cargo (10 ton lot size increments) and/or minor cargo (5 ton lot size increments) when it comes to speculative trading opportunities. 20 or 40 tons of available cargo space is close to ideal for transporting some types of high value cargo, such as vehicles (air/rafts, ATVs, etc.).

Note that at 195 tons of Jump-2 starship, up to 97.5 tons of cargo could be transported externally through jump space using the ship as a "jump tug" at Jump-1 (using 29.25 tons of fuel for 1 parsec). Using the collapsible fuel tank in the cargo bay, the ship would even be able to make a second Jump-1 after the first to deliver that external cargo up to 2 parsecs away from its point of origin. With an extra 97.5 tons of external displacement added, the starship wold be limited to 4G of maneuver capacity, rather than 6G. Such an arrangement would, of course, immediately make the starship "unstreamlined" as far as hull configuration is concerned, so any such external "jump tug" cargo would have to be received and delivered in orbit (so type A, B or C starports required on both ends of the transaction).

However, the capacity to deliver "bulk" cargo externally in such quantities should not be overlooked (and I can't believe I didn't think about this option in more detail previously!).
/em facepalm

Why?

Because Jump-1 starships do not have enough reserve capacity to operate as "jump tugs" for external cargo loads ... while Jump-2 starships DO have enough reserve capacity to operate as "jump tugs" for external cargo loads, provided such external cargo can be marshaled for securing and delivery under orbital conditions only (hence the type A, B, C starport requirement, since those will have surface to orbit shuttle services between highport and downport facilities, or at least between surface and orbit).

Note:
Allowing some types of cargo (I'm thinking Major Cargo exclusively here) to be transported externally by a "jump tug" starship then radically alters and upsets the economic calculus of the the Jump-1 vs Jump-2 merchant debate found in the Starships Comparative Potential Mercantile Revenue and Jump 1 vs Jump 2 ships in the CT Imperium threads in this forum.

And for anyone who doubts that starships can be designed to "jump tug" external loads through jump space at reduced drive performance ... there is an OTU precedent. I give you LBB S9, p22-23 ... the Jump Ship ... explicitly operating on this principle of being a "jump tug" type of ship, hauling either bulk mass/displacement or pods through jump space, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for jump capacity by adding or subtracting to the amount of external load carried.

So if external loads are factored into the mercantile equations, then Jump-2 can potentially outstrip Jump-1 ships in revenue generating capacity per 1 parsec jump due to their increase in cargo capacity (internal plus external) relative to the Jump-1 starships (internal only).



Okay ... THERE is an insight that will turn a lot of assumptions on their head about the economic viability of my courier designs!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Just out of curiosity, I tried upscaling the Spinward Courier from 100 tons with 1 ton remaining for cargo ... up to 190 tons (!) ... just to see what would happen.

Did a little bit more noodling around in the online TCS Ship Designer testing out various combinations of tonnage and cargo space, external load jump capacity ... you get the idea (or at least you should by now if you've been following this thread) ... and I think I've found the ideal "sweet spot" for upscaling the original "X-mail deliveries equal profit baby!" to optimally balance numerous competing design factors around a kind of Goldilocks confluence point (not too big, not too small ... just right!).

194 tons o:

Which I know is going to produce a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot o: reaction from very nearly everyone on first reading that number. 194 tons isn't anybody's idea of an ideal starship design size ... but in this case, IT jUST WORKS because of all of the flexibility that I'm designing into it, from the internal cargo capacity to the external cargo capacity, drive capacity (maneuver and jump!), crew requirements (accommodations, life support, salaries), even the internal fuel and collapsible reserve fuel tankage capacity for extending interstellar range potential on a situational basis at the expense of temporarily reducing internal cargo capacity. The sheer amount of operational flexibility I'm looking at here (now) is absolutely staggering!

And I wouldn't have reached this point if I hadn't experimented with the first draft of a starship capable of operating at a consistent profit using X-mail ONLY as the revenue stream ... even at a 50% loss of revenue under a government subsidy.

Now I've reached the point where I'm thinking that even with external cargo containerization being shipped interstellar at standard Cr 1000 per ton rates between mainworlds, leaving the internal cargo bay "open" for use on speculation by the crew, and operating a Jump-2 equipped starship as a a Jump-1 cargo plus mail starship ... it might even be possible to make a profit under bank loan financing (usury) rates, if there's enough cargo to transport.

Alternatively, the cargo bay could be converted to high/(mid)/low passenger service as yet another option for generating sufficient revenue to keep up with bank loan financing.



Yes ... my plot to take over world market(s) is thickening nicely ... :devil:

 

[aramis]

At best, the Govt may CONTRACT the shipping. USPS contracts mail shipping with FedEx to the tune of $1.7B a year. Clearly even at $1.7B, it's not worth the USPS time and money to run its own flight operations. At the same time, FedEx has to compete for the business. I have no doubt UPS and other carriers routinely bid on those contracts with the USPS.

The USPS doesn't have many, if any, planes of its own; USPS sends mail on most of the US domestic jet traffic.

At one point, however (1930's), the USPS was the largest (almost the only) airline. Note that most mail at the time shipped by rail...


In re, "Who owns the ship" for a subbie? The subsidy holder does. But it's an encumbered title. That is, there is a non-owner with financial and/or operational rights and/or restrictions on the use of the titled object.

Most US registered aircraft over 30 passenger seats are subsidized, subject to a reserve military activation. Likewise, most large aicraft are also encumbered such that they are obliged to carry US mail at market rate.

A subsidized liner is a similar kind of encumbered title.
The title is in the purchaser's name, a 40 year lien in the amount of purchase price, and an encumbrance that the ship is required to service the subsidy route for X of Y weeks. (Explained a bit better in TTA than Bk2.) The 40 year lien is for 50% of profits rather than X per month.

As with most liens, if the lienholder agrees, the lien can be transferred to a new owner.
As with most operational encumbrances, those, also, transfer.

The last three campaigns where I turned players loose with a subbie R1, they got a lucky score, built a non-subsidized R2, and hired an NPC crew for their encumbered R1.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The last three campaigns where I turned players loose with a subbie R1, they got a lucky score, built a non-subsidized R2, and hired an NPC crew for their encumbered R1.

THIS.
Totally this ...

(hi aramis!)