Sub Merchant and Sub Liner

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Another element is the "Far Port". Further out in the system so the only 100 diameter limit is the stations own. Ships jump in quickly dock exchange modules/cargoes/passengers and carry on to the next destination. Obviously refuelling is done as well. The system might just be a nexus with no main planet as important as the station or even a red zone far from the station. Shuttles (even starship sized) carry cargo within the system and may carry loads that came in on multiple different ships or even carry whole cargo modules. The PC "Tramp Trader" usually wouldn't be welcome and would need to make the trip all the way to the planet.

Another design element for J2 and larger is that some carry docking clamps and make additional money ferrying smaller ships around (ship your Free Trader across the J3 gap beyond which you KNOW you will make your fortune). They could also carry a 2nd hull (a barge) converting them into a lower jump ship with vastly more cargo space or even a liner barge for the run then back again. Small space stations can be delivered this way.

 

[Condottiere]

A starport could have widely distributed infrastructure and terminals.

Starport by itself, in the Traveller sense, is more about a single organization running things.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I've always been torn on the economics of LASH in space. It failed economically here because it wasn't (economical). In Traveller terms it comes down to a couple of things as I see it. First is just how much of the hull cost is tied up in the hull itself? Any cargo pod that's carried externally has to (or should) be made of the same materials as a starship, thus it ain't gonna be cheap. Sure, you could build cheap hulls, but if you can do it for cargo why can't you do it for ships for those who are forever fiscally challenged and willing to take on the risks? Second, just what all other stuff would you need to put in that external pod to make it fully self-contained? Costs that essentially get duplicated between your ship hull and your carrier hull? As min/max Traveller players will tell you - nothing! In a reality you'd need all kinds of safety and redundancy built into these things to be allowed to be deployed. There's a lot to unpack here if you want to be fair in the designs.

The Traveller economy has many, umm, let's be charitable and call them "gaps" in it's model. It's a game, so hey, I'm good with that. Beyond that so much is speculatory that nearly every idea has some sort of basis in "yeah, maybe so".

Here is an example. The pod is carried externally on a ship with stronger than required drives which let it carry a lot of pods. More cargo capacity than internal storage would allow. It does have systems that are also aboard the ship, but it can be removed with a Utility Tug and a new one put in place in a short period of time. How much is time worth to a merchant?



Here is the ship I designed to haul them. It's 200 tons but hauls an additional 360 tons of pods. That's almost the equivalent of a 600-ton ship, but when I've compared, the merchant tender design comes out less expensive compared to the same tonnage with internal capacity. Not by a lot, but enough that the faster turnaround time makes it a go to in my book. Three jumps a 4-week maintenance period is a real winner.

 

[Terry Mixon]

You could wire up a container with factor/zero manoeuvre drives.

They can load, and unload, themselves.

I just did a comparison and came up with this:

No maneuver:



vs maneuver:



KCr337.5 pricier for the maneuver drive version and less cargo by 0.19 tons. The cargo loss is a third of a percent, so negligible.

The cost is a bigger issue. A third of a million credits a pop. Is enough time saved to make that worth it when compared to having utility tugs do the unloading? I suspect yes but it would take some period of time to justify, I think. A year? Maybe.

 

[rinku]

Far ports may have an issue with jump accuracy. There's been a bit of a discussion on this stuff here recently, but if in YTU you really need a gravity well to anchor accurate jump emergence, they may only be practical when orbiting outside 100D of a world.

But... as an example, a station orbiting at Earth's 100D of 1.2756 million km has an orbital period of 4013 hours... 167 days. It will often be behind the jump shadow for long stretches, from any approach except polar, but nearly systems are more likely to rotate in a similar plane. So there's problems there too. It's likely better to have a station closer to the world so that it has a faster orbit (and jump shadow protection from sudden hostiles, which is a potential concern in all TUs). But you could also mitigate the issue with multiple stations, say 6 or 8. That's likely a good solution for a hub world.

 

[rinku]

You could get a similar effect with less cost by making Pilot rolls. Set the ship on a ballistic course to the destination and release the pods, then gently reverse until they're clear.

Because space.

Obviously the ship and pods would be designed for this maneuver to be as simple as possible (maybe even have the pods attached at the nose?)

Destination facility uses cargo nets, drones or grapples to snare the pods as they float past.

I think even a proper retrieval tug might work out cheaper than M-Drive pods at scale. They don't have to be that big.

 

[Terry Mixon]

You could get a similar effect with less cost by making Pilot rolls. Set the ship on a ballistic course to the destination and release the pods, then gently reverse until they're clear.

Because space.

Obviously the ship and pods would be designed for this maneuver to be as simple as possible (maybe even have the pods attached at the nose?)

Destination facility uses cargo nets, drones or grapples to snare the pods as they float past.

True, but they could unload all at once and maneuver to the destination while similar ones already in space move in to latch on. Almost no human direction to make the magic happen. If the ship really didn't want to stay, a tanker could match course on the way out to top it off and it only has to make a pass by. As they are not ballistic, there is less of a chance of accidents.

 

[Condottiere]

Two aspects to consider:

1. Base technological level.

2. Size of cargo container.

Not everything needs to be cutting edge, and the point being, you don't have to load or unload; what happens at the other end, could be up to them.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Two aspects to consider:

1. Base technological level.

2. Size of cargo container.

Not everything needs to be cutting edge, and the point being, you don't have to load or unload; what happens at the other end, could be up to them.

True. I'll drop them to TL12.

 

[phavoc]

You can only compare Traveller ships to modern nautical ones to a certain degree. Modern ships aren't out of all communication half the time, or smashing through an alternative reality to get to where they're going. But hey, Mongoose does indeed let you automate most functions if you really want to.

As far as freight costs... yeah. Slow boats don't pay over multiple jumps for the customer. J-2 and J-3 shipping would be usual if there is any choice in the matter.

As for auto unloading... just sign the robots up. Good Union members, those droids.

I like to think Traveller fits well in the early 1900s as far as the naval aspect goes. There you had ships that were out of contact for a while (not all ships had radio, and even then it wasn't always useful since you had to have someone near enough to hear), your merchies were plodding along, newer liners were fast and sleek, older ones relegated to secondary routes, and fighting ships depending on armor and slugged it out. Not totally parallel, but many similarities.

The rest I guess is all up for debate - and what would Traveller be without that?

 

[phavoc]

Another element is the "Far Port". Further out in the system so the only 100 diameter limit is the stations own. Ships jump in quickly dock exchange modules/cargoes/passengers and carry on to the next destination. Obviously refuelling is done as well. The system might just be a nexus with no main planet as important as the station or even a red zone far from the station. Shuttles (even starship sized) carry cargo within the system and may carry loads that came in on multiple different ships or even carry whole cargo modules. The PC "Tramp Trader" usually wouldn't be welcome and would need to make the trip all the way to the planet.

Another design element for J2 and larger is that some carry docking clamps and make additional money ferrying smaller ships around (ship your Free Trader across the J3 gap beyond which you KNOW you will make your fortune). They could also carry a 2nd hull (a barge) converting them into a lower jump ship with vastly more cargo space or even a liner barge for the run then back again. Small space stations can be delivered this way.

Totally agree. I think in busy enough systems - especially those that have the economics to afford and support it, you'd see stations very close to the 100D limit (I always figured them to be somewhat inside the limit, for both security and safety), and ships passing through the system would stop, unload and refuel and head back out. Liners may stop as well, unload and let local passengers take a shuttle.

The question becomes one of economics - would a station at the 100D be able to be economically operated as a transit hub and quite possibly duplicating orbital infrastructure that could be operated with a better profit margin closer to the planet? At 100D everything would have to hauled out to it from the planet (food, fuel, cargo, passengers and workers). While a large enough station could house it's own crews, that, too, costs credits. The game is nowhere near sophisticated enough economically to model such a thing. Conversely, it's a game and one does not need to justify everything economically to create a game setting.

 

[phavoc]

Here is an example. The pod is carried externally on a ship with stronger than required drives which let it carry a lot of pods. More cargo capacity than internal storage would allow. It does have systems that are also aboard the ship, but it can be removed with a Utility Tug and a new one put in place in a short period of time. How much is time worth to a merchant?

View attachment 4913

Here is the ship I designed to haul them. It's 200 tons but hauls an additional 360 tons of pods. That's almost the equivalent of a 600-ton ship, but when I've compared, the merchant tender design comes out less expensive compared to the same tonnage with internal capacity. Not by a lot, but enough that the faster turnaround time makes it a go to in my book. Three jumps a 4-week maintenance period is a real winner.

View attachment 4914

A cargo pod would need to be cheap - cheap enough that you could produce them and leave them empty - much like semi trailers (or even railcars). The pod itself should have battery system to power a transponder and some lights, and that's about it. It should mooch any other power from it's carrier ship (and really, it'd need almost no power anyways). Since it could be sitting around for weeks/months on end in a storage yard, why tie up the capital for systems that you wouldn't need to? The UNREP system seems inconsistent with it's purpose - to be a cargo container. It would be much more economical to support an unloading system where it's to be received than on each cargo container. That seems to me to be unnecessary duplication. The only thing that pod would need would be the cargo hatch, tie down points inside for less than full loads, and some LED lighting. Life support would be minimal at most. If we assume gravity control is built into the deck plating, then some sort of battery to provide power for systems when not hooked to a station or star ship that could be handled by batteries as well. That'd give you like a full Dton back in space and save about MCr1.2. Some costs would need to be paid, but really all you want is a semi-trailer in space with doors on the end and some lights. Make it as cheap as possible.

The carrier ship would be harder to model though. IF you were usually carrying a full load then it's a no brainer. If you only carried a full load say half the time, then your cost for the drive (total plus maintenance) would mess with your ROI for the overall costs of your ship. Flexibility is priceless, but merchants are driven by costs and penny-pinch. A military transport doesn't care about costs, it cares about the capabilities for when it needs to maximize it's reason for existence. Otherwise if it ran at 40% capacity half it's life the military wouldn't care - they don't operate for profit (unless they are mercs). Your carrier craft woudn't need a medic for that many crew - it's a waste of credits (books never got that sort of thing right). The pilot/nav could be combined into one position, or else the engineer would be a single slot to give yourself more bridge crew flexibility. Maintenace would be done port-side, your engineer is just there to make sure the oil gets topped off - unless your engineering team is from an LCS and let saltwater get into the engine oil...

Useful designs though. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Terry Mixon]

A cargo pod would need to be cheap - cheap enough that you could produce them and leave them empty - much like semi trailers (or even railcars). The pod itself should have battery system to power a transponder and some lights, and that's about it. It should mooch any other power from it's carrier ship (and really, it'd need almost no power anyways). Since it could be sitting around for weeks/months on end in a storage yard, why tie up the capital for systems that you wouldn't need to? The UNREP system seems inconsistent with it's purpose - to be a cargo container. It would be much more economical to support an unloading system where it's to be received than on each cargo container. That seems to me to be unnecessary duplication. The only thing that pod would need would be the cargo hatch, tie down points inside for less than full loads, and some LED lighting. Life support would be minimal at most. If we assume gravity control is built into the deck plating, then some sort of battery to provide power for systems when not hooked to a station or star ship that could be handled by batteries as well. That'd give you like a full Dton back in space and save about MCr1.2. Some costs would need to be paid, but really all you want is a semi-trailer in space with doors on the end and some lights. Make it as cheap as possible.

The carrier ship would be harder to model though. IF you were usually carrying a full load then it's a no brainer. If you only carried a full load say half the time, then your cost for the drive (total plus maintenance) would mess with your ROI for the overall costs of your ship. Flexibility is priceless, but merchants are driven by costs and penny-pinch. A military transport doesn't care about costs, it cares about the capabilities for when it needs to maximize it's reason for existence. Otherwise if it ran at 40% capacity half it's life the military wouldn't care - they don't operate for profit (unless they are mercs). Your carrier craft woudn't need a medic for that many crew - it's a waste of credits (books never got that sort of thing right). The pilot/nav could be combined into one position, or else the engineer would be a single slot to give yourself more bridge crew flexibility. Maintenace would be done port-side, your engineer is just there to make sure the oil gets topped off - unless your engineering team is from an LCS and let saltwater get into the engine oil...

Useful designs though. Thanks for sharing.

The rules don’t currently support powering something in a docking clamp. I think it should, and that there should be an airlock in it, but that isn’t the case at the moment.

The UNREP system could be on the other end. It’s a good point and I will adjust that.

Cargo isn’t guaranteed to be able to be in zeroG conditions, so it probably does need gravity and that means it needs a power plant. The hull needs power. Thats the way the rules are written.

The vacuum bubble around the ship in jump will leach heat. Maybe enough to matter. Another reason it needs power.

These merchant tenders are for companies that can fill loads consistently. They could be lower tech I’m sure, though. Those aren’t the ships I made, though.

Designs are always something that can be tweaked for different needs. These are for higher end clientele.

I will make the economy pods, though. Then everyone can use something.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

The rules don’t currently support powering something in a docking clamp. I think it should, and that there should be an airlock in it, but that isn’t the case at the moment.

I place airlocks in conjunction with docking clamps. Dock the airlocks on the ships/hulls/pods and attach the docking clamp. Doesn't handle power but it should be possible to add an umbilical for power (similar in cost to UNREP? maybe half on each ship/hull/pod).

Cargo isn’t guaranteed to be able to be in zeroG conditions, so it probably does need gravity and that means it needs a power plant. The hull needs power. Thats the way the rules are written.

Some with non gravity hulls some with standard or reduced, how much g do you really need? Hull still needs basic power and a computer by the rules.

I will make the economy pods, though. Then everyone can use something.

Light construction.

 

[Condottiere]

On the other hand, external cargo (cage) is open sourced.

You could stuff anything in there, though whether you should, is another issue.

It's probably not necessary to design an airtight hull at fifty kilostarbux default per tonne, since drop tanks appear to come in at half that.

Chances are, other hull material is equally valid for that feature.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

It's probably not necessary to design an airtight hull at fifty kilostarbux default per tonne, since drop tanks appear to come in at half that.

So do modules. Why couldn't you carry a module externally? They also MOSTLY add a streamlining 20% cost increase so why not a decrease for a distributed module or a light module (or both) and of course non gravity modules?

 

[Condottiere]

That would be easier to answer before Mongoose said it's entirely internal.

It's not that you can't make them vacuum tight, but it may not be the default mode.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

That would be easier to answer before Mongoose said it's entirely internal.

It's not that you can't make them vacuum tight, but it may not be the default mode.

But they also allow them to be deployed as planetary bases, satellites and space stations. So no longer totally internal.

 

[Condottiere]

My gut says that the right hand may not know entirely what the left is doing.

A lot is legacy copy paste,

Clearest example of something that seems incompatible, would be onboard power plants.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Clearest example of something that seems incompatible, would be onboard power plants.

I interpret that as they can have their own power BUT if they do it can't be shared with the ship. The ship is wired for at least basic power TOO the module but none FROM the module.