Art: New project Heavy Cargo Ship WIP

[wbnc]

Working up this for publication. Basically, it's a big adventure class cargo ship which can carry twice its Tonnage volume in cargo on external cargo clamps. It can't land in an atmosphere but it can carry its own orbit to surface transport.

Style wise I wanted it to look like work horse. It's as ugly as a mud brick, but it's not built for looks, combat performance, or agility....And unfortunately, fully loaded it handles like a drunken yak.

500 ton: Close structure ( no streamlining)
Engines rated at 1500 tons( for hauling external cargo)
Jump: 1 at 1500 tons, Jump 3 at 500 tons
Thrust 1 at 1500, Thrust 3 at 500 tons
Armor: 3
Weapons: 4 triple turrets
External cargo clamps fore and aft
Docking Berth x4 ships boats
Standard design is pure cargo carrier crew staterooms only
Features:
cargo bay and hatches can handle large objects and small craft.
large loading hatches and cargo airlocks along both sides of the ship.
internal modules available ( details forthcoming)

 

[EldritchFire]

4 triple turrets seems excessive for a cargo hauler. If you want pirate defense, I'd go for one—maybe two at most. And single turrets, unless it was a weapon/sandcaster double.

 

[nats]

I really like that. Well thought out visually and it looks like what it is. Visually the engines look a bit overpowering for the size and type of the ship are you sure they are sized correctly? But I love the overall look and feel of that ship.

 

[heron61]

Instead of ships boats, why not use modular cutters? Then, the external cargo can be stored in 30 ton pods and easily carried to the surface via one of the cutters. Of course, you also need 3 heavy grappling arms to be able to load and unload cargo modules on the modular cutters. If you have 3 modular cutters, then you can carry all the cargo from a fully loaded ship in 13 trips. Add a couple of fuel modules and the modular cutters can also handle refueling too.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If the pod on the sides are the drives they do not transfer the thrust through the centre of inertia (centre of gravity) of the ship. If you apply the thrust to the top of the ship it would spin nose downwards. It looks unbalanced.


What's the use-case for four ship's boats?

 

[Sigtrygg]

Where is the centre of gravity on a ship with artificial gravity and acceleration compensation fields?

It is also possible the upper deck houses all the heavy, dense machinery so the engines are aligned to the centre of gravity.

 

[phavoc]

Where is the centre of gravity on a ship with artificial gravity and acceleration compensation fields?

It is also possible the upper deck houses all the heavy, dense machinery so the engines are aligned to the centre of gravity.

Internally you are correct. But externally a grav equipped spaceship still functions the same way as a non-grav one.

I think the engines are fine. You can push or pull your vessel, though for the most part I don't think you need swivel engines (that's how they appear at least).

I'm assuming the cargo pods are attached below the bridge? Something to think about would be to give it more of a flying bridge, above the upper hull to give it a clear view of the cargo pods attached in front.

The modular style of your cargo pods would lend itself to carrying smaller pods, say in the 100 dton range, up to a single pod with the maximum size available. Will you be providing illustrations of the pods too?

Armament wise it would most likey just be built with hardpoints. That way owners can arm it or not depending on where it's being used.

Small craft wise I'd think it would have a single launch, may e two, at most. It's a unabashed freighter that hauls it's cargo externally, therfore there is minimal need for small craft. And they take up space that could be better used for profit hauling cargo.

 

[phavoc]

Btw nice art work.

 

[wbnc]

Excellent questions one and all...Which is why I put pages of descriptive/explanatory text in my descriptions...Its a luxury can afford since my booklets focus on one ship or one family of ships...Being generous with descriptive text is something ya can't do when trying to cram a dozen ships into a rule book that's already crowded

4 triple turrets seems excessive for a cargo hauler. If you want pirate defense, I'd go for one—maybe two at most. And single turrets, unless it was a weapon/sandcaster double.

If its running light it's over armed but standard practice is to haul heavy external loads. Fully loaded with external cargo it's a 2000 ton ship... so at that size it's lightly armed.

I really like that. Well thought out visually and it looks like what it is. Visually the engines look a bit overpowering for the size and type of the ship are you sure they are sized correctly? But I love the overall look and feel of that ship.

Glad ya like it..I want it too look and feel right as well as have the numbers right...

Engine size to hull size is the same issue as above it has a 500 ton hull but will be carrying 1500 or so tons externally, so its engines look horrendously oversized when running light. think of it as a Diesel Over the road truck or land train. If you see one running bobtail it looks awkward and does not handle as well as when running loaded.

Instead of ships boats, why not use modular cutters? Then, the external cargo can be stored in 30 ton pods and easily carried to the surface via one of the cutters. Of course, you also need 3 heavy grappling arms to be able to load and unload cargo modules on the modular cutters. If you have 3 modular cutters, then you can carry all the cargo from a fully loaded ship in 13 trips. Add a couple of fuel modules and the modular cutters can also handle refueling too.

I decided on four smaller boats to allow the multiple ships boats to act as tugs when loading and unloading. The boats that come with the ship will have manipulator arms and other cargo handling gear so it can not only land cargo it can load individual cargo pods or maneuver racks of cargo into place a bit more effectively than with just one modular cutter. Although with a Modular Small Boat jig installed it can carry additional cutters or shuttles in its internal cargo bay using its external cargo clamps for the bulk of the cargo.

Also, 4 ships boats with pulse lasers can act as scouts or high cover for the ship in a pinch. 4 pulse lasers on four boats is a bit of a boost to firepower..no matter how big it is a single small craft is going to be disabled or destroyed if a starship focuses on it. it's harder to focus on a single small craft while three more and the mother ship are firing at you.

If the pod on the sides are the drives they do not transfer the thrust through the center of inertia (center of gravity) of the ship. If you apply the thrust to the top of the ship it would spin nose downwards. It looks unbalanced.


What's the use-case for four ship's boats?

It looks a bit awkward when running light I am working on an illustration with its cargo racks loaded which should be a bit more informative...when its hauling cargo on its aft cargo mounts it will handle fine. the drives are centered on the axis of the cargo racks since those will be carrying the bulk of the combined mass of the vessel. I intended to include comments on it being ungainly and requiring careful trim adjustments when running light. it will definitely have very different flight characteristics when loaded. but since it isn't an atmospheric ship it can get away with a little more than a ship trying to deal with atmospheric drag and buffeting.

to counter the problem the drive pods are slightly mobile allowing the pilot to have some "trim" control over the axis of thrust.

As I mentioned above it carries ships boats equipped for cargo manipulation to act as mini-tugs and handlers for large racks of cargo containers.

Where is the center of gravity on a ship with artificial gravity and acceleration compensation fields?

It is also possible the upper deck houses all the heavy, dense machinery so the engines are aligned to the center of gravity.

In this ships case, it is more like "Where is the center of mass ..today?" It will typically be hauling heavy loads on the aft cargo mounts so the drive pods are positioned to give clearance and adapt to the load strung out behind it.

Where is the center of gravity on a ship with artificial gravity and acceleration compensation fields?

It is also possible the upper deck houses all the heavy, dense machinery so the engines are aligned to the center of gravity.

Internally you are correct. But externally a grav equipped spaceship still functions the same way as a non-grav one.

I think the engines are fine. You can push or pull your vessel, though for the most part I don't think you need swivel engines (that's how they appear at least).

I'm assuming the cargo pods are attached below the bridge? Something to think about would be to give it more of a flying bridge, above the upper hull to give it a clear view of the cargo pods attached in front.

The modular style of your cargo pods would lend itself to carrying smaller pods, say in the 100 dton range, up to a single pod with the maximum size available. Will you be providing illustrations of the pods too?

Armament wise it would most likey just be built with hardpoints. That way owners can arm it or not depending on where it's being used.

Small craft wise I'd think it would have a single launch, may e two, at most. It's a unabashed freighter that hauls it's cargo externally, therfore there is minimal need for small craft. And they take up space that could be better used for profit hauling cargo.

this is the core of the ship where most of the machinery and systems are installed....

the drive pods do not fully swivel they have some flexibility but they aren't capable of full rotation. I went with this style to allow for some alteration to the axis of thrust to accommodate a variable center of gravity.

The main cargo racks are the aft racks, the forward racks are more commonly used as pusher bars or temporarily holding cargo when moving around from one facility to another in system.

The modular layout with heavy external racks is one I am rapidly developing a strong affection for. Illustrations of pods, racks and different configurations will be included in the booklet...these pics are ones I wanted to post to generate feedback and gather a bit of info on what questions I need to address in the text


I set it up as having four triple turrets with dedicated magazine space for each turret with an empty hardpoint for installing energy weapons only ( no dedicated magazine). The turrets come empty off the line and weapons are tailored by the buyer. I am assuming at least one sandcaster per turret since it is a little thin skinned.

On a standard 500-ton ship that's a serious impact on cargo space...but since it is going to be capable of hauling at least 1000 tons of cargo it's not as big a hit percentage wise.

I toyed around with a few Small craft arrangements in my head. Having four bats allows for faster loading and unloading of cargo racks with ships crew handling the actual attachment of racks instead of station crew...I figured any captain is going to prefer his own men being the ones who do the actual attachment...since he can fire them, or shove them out an airlock (once they are away fro witnesses) if they put a dent in his ship.

If the skipper/owner prefers he can carry fewer small raft and shove a storage pod in the empty berths..or carry two boats and a couple of fighters/drones for extra protection.

 

[heron61]

Instead of ships boats, why not use modular cutters? Then, the external cargo can be stored in 30 ton pods and easily carried to the surface via one of the cutters. Of course, you also need 3 heavy grappling arms to be able to load and unload cargo modules on the modular cutters. If you have 3 modular cutters, then you can carry all the cargo from a fully loaded ship in 13 trips. Add a couple of fuel modules and the modular cutters can also handle refueling too.

I decided on four smaller boats to allow the multiple ships boats to act as tugs when loading and unloading. The boats that come with the ship will have manipulator arms and other cargo handling gear so it can not only land cargo it can load individual cargo pods or maneuver racks of cargo into place a bit more effectively than with just one modular cutter. Although with a Modular Small Boat jig installed it can carry additional cutters or shuttles in its internal cargo bay using its external cargo clamps for the bulk of the cargo.

Also, 4 ships boats with pulse lasers can act as scouts or high cover for the ship in a pinch. 4 pulse lasers on four boats is a bit of a boost to firepower..no matter how big it is a single small craft is going to be disabled or destroyed if a starship focuses on it. it's harder to focus on a single small craft while three more and the mother ship are firing at you.

4 ships boats have a tonnage or 120, I was thinking of either 3 modular cutters (150 tons), with one of them already having a cargo module onboard (which pretty much balances out with 4 ships boats). You could arm all 3, and a 50 ton ship has 2 firmpoints, meaning that if you want to spend lots of credits, one or more of the modular cutters could have a barbette for extra fire power.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Nice design. The triple turrets are well worth it when 1500 tons of cargo needs to be protected. The ship is ripe for piracy as a high value target.

Hopefully some amenities can be worked into the design since the ship will be very profitable when running. The crew will have earned some perks for bringing in a lot of money.

Are you going with Drop Tanks for the 150 tons of fuel you need to carry for the 1500 ton Jump 1? or are you having some of the cargo space externally be loaded with demountable fuel tanks as needed?

And one last question, would you design a ship that pushed the 2 tons of external mount per ton of ship or is that the limit do you think?

 

[wbnc]

Nice design. The triple turrets are well worth it when 1500 tons of cargo needs to be protected. The ship is ripe for piracy as a high value target.

Hopefully some amenities can be worked into the design since the ship will be very profitable when running. The crew will have earned some perks for bringing in a lot of money.

Are you going with Drop Tanks for the 150 tons of fuel you need to carry for the 1500 ton Jump 1? or are you having some of the cargo space externally be loaded with demountable fuel tanks as needed?

And one last question, would you design a ship that pushed the 2 tons of external mount per ton of ship or is that the limit do you think?

It will be a fairly comfortable ship. Not a luxury liner but more comfortable than the typical heavy hauler.

The fuel system would technically be drop tank based. but the tanks would be semi-permanent and carried through jump. I am working on the concept that the extra tankage is part of the cargo rack system attached to the rear of the ship. The only time it would drop its tanks would be if the ship had to abandon its cargo racks or jettison them due to attack. Of course, if it won the fight it can always reattach them later.

As far as the max for external cargo you could have a ship that hauled more than two times its core tonnage.This version can haul three times its own tonnage externally and so far it's not proving to be a problem.the problem is wedging drives into the ship to support the extra tonnage I am not sure where the breakdown would occur I haven't pushed the idea to its upper limit.

the biggest problem with ships designed for external cargo will be in the types of cargo it can carry. Any cargo that needs life support, or environmental controlled environments would require an independent module with power, life support etc..and that would be an expensive proposition...basically 25-50Kcr per ton for the hull, plus a reactor, and computer to maintain the system without crew...or staterooms for an engineer and mechanic.

 

[steve98052]

As I see it, if you're mounting cargo externally, the way to go is LASH. If the clamping is built as Breakaway Hull, the LASH modules can all contribute their engines to the assembly's total maneuver. Also (as previously discussed), a tanker can provide jump fuel while attached, though it would make sense to include enough internal fuel for a jump with no modules attached, and fuel for routine power. It's kind of the freight equivalent of jump carriers and battle riders.

Even if LASH non-starships aren't exchanged, as with optimized LASH, it makes sense for them to go ahead to unload their cargo and load more, while the jump carrier does its every-jump preventive maintenance and refueling. Swapping arriving cargo for departing cargo is slow compared to the carrier's minimum duties, which is why it can be more efficient to swap LASH ships rather than swapping just their cargo

 

[phavoc]

I set it up as having four triple turrets with dedicated magazine space for each turret with an empty hardpoint for installing energy weapons only ( no dedicated magazine). The turrets come empty off the line and weapons are tailored by the buyer. I am assuming at least one sandcaster per turret since it is a little thin skinned.

On a standard 500-ton ship that's a serious impact on cargo space...but since it is going to be capable of hauling at least 1000 tons of cargo it's not as big a hit percentage wise.

I toyed around with a few Small craft arrangements in my head. Having four bats allows for faster loading and unloading of cargo racks with ships crew handling the actual attachment of racks instead of station crew...I figured any captain is going to prefer his own men being the ones who do the actual attachment...since he can fire them, or shove them out an airlock (once they are away fro witnesses) if they put a dent in his ship.

If the skipper/owner prefers he can carry fewer small raft and shove a storage pod in the empty berths..or carry two boats and a couple of fighters/drones for extra protection.

Setting aside space (rather than amorphous tonnage) for magazines is something that is sadly lacking in a lot of official designs. If you want to keep closer to reality, if one or more of your turrets is meant for missiles you'd want to (a) have a larger potential magazine, and you'd probably want to ensure access to the outer hull so you aren't humping explosives through the ship.

Having the ship's crew unload gets into a one of those potential areas where the ports may insist on doing any unloading (unions in spaaaacceeee!). It's generally more economical to have a dedicated local crew humping the cargo as they will know the port's needs and rules better than travelling crews. And paying for loaders to travel in space isn't necessarily a good cost model. It helps at ports with less infrastructure, but by the design you have, whatever port of call it comes to will HAVE to have orbital capabilities. Also those modules are going to cost more than a simple container, thus you aren't going to necessarily be leaving them lying around at strange ports - the owner is going to want them back.

As I see it, if you're mounting cargo externally, the way to go is LASH. If the clamping is built as Breakaway Hull, the LASH modules can all contribute their engines to the assembly's total maneuver. Also (as previously discussed), a tanker can provide jump fuel while attached, though it would make sense to include enough internal fuel for a jump with no modules attached, and fuel for routine power. It's kind of the freight equivalent of jump carriers and battle riders.

Even if LASH non-starships aren't exchanged, as with optimized LASH, it makes sense for them to go ahead to unload their cargo and load more, while the jump carrier does its every-jump preventive maintenance and refueling. Swapping arriving cargo for departing cargo is slow compared to the carrier's minimum duties, which is why it can be more efficient to swap LASH ships rather than swapping just their cargo

LASH was thought to be a cheaper method of delivering cargo when it debuted. But after they built a few ships they learned some lessons. The first was that the barges that were the lighters (the L) had additional costs to keep them legally seaworthy. Aside from just the hull costs, you have the attachments that have to be maintained, any electronics and then your beacons and such. For some ports of call the LASH worked out to be cost effective because of a severe lack of port infrastructure. However in ports like Rotterdam, which was overflowing with infrastructure, the LASH proved to essentially not needed.

But the real killer of LASH was containerization. Prior to containers stevedores had to manually load/unload ships cargo. There are many an image of cargo being lifted out of a cargo hold in nets and then manually being moved to trucks or wherever. That required a LOT of manpower. Plus ships' holds were not as efficiently used as they could have been. But once containerization came about the speed at which a ship could be unloaded increased exponentially, as did a lowering of manpower. And that sealed the fate of LASH ships. Some of the designs were pretty neat, with the ship being able to load/unload the entire LASH by itself.

GURPS has a larger modular starship design along the LASH concept, with each of the modules being 1,000 tons. I don't have the stats handy to post but you may want to look at it for comparison. They also had a much smaller one, using 30Dton Cutter modules in their Modular Cutter sourcebook.

 

[wbnc]

As I see it, if you're mounting cargo externally, the way to go is LASH. If the clamping is built as Breakaway Hull, the LASH modules can all contribute their engines to the assembly's total maneuver. Also (as previously discussed), a tanker can provide jump fuel while attached, though it would make sense to include enough internal fuel for a jump with no modules attached, and fuel for routine power. It's kind of the freight equivalent of jump carriers and battle riders.

Even if LASH non-starships aren't exchanged, as with optimized LASH, it makes sense for them to go ahead to unload their cargo and load more, while the jump carrier does its every-jump preventive maintenance and refueling. Swapping arriving cargo for departing cargo is slow compared to the carrier's minimum duties, which is why it can be more efficient to swap LASH ships rather than swapping just their cargo

I have another vessel that uses this sort of arrangement. The cargo modules are built using ship building rules with their own power life support etc. ranging in size fro 30 Dtons to 500 Dtons.The ship carries them on docking clamps linked one to another up to 1500 tons of modules max load. the modules cost upwards of a 1-3 Mcr each and require crewmen to maintain internal systems. It works out rather well but is a bit more pricey and complicated than the container ship approach.

I haven't worked up a version using breakaway hull sections yet, but I am looking at the2% of the total tonnage and upkeep cost associated with the breakaway sections. it's a significant amount of money involved and the ship can't just drop a section n port and jump away wth a new section preloaded by local cargo handlers.

ineaither case the cos is significant and unless the customer is paying to lease or rent modules the ships operators have to pay for each module his ship carries.

the way I am envisioning the ships being loaded is that local tugs assemble the cargo containers into a large mass and build a temporary frame around the individual containers made from pre-engineered struts braces etc.. the ship the locks onto the frame and treats it as a single object.The struts and braces are fairly low-tech and could be stockpiled at a starport or high station for use by ships passing through. basically swapping out any framework they are carrying for parts from the stockpile.

if the entire frame is scheduled for the stop the ship can just drop its cargo and pick up a new preassembled rack for the next stop. Otherwise they detach run standard layover procedures until the stack is sorted and new cargo is loaded then reattach to the frame.

Setting aside space (rather than amorphous tonnage) for magazines is something that is sadly lacking in a lot of official designs. If you want to keep closer to reality, if one or more of your turrets is meant for missiles you'd want to (a) have a larger potential magazine, and you'd probably want to ensure access to the outer hull so you aren't humping explosives through the ship.

Having the ship's crew unload gets into a one of those potential areas where the ports may insist on doing any unloading (unions in spaaaacceeee!). It's generally more economical to have a dedicated local crew humping the cargo as they will know the port's needs and rules better than travelling crews. And paying for loaders to travel in space isn't necessarily a good cost model. It helps at ports with less infrastructure, but by the design you have, whatever port of call it comes to will HAVE to have orbital capabilities. Also those modules are going to cost more than a simple container, thus you aren't going to necessarily be leaving them lying around at strange ports - the owner is going to want them back.

I am trying to be a bit more mindful of such things as munitions and magazines in my designs at this point. I am not going into deep detail since it is not likely to be a major plot point in 90% of scenarios I have run through in multiple games.

I imagine most of the actual loading and sorting of cargo would be handled by locals. About the only time I can imagine the ships crew handling the cargo, is once it is assembled into a stack (as described above) and needs to be attached tot he ship. At this piont the captain is now concerned with up to 1500 Dtons of cargo that's fairly tricky bit of work to entrust to random strangers.

 

[phavoc]

For your model of quickly turning around ships a busy star system would most likely have orbital warehouses and stations at the 100D limit (or at 99D to allow for a safety margin) where ships of this type would be able to drop off their cargo, refuel, pick up the next cargo and then move on to the next system.

Most material posits the orbital infrastructure in close orbit (high/low ports), but you could make the 3, possibly even 4 jumps a month if you didn't have to waste time maneuvering in and out of the gravity well. One has to assume that a ship would need to accelerate/decelerate, plus slower speeds in trafficed areas, etc. And then some destinations are going to be in the shadow of a gas giant (like Regina), so there's that issue as well. With a shorter distance to travel you can also mount a smaller 1G maneuver drive.

 

[wbnc]

For your model of quickly turning around ships a busy star system would most likely have orbital warehouses and stations at the 100D limit (or at 99D to allow for a safety margin) where ships of this type would be able to drop off their cargo, refuel, pick up the next cargo and then move on to the next system.

Most material posits the orbital infrastructure in close orbit (high/low ports), but you could make the 3, possibly even 4 jumps a month if you didn't have to waste time maneuvering in and out of the gravity well. One has to assume that a ship would need to accelerate/decelerate, plus slower speeds in trafficed areas, etc. And then some destinations are going to be in the shadow of a gas giant (like Regina), so there's that issue as well. With a shorter distance to travel you can also mount a smaller 1G maneuver drive.

Use of this sort of ship would change the dynamics of shipping no doubt, and would require a fairly substantial bit of infrastructure. But the added profitability is definitely a strong incentive.

the best solution would be to build a high port and a switching yard...
The Highport could act as a central hub, handling smaller vessels, civilian, and passenger traffic.it would also handle cargo distribution and assembly of cargo stacks. Tugs/shuttles haul the assembled and sorted stacks and handle orbit to surface delivery. A switching yard could be built further out to handle the stacks of cargo, transfer stacks between vessels and refuel the ships for fast turn around. this also has the added benefit of separating the heavy commercial traffic from smaller civil vessels and passenger transports. A Noble out for a cruise in his yacht won't be delaying a cargo ship carrying heavy cargo.

Since these ships can spare more interior space without losing an unacceptable amount of cargo volume. they could have crew quarters that are more suitable for long-term stays. Instead of laying over at the highport for rest and recreation the crews spend most of their time on the ship itself and only rotate out for vacations or at the end of their assignment.

I was thinking about working on stations for supporting these sorts of vessels someone beat me to the punch with "Jump Station Echo" a station along the lines of the jump station and container ships would be a good combo . Especially since a ship taking advantage of a Jumpstation could leave its drop tanks behind when it jumps freeing up tons of cargo volume.

As I have them laid out at full load the ships have 1 gee thrust. although they can generate higher thrust when running light. if they wanted to jog in system to dock with a highport nd then back out to the switching yard it wouldn't be a problem at all.

 

[PsiTraveller]

I wrote Jump Station Echo and was thinking along the same lines as you are with your design. I pushed it as far as it can go and got rid of fuel tanks for Jump. Everything is Drop tank supplied for Jumping and only the power plant fuel for a couple of months operation is onboard.

External cargo mounts are a trading concerns best investment. 1 ton of Jump Drive can move 100 tons of External cargo J1. Your Jump 3 model would need 7.5 tons of Jump Drive for 100 tons of External Cargo mount.

So you spend 11.35 million credits to enhance your ship with 100 tons of cargo mounts and you can move 300 000 Credits worth of cargo per trip, 600 000 per month at 2 Jumps per month. 7.2 million Credits a year, minus maintenance time, but the mounts can pay for themselves in under 2 years. That is a great return on investment. Then that extra 600 000 a month goes right at the mortgage, or your anagathic supply.

System based infrastructure is a tug that can carry the cargo coming and going, and a Drop Tank, plus passengers and supplemental crew. Protection services for all of the above may be wanted as well.

 

[wbnc]

I wrote Jump Station Echo and was thinking along the same lines as you are with your design. I pushed it as far as it can go and got rid of fuel tanks for Jump. Everything is Drop tank supplied for Jumping and only the power plant fuel for a couple of months operation is onboard.

External cargo mounts are a trading concerns best investment. 1 ton of Jump Drive can move 100 tons of External cargo J1. Your Jump 3 model would need 7.5 tons of Jump Drive for 100 tons of External Cargo mount.

So you spend 11.35 million credits to enhance your ship with 100 tons of cargo mounts and you can move 300 000 Credits worth of cargo per trip, 600 000 per month at 2 Jumps per month. 7.2 million Credits a year, minus maintenance time, but the mounts can pay for themselves in under 2 years. That is a great return on investment. Then that extra 600 000 a month goes right at the mortgage, or your anagathic supply.

System based infrastructure is a tug that can carry the cargo coming and going, and a Drop Tank, plus passengers and supplemental crew. Protection services for all of the above may be wanted as well.

Anything that increases the carrying capacity of a cargo ship without significantly raising upkeep would be an attractive option. The drives and reactors for a ship with such oversized engines would be steep but like you pointed out the return on investment would be nice.

Setting up the infrastructure would also be a serious investment but to increase trade and reduced overhead I can see a group of shipping companies/investors pooling resources in larger systems.

And as a Ref, the sort of opportunities such a system would present for potential adventure is a plus. The owners would need people to handle problems, work as Liason and logistics carriers, and handle "Other than standard" problems. Small traders such as the sort most Travellers run would also be needed to handle deliveries to worlds of the main routes and pick up odd jobs such as carrying parts or going looking for a ship that didn't show up as scheduled.

 

[phavoc]

Use of this sort of ship would change the dynamics of shipping no doubt, and would require a fairly substantial bit of infrastructure. But the added profitability is definitely a strong incentive.

the best solution would be to build a high port and a switching yard...
The Highport could act as a central hub, handling smaller vessels, civilian, and passenger traffic.it would also handle cargo distribution and assembly of cargo stacks. Tugs/shuttles haul the assembled and sorted stacks and handle orbit to surface delivery. A switching yard could be built further out to handle the stacks of cargo, transfer stacks between vessels and refuel the ships for fast turn around. this also has the added benefit of separating the heavy commercial traffic from smaller civil vessels and passenger transports. A Noble out for a cruise in his yacht won't be delaying a cargo ship carrying heavy cargo.

Since these ships can spare more interior space without losing an unacceptable amount of cargo volume. they could have crew quarters that are more suitable for long-term stays. Instead of laying over at the highport for rest and recreation the crews spend most of their time on the ship itself and only rotate out for vacations or at the end of their assignment.

I was thinking about working on stations for supporting these sorts of vessels someone beat me to the punch with "Jump Station Echo" a station along the lines of the jump station and container ships would be a good combo . Especially since a ship taking advantage of a Jumpstation could leave its drop tanks behind when it jumps freeing up tons of cargo volume.

As I have them laid out at full load the ships have 1 gee thrust. although they can generate higher thrust when running light. if they wanted to jog in system to dock with a highport nd then back out to the switching yard it wouldn't be a problem at all.

The model works for the right set of planetary pairs, where costs justifications and shipping volumes can accommodate this. Other systems, that are busy by themselves might have such a thing as well, though it's really going to be system-dependent. And it depends on the infrastructure and breakdown of the system, too. For those systems that have planetary pairs, or are perhaps spread out like in an asteroid belt it may not make as much sense. Stuff like this is great for background creation, but trying to model it would be a big pain in the butt. It's better to leave up to ref's, or as background suggestions for people to insert in their own campaigns.

I don't see the primary station going away. Smaller tramp freighters are still going to ply the high ports / downports to delivery their cargo's. This sort of model works for the high-tempo big boys. The old Mora spacelines had 5,000 ton freighters running up and down the Marches. That might be the lower end of where this makes economic sense. But without better data models it's anyone's guess.

I don't think ships of this type would have that much different interiors. Maybe a few more common areas, but then again, you might be swapping out crews too. Since you mentioned switching yards (i.e. railroads), rail crews operate in their work zones. When they hit the outer edges they hop off the train and another crew takes it. Ships might work the same, with the crew being swapped out at the destination and picking up the next ship coming along in a day or three.

I'm not a big fan of the droptanks and lots of external cargo mounts. Ship designs should mirror the adage form follows function. In the BOOKS you see these things, but what people model in their sci-fi games doesn't always translate well into trying to model what makes practical sense. But everyone needs to determine what 'sense' makes the most for their own gaming universes. I for one have no issue with drop tanks, however I don't see them as being everywhere all the time. They are used when needed to bridge a gap. Beyond that they should be discouraged. The old rule of the possibility of them being destroyed made them ok for naval adventures, but discourages them for merchants. I prefer that mindset.