Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests

Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...

Join us in talking discussing all things Honor, including (but not limited to) tactics, favorite characters, and book discussions.
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by kzt   » Tue May 10, 2016 2:20 pm

kzt
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 11360
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

I think you'd get a lot lower thermal signature running a reactor at 500kw all the time than a exawatt reactor for an hour once a week.

There is the whole process of cold-starting a ship. I have no idea how David conceptualizes this in the Honorverse. For example, you lose both reactors a long way from home, one trashed, the other just lost the fuel system. You rebuild the cryo piping and salvage pumps from the other system so it's all fixed. How do you start it up? I'd assume heating up the core to a few million degrees takes a significant amount of power and time.
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by munroburton   » Tue May 10, 2016 2:31 pm

munroburton
Admiral

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

With one of those? :roll:
Image
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by zuluwiz   » Tue May 10, 2016 2:33 pm

zuluwiz
Commander

Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 9:21 pm

Sooooooo....... the Chief Engineer walks up to you, hands you a box of matches, and says "crawl in there and light the fire, dammit."
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by Somtaaw   » Tue May 10, 2016 5:00 pm

Somtaaw
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1203
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:36 am
Location: Canada

Anany length 'trip' in a grav wave most ships shut down their fusion cores and let the wave power their needs, which assists in conserving fuel.

We've also seen light cruisers during the Sanskrit and Cut Worm performing multi-week long missions staying in stealth mode, scouting Havenite systems. While that's a far cry from a month or more, that they could be doing, it still shows that fuel conservation isn't a totally big deal.

Then there's the wormhole exploration cruisers, sufficient reactor mass to travel 6 months without ever touching a grav wave, wasn't it only a light cruiser or was she a refit heavy? If that's achieveable duration for most sub-battlecruiser, just more evidence shutting down entirely even for length 'stays' is almost unnecessary for an all-up fusion powered ship.

Jonathan_S wrote:
Joat42 wrote:I had a thought, why not put a fission reactor in other ship-types other than LAC's? I'm not talking about using it as a primary energy generator, rather more like a backup plant that doesn't need fuel and can be spun up on short notice.

Pros and cons of the idea? Tactical advantages? Surprise factor?
You could on the technical level, but I'm having trouble finding a significant reason to bother.

OTOH a fission reactor can be brought critical using virtually no power, where a fusion reactor appears to need some fairly hefty power to bring up the grav field and kickstart the reaction. So you could shut down all your fusion reactors and then use fission to bring them back online.

But most ship missions don't involve hanging around for ages in fuel conservation mode.


Also, on a starship scale (where you don't have the scaling or whatever issues that make fusion in LACs so shockingly inefficient) fusion fuel is more compact per unit of energy than fission fuel. So if you were in fuel conservation mode you could last longer by using additional hydrogen tanks the size of the fission core.

Actually what you'd probably do if you needed a ship with a truly prolonged low power idle state is run the fusion reactors intermittently. Use it to fully charge every superconductor on the ship, then shut down the fusion plants. Run off the stored power until you got down to restart power + acceptable safety margin; fire up the plant, run it just long enough to top off stored power, and shut it back down. That would let you run the fusion plant at it fuel efficient high level output; but only when needed.

You should be able to last longer than on fission power, yet not need to find room for an otherwise redundant fission plant.


But it's possible there's some scenario I'm missing where you need fairly long endurance medium levels of power on a starship and aren't willing / able to just run the high power level fusion reactors.
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by Weird Harold   » Tue May 10, 2016 5:13 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Joat42 wrote:I had a thought, why not put a fission reactor in other ship-types other than LAC's? I'm not talking about using it as a primary energy generator, rather more like a backup plant that doesn't need fuel and can be spun up on short notice.

Pros and cons of the idea? Tactical advantages? Surprise factor?


Big drawback: Fission Reactors use HEAVY metals and require HEAVY shielding -- That's a lot of mass tied up in a system you're only going to use rarely.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by Jonathan_S   » Tue May 10, 2016 6:16 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8792
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Weird Harold wrote:Big drawback: Fission Reactors use HEAVY metals and require HEAVY shielding -- That's a lot of mass tied up in a system you're only going to use rarely.

Well you could probably use whatever "rad shielding" is used to protect ships from energetic particles. (Some kind of projected energy shielding that sits behind the sidewalls, and in front of the hammerhead) Though I'm not sure people would love a reactor design that had to keep active rad shielding emitters operating to avoid cooking the nearby crew :D
A bit more risk that lead shielding failing.

Though you might accept less lead shielding on the theory that it's only for emergencies.
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by Relax   » Tue May 10, 2016 6:17 pm

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Honorverse has magic beans radiation shielding, so no, it is not "HEAVY"
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by darrell   » Tue May 10, 2016 6:41 pm

darrell
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1390
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:57 am

Joat42 wrote:I had a thought, why not put a fission reactor in other ship-types other than LAC's? I'm not talking about using it as a primary energy generator, rather more like a backup plant that doesn't need fuel and can be spun up on short notice.

Pros and cons of the idea? Tactical advantages? Surprise factor?


Most warships spend lots of time at station keeping. They would need power for grav plates and lights and sometimes (seldom, not always) keeping the impeller nodes warm.

a fission plant would be enough to do all those functions for DD, CL, & CA, so IMO one fission plant as a station keeping or auxiliary generator makes sense in terms of bunkerage saved and mission length.

For a BC, I doubt that a fission plant would be enough to keep the nodes warm, but could run grav plates and everything else if the ship did not need to be in ready state, so might or might not be a good idea, and definitely not a good idea for a SD.

As far as a courier boat, I have always though it a good idea. Since a courier boat does not have sidewalls or a graser, two fission plants would be able to power a 40K ton courier boat (including it's hyper generator) and takes up less space than 1 fusion plant plus bunkerage. The courier boat would have a humungus cruising range, and because it can easily go direct on longer routs rahter than detour to grav waves to save fuel, would actually be faster as well.
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Logic: an organized way to go wrong, with confidence.
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by Imaginos1892   » Tue May 10, 2016 11:25 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

kzt wrote:There is the whole process of cold-starting a ship. I have no idea how David conceptualizes this in the Honorverse. For example, you lose both reactors a long way from home, one trashed, the other just lost the fuel system. You rebuild the cryo piping and salvage pumps from the other system so it's all fixed. How do you start it up? I'd assume heating up the core to a few million degrees takes a significant amount of power and time.

Capture a herd of space hamsters?
--------------------
Oh, no. You can't-a fool me. There ain't-a no Sanity Clause!
Top
Re: Fleet Tankers Or Oilers ...
Post by jchilds   » Wed May 11, 2016 12:41 am

jchilds
Captain of the List

Posts: 722
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:09 am
Location: Ottawa, ON Canada

Imaginos1892 wrote:
kzt wrote:There is the whole process of cold-starting a ship. I have no idea how David conceptualizes this in the Honorverse. For example, you lose both reactors a long way from home, one trashed, the other just lost the fuel system. You rebuild the cryo piping and salvage pumps from the other system so it's all fixed. How do you start it up? I'd assume heating up the core to a few million degrees takes a significant amount of power and time.

Capture a herd of space hamsters?
--------------------
Oh, no. You can't-a fool me. There ain't-a no Sanity Clause!


Regular or Miniature Giant Space Hamsters?
Top

Return to Honorverse