Did the MBS corner the market on trade?

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:Normally man bootstraps himself before going up the gravity well. You are suggesting they do so before going down the well. Interesting. Although I do understand your logic, I don't think you are looking at the big picture.

"Normally" does not apply when you're extrapolating from one. We only have one planet we currently live on, the one we were born on, down the gravity well. Everywhere else we eventually colonise, we will have come from the stars. We don't know how exactly we'll make those colonisations, so we can't extrapolate right now. In the HV, it seems they first go down to the planet, then build up, like we did on Earth. I'm arguing that that's risky and wasteful.

Yes, I'm arguing with the author.

The colonists will still have only one planet. Get busy colonizing it and finding out what you already have. Or don't have. I agree it matters to know where you've come from to know where you are going. And you are going to live on the planet. What seems wasteful and risky to me is to expend so much energy and resources building a world in space when there is a perfectly viable world down below. Upstream you want to reinvent the wheel, and now you want to reinvent an entire world when perhaps a perfectly fine M-class planet is located right down the gravity well.

If a belligerent enters the system, they will control your orbitals, your foodstuffs and all of your hard work. And you made it easy for them to do by placing your food "out on a limb" for easy pickings.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:Anyway, there are shuttles to conquer the gravity well. Landing resources down the well should be easy to do and as a result easy to build an infrastructure on the planet. And acquiring water sources on planet should be much easier and practical. Oxygen should not be a problem on planet either. I see orbital farms as something you finally consider later. Growing foodstuffs on planet should be more desirable with HV agricultural methods. So, unless there are problems with plant diseases and or pests, farming the land would be more desirable. I would think. I don't see anything wrong with a few farms in space. But when exactly are you planning to settle the planet? And when are you planning to awaken the settlers?

That only exacerbates the problem. If you do have shuttles to go up from the planet to the farms, then space industry is easier, not harder. That also means you can bring up any minerals, water and oxygen up from the planet, all sterile so there's no risk of contamination.

I don't see why farming on the planet should be more desirable if the cost is roughly the same. You are churning the land there, after all, destroying the native landscape and ecosystem by introducing Terran fauna and flora. Though the same technology that would allow for orbital farms should allow for entirely self-contained, domed farms on the ground too. So the issue of alien contamination should not occur in the first place, either way.

As for when you awake the colonists? As your food production and industrial means grow and are stable enough to support the population, and as your reserves allow.

Orbital farming is made easier by having shuttles, yes. But easier than what? Easier than farming the fertile land that awaits you groundside?

The logistics doesn't make any sense ...

"Wait! What? We are going to colonize the planet so that we can live on the planet. But you want to build the nearest grocery store in space? So that we need an "airplane" just to get some fruit and veggies from the "local grocer?" Our airplanes better not break down. And gas is going to cost us a fortune just to keep our cupboards stocked!"

Thinksmarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:As I said upstream and tlb seems to concur, I did not think the early colony ships were so capable. And they might have used lots of resources keeping the ship running along the way. At any rate, consider the logistics. You are saying they should get busy building the first industrial nodes before going down. I don't have a problem with building initial nodes in space. However, consider what those industrial nodes will consist of and who will build them. Mostly everyone is in cryo. And everybody's effort will be needed. Where will these people live? And what will they eat? What will they drink? What will they breathe? Water should be at a premium. I suppose a few can build for the many who will awaken, eventually. But the environmental systems will be taxed in space. Shuttles will be used to mine the asteroid fields, and the colony ship and shuttles will require parts and service.

Indeed, logistics should dictate the build order and the order of awakening. Do you agree that the colony ship should have been designed for the worst-case scenario? That would mean it should have the resources to keep a bootstrap colony awake and producing the initial work in the case the planet had proved completely uninhabitable, either to mitigate the problem or to redirect the ship to another destination. If it's not the worst-case as they arrive, then they should have a sufficient surplus to build those industries and farms. They will have robots too.

The build order should be to get on with your intended order of business of claiming the planet! From the beginning of settling the many "Wild Wild Wests" on Earth, we must not forget the unspoken rule of man. "That ain't your land until you drive a stake in the ground with a flag on it and claim it!" While you are in orbit building your empire in space, another colony ship can arrive, land on the planet and claim it. "We claim this land in the name of we who do not procrastinate." Then drive the flag into the ground.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:People will want to be awakened when they finally arrive at their home. Politics will come into play. There could be a civil war before you can be awakened in a year or two? Three? Four?

Yeah, I can't comment on that. But waking up everyone before the colony is ready would lead to famine. Besides, how are sleepers going to complain? By the time they are able to complain, it will be fait accompli.

The colony is ready! Everyone on the ship is there for a reason. Everyone knows what is expected of them. Let them get to it. Poor planning is not sending enough of the right people to colonize the planet.

Another fact that no one has mentioned is the natural food sources that are to be found on the planet. Pigs. Deer. Boars. Fish. Sheep. Even new species. And natural plants, fruits and vegetables. Unless the planet is toxic like Grayson, no one is going to starve! Again, I see growing food in space as a necessity, not a desire. It is impractical compared to farming the land that is in walking distance from your dwelling on the planet. Just out your back door. Or front door as the Moravians prefer.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:People are put in cryo for a reason. There simply is not only not enough food to feed everyone on the voyage home, but there isn't enough water and oxygen either. It seems silly to spend so much effort acquiring water down the gravity well to transport up the well. And utilizing technology for oxygen when you chose a planet to furnish both.

I agree, it's silly to spend so much effort. But water is plentiful in space, and you can crack it for oxygen. Moreover, water is actually a very good radiation shield, so early ships would have LOTS of water anyway.

Besides, your argument is that they'd have shuttles that would reduce the cost considerably anyway. So it wouldn't be such effort in the first place.

Wouldn't be such an effort? You are already talking about radiation shielding and so much other infrastructure and logistics that you seem to be taking for granted. Simply to locate your local grocery store in space where no average person can even access. Water in space is not going to be as plentiful as that on the ground. Already filtered and untouched for millennia. Potable water! Enough to bathe and swim in! Enough to water a lawn.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:]At any rate, I cannot understand why a world is being built in space if you are planning to live on the planet. Perhaps the planet should be settled along with keeping a base in space as well.

That's what I am saying. You can build the homes on the planet if you have a way to getting people easily back up for working in the farms. Long-term, if you want to live on the planet, you can; the argument is that you shouldn't ditch all the space technology that you have, is known and reliable, and depend on that planet, which is an unknown.

I agree with the idea of keeping the farms viable that you brought with you in space. That should serve as a backup should you need it. And it should also serve as a repository for the many plant species that you brought along with you. It is the same thing that many countries do now. We store a variety of seeds away at an undisclosed location in case of a world wide catastrophe. The space farm you brought along with you can also serve as a lab to solve any agricultural problems groundside. The colonist's orbital farming expertise does not come at a loss for groundside agricultural expertise.

But the present order of business should be colonizing the planet and it should not be put on hold. Expedience should be the first order of business. There is an entire planet of resources groundside. Natural resources. Clean water from streams that is available for consumption now! No need to mine for it! There should be a variety of natural foods and animals to eat as well. Some lucky colonist could discover an even tastier alternative to Montana beef! Like Wagyu beef. They won't discover those priceless cows by hiding out on the colony ship. Colony ships were not built and treated as if they were like Noah's Ark where they brought along two of every animal. They were discovered.

Thinksmarkedly wrote:

penny wrote:At any rate, politics should prevent a plan which involves keeping people in cryo for an extended period of time after they arrive. They have a stake in this planet that they cannot claim if in cryo. At any rate, as far as solving the possibility of a catastrophe to the orbital farms by building many small farms, do consider that the catastrophe could involve the colony ship itself where everyone in cryo is lost. All of those sleeping eggs are in one basket and could be destroyed before they "hatch."

See above.

Well, keeping the settlers in cryo for a long period of time after arriving is a good way to kick off hostilities. The planet below is the new gold rush. And you want to keep them out of the rush. Everyone onboard has been trained to colonize their new home. Everyone is a survivor. Let them go down the well and fend for themselves as they had planned and intended to do.

penny wrote:Anyway, there are shuttles to conquer the gravity well. Landing resources down the well should be easy to do and as a result easy to build an infrastructure on the planet. And acquiring water sources on planet should be much easier and practical. Oxygen should not be a problem on planet either. I see orbital farms as something you finally consider later. Growing foodstuffs on planet should be more desirable with HV agricultural methods. So, unless there are problems with plant diseases and or pests, farming the land would be more desirable. I would think. I don't see anything wrong with a few farms in space. But when exactly are you planning to settle the planet? And when are you planning to awaken the settlers?

Thinksmarkedly wrote:That only exacerbates the problem. If you do have shuttles to go up from the planet to the farms, then space industry is easier, not harder. That also means you can bring up any minerals, water and oxygen up from the planet, all sterile so there's no risk of contamination.

I don't see why farming on the planet should be more desirable if the cost is roughly the same. You are churning the land there, after all, destroying the native landscape and ecosystem by introducing Terran fauna and flora. Though the same technology that would allow for orbital farms should allow for entirely self-contained, domed farms on the ground too. So the issue of alien contamination should not occur in the first place, either way.

As for when you awake the colonists? As your food production and industrial means grow and are stable enough to support the population, and as your reserves allow.

penny wrote:Orbital farming is made easier by having shuttles, yes. But easier than what? Easier than farming the fertile land that awaits you groundside?

You all are forgetting the timeline. Shuttles to make transportation efficient only became cheap AFTER Stephanie was born, when contra-gravity was invented. This was long after the days of colony ships.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:Anyway, there are shuttles to conquer the gravity well. Landing resources down the well should be easy to do and as a result easy to build an infrastructure on the planet. And acquiring water sources on planet should be much easier and practical. Oxygen should not be a problem on planet either. I see orbital farms as something you finally consider later. Growing foodstuffs on planet should be more desirable with HV agricultural methods. So, unless there are problems with plant diseases and or pests, farming the land would be more desirable. I would think. I don't see anything wrong with a few farms in space. But when exactly are you planning to settle the planet? And when are you planning to awaken the settlers?

Thinksmarkedly wrote:That only exacerbates the problem. If you do have shuttles to go up from the planet to the farms, then space industry is easier, not harder. That also means you can bring up any minerals, water and oxygen up from the planet, all sterile so there's no risk of contamination.

I don't see why farming on the planet should be more desirable if the cost is roughly the same. You are churning the land there, after all, destroying the native landscape and ecosystem by introducing Terran fauna and flora. Though the same technology that would allow for orbital farms should allow for entirely self-contained, domed farms on the ground too. So the issue of alien contamination should not occur in the first place, either way.

As for when you awake the colonists? As your food production and industrial means grow and are stable enough to support the population, and as your reserves allow.

penny wrote:Orbital farming is made easier by having shuttles, yes. But easier than what? Easier than farming the fertile land that awaits you groundside?

You all are forgetting the timeline. Shuttles to make transportation efficient only became cheap AFTER Stephanie was born, when contra-gravity was invented. This was long after the days of colony ships.

Not I. I agree. They wouldn't be landing freighters on planet. So lots of runs have to be made to keep the grocers from looking like a store in North Korea. Bare.

Same logistics problems for mining. Even for space operations, shuttles are not freighters.

However, easier isn't the same as efficient.

Jonathan_S wrote:Because sub-light cryo colonization ships are stupendously expensive (for the industrial base of the time) and benefit outrageously from scaling effects.

Making one twice as big should cost a miniscule fraction of the cost of building two. Making one big one probably costs 1/1000th as much as building 12 small ones.

That has to be the explanation, though I could propose several arguments why it shouldn't be. But I didn't make the rules for the HV, and we don't actually have any expertise doing it to prove or disprove RFC's ruling.

Material costs should be a fraction of the total, because they'd come from space and they're roughly proportional to total volume. So 12x1 and 1x12 is the same, modulo the fact that you need less shielding per unit of volume in a larger ship. Labour costs should also be roughly the same per unit of volume. So there has to be a high, fixed cost per ship, which would indeed make it so the only ship size possible is "as big as possible."

And yet, there's a huge risk in sending a single ship in a 600-year journey. However expensive a ship is, couldn't the MCT build and equip three?

Oh, and you need twelve times the crew awake at any time monitoring and maintaining the ships -- that's not easy to come by either.

I disagree, but I could be wrong. Crew should be proportional to volume, above a minimum fixed command crew. So it would be higher than a single ship, but not by much and not 12x more.

But as above, if everything is highly automated anyway (and it doesn't seem to be in the HV), then all you need is that command crew and a large number of bots. If that's the case, then you'd be right.

When colony ship construction and crewing are your bottlenecks then you're going to get most colonies as single-ship efforts.

Not if they have a high chance of failure. If a single ship has a 10% chance of failure along the way (getting lost, cryo systems failing, being hit by interstellar asteroids, etc.), then two ships would only have a 1% chance of failure together. Or even better than that, because as I said, one ship can help the other, so you get a synergistic improvement of the odds.

We don't have full data, but we have sufficiently already to say that of the ~1,000 sub-light colonisation efforts, at least 10 had problems. In my book, that's already a too high failure ratio of the expenditure that we're talking about.

And we know they had to keep the total costs of the project down because each traveler had to buy into the trip by sharing the total costs. Am I misremembering that? You do not want the overall effort to exceed the ability of the settlers aboard to fund it collectively.

Thinksmarkedly, I am none too sure it is realistic to expect any ship to assist any other ship that develops problems. All of the colony ships are coasting and no ship will want to slow down to assist a ship that might be falling behind. And shuttles only have so much range.

penny wrote:No one in the forum actually thinks orbital farming is cheaper than farming on the planet, is there?

I would like to do that, but again I am arguing against RFC.

Orbital farming isn't cheaper as a whole, but as a per unit of produce or per unit of mass produced. There's a huge initial investment, to be sure, but it pays off in efficiency. Especially in the long-run, as that initial cost amortises.

And if we're talking about a new colony world, it should be comparable to doing the same on a wild planet, because both need initial investment. The fact that you have air and dirt ready on your planet does not mean it's ready for planting. And there are maintenance costs anyway.

Plus, you have to account for the skills of whoever is actually on that colony ship: by the time the ship leaves the Solar System, it would have had something like 100 billion people, 80% of whom are in space and ~90% are living off space-based industry and agriculture. Where are you going to recruit down-the-gravity-well agriculture specialists? And here I'm thinking of people managing robots and tractors, not anyone willing to wield a shovel and pickaxe.

And no one actually thinks orbital farming is desired, rather than a necessity, when it is used?

I see no reason to desire one form or the other. A tomato is a tomato is a tomato.

So it should be down to energy efficiency, capital utilisation, and politics. On the latter I agree with you some people may want to eat only planet-originated foodstuffs as a cultural trait. But see above about the likely origin of the colonists, so I doubt that they could afford that in their world of origin anyway.

In fact, I can claim a group of people who would desire orbital food: those who want no transgenic food. You won't be able to grow unmodified Terran-native crops on a different planet, but you could on an orbital farm.

penny wrote:I am none too sure it is realistic to expect any ship to assist any other ship that develops problems. All of the colony ships are coasting and no ship will want to slow down to assist a ship that might be falling behind. And shuttles only have so much range.

If they are coasting, then no one is going to fall behind. I think it is just the economics of one big ship over several smaller ones. Any problems would have to be fixed by the tools and machines at hand. Calvin's Hope only had the problem of fuel, but there was still enough to get them to another planet.

penny wrote:What seems wasteful and risky to me is to expend so much energy and resources building a world in space when there is a perfectly viable world down below. Upstream you want to reinvent the wheel, and now you want to reinvent an entire world when perhaps a perfectly fine M-class planet is located right down the gravity well.

The condition you've inserted here is the whole crux of the issue: a perfectly viable and perfectly fine M-class world. We've seen far too many of them that hide dark secrets that don't get to be discovered until later. We can't even know that it's a bias towards knowing more about the disasters, because there are already too many of them for the colonies that would have been founded by Stephanie's time, Manticore included.

I am arguing that since you don't know what you'll find down on the planet, you should hedge your bets (at a minimum!) and stick to you what you know, is tried and used in a very large-scale in your system of origin.

Plus, if you're going to have space-based industries, to avoid pollution on the planet and because some industries may require microgravity anyway, you'll need food in space too. Why would you lift it out of the gravity well without countergrav, instead of having it there already?

If a belligerent enters the system, they will control your orbitals, your foodstuffs and all of your hard work. And you made it easy for them to do by placing your food "out on a limb" for easy pickings.

If a belligerent enters the system and controls the orbitals, they own your planet anyway. So that situation doesn't change your predicament. It does make getting the food cheaper, I agree.

On the other hand, if you do have a space presence, you may be able to fight them off. You must have a space presence and it doesn't look like any of the colonies we've heard of lost this (at least not unintentionally). If bringing food up from the planet is expensive, then you have orbital farms. If it isn't expensive, then the belligerents can get the food anyway.

And why would would-be pirates want food? That's a huge risk if they set out without sufficient supplies and came to a system that they couldn't get food from. They'd be asylum-seekers before pirates.

Orbital farming is made easier by having shuttles, yes. But easier than what? Easier than farming the fertile land that awaits you groundside?

Who says it's fertile? You don't know for sure until you get there. A whole lot of colonies will be founded before direct surveying (like Manticore) became possible. So by the time direct surveying does become possible, the techniques for living on possibly-infertile system will exist.

Plus, see above on the whole discussion on dark secrets.

Even then I can argue that it should be easier because of everything else, especially energy abundance in space and weather. In space, you don't have to deal with droughts, storms, flooding, or critters.

And if it isn't properly fertile for Terran crops, you'll need to either change them to grow there or terraform the planet with what it's missing (or both). And where are you going to get the material for terraforming? From space.

"Wait! What? We are going to colonize the planet so that we can live on the planet. But you want to build the nearest grocery store in space? So that we need an "airplane" just to get some fruit and veggies from the "local grocer?" Our airplanes better not break down. And gas is going to cost us a fortune just to keep our cupboards stocked!"

Sending food down the gravity well is easy. You don't need aeroplanes, rockets, counter-grav, or shuttles. All you need is a drop-pod. We have that technology now - in fact, the Soyuz capsules that the ISS still uses every now and again are 50-year-old technology.

The build order should be to get on with your intended order of business of claiming the planet! From the beginning of settling the many "Wild Wild Wests" on Earth, we must not forget the unspoken rule of man. "That ain't your land until you drive a stake in the ground with a flag on it and claim it!" While you are in orbit building your empire in space, another colony ship can arrive, land on the planet and claim it. "We claim this land in the name of we who do not procrastinate." Then drive the flag into the ground.

You can plant the flag. I don't think its presence will deter anyone who isn't concerned with the law anyway. What matters is your ability to defend your planet. A young colony won't do that from the bottom of the gravity well, not with large launch costs. You need a space presence and thus food in space.

As for another sub-light ship arriving... you'd see it ten years before arrival. You have plenty of time to send someone down to the planet and make the official claim if you haven't already.

The colony is ready! Everyone on the ship is there for a reason. Everyone knows what is expected of them. Let them get to it. Poor planning is not sending enough of the right people to colonize the planet.

Great! Planning and the build order was settled before they left the system of origin, with a reasonable set of alternate plans if the conditions on the ground are different, and contingencies. Follow it.

That's entirely besides the point of where food is grown. The point is that there's a plan for it and that dictates who is woken up. I could understand it may turn out that it is cheaper and quicker if you do it on the ground than in space. But I am arguing that it shouldn't be. More importantly, it's more risky on the planet.

Another fact that no one has mentioned is the natural food sources that are to be found on the planet. Pigs. Deer. Boars. Fish. Sheep. Even new species. And natural plants, fruits and vegetables. Unless the planet is toxic like Grayson, no one is going to starve! Again, I see growing food in space as a necessity, not a desire. It is impractical compared to farming the land that is in walking distance from your dwelling on the planet. Just out your back door. Or front door as the Moravians prefer.

Ah, no. Even before toxicity, we have the possibility that it doesn't actually feed you. We do know that alien biologies can and most often are actually incompatible, even in the most Earth-like worlds. In OBS, we are told that Nimitz loves celery, but can't actually properly digest it and draws no nutrition from the original variety. It isn't until later we're told that Sphinxian celery is a genetic variant with native nutrients (produced by Marjorie Harrington, among others), and even then it's not a good food source for Sphinx fauna -- the fact that it allows for treecats' telepathy notwithstanding.

Alien fauna and flora may provide you with biomass, but it may not be nutritious. It's very easy to see this on Earth already: there's such a thing as a balanced diet anyway. For alien worlds, eating a local animal like a hexapuma or a peak-bear may be equivalent to eating wood.

So, no, you can't count on the planet being ready, fertile, and full of food for you when you arrive. Not unless you made it so, by sending a garden ship ahead of you with some von Neumann probes.

Water in space is not going to be as plentiful as that on the ground. Already filtered and untouched for millennia. Potable water! Enough to bathe and swim in! Enough to water a lawn.

Water in space is more plentiful than on Earth and, by definition, Earth-like planets. If you stray from Earth-like into hycean or pan-thalassan worlds, then you may have more water... but also less solid, dry ground too.

I agree with the idea of keeping the farms viable that you brought with you in space. That should serve as a backup should you need it. And it should also serve as a repository for the many plant species that you brought along with you. It is the same thing that many countries do now. We store a variety of seeds away at an undisclosed location in case of a world wide catastrophe. The space farm you brought along with you can also serve as a lab to solve any agricultural problems groundside. The colonist's orbital farming expertise does not come at a loss for groundside agricultural expertise.

Agreed.

But the present order of business should be colonizing the planet and it should not be put on hold. Expedience should be the first order of business. There is an entire planet of resources groundside. Natural resources. Clean water from streams that is available for consumption now! No need to mine for it! There should be a variety of natural foods and animals to eat as well. Some lucky colonist could discover an even tastier alternative to Montana beef! Like Wagyu beef. They won't discover those priceless cows by hiding out on the colony ship. Colony ships were not built and treated as if they were like Noah's Ark where they brought along two of every animal. They were discovered.

I submit that you're not colonising just the planet. You're colonising the entire star system. You're not going to find hydrogen/deuterium and helium on an Earth-like planet in sufficient quantities to fuel your fusion power plants, so you're definitely going to get it from a nearby gas giant (assuming you don´t do starlifting, which the HV doesn't seem to have the technology for). You're likely going to get other minerals from nearby asteroids, instead of digging down on your planet -- assuming it has that in the first place.

Earth and Venus, as I said before, are over 90% of the mass of the Solar System outside of the Sun and the gas giants, so they definitely have more resources than all the asteroids combined. But those resources are locked down at the bottom of the gravity well, and under a lot of rock for quite a bit of it. Asteroids have less mass, but they are ready to be processed. Water is just a comet away, and that's when a nearby moon isn't already spewing it into space for you (Enceladus does that for us, for example -- Enceladus may even have more water than all of Earth).

Therefore, you're not putting the colonisation on hold by doing it properly. You're being expedient by following the proper build order, instead of being reckless, ditching the plan everyone agreed upon, and waking everyone up.

PS: Montana beef is still just beef, from imported cows. It's not a local animal.

tlb wrote:If they are coasting, then no one is going to fall behind. I think it is just the economics of one big ship over several smaller ones. Any problems would have to be fixed by the tools and machines at hand. Calvin's Hope only had the problem of fuel, but there was still enough to get them to another planet.

Calvin's Hope was an example of reckless planning. They did not have an alternate planet to go to if things didn't turn out exactly as planned. It should at least have launched with the ability to refuel. It's mostly hydrogen you need, so getting it from a gas giant in the Calvin system should have been in the plans, so they could redirect and get back up to interstellar speed.

Anyway, this example shouldn't be used as your typical colony example. That's why I argued that the Manticore Colnisation Corporation should have sent more ships, because that one wasn't a reckless endeavour.

penny wrote:Thinksmarkedly, I am none too sure it is realistic to expect any ship to assist any other ship that develops problems. All of the colony ships are coasting and no ship will want to slow down to assist a ship that might be falling behind. And shuttles only have so much range.

I think the bigger problem is good luck building shuttles that can mount the armor and rad shielding for exposure to interstellar medium at major fractions of c.

Let's take Jason, the colony ship that settled Manticore, as an example.
We know:
* Oct. 24, 775 PD: The colony ship Jason leaves Earth for Manticore. [MTH]
* Manticore is 512 LY from earth [MTH]
* Mar. 21 1415 PD: First shuttle from her lands on Manticore [OBS]
So 640.5 years to cover 514 LY averages out to 79.93% c.
(And that is explicitly noted as being before the impeller drive -- so that's seriously impressive)

But while the colony ships could self-evidently handle the particle screening needed for centuries of that velocity I doubt you'd want to expose crew in a shuttle to it. Sure if you have a formation of ships coasting along at the same velocity the shuttle should have the delta-v to move between them. But that's not so useful if you cook the crew (or impact a grain of dust and vaporize the shuttle)

Sure, in the modern day Honorverse a naval pinnace appears to carry particle screening that's capable of the same 0.8c top speed as a full up warship (and better than the 0.6c top speed of a merchant ship) -- but that's with over a fifteen centuries of tech advancements. Wouldn't bet on a shuttle built in 775 PD to do the same.