Page 1 of 1

Sublight travel

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:15 pm
by AKAramis
looking at some pricing data for sublight, since the lack of that data has been mentioned by others.

the costs per ton per day for cargo...

Trip cost should be based upon days+1 (for the minimum downtime)... if the downtime is longer, simply add it to the days. Low passengers need also Cr100 surcharge for the chemicals.

Table deleted for errors. See later post for corrected one.

HPSO = High Passenger, Single Occupancy
HPDO = High passenger, double occupancy
MPSO = Mid Passenger, Single Occupancy
MPDO = Mid Passenger, Double Occupancy
BPQO = Basic Passenger in Quadruple Occupancy of stateroom
BPC = Basic passenger in cargo space
LP = Low Passage

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 6:17 pm
by Rikki Tikki Traveller
Something seems off. How can M2 rates be lower than M1 rates? The drives and PP have to be bigger, more cost and less tonnage for Pax and Freight. Does not make sense.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:11 pm
by Captain Jonah
Rikki Tikki Traveller wrote:Something seems off. How can M2 rates be lower than M1 rates? The drives and PP have to be bigger, more cost and less tonnage for Pax and Freight. Does not make sense.
Its the small increase in size and cost going from M1 to M2 compared to the big drop in travel times, above M2 you are looking at fairly small improvements in travel time compared to steady increases in drive and PP size and cost.

That jump from M1 to M2 travel time is a big one and it throws things off.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:32 pm
by Rikki Tikki Traveller
CRAP, forgot about the reduced travel time. You are good... :)

Having said that people usually PAY for reduced travel time, so I am not going to charge you less to get it there sooner, I am going to charge you MORE (and make more runs!).

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:17 am
by AKAramis
Captain Jonah wrote:
Rikki Tikki Traveller wrote:Something seems off. How can M2 rates be lower than M1 rates? The drives and PP have to be bigger, more cost and less tonnage for Pax and Freight. Does not make sense.
Its the small increase in size and cost going from M1 to M2 compared to the big drop in travel times, above M2 you are looking at fairly small improvements in travel time compared to steady increases in drive and PP size and cost.

That jump from M1 to M2 travel time is a big one and it throws things off.
Nope. THe table isn't by distance - it's by time.

The difference It's that M2 has the same number of engineers as M1 at a wide range of tonnages, and so has less overhead in terms of crew capacity. Enough to tweak the numbers.

Same is true of J2 vs J1, in terms of cost per parsec traveled.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:04 am
by AKAramis
Rikki Tikki Traveller wrote:Something seems off. How can M2 rates be lower than M1 rates? The drives and PP have to be bigger, more cost and less tonnage for Pax and Freight. Does not make sense.
Actually, I went back, and discovered two errors on the sheet.

(1) I'd missed with a paste. some things were off.
(2) I'd grabbed the wrong output table. (A real hazard with huge complex sheets.

Code: Select all

SL, per day _______ M1 ___ M2 ___ M3 ___ M4 ___ M5 ___ M6 ___ M7
Cargo _____________ 15 ___ 16 ___ 16 ___ 17 ___ 18 ___ 19 ___ 20
HPSO _____________ 276 __ 278 __ 282 __ 285 __ 291 __ 298 __ 305
HPDO _____________ 160 __ 161 __ 164 __ 166 __ 170 __ 174 __ 178
MPSO _____________ 191 __ 192 __ 195 __ 197 __ 202 __ 207 __ 212
MPDO _____________ 116 __ 117 __ 118 __ 119 __ 122 __ 124 __ 127
BPQO ______________ 42 ___ 42 ___ 43 ___ 43 ___ 45 ___ 46 ___ 47
BPC _______________ 77 ___ 77 ___ 77 ___ 77 ___ 77 ___ 77 ___ 77
LP ________________ 26 ___ 26 ___ 26 ___ 27 ___ 27 ___ 28 ___ 29

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:36 pm
by Rikki Tikki Traveller
That looks much better!

WOW, it is really low too. I expected in-system costs to be low, but I am surprised by how much. I will definitely be using more in-system travel in my MGT2 setting.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:02 pm
by AKAramis
Well, considering that these require in-system, no jump drive nor jump fuel, designs... a merchant with a Type A is going to lose money versus them.

And if you have a large enough traffic flow in system, you'll get BIG ships. 10KTd+... with costs well under half that adjusted asking price.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 6:30 pm
by phavoc
Are you modeling standard starship cabins for occupancy? Shorter in-system flights would be more likely to have smaller cabins, such as you find on rail cars, for 1-3 day trips.

Also, if lifesupport costs are now Cr1,000/per person/per week, I don't think your numbers will hold up. Assuming that 50% of the cost is purely in life support consumables, that equates to Cr71 per day. Even someone flying in cargo will require the same baseline cost as someone traveling as an HPSO.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 10:44 am
by AKAramis
phavoc wrote:Are you modeling standard starship cabins for occupancy? Shorter in-system flights would be more likely to have smaller cabins, such as you find on rail cars, for 1-3 day trips.

Also, if lifesupport costs are now Cr1,000/per person/per week, I don't think your numbers will hold up. Assuming that 50% of the cost is purely in life support consumables, that equates to Cr71 per day. Even someone flying in cargo will require the same baseline cost as someone traveling as an HPSO.
You'll note that I list both single and double occupancy pricing; Matthew removed the doubles.

I figure share of steward and of steward's cabin and LS, and medic as well.
And you failed to read that it's KCr1 occupied or not, and kCr 1 per passenger; the only one needs fixing is basic...

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2015 2:08 pm
by phavoc
AKAramis wrote:
phavoc wrote:Are you modeling standard starship cabins for occupancy? Shorter in-system flights would be more likely to have smaller cabins, such as you find on rail cars, for 1-3 day trips.

Also, if lifesupport costs are now Cr1,000/per person/per week, I don't think your numbers will hold up. Assuming that 50% of the cost is purely in life support consumables, that equates to Cr71 per day. Even someone flying in cargo will require the same baseline cost as someone traveling as an HPSO.
You'll note that I list both single and double occupancy pricing; Matthew removed the doubles.

I figure share of steward and of steward's cabin and LS, and medic as well.
And you failed to read that it's KCr1 occupied or not, and kCr 1 per passenger; the only one needs fixing is basic...
You should go back and re-read what Matthew said about life support. To save you that effort I will quote it here for you:

On life support, I have altered the table to say Cr1000 per Stateroom, removed Double Occupancy, and added Cr1000 per Person on board (so, one person in a Stateroom totals Cr2000).

Do note that you failed to read when you were trying to call me out for failing to read. See, I can be a jerk too, but it does nothing for the conversation or lead us to an agreement.

The numbers for the lower portions of travel still don't add up correctly. Using what has been put forth as gospel (i.e. Cr1000 per person on board), a quadruple-occupied stateroom still bears 4x the costs in life support.

So lets do the math. Your table says M1 quadruple occupancy is Cr42 per person, per day. That's Cr168/day from all four occupants. Since we don't have a published breakdown on what constitutes life support costs, its a fair assumption to use HALF of that number as consumables. At Cr1,000/week, that's Cr71/day PER PERSON.

So your table means that a sublight vessel hauling people around will LOSE Cr29 per person/per day. Or, in this example, for revenue of Cr168/per day, the operator spent Cr284. That is NOT including ship mortgage, crew costs, or, more importantly, profit.

As far as the passengers traveling as cargo (not stuffed in a stateroom, but in the actual cargo hold), I would question (a) the legality of it in the Imperium due to safety regulations (it's taking laissez faire to a silly extreme), (b) for sublight you are generating Cr6/per person before any other expense beyond life support, so it's really not economically feasible, and (c) you can put more people in a cargo hold in proper seats than you can just selling a square of deck plating - assuming you aren't into people smuggling, which if that's the case you don't normally have advertised rates.

Since you've seen HG and the rest of us have not we only have the CRB (and what's been posted on the board) to go by. Even if the rest of the starship operations costs have radically been reduced we are left with inconsistencies with the SL table.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:39 pm
by AKAramis
The only price affected by the change is that for basic passage.
The table was done using SO=Cr2000 & DO=Cr3000 LS per stateroom. (QO was done using Cr3000) Which is, except for quad occupancy Basic, no change.

So, The revision for BP
We subtract out the Cr750. we then add in the Cr1000 and 1/4 of the SR, for Cr250...

So, basic passage needs to go up by Cr500 from the above per week, or Cr 72 per day for SL

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:46 am
by phavoc
AKAramis wrote:The only price affected by the change is that for basic passage.
The table was done using SO=Cr2000 & DO=Cr3000 LS per stateroom. (QO was done using Cr3000) Which is, except for quad occupancy Basic, no change.

So, The revision for BP
We subtract out the Cr750. we then add in the Cr1000 and 1/4 of the SR, for Cr250...

So, basic passage needs to go up by Cr500 from the above per week, or Cr 72 per day for SL
What is SR?

And Cr 71/per day for SL covers life support costs only, with no other costs being covered. You would be better off push that to somewhere around Cr 100/day/per person. At a minimum you get two people per Dton traveling in standard acceleration couches. But with internal anti-grav fields you could go with standard airline-style seating for commuter style travel.

Not a big fan of the label "travelling as cargo", i.e. BPC. Using regular economy seating styles today you should be able to get a 5 people and a single aisle per 2 Dtons.

Actually, since you've seen HG, is there anything in there to distinguish interplanetary travel from interstellar? Shorter trips should be handled like an airliner or rail car does, not the standard starship ideas.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:29 am
by allanimal
phavoc wrote: Actually, since you've seen HG, is there anything in there to distinguish interplanetary travel from interstellar? Shorter trips should be handled like an airliner or rail car does, not the standard starship ideas.
Interplanetary travel can still take days, even with high G maneuver drives. Being stuck in an airline seat for 48-72 hours would be dreadful...

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 2:29 pm
by phavoc
allanimal wrote:
phavoc wrote: Actually, since you've seen HG, is there anything in there to distinguish interplanetary travel from interstellar? Shorter trips should be handled like an airliner or rail car does, not the standard starship ideas.
Interplanetary travel can still take days, even with high G maneuver drives. Being stuck in an airline seat for 48-72 hours would be dreadful...
Yup. Which is where the idea of small-craft cabins comes into play. They are smaller than standard ones, and only meant to be used for shorter inter-system flights. Inter-system travel should be treated in one of two ways - the first being short (24hrs or less) flights, which being in a seat works. But anything more than a day would require cabins, like you see on longer ferries or railcars (and, technically now on A380s).

Anything that is pure passenger isn't going to be poking along at 1G for a 3day flight to say Mars. Pure passenger travel is going to be fast and convenient, just like it has been since the technology came about to make it possible. That's part of human nature. The only people who will travel slow like cargo are soldiers - mostly because they have no say in the matter.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:20 am
by AKAramis
phavoc wrote:
AKAramis wrote:The only price affected by the change is that for basic passage.
The table was done using SO=Cr2000 & DO=Cr3000 LS per stateroom. (QO was done using Cr3000) Which is, except for quad occupancy Basic, no change.

So, The revision for BP
We subtract out the Cr750. we then add in the Cr1000 and 1/4 of the SR, for Cr250...

So, basic passage needs to go up by Cr500 from the above per week, or Cr 72 per day for SL
What is SR?

And Cr 71/per day for SL covers life support costs only, with no other costs being covered. You would be better off push that to somewhere around Cr 100/day/per person. At a minimum you get two people per Dton traveling in standard acceleration couches. But with internal anti-grav fields you could go with standard airline-style seating for commuter style travel.

Not a big fan of the label "travelling as cargo", i.e. BPC. Using regular economy seating styles today you should be able to get a 5 people and a single aisle per 2 Dtons.

Actually, since you've seen HG, is there anything in there to distinguish interplanetary travel from interstellar? Shorter trips should be handled like an airliner or rail car does, not the standard starship ideas.
SR = Stateroom

As far as trip durations, I've not seen the whole of it yet. But I got Matthew to pin down the design sequences so I could do the pricing matrix's math.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2015 5:42 am
by phavoc
Please repost the tables when you've had a chance to update them.

Re: Sublight travel

Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:27 pm
by msprange
AKAramis wrote: But I got Matthew to pin down the design sequences so I could do the pricing matrix's math.
If I don't mention it (!), bug me about this when we come onto the Companion - this is perfect for it.