Fuel Canisters & Modular Tankage

[Patron Zero]

Mind this is an obvious departure from the generally accepted-canon provisions for such but want to throw the idea out for discussion all the same.

I've been sorting out the concept of rather than a starship having it's onboard fuel supply in the traditional fashion of 'bulk-style' large volume compartments, that the same size allocations for such be fitted for containing multiple smaller fuel 'cells'.

What I'm striving for is that when a starship is in port for refueling, rather than having a 'feeder' hose pumping fuel to a conventional design bulk tank, the smaller individual fuel 'cells' or canisters could be swapped-out in a shorter amount of time.

Mind this would be a benefit to the owner-operators of vessels operating under very strict time constraints, such that have schedules allowing limited 'off-road' time for cargo transfer or refueling.

And a given that a conventional fuel compartment refit to accept individual fuel canisters would lose a very small percentile of it's original volume, the trade-off could balance out in overall time recovered as profitable 'mileage' than time sitting at the pump islands.

The other argument for fuel canisters would be in regards to damage control and avoiding potential catastrophic fuel compartment failure, either resolved by shutting off a 'section' of said compartment or ejecting damaged 'cells'.

There's also the option of a ship being 'gassed-up' on the fly by commercial tenders that are stationed near jump-points, more-so inbound vessels in need of a top-off than those leaving local space.

The one issue I do see arising if a ship has their fuel tankage refitted for canisters would be the likely loss of 'self-service' refueling by way of skimming gas giants. More the difficulty and potential hazard involved of reloading said canisters aboard ship and the cost of additional if redundant 'plumbing' to allow for such.

-Again, putting the notion out for pro and con observation and related suggestions, thanks !

 

[Ran Targas]

IMHO in systems with enough traffic, commercial fuelers would provide service where it is economic for them to do so. Again, IMHO, no one really wants to drive there merchantman into a gas giant so there's a ready market but obviously at the price of fuel and a service charge for diving for you.

but for the fuel module concept, I think getting fuel in small increments would cost more than in bulk and lashing the modules to the hull with all the connections would be less economical than bulk fuel. Pus you're adding the weight of each container versus bulk tankage and losing the same amount of fuel. Sort of like how LNG is handled now; the suppliers have huge tanks to hold bulk fuel and sell it off at a premium in small units with lots of mark up for handling. No one buys 100 of the gas grill sized containers when they need 100 times the gas; that get a big 100x tank.

 

[McPerth]

In general I see it quite like the idea of the fuel barges I gave in my own Jumap Frame and Barges design.

And a given that a conventional fuel compartment refit to accept individual fuel canisters would lose a very small percentile of it's original volume, the trade-off could balance out in overall time recovered as profitable 'mileage' than time sitting at the pump islands.

The other argument for fuel canisters would be in regards to damage control and avoiding potential catastrophic fuel compartment failure, either resolved by shutting off a 'section' of said compartment or ejecting damaged 'cells'.

I always assumed that fuel tanks were quite compartementalized just to avoid the loses in case of damages. That would mean they have internal bulckheads. So, if your canisters are used, they wouldn't use more volumen than conventional tanks, nr would they be safer in case of damage (but probably easier to repair).

-Again, putting the notion out for pro and con observation and related suggestions, thanks !

Another (relative) drawback I see in this idea is the fact that I guess it could not be used in armored ships, as any armored hull would have the tanks inside it, and so will interfere in the easy exchange of the cannisters (that would need some way to be exchaned, probably through some kind of clamp doors).

OTOH, if you don't need your full fuel capacity (making smaller jump than your maximum), you could also use similar canisters to fill them with cargo, so using your unused fuel tanks for cargo, so to say...

 

[wbyrd]

containerized fuel would make a ship less vulnerable to those wicked fuel hits...aaaaaaand, it would also increase the space needed to house the fuel cells..so it's a trade off.

easy way to simulate this is adding internal bulkhead options to the fuel, and designating that portion of the hull as modular.

 

[whartung]

Ship turnaround I don't think is dependent on fueling. Simply, while it's no doubt a factor, pushing around a bunch of large, moving parts filled with fuel seems to be much more risky than simply plugging a few fuel lines in to the ship, especially if it's like to not speed up transit in anyway.

 

[CliffBates]

If you want to set up some form of module fuel replacement system, why not keep to the 30 ton model design of the standard 50 ton module cutter? Thus you can have it that you eject the used fuel modules and have them replaced by the tugs or cutters dealing with refueling operations.

But why not also have refueling access nobs that refueling ship can target their refueling hoses at.. something similar to how planes refuel in mid air and ships refuel at the high seas?

Redcap in another thread mused about such a system....

 

[Patron Zero]

Many thanks for the input and opinions, such is genuinely appreciated and always welcome.

I do like the idea concerning the fuel modules mentioned by CliffBates, that is likely the more workable alternative to the fuel cells-canisters I was sketching out.

The access 'nob' is a something I see more found on say Scout-Couriers and X-Boats as part of their original design, such a feature likely though to be adopted by merchant vessels for it's convenience.