Fuel Harvesters

[Erik L (OP)]

Do you build max hulls with lots of fuel tanks? Or do you build smaller ones?

This is my current design.

Code: [Select]

Valdez class Fuel Harvester    9950 tons     1440 Crew     1605 BP      Signature 199-125
628 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0
Replacement Parts 40    
Fuel Harvester: 1 modules producing 12000 litres per annum

Nuclear Thermal Engine EE1 AR-0 (5)    Power 25    Engine Efficiency 1.00    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 5,000,000 Litres    Range 2170.4 billion km   (40000 days at full power)

Just over 8 years processing sorium at a gas giant to produce ~100,000 liters of fuel. That's 2.2% capacity to 4.1%.

I am thinking a smaller tanked version would be more efficient. That and an increase in the mining rate. Rate is currently 12tons.

[Erik L (OP)]

Slight redesign.

Code: [Select]

Valdez A class Fuel Harvester    9750 tons     1160 Crew     1325 BP      Signature 195-125
641 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0
Replacement Parts 50    
Fuel Harvester: 5 modules producing 60000 litres per annum

Nuclear Thermal Engine EE1 AR-0 (5)    Power 25    Engine Efficiency 1.00    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 2,500,000 Litres    Range 1107.6 billion km   (20000 days at full power)

This version processes ~5000 liters a month. Much better than the previous.

[Kurt]

Slight redesign.

Code: [Select]

Valdez A class Fuel Harvester    9750 tons     1160 Crew     1325 BP      Signature 195-125
641 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0
Replacement Parts 50    
Fuel Harvester: 5 modules producing 60000 litres per annum

Nuclear Thermal Engine EE1 AR-0 (5)    Power 25    Engine Efficiency 1.00    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 2,500,000 Litres    Range 1107.6 billion km   (20000 days at full power)
This version processes ~5000 liters a month. Much better than the previous.

This is much closer to the design that I am using in my current campaign.  Big and slow.  

Kurt

[Erik L (OP)]

I do think the secret here is not the maximum fuel capacity (as in the first design), but the processing speed. When it comes time to improve the ships (engines most likely), I'm considering reducing the capacity to 25 fuel systems and putting in more processors.

With a faster ship, that would be more cost effective as you are making more round trips.

[Kurt]

I do think the secret here is not the maximum fuel capacity (as in the first design), but the processing speed. When it comes time to improve the ships (engines most likely), I'm considering reducing the capacity to 25 fuel systems and putting in more processors.

With a faster ship, that would be more cost effective as you are making more round trips.

While I think you are right about increasing the number of harvester modules and decreasing the fuel capacity, I'm not sure speed is so important.  I think you are much more likely to need to return for refit before you fill up the fuel tanks, unless you really, really, skimp on the tankage.

Kurt

[Erik L (OP)]

I do think the secret here is not the maximum fuel capacity (as in the first design), but the processing speed. When it comes time to improve the ships (engines most likely), I'm considering reducing the capacity to 25 fuel systems and putting in more processors.

With a faster ship, that would be more cost effective as you are making more round trips.

While I think you are right about increasing the number of harvester modules and decreasing the fuel capacity, I'm not sure speed is so important.  I think you are much more likely to need to return for refit before you fill up the fuel tanks, unless you really, really, skimp on the tankage.

Kurt

The second design I have above, 50 replacement parts, fuel capacity of 2.5 million liters. If I modify the design to 1.25million liters, and double production, it would take just under 10.5 years to fill. That is not counting any technical increase in production rates via research. By previous experience, a ship like this can last around 8-9 years before requiring an overhaul (under 5 replacement parts). An increase from 12 to 14 in production rates would drop the "full up" time to just under 9 years.

To me, when it gets to the point where the full-up time is less than a required overhaul time, then I want it to get to the depot to release its cargo as fast as it can, and get back on station.

[Kurt]

I do think the secret here is not the maximum fuel capacity (as in the first design), but the processing speed. When it comes time to improve the ships (engines most likely), I'm considering reducing the capacity to 25 fuel systems and putting in more processors.

With a faster ship, that would be more cost effective as you are making more round trips.

While I think you are right about increasing the number of harvester modules and decreasing the fuel capacity, I'm not sure speed is so important.  I think you are much more likely to need to return for refit before you fill up the fuel tanks, unless you really, really, skimp on the tankage.

Kurt

The second design I have above, 50 replacement parts, fuel capacity of 2.5 million liters. If I modify the design to 1.25million liters, and double production, it would take just under 10.5 years to fill. That is not counting any technical increase in production rates via research. By previous experience, a ship like this can last around 8-9 years before requiring an overhaul (under 5 replacement parts). An increase from 12 to 14 in production rates would drop the "full up" time to just under 9 years.

To me, when it gets to the point where the full-up time is less than a required overhaul time, then I want it to get to the depot to release its cargo as fast as it can, and get back on station.

I agree with you about wanting it on station as much as possible, but if the time-to-fill is close to the time-to-overhaul-necessity, then it would make more sense to run back, drop off the load, overhaul, then return.  In this case speed wouldn't make as much difference because the overhaul would take a lot of time.  

There is a lot of personal preference and preferred strategy to this, though, and I don't think there is any one right way to do it.  

Kurt

[Erik L (OP)]

[

True. But we are still looking at low techs here. What happens when your mining rate is high enough you fill the tanks in, say 3 years? That's approximately 3 loads per overhaul schedule. Do you decrease the amount of spares carried to fit into a 3 year run? Or do you increase the tanks to take 9 years to fill?

Thinking about it, I'd reduce the spares to 3 years and run overhauls on the rotation in.

[Steve Walmsley]

I don't have a harvester class in my current campaign but here's the one from the previous campaign. Dont forget you can create a nearby colony and dump the fuel there when the tanks are full. Then a separate tanker can pick it up occasionally.

Code: [Select]

Exxon class Fuel Harvester    10000 tons     870 Crew     1118 BP      Signature 200-420
2100 km/s     Armour 1     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/0/0/0     Damage Control 0-0
Replacement Parts 20    
Fuel Harvester: 12 modules producing 168000 litres per annum

Pratt & Whitney E7 Ion Engine (7)    Power 60    Engine Efficiency 0.70    Armour 0    Exp 5%
Fuel Capacity 350,000 Litres    Range 216.0 billion km   (1190 days at full power)

Steve