More fuel in tanks

[ravener]

Ok, this isnt exactly what it sounds like, and i might be wrong.

If you select a tank and remove all the oxidizer, the liquid fuel maximum stays the same. I think the liquid fuel capacity should go up as the oxidizer decreases. Why would you carry a 50% empty tank to space?

If i am wrong and this is how it's done, sorry, it's late...

[sal_vager]

Real fuel tanks have separate compartments for fuel and oxidiser, these cannot hold their opposite, so removing the oxidiser won't allow you to just add more fuel.

[vexx32]

Be that as it may, real rocket designers make sure that their fuel tanks are built exactly as according to their specifications, so they don't end up with half-empty fuel tanks for no reason. I'd think the Tweakables system should allow this, as the VAB/SPH editors are basically a more intuitive stand-in for designing rocket blueprints, which is where you'd normally outline your specifications for exactly what each fuel tank is intended to hold.

[RSwordsman]

Real fuel tanks have separate compartments for fuel and oxidiser, these cannot hold their opposite, so removing the oxidiser won't allow you to just add more fuel.

/thread, I believe. OP, have you noticed that there are a few tanks that hold purely liquid fuel? They may be plane fuselages, but they still work if you need to stock a lot of the stuff lol.

And it may be totally unrelated but I would like to see stock inclusion of fueled nosecones/adapters.

[Superfluous J]

/thread, I believe.

Funny, I thought this was the /thread moment:

Be that as it may, real rocket designers make sure that their fuel tanks are built exactly as according to their specifications, so they don't end up with half-empty fuel tanks for no reason.

[Tex]

Fine then, none a' ya get it!

/thread ;D

[ravener]

I know there are liquid fuel tanks, but what if i'm building a spaceplane and only need slightly more liquid fuel? No sense in adding a whole liquid fuel tank, and just removing oxidizer from another tank is wasteful. As it stands we cant choose what to put in our tanks, we can choose what to exclude.

[check]

I'm of the opinion that a fuel tank that is twice as long should have more than twice the fuel and LOX as one that is half as long. I also believe that it should should have a dry mass that is less than 2x the drymass of a fuel tank half as long.

My reasoning:

It would allow for players to make more efficient designs and take advantage of larger single tanks.

[Stargate525]

^ That.

It gives a numerical advantage besides collision bugs and part count for researching larger tanks.

And as far as not being able to completely fill a tank with LOX or Fuel... I'll buy the 'they aren't built that way' when we get tanks that can hold exclusively Oxidizer, thanks.

[Superfluous J]

I personally like that 2 smaller tanks is exactly the same as 1 large tank. It better simulates the idea that you just built a single tank that size.

[Justin Kerbice]

As it was a suggestion at he first place, you can duplicate part config file, change internal name, and remove oxydizer values, so you'll get a tank with the same look but designed for holding only liquid fuel. The same apply in the opposite way by removing liquid fuel only.

[cantab]

I know there are liquid fuel tanks, but what if i'm building a spaceplane and only need slightly more liquid fuel? No sense in adding a whole liquid fuel tank, and just removing oxidizer from another tank is wasteful. As it stands we cant choose what to put in our tanks, we can choose what to exclude.

In this case, IMHO what's needed is simply smaller liquid fuel tanks.

I'm of the opinion that a fuel tank that is twice as long should have more than twice the fuel and LOX as one that is half as long. I also believe that it should should have a dry mass that is less than 2x the drymass of a fuel tank half as long.

It would allow for players to make more efficient designs and take advantage of larger single tanks.

While it might be realistic, I feel this would actually distort the design process. Let's say you want your stage to have four stacks, each with one 800 and one 400 tank. If the 800 tank has a significantly better wet/dry mass ratio, suddenly that's not an efficient design and you're better off fuelling the four engines off 6 800 tanks, however ugly and daft that looks. (Of course it's not like ugly and daft rockets aren't already a thing, but still.)

And as far as not being able to completely fill a tank with LOX or Fuel... I'll buy the 'they aren't built that way' when we get tanks that can hold exclusively Oxidizer, thanks.

Why would you ever need an oxidizer-only tank? The only use case I can see is on a planet with an atmosphere made of fuel, and an engine that can burn it with stored oxidizer. No such planet or engine exists yet.

[Camacha]

I'm of the opinion that a fuel tank that is twice as long should have more than twice the fuel and LOX as one that is half as long. I also believe that it should should have a dry mass that is less than 2x the drymass of a fuel tank half as long.

There is a small benefit using a larger tank, but you should not underestimate the need for internal reinforments and slosh barriers. This makes the gain smaller than you would think.

[Stargate525]

Why would you ever need an oxidizer-only tank? The only use case I can see is on a planet with an atmosphere made of fuel, and an engine that can burn it with stored oxidizer. No such planet or engine exists yet.

Counterpoints to the ridiculous amounts of liquid fuel in the Mk3s. A lot of my spaceplanes end up with massive amounts of liquid fuel remaining. Oxidizer tanks solve this.

If a more realistic fuel-extraction system arises, where you can't mine both fuel and oxidizer in situ, then you're wasting half your weight on something the miner doesn't extract.