Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 71
08-23-2012, 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadspacex64 View Post
power source is electricity, that's all the engine needs, how it gets it doesn't matter (while it's still in testing) as long as power generation can keep up with demand. so concerns about how it will perform with different power generation schemes only matters if they can produce the power it needs. once outfitted or planned to be then lightweight power sources become more relevant.

a nuclear plant would not be used in any case...as they are rather large and not suited for space...much less launch a plant is a rather large complex of reactors and support equipment that covers a rather large area and going into the thousands, at a conservative guess tons.
yes i know, the power required is electric but for the ship to travel to lets say Mars in 2 or less months, it will require Megawatts + of power which today only nuclear reactors can, even the CEO of Ad astra behind the company behind the Vasimr engine says so, unless the e-cat fusion/fission reactor story is not fake then that will change things.

Also the Russians have already made a space nuclear reactor decades ago so it is possible. NASA has made one and tested it on an ion engine years ago too.

Last edited by raj011; 08-23-2012 at 11:57 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 448
# 72
08-23-2012, 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj011 View Post
yes i know, the power required is electric but for the ship to travel to lets say Mars in 2 or less months, it will require Megawatts + of power which today only nuclear reactors can, even the CEO of Ad astra behind the company behind the Vasimr engine says so, unless the e-cat fusion/fission reactor story is not fake then that will change things.

Also the Russians have already made a space nuclear reactor decades ago so it is possible. NASA has made one and tested it on an ion engine years ago too.
i know, but you referenced nuclear plants originally as being a potential problem...not individual reactors. plants are strictly ground based, so the new scientist story while interesting, is irrelevant concerning the VASMR engine.

the story on waste disposal itself...just another indication of anti-nuke nuts with more money/time than brains. funny part, they gripe about the short sightedness of politicians etc...yet are no better themselves.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 73
08-27-2012, 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadspacex64 View Post
i know, but you referenced nuclear plants originally as being a potential problem...not individual reactors. plants are strictly ground based, so the new scientist story while interesting, is irrelevant concerning the VASMR engine.

the story on waste disposal itself...just another indication of anti-nuke nuts with more money/time than brains. funny part, they gripe about the short sightedness of politicians etc...yet are no better themselves.
Yes I know I said nuclear plants because in the previous posts we were talking about nuclear power and other future power sources and even before that I have repeatedly said nuclear reactors when it comes to what will be used.

Anyway back on topic. With the unfortunate news of the legendary Neil Armstrong's death, may he rest in piece, maybe this will motivate us to go to outer space more and see with our own eyes what Neil Armstrong saw.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 649
# 74
09-16-2012, 03:54 PM
Hey all look what I found, this could be what will be powering future space ships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19550658

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ea069f2-f...#axzz26finzHud

I wonder how much energy it will produce.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 14,375
# 75
09-16-2012, 04:05 PM
sounds good to me. But it also sounds like the output would be somewhat low. Either way the tech sounds like a good one to pursue.
HAIL HYDRA!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I can haz joystick!
MMOs aren't charities. Corporations are supposed to make a profit. It's what they do.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,218
# 76
09-16-2012, 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markhawkman View Post
It's not nuclear activists that are the problem.... the UN wants to control nuclear energy for fear of a terrorist turning a nuclear reactor into a nuclear bomb.

THAT is the real problem with nuclear energy today.
Thus, the UN demonstrating amply what technological Ignorance, in a chamber full of activists, crooks, and lawyers, can conceive of when sufficiently insulated from either knowledge, or reality.

It took a combined effort of sustained work, intentional work, on a reactor complex where "quality" meant they only cut the structural materials with bad additives on 50% of it (when the work was actually done) to create the Tchernobyl explosion, and it took an earthquake sufficient to move a subcontinent 8 FEET to create the problem in japan-on a reactor that was more than forty years old and fifty years behind the design curve, and slated to be SHUT DOWN.

Beyond the need for a fairly large crew of well-educated (Possibly collegiate engineering level) disposeable terrorists to turn your reactor into an Atomic bomb (Specifically), there's the time factor-you're not going to do it, even on an old Hanford-N site, in a sweaty and joyous-praise-be-the-cause afternoon using hand tools and a flippy binder.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 14,375
# 77
09-16-2012, 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickngo View Post
Thus, the UN demonstrating amply what technological Ignorance, in a chamber full of activists, crooks, and lawyers, can conceive of when sufficiently insulated from either knowledge, or reality.

It took a combined effort of sustained work, intentional work, on a reactor complex where "quality" meant they only cut the structural materials with bad additives on 50% of it (when the work was actually done) to create the Tchernobyl explosion, and it took an earthquake sufficient to move a subcontinent 8 FEET to create the problem in japan-on a reactor that was more than forty years old and fifty years behind the design curve, and slated to be SHUT DOWN.

Beyond the need for a fairly large crew of well-educated (Possibly collegiate engineering level) disposeable terrorists to turn your reactor into an Atomic bomb (Specifically), there's the time factor-you're not going to do it, even on an old Hanford-N site, in a sweaty and joyous-praise-be-the-cause afternoon using hand tools and a flippy binder.
Well.. yes and no. Not a thermonuclear device, but a dirty bomb? yeah, those are doable.... but.... you don't ned a reactor core to make one, or even reactor grade material. Raw Pitchblende ore works fine too. So it's STILL pointless.

Powered Pitchblende is BAD for the lungs. Imagine if the dust got scattered over a city?

Actually, good luck getting people to inhale it. It's too heavy to remain airborne more than a few minutes.
HAIL HYDRA!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I can haz joystick!
MMOs aren't charities. Corporations are supposed to make a profit. It's what they do.

Last edited by markhawkman; 09-16-2012 at 05:56 PM.
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 448
# 78
09-16-2012, 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj011 View Post
Hey all look what I found, this could be what will be powering future space ships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-19550658

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2ea069f2-f...#axzz26finzHud

I wonder how much energy it will produce.
low power, but that's due to the tech in piezo conversion, multiple batteries, and/or just time itself. pyroelectric nanogenerators are improving rapidly, as are other forms of piezogenerators using nanotech. small nuclear batteries (RTG's) may shortly have enough power to do nearly anything needed which is essentially seems to be what they're planning on producing.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 817
# 79
09-17-2012, 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickngo View Post
It took a combined effort of sustained work, intentional work, on a reactor complex where "quality" meant they only cut the structural materials with bad additives on 50% of it (when the work was actually done) to create the Tchernobyl explosion, and it took an earthquake sufficient to move a subcontinent 8 FEET to create the problem in japan-on a reactor that was more than forty years old and fifty years behind the design curve, and slated to be SHUT DOWN.
The Fukushima reactor was built to withstand what, up until then, had been the largest earthquake in Japan's recorded history. The 2011 quake was BIGGER than that. Just how rare of an event do you have to build for, if "hasn't ever yet happened in the history of mankind" isn't good enough?
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 448
# 80
09-17-2012, 02:04 AM
just to note, it wasn't the quake that caused the meltdown, it was the tidal wave killing the diesel generators that were supposed to supply power to the coolant pumps in case of emergency. they kicked on and performed their function until the wave hit flooding them out. related...in the typical over-reaction of late, japan is planning on phasing out all nuclear plants and not building anymore.

instead relying on imported coal, oil, and natural gas...yay...more CO2.

further related note, europes recent cave-in to the nut jobs has caused russia to plan construction of several nuclear plants with the obvious intention of selling power to the EU. that sounds like a great plan >.> EU decommisions and plans only a few more plants because they want to switch back to 'safer' fossil fuels...but will be buying power from russia's excess of new plants.

why doesn't this forum have a /double facepalm emote...
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:27 PM.