Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by Somtaaw   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:39 am

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

So on these forums, we've discussed and debated, and shot down hundreds, perhaps thousands of ideas about ship sizes creeping up. And that the potential for some light combatants, like the DD, to possibly be going the way of the FG. On my latest review of all the books, I came across this little gem, that I'm pretty sure has not actually happened, to our knowledge as readers.

Echos of Honor, Chapter 3 wrote:"Yes, I said 'fission,' " Truman told them after giving them most of a minute to absorb it, "and it's another thing we've adapted from the Graysons. Unlike the rest of the galaxy, they still use fission plants, thirty or forty years. But Grayson—and, for that matter, Yeltsin's asteroid belts, as well—are lousy in heavy metals . . . and fissionables. They'd bootstrapped their way back to fission power by the time of their Civil War, and by the time the rest of us stumbled across them again and reintroduced them to fusion, they'd taken their fission technology to levels of efficiency no one else had ever attained. So when we added modern, lightweight antiradiation composites and rad fields to what they already had, we were able to produce a plant which was even smaller—and considerably more powerful—than anything they'd come up with on their own.

"I don't expect anyone to be installing them on any planetary surfaces any time soon. For that matter, I doubt we'll see too many of them being installed in capital ships. But one of the new plants handily provides all the power a Shrike needs, and despite all the bad-history bogeyman stories about fission, disposal of spent fuel elements and other waste won't be any particular problem. All our processing work is being done in deep space, and all we have to do with our waste is drop it into a handy star. And unlike a fusion plant, a fission pile doesn't require a supply of reactor mass. Our present estimate is that a Shrike 's original power core should be good for about eighteen T-years, which means the only practical limitation on the class's endurance will be her life support."


Extending their fuel, would give destroyers and light cruisers into the eyes and hands roles that normally was reserved for heavy cruisers.

In Enemy Hands, Chapter 7 wrote:This, she realized suddenly, was probably the best squadron command she would ever have—unless, perhaps, she was ever fortunate enough to command her own battlecruiser squadron. Heavy cruisers were powerful units, too valuable to waste on secondary duties, yet small enough and numerous enough that they could be worked hard . . . or risked. There would always be something for squadrons like this to do, and those who commanded them would always enjoy a degree of freedom and independence from higher authority no ship of the wall would ever know. Capital ships must remain concentrated at crucial strategic points, but cruisers were not just the eyes and ears of the Fleet but its fingertips, as well. They were far more likely to be detached for independent operations,


Bold is the emphasis. To our knowledge, the fission piles were only ever used in the Shrikes, and presumably the Ferrets and Katana's.

Don't destroyers and light cruisers actually out number the heavy cruisers? So if their endurance gets increased by using the fission piles, they might need the occasional resupply of food. Something say, upto 4 Mt could resupply an entire region, say the size of Silesia or Talbott.

Additionally, by switching to fission would no longer require the emergency blowout ports for fusion reactors. This allows better structural integrity, and better armor layout, achieving Manticore's long-term plans of having ships that can survive in the new combat environment.

Thoughts, comments, insanity accusations :D
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by munroburton   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:46 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by Somtaaw   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:07 am

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1204
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

munroburton wrote:http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/entry/Harrington/145/1



in that dump, it specifically states
The second type of fusion plant is much larger than anything which could be crammed into a pinnace, and it also has much higher input energy requirements of its own. It's really bigger and more powerful than most destroyers require, but anything else would fall short of the destroyer's energy requirements.


Of course, it then goes on to point out:
The problem before the Graysons came along with their advanced fission technology...

and
A destroyer is over-powered with a standard fusion reactor, true, but it would require not simply one, but several, fission plants to provide the energy it does require. The trade-off between fusion plant and bunkerage requirements and number of fission plants (and increased capacitors) falls firmly on the side of the fusion plant. In other words, to replace a destroyer's fusion plant and bunkerage capacity with fission plants would actually end up requiring you to use more of the destroyer's internal volume rather than less. And, obviously, if that's going to be true for a destroyer, it's even more true for larger starships.


But that was looking at the very first-generation of Shrikes. You're telling me, that in 10+ years of using Shrikes operationally, not counting the time they spent figuring out how to do it, they haven't increased the efficiency at all?

And if one fusion reactor was "too much generation" for a destroyer, and it still mounted two for redundancy. They could probably cram three fission piles in, with the reduced energy needs, and still have power to spare. The pearl was also made when destroyers energy weapons started dropping, they peaked at a 4+2 (broadside and chase) lasers and a 3+2 Graser combination to the merely 5 broadside laser Rolands. Less energy weapons, lower energy requirement, less need for the generation from a fusion plant right?
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by Duckk   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:15 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

David has been clear in the past: nothing outside of LACs use fission plants. Not even Torch's frigates. 1920's fission plants may have eked out a few percent more over their older brethren, but it's still far too low to power a starship.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by munroburton   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:53 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2375
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

Somtaaw wrote:And if one fusion reactor was "too much generation" for a destroyer, and it still mounted two for redundancy. They could probably cram three fission piles in, with the reduced energy needs, and still have power to spare. The pearl was also made when destroyers energy weapons started dropping, they peaked at a 4+2 (broadside and chase) lasers and a 3+2 Graser combination to the merely 5 broadside laser Rolands. Less energy weapons, lower energy requirement, less need for the generation from a fusion plant right?


Those were <100-kton pre-war destroyers. The Roland is larger than any of the RMN's light cruisers(bar the Kamerling) and needs more power to light up the MK16 fusion-powered missiles. Additional systems pre-war destroyers did not have to worry about powering: off-bore missile launching, drones, tethered decoys, bow/stern walls, FTL com.

Energy weapons aren't the primary drain on power sources. And in later ships, they're also individually more powerful than the energy weapons of previous designs, so their overall consumption is probably about the same anyway.
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by JeffEngel   » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:16 am

JeffEngel
Admiral

Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:06 pm

I'd been wondering about alternative uses for fission plants myself, but I'd been thinking more in terms of use on missiles, recon drones, and other smaller parasites. Small, small, small is the order of the day for them.

On the other hand - Manticore has made great leaps and bounds miniaturizing fusion plants specifically for all those parasites, particularly to do with grav lensing advances. It may be that with all of that going on, the fission lead for small plants has evaporated - particularly with the smaller fusion plants of pinnaces etc. already satisfying their needs well.
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by Kytheros   » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:23 pm

Kytheros
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:34 pm

JeffEngel wrote:I'd been wondering about alternative uses for fission plants myself, but I'd been thinking more in terms of use on missiles, recon drones, and other smaller parasites. Small, small, small is the order of the day for them.

On the other hand - Manticore has made great leaps and bounds miniaturizing fusion plants specifically for all those parasites, particularly to do with grav lensing advances. It may be that with all of that going on, the fission lead for small plants has evaporated - particularly with the smaller fusion plants of pinnaces etc. already satisfying their needs well.

You might be able to do a fission powered dispatch or courier boat. Maybe a small hyper-capable yacht, assuming the advanced fission plants get released/approved for civilian usage.
That's probably about all that would viable, though.


IIRC, the micro-fusion plants used in missiles and recon drones are less efficient, and a less stable than a regular fusion plant - and require a lot more maintenance after being run, almost a complete rebuild.
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by Theemile   » Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:41 pm

Theemile
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5242
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: All over the Place - Now Serving Dublin, OH

Kytheros wrote:
JeffEngel wrote:I'd been wondering about alternative uses for fission plants myself, but I'd been thinking more in terms of use on missiles, recon drones, and other smaller parasites. Small, small, small is the order of the day for them.

On the other hand - Manticore has made great leaps and bounds miniaturizing fusion plants specifically for all those parasites, particularly to do with grav lensing advances. It may be that with all of that going on, the fission lead for small plants has evaporated - particularly with the smaller fusion plants of pinnaces etc. already satisfying their needs well.

You might be able to do a fission powered dispatch or courier boat. Maybe a small hyper-capable yacht, assuming the advanced fission plants get released/approved for civilian usage.
That's probably about all that would viable, though.


IIRC, the micro-fusion plants used in missiles and recon drones are less efficient, and a less stable than a regular fusion plant - and require a lot more maintenance after being run, almost a complete rebuild.


And have far less shielding, making them unhealthy for humans to be near in their running mode.
******
RFC said "refitting a Beowulfan SD to Manticoran standards would be just as difficult as refitting a standard SLN SD to those standards. In other words, it would be cheaper and faster to build new ships."
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:11 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

RFC wrote: The fission plant is actually much less efficient, on a ton-for-ton basis, than the standard starship fusion plant.


And:
There is a typo in the section addressing the longevity of the Shrikes' fuel cores. It should have read 18 months of active operations, not simply 18 years.


A destroyer is over-powered with a standard fusion reactor, true, but it would require not simply one, but several, fission plants to provide the energy it does require.
Top
Re: the Destroyer future - a new take, with fission!
Post by crewdude48   » Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:40 pm

crewdude48
Commodore

Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am

Basically, the rule is that on anything larger than an LAC, the multiple fission plants and massive capacitors required would wind up being bigger and more expensive than the fusion plants, bunkerage, and some capacitors setup currently in use.

A laser fusion reactor is great for small crafts, but won't scale up well to power anything larger than a pinnacle. And the gravity pinch fusion reactor can not be scaled down any further than the one currently installed on CLs and DDs, and even a single one of these produces way to much power and consumes way to much fuel for something the size of an LAC. This gap in power creation effectiveness is the reason fission plants make sense on LACs.
________________
I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Top

Return to Honorverse