i read the TAS news briefs on the L-Hyd J-fuel tanks...they are not re useable...Why not design one that is? I imagine a company at the star ports that rent out the tanks, and charge for the fuel, and have a depo at the nessasary distance from the planet with fuel, the tanks, and some small shuttles to recover the tanks after they are rented and used by a outgoing ship. make a great buisness.
L Hyd Tanks
- Thread starter Rahnd
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Much of this may depend on the design system used but for my current use and example I'll cite T20 p. 267.
Rahnd, not sure which article you refer to but for T20 they are described as reusable and almost always recoverable, though in the same sentence they must also be replaced if jettisoned. The way I read it is they can be treated as normal fuel tanks until jettisoned (i.e. reusable) but once dropped will require replacement (i.e. not simply reattached). The ship will require some refit (drop bolts, fuel feeds, etc., in T20 the cr10,000 part of the cost looks about right) before the tanks can be reattached, at a class A, B or C starport or base.
As to the cost being higher than regular fuel tankage I think you're off by a bit. You need to compare the cost of "hull" tankage and "drop" tankage. As an example in T20 the classic Type CE 100T drop tanks would cost cr10,000 plus cr100,000. The same internal fuel tankage in the Fiery class Type CE version will cost cr12,000,000 (the cost of 100T of wedge hull). That makes drop tanks better than 100x cheaper. Personally the way it stands I think drop tanks are a broken design element. They are dirt cheap and require no special element on the ship using them. Compare it to the added 30% of carried volume required inside the hull for externally carried craft, a very similar situation imo. They don't even affect streamlining as externally carried craft do unless double the cost for the fitting is factored, and of course the external craft must have an actual hull (Mcr) not some cheap skin (Kcr). I apologize for the ranting nature but it relates to the question, especially as you seem to think drop tanks are expensive. That might be true if they were a one time disposable drop only type of system (i.e. pay the full cost everytime you use them to jump and not be able to manuver or jump with them attached), but they aren't. The way the rules treat them they are quite unbalancing imo, despite T20's attempt to limit them by imposing a minor misjump chance, ruling them unlawful for commercial ships, and making them TL15.
Now, much of this is also dependant on my having done it right all these decades. That is, to use the Type CE again, for a 300T ship with 100T of drop tanks I only need to buy/build a 300T hull and add a 100T drop tank. The whole thing changes a bunch if I've been wrong and you have to buy a 400T hull (which shrinks to 300T when the tanks are dropped) and add a 100T drop tank to that. This would address all my concerns, and make the whole thing a much more balanced and reasonable design, again imo.
I bring this up because I'm pretty sure the canon designs were built as 300T hulls with 100T tanks, despite being allowed 4 hardpoints. This is from memory and based on my reverse engineering done years ago so I might be wrong, it happens
Hard to believe I know but true
So what is the 'right' way? (Laying Hunter's tagline aside for the moment.)
Opinons?
Rahnd, not sure which article you refer to but for T20 they are described as reusable and almost always recoverable, though in the same sentence they must also be replaced if jettisoned. The way I read it is they can be treated as normal fuel tanks until jettisoned (i.e. reusable) but once dropped will require replacement (i.e. not simply reattached). The ship will require some refit (drop bolts, fuel feeds, etc., in T20 the cr10,000 part of the cost looks about right) before the tanks can be reattached, at a class A, B or C starport or base.
As to the cost being higher than regular fuel tankage I think you're off by a bit. You need to compare the cost of "hull" tankage and "drop" tankage. As an example in T20 the classic Type CE 100T drop tanks would cost cr10,000 plus cr100,000. The same internal fuel tankage in the Fiery class Type CE version will cost cr12,000,000 (the cost of 100T of wedge hull). That makes drop tanks better than 100x cheaper. Personally the way it stands I think drop tanks are a broken design element. They are dirt cheap and require no special element on the ship using them. Compare it to the added 30% of carried volume required inside the hull for externally carried craft, a very similar situation imo. They don't even affect streamlining as externally carried craft do unless double the cost for the fitting is factored, and of course the external craft must have an actual hull (Mcr) not some cheap skin (Kcr). I apologize for the ranting nature but it relates to the question, especially as you seem to think drop tanks are expensive. That might be true if they were a one time disposable drop only type of system (i.e. pay the full cost everytime you use them to jump and not be able to manuver or jump with them attached), but they aren't. The way the rules treat them they are quite unbalancing imo, despite T20's attempt to limit them by imposing a minor misjump chance, ruling them unlawful for commercial ships, and making them TL15.
Now, much of this is also dependant on my having done it right all these decades. That is, to use the Type CE again, for a 300T ship with 100T of drop tanks I only need to buy/build a 300T hull and add a 100T drop tank. The whole thing changes a bunch if I've been wrong and you have to buy a 400T hull (which shrinks to 300T when the tanks are dropped) and add a 100T drop tank to that. This would address all my concerns, and make the whole thing a much more balanced and reasonable design, again imo.
I bring this up because I'm pretty sure the canon designs were built as 300T hulls with 100T tanks, despite being allowed 4 hardpoints. This is from memory and based on my reverse engineering done years ago so I might be wrong, it happens
Hard to believe I know but true
So what is the 'right' way? (Laying Hunter's tagline aside for the moment.)
Opinons?
