Ship Power Plants

GemCollector wrote:

Well I thought I put this in my other post, but I guess I didn't. Couldn't the engines of a ship be powered with plasma? I mean I really can't imagine something with that kind of power consumption being powered by a nuclear reaction. I like the idea of a tesla coil because it seems like it would fit in a futuristic mod. I am kind of imagining a 2x1 block that would work like a furnace and fill a tank with plasma.

If anything I would expect engines to be nuclear. It IS the future, so perhaps a nuclear light bulb engine? Aka a Closed Gaseous Core Nuclear Thermal Rocket(GCNR)? Or if you really want some kick, a Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket?

Never heard of those? A GCNR is a theorized engine that NASA looked into, but due to the engineering complexity of it its doubted that we could EVER make one. Then again, it was once said that man could never fly.

Basically a nuclear reaction is carfully maintained in isolated pockets with a uranium or other fission-able gases, and propellant flows around it and is superheated. Some of the problems include keeping everything from melting and/or exploding.

And whats a Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket? Well, its sorta like a GCNR, except theres no propellant. And the nuclear reaction happens behind the engine. In a fluid solution of 80% water and 2% 20% enriched uranium tetrabromide. If you don't get what that means, think of a normal rocket as rideing a constant explosion. Now think of a NSWR rideing a constant NUCLEAR explosion. Issues include everything within 200 miles glowing blue for 10 million years, and making sure you don't die from radiation. Or explode. Or both.

Oh, and if the fuel tanks are breached, you have the problem of a runaway nuclear chain reaction. Inside your ship.

Quote :

Oh, and if the fuel tanks are breached, you have the problem of a runaway nuclear chain reaction. Inside your ship.

lol, I don't suspect that's so much of a problem, as just "damnit, we're dead".

The power generation you are talking about is definitely doable, but to power a dreadnought, you would need a *massive* reactor that would take far too much space.

Have you looked into Ion propulsion? Based on NASA's data, the 4 engines on the retired Deep Space 1 craft can accelerate it by 4.5 KM a second. This would be very suitable for small ships and even large ships, as It doesn't require a lot of energy and it uses highly inert Xenon gas. The spacecraft had 80 KG of propellent, and it lasted 20 months! The process goes that the gas is Ionized by stripping it of electrons and forced out of the back of the spacecraft. This DP1 is powered entirely by solar power, so it won't use much energy. Plus, theres no danger of explosive gas to use or dangerous reactions!

And as this is Futurecraft, the reaction will be much more efficient.

And for solar power, I suggest effecient Solar Concentrator Arrays! These refract light and compact it into a tight beam, which is routed to solar cells. Each cell gets the same amount of light, which keeps the output the same.

EDIT: God, i'm behind. This stuff was tested in 1998!

Fenway wrote:

Have you looked into Ion propulsion? Based on NASA's data, the 4 engines on the retired Deep Space 1 craft can accelerate it by 4.5 KM a second. This would be very suitable for small ships and even large ships, as It doesn't require a lot of energy and it uses highly inert Xenon gas. The spacecraft had 80 KG of propellent, and it lasted 20 months! The process goes that the gas is Ionized by stripping it of electrons and forced out of the back of the spacecraft. This DP1 is powered entirely by solar power, so it won't use much energy. Plus, theres no danger of explosive gas to use or dangerous reactions!

And as this is Futurecraft, the reaction will be much more efficient.

And for solar power, I suggest effecient Solar Concentrator Arrays! These refract light and compact it into a tight beam, which is routed to solar cells. Each cell gets the same amount of light, which keeps the output the same.

EDIT: God, i'm behind. This stuff was tested in 1998!

Ion drives have a admirably high exhaust velocity, yes, but their very nature prevents high thrust. Plus they require power, which can add weight. And 4.5KM a SECOND? That can't be!

That means that within 9.5 hours it could accellerate that craft to 50% LIGHTSPEED. And it would undergo nearly 500g! The engine would literally bore a hole THROUGH the craft!

Buggy1997123 wrote:

Fenway wrote:

Have you looked into Ion propulsion? Based on NASA's data, the 4 engines on the retired Deep Space 1 craft can accelerate it by 4.5 KM a second. This would be very suitable for small ships and even large ships, as It doesn't require a lot of energy and it uses highly inert Xenon gas. The spacecraft had 80 KG of propellent, and it lasted 20 months! The process goes that the gas is Ionized by stripping it of electrons and forced out of the back of the spacecraft. This DP1 is powered entirely by solar power, so it won't use much energy. Plus, theres no danger of explosive gas to use or dangerous reactions!

And as this is Futurecraft, the reaction will be much more efficient.

And for solar power, I suggest effecient Solar Concentrator Arrays! These refract light and compact it into a tight beam, which is routed to solar cells. Each cell gets the same amount of light, which keeps the output the same.

EDIT: God, i'm behind. This stuff was tested in 1998!

Ion drives have a admirably high exhaust velocity, yes, but their very nature prevents high thrust. Plus they require power, which can add weight. And 4.5KM a SECOND? That can't be!

That means that within 9.5 hours it could accellerate that craft to 50% LIGHTSPEED. And it would undergo nearly 500g! The engine would literally bore a hole THROUGH the craft!

Ah crap, I did the math wrong. It accelerated to 4.5 KM/s over 678 days. But still, with a large enough amount of Xenon gas, you can accelerate MUCH faster than that. And see below:

Quote :

An ion engine uses this same principle, but the great innovation is in how efficiently this happens. The gas xenon (which is like helium or neon, but heavier) flows into the ion engine, where it is given an electrical charge. Charged atoms are called ions. As soon as the xenon atoms become xenon ions, they can be pushed around by an electrical voltage. A pair of grids in the ion engine, electrified to almost 1300 volts, accelerates the ions to very high speed and shoots them out of the engine. As the ions race away from the engine, they push back on the spacecraft, propelling it in the opposite direction. [The electricity for this remarkable system can be provided by solar arrays, as on Deep Space 1 and Dawn, or by a nuclear power system, as on Project Prometheus. The principle of operation of the ion engine is the same.]

If i'm not mistaken, 1300 volts is no problem for any futuristic engine.

Plasma admits defeat to ion technology. Let the plasma idea wither and die on this forum.

GemCollector wrote:

Plasma admits defeat to ion technology. Let the plasma idea wither and die on this forum.

Now wait just one minute.

The ion drives are just for propulsion, not production of energy ( 200 kW for 5N of thrust for a good amount of time, much more energy efficient, but not that quick), so in terms of propulsion, yes plasma is sort of out of the race ( though was it ever in to begin with?) but for energy, it is still in ( fusion and fission of plasma ( which is apart of nuclear energy) produces a lot of energy in which practically everything needs).

Also, depending which thruster was researched ( i think i was looking up the same one), it has a plasma discharge, so if linked to a plasma / nuclear reactor, then energy can be created from said discharge, voiding the statement that plasma is obsolete.

I think you also forgot that plasma is literally just really hot air.

Buggy1997123 wrote:

I think you also forgot that plasma is literally just really hot air.

Really hot gas, not just air.

IONIZED gas = plasma (IONIZED means the highest temperture possible (with out turning it into a ATOMIC BOMB )) Hmmmmm..... just got a idea for a PLASMA BOMB( )

smartman45 wrote:

IONIZED gas = plasma (IONIZED means the highest temperture possible (with out turning it into a ATOMIC BOMB )) Hmmmmm..... just got a idea for a PLASMA BOMB( )

To qoute Samantha Carter, "Everything about that sentence is wrong." Plasma is BY FAR not the highest possible and heat has far less effect on the explosive-ness of unstalbe elements than you would think. AKA nearly none. You can heat somthing FAR hotter than just its ionization tempeture, hell you've probably worked with something that does just that! Some of the newer printers use a special ink jet technology, which heats a microscopic glob of ink to several dozen million degrees to vaporize it instantly. And several dozen million degrees is much hotter than it's ionization tempeture. And unless im mistake, it DOESN'T explode whenever someone prints something.

Why the heck did you pick the name smartman45? Irony? Don't pretend you know a lot of stuff about things like this!

GroundBurg_Coder13 wrote:

Buggy1997123 wrote:

I think you also forgot that plasma is literally just really hot air.

Really hot gas, not just air.

It was sorta meant to be a play on the phrase hot air.

URANIUM can be a very hot metal BASED on that I thought that if you could make the atom shake enough it would split (my bad ) BUT what if you could heat it to the point of nearly the big bang. (ps if it where possoble to make a bomb out of that kind of tempertar how big would the blast be and can the plasma that is left over be a way of causing more damage)

did you know that a neuron has not charge. did you know that if a piece of the suns core where to come out and land on earth it would have the power of a atomic bomb and set everthing withinn a certain range on fire(did you know that captain kirk did not say beam me up scotty(LOL) did you know that OUR GALAXY is 100 light years long it has 100 billion stars AND it TAKES the sun 3.5 bilion years to orbit the center of it ONCE(get a sence of perspective) did you know a hippo can run faster than a man. did you know that sharks are imune to disese including cancer(as far as we know)

sorry if i made you laugh and rip your lungs

sorry if i made you laugh and rip your lungs

smartman45 wrote:

did you know that a neuron has not charge. did you know that if a piece of the suns core where to come out and land on earth it would have the power of a atomic bomb and set everthing withinn a certain range on fire(did you know that captain kirk did not say beam me up scotty(LOL) did you know that OUR GALAXY is 100 light years long it has 100 billion stars AND it TAKES the sun 3.5 bilion years to orbit the center of it ONCE(get a sence of perspective) did you know a hippo can run faster than a man. did you know that sharks are imune to disese including cancer(as far as we know)

In order, yes, yes, yes he never said that, yes, yes, yes, yes

smartman45 wrote:

URANIUM can be a very hot metal BASED on that I thought that if you could make the atom shake enough it would split (my bad ) BUT what if you could heat it to the point of nearly the big bang. (ps if it where possoble to make a bomb out of that kind of tempertar how big would the blast be and can the plasma that is left over be a way of causing more damage)

You can't cause a atom to split by just heating it. You can't heat somthing to the point of the big bang because it would decay into energy.

smartman45 wrote:

**some stupid crap**

Stop spamming.

smartman45 wrote:

sorry if i made you laugh and rip your lungs

Stop.

smartman45 wrote:

sorry if i made you laugh and rip your lungs

Shut up.

smartman45 wrote:

anyone who dare goes against me in my punk a** flag ship shall fear the power of THE GAME

Go **** yourself. (keeping this PG 13 for the time being)


Congradulations, your the first spammer to ever spam here and your probably going to be the first person permanently banned too. Or the first even banned at all for that matter.

smart = banned. Buggy, please do not egg the trolls on. Cleaning up posts is an unnecessary waste of time, easier to just ignore, ban and remove those who cannot play nice in the pool.

ectrimble20 wrote:

smart = banned. Buggy, please do not egg the trolls on. Cleaning up posts is an unnecessary waste of time, easier to just ignore, ban and remove those who cannot play nice in the pool.

I was actually trying to enrage him into leaving. I thought that only Shiva could ban and delete posts, and she only normally gets on later. The enrage-untill-he-leaves thing is something I use a lot, it usually works.

Well, keep in mind this is an open forum, so people that come here will read the topics and will form their opinion of our little group based on how we handle ourselves. I don't care how you handle trolls, just keep in mind that other people might find it childish that you egg them on. If someone is a problem, let somebody know, I think anyone who's a Dev member has moderator capabilities. Don't just go back and forth and fill up a topic with senseless dribble.

edit: **100th post! go me**

ectrimble20 wrote:

Well, keep in mind this is an open forum, so people that come here will read the topics and will form their opinion of our little group based on how we handle ourselves. I don't care how you handle trolls, just keep in mind that other people might find it childish that you egg them on. If someone is a problem, let somebody know, I think anyone who's a Dev member has moderator capabilities. Don't just go back and forth and fill up a topic with senseless dribble.

edit: **100th post! go me**

I looked, im pretty sure I don't. And grats on the 100th post!

Well wasn't implying that you started it, just didn't need this blowing up.

I think it actually started when you said

Quote :

Why the heck did you pick the name smartman45? Irony? Don't pretend you know a lot of stuff about things like this!

which then made him decide that he was going to go on Wikipedia and start quoting everything he could find.

Hence the ban. Regardless, this was more for future reference then a "Buggy Y U NO NOT PLAY NICE?!?" (I'm aware of the double negative in that )

ectrimble20 wrote:

Well wasn't implying that you started it, just didn't need this blowing up.

I think it actually started when you said

Quote :

Why the heck did you pick the name smartman45? Irony? Don't pretend you know a lot of stuff about things like this!

which then made him decide that he was going to go on Wikipedia and start quoting everything he could find.

Hence the ban. Regardless, this was more for future reference then a "Buggy Y U NO NOT PLAY NICE?!?" (I'm aware of the double negative in that )

Yeah, sorry for blowing it up, but I just can't stand it when people get things so wrong like that.

What I think is that only larger ships with extended trips to space would need on board generators, as they would be expensive, would take up tons of space, and would require fuel. For shorter trips and smaller crafts, they would carry a finite amount of energy in the form of chained MFE units. They could recharge using high voltage wiring on the ground, or from another ship. If you are just making a trip to a space station with a transport shuttle, you don't need generators. You could charge up on the ground, and recharge in space. It could also be supplemented with a few solar panels to keep communications and life support working in the unlikely event of a power outage.

Buggy1997123 wrote:

Particle weapons?

I'll save you a lengthy explanation as to why, but particle weapons are much stronger than lasers but suffer from beam inflation at longer distances.

They also use electrons(or if you really want some KICK, protons) and work in space and a atmosphere all the same.

But the shaft is ray-shielded! We'll have to use proton torpedoes!


Anyhow, why not just use a reactor? Stick the coolant and reaction mass in, and it goes. "Whiz-bang" device.