|
Post by Dhan on Dec 18, 2016 10:48:27 GMT
You can also place an osmium drop tank on the nose of a missile and, with a reasonable amount of explosive, have it be launched at 3-4km/s. Haven't really messed around with this though since I imagine that the missile wobble would cause it to miss more often than not.
|
|
|
Post by cuddlefish on Dec 18, 2016 13:06:51 GMT
I think the saving grace of the tanker is that it is recoverable. If you want to use drop tanks to any substantial degree, your thrust performance will be significantly degraded until you either use it all up or separate - but once you click detach, your tanks are gone forever. So it's best used on things which can count on not needing significant endurance after they hit the point of needing to put on their dancing shoes - for example, getting good 'range' on missiles by using heavy drop-tanks to do your 'overland travel' while keeping a full terminal stage worth of fuel internally - then, just blow the tanks as you approach the target and you're good to dance with a nice, predictable fuel allotment.
It's a bit less convenient if you might need to make multiple 'trip' stages with high-power maneuvering in the midst - at that point, using a fighter/tender type setup with tankers might be better, even with the crew penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Dec 18, 2016 18:07:36 GMT
Patch gives us droptanks for staging. Someone turns that into a proof of concept cluster missile payload inside 12 hours. Alright, how many people from Spacebattles are on this forum? *looks around* Edit: I don't think that drop tanks will come even close to making tankers obsolete. In fact, unless MPD and Reactor performance takes a big hit when they get some physical issues addressed, I expect most ships will use MPDs for interplanetary transfers. Actually, given the effectiveness of lasers, photothermal missile engines could be a cool addition.
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 18, 2016 18:24:18 GMT
I counted at least five others from SV/SB.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Dec 18, 2016 19:06:10 GMT
Well gents i have finally been able to test and design a ship i have been wanting to experiment with for a while. As i recall from a while ago we were discussing the Dv characteristics of various propellants. As someone noted Methane is great for a density-vs-thrust ratio, but in terms of raw Dv, Hydrogen was great due to it's light weight and density. Arguably the thing that gave it a huge downside seeing as storing inside armour was a nuisance to say the least. Well now you don't need to choose! Coming off of that concept i had the idea for a dual mix system that used H for the transfer burns and CH4 for the nitty gritty. Now thanks to the long desired drop tanks i have been able to simulate such a design. As you can clearly see the accumulated Dv is 43.6 Km/s. 25 of which is available in the externally mounted two mk1 1kt Dt's and the remainder in an internal 18.5 km/s Methane tank. This obviously opens up a whole new avenue of design, in the past i would have to internally re-arrange for whole new designs with additionally mounted fuel tanks and support. Now one solid 10 km/s internal tank and ship layout can exist while being supplemented with a variable externally mounted number of Drop tanks dependant on mission. Some future wishes notes: -Engine placement on drop tanks? This would fully missilise them into stages, additionally the numerous weapons applications have already been discussed, including my favourable suggestion of rocket pods/ drone launcher pods for a fire-and-forget-then-dispose-the-rest, externally mounted weapons. -Better engines placement on the rear of the ship to negate this wide body approach, a numerous editable spot on the rear with options for various gimbals and non gimbaled fixtures. -Remote control placement on drop tanks. This combined with the engines would allow for a tanker ship in all but personnel. As long as the main ship survives the battle the tanker can move in afterwards or vice versa -Refuel er mounting? After a battle even non engine and remote equipped propellant tanks could be a useful fall back position as a kind of Dumb-Tanker, parked in an orbit with the Hydrogen stored then returned to afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by concretedonkey on Dec 18, 2016 20:49:54 GMT
Well gents i have finally been able to test and design a ship i have been wanting to experiment with for a while. As i recall from a while ago we were discussing the Dv characteristics of various propellants. As someone noted Methane is great for a density-vs-thrust ratio, but in terms of raw Dv, Hydrogen was great due to it's light weight and density. Arguably the thing that gave it a huge downside seeing as storing inside armour was a nuisance to say the least. Well now you don't need to choose! Coming off of that concept i had the idea for a dual mix system that used H for the transfer burns and CH4 for the nitty gritty. Now thanks to the long desired drop tanks i have been able to simulate such a design. As you can clearly see the accumulated Dv is 43.6 Km/s. 25 of which is available in the externally mounted two mk1 1kt Dt's and the remainder in an internal 18.5 km/s Methane tank. This obviously opens up a whole new avenue of design, in the past i would have to internally re-arrange for whole new designs with additionally mounted fuel tanks and support. Now one solid 10 km/s internal tank and ship layout can exist while being supplemented with a variable externally mounted number of Drop tanks dependant on mission. Some future wishes notes: -Engine placement on drop tanks? This would fully missilise them into stages, additionally the numerous weapons applications have already been discussed, including my favourable suggestion of rocket pods/ drone launcher pods for a fire-and-forget-then-dispose-the-rest, externally mounted weapons. -Better engines placement on the rear of the ship to negate this wide body approach, a numerous editable spot on the rear with options for various gimbals and non gimbaled fixtures. -Remote control placement on drop tanks. This combined with the engines would allow for a tanker ship in all but personnel. As long as the main ship survives the battle the tanker can move in afterwards or vice versa -Refuel er mounting? After a battle even non engine and remote equipped propellant tanks could be a useful fall back position as a kind of Dumb-Tanker, parked in an orbit with the Hydrogen stored then returned to afterwards. This looks very promising I was already contemplating on taking another look at the hydrogen deuteride but both HD and methane is even better!
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Dec 18, 2016 20:57:32 GMT
HD is even better than Hydrogen, but some comments in the ISR thread about the relative scarcity of deuterium in regards to the solar system made me prioritise Hydrogen as it is ubiquitous everywhere and with a little carbon Methane is viable as well.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Dec 19, 2016 7:45:39 GMT
Huh, after testing this out a bit I am liking the drop tanks. Tankers still have their place, but if I am willing to sacrifice performance for simplicity droptanks will do the job well. A few very key advantages:
+ Droptanks don't get expensive, heavy armor around them + Droptanks don't add to the size of the warship + Droptanks auto-drop!
Interesting thing to note: drop tanks on assault tankers would also convey a bit of advantage (dropping excess mass when it is no longer needed just to not have to carry it around).
|
|
|
Post by newageofpower on Dec 19, 2016 8:24:53 GMT
Huh, after testing this out a bit I am liking the drop tanks. Tankers still have their place, but if I am willing to sacrifice performance for simplicity droptanks will do the job well. A few very key advantages: + Droptanks don't get expensive, heavy armor around them + Droptanks don't add to the size of the warship + Droptanks auto-drop! Interesting thing to note: drop tanks on assault tankers would also convey a bit of advantage (dropping excess mass when it is no longer needed just to not have to carry it around). UHMWPE tanks weigh almost nothing though, I barely notice dropping them off.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 19, 2016 13:53:37 GMT
Advantage of the tanker: 1. It can be huge! A tanker is not limited by "the amount of fuel you can use in X period " 2. It can use efficiency engines Neon 25GW MPD? No problem! 3. It can be reused
Advantages of drop tank: 1. You can take it to war! Boost in and drop the tank, no need for massive amounts of internal fuel. 2. It can store low efficiency reaction mass. 10t of hydrogen NTR droptanks to get you to your target, 1t internal neon MPD fuel to get you back out
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Dec 19, 2016 14:22:20 GMT
Advantage of the tanker: 1. It can be huge! A tanker is not limited by "the amount of fuel you can use in X period " 2. It can use efficiency engines Neon 25GW MPD? No problem! 3. It can be reused Advantages of drop tank: 1. You can take it to war! Boost in and drop the tank, no need for massive amounts of internal fuel. 2. It can store low efficiency reaction mass. 10t of hydrogen NTR droptanks to get you to your target, 1t internal neon MPD fuel to get you back out Add an advantage to drop tank: if you are crazy, stupid and lucky enough, you can eject drop tanks over 1 km/s and have it smack right at the enemy face.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Dec 19, 2016 15:09:51 GMT
I haven't been able to try drop tanks but there seems to be no disadvantage to minimizing warship armor mass and cross section.
Even if you don't eject drop tanks you extend your warship Delta V. An empty tank getting hit in combat is no danger. A full tank depends on the fuel material and goodbye extra fuel.
Does the game give a don't eject empty tank option? Would be useful to keep the extra capacity for tanker refuel.
Also you could build semi-armored or drop tank tankers.
|
|
|
Post by argonbalt on Dec 19, 2016 15:50:46 GMT
Yes if you uncheck auto drop i believe it hangs on to them until you forcibly disconnect it manually
|
|
|
Post by shurugal on Dec 19, 2016 15:55:53 GMT
I'm not quite sure though, since fuel tanker need to burn their own fuel when the warship is maneuvering. Which waste quite a bit of fuel since they are also carrying additional weight like crew modules and such. Drop tank just get 100% used by the warship during burning. The issue is the "dead weight" of all the warship's combat systems burdens down the warship's dV, while a fuel tanker doesn't have that penalty. In situations where the 35 minimum crew is a bigger issue than the warship penalty, the drop tanks are superior; otherwise use fuel-ships. The tanker can also make use of low-thrust high-specific-impulse engines. The tanker might accelerate in micro-Gs, but if it needs a quarter the fuel to move the same mass, then it moves that fuel a lot further.
|
|
|
Post by amimai on Dec 19, 2016 16:01:30 GMT
Generally unless it's a laser boat the engine on a warship is crap for efficiency... it's better to run with near empty tanks on a warship with its crappy combat engines pushing as little mass as possible while a large tanker with kt of fuel runs along side with a high efficiency MPD driving it. When you get near just fill up the tank and go to war Btw I wish there was a way to spawn with droptanks empty and set max tank fill% to facilitate such manoeuvres... properly.
|
|