http://www.arcraftplasma.com/welding/index.htm
and here is another link with info about plasma on it, though it needs to
searched over for it.
http://www.physicstoday.org/
since plasma is currenlty in its infant state, and is already in industrial
uses, among others, i suspect that plasma per se is nil for danger except
for the extreme heat. so i would agree the rad hazard would lie primarily in
the engines themselves.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Tim O'Reilly <> wrote:
>
>
> To my mind the primary radioactive danger would be with the engine
> itself as you specify but it is also that the fuel would be heated to a
> plasma yes? would it be fused as part of the process (I've never really
> considered this so for me it's an open question) If the fuel is just heated
> to a plasma state and allowed to thrust out then the exhaust would
> eventually become non-threatening as it dispersed. The danger to crew would
> be the drive itself and the highly energetic plasma thrust (think x-15
> rocket plane or the shuttle exhaust - you don't want to get in the way of
> that, precludes long life expectancy)
> T
>
> --- On *Wed, 5/26/10, roger <>* wrote:
>
>
> From: roger <>
> Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Rocket Drives
> To:
> Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 3:07 PM
>
>
>
> As far as I know there is no other danger to fusion drives other that the
> exhaust. I've heard other's say they don't allow it in their settings due to
> the plant itself giving off deadly radiation, but I believe this is one of
> those time that qualify as (IMTU).
> I have a question of my own. Why would the drive need to spew out
> radioactive exhaust. Current day reactors use a closed loop system to cool
> the reactor. If I remember right, coolant water (radioactive) is sent along
> pipes to heat water(non radioactive) into steam this steam spins turbines to
> make electricity. This steam water is then cooled and the process started
> all over again. My question, could not non radioactive liquid hydrogen be
> heated up in the same way as the non radioactive water, then squirted out
> the back as clean exhaust?
> A second question I just thought of. Can a fusion drive equipped ship land
> on a world without microwaving everyone by just shutting off its fusion
> drive and using an auxiliary drive? Or does no-one want to take the chance
> that some knucklehead might flip the wrong switch and no landing is a safety
> measure?
> The fuel consumption is correct (at least I haven't seen any errata
> contradicting it)
> If you don't mind going off the FF+S range check out Missouri
> Archives---Alternate Thrusters. I found one that is quite interesting called
> Heat Jet. This is apparently a real world thruster that NASA is/was working
> on. Its low-tech (8-9) acts much like HEPlaR, but the fuel costs make you
> dream of HEPlaR.
> Let me know what you think of it, as I've been thinking of allowing it as a
> auxiliary drive for fusion drives.
> PS: If you want to leave the possibility of irradiating the crew as a
> danger how far from the engine would you need to be to be safe. I'm thinking
> of the space ship used in the movie "Mars". A big honking engine aft with a
> thin frame running to a command deck? forward and a revolving living
> quarters next to the bridge. Leave it to Hollywood to come up with a cool
> design for a ship.
>
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla