Yes, yes, and yes.
HEPlaR doesn't have radioactive byproducts because you can't posit a
responsible future society like our beloved 3I irradiating everyone all
day long. And we have long shown that starships routinely land in close
proximity to people and buildings and hang around outside them like Han
Solo (many of them even wear the same outfit he does--why is that?)
without wearing radiation suits.
> As far as I can tell, FF&S
> assumes that by the time you get to HEPlaR TLs the exchangers are
> efficient enough that the loss is negligible compared to the benefit of
> not having your ship glow in the dark.
Either that, or your fusion plant generates enough excess power (i.e., raw
power vs. useable rated power) that you can afford the loss. Either way,
it works out.
> Of course, there's always the possibility of a starship operator
> antisocial enough to cut out the exchanger and get even more efficiency
> out of his drive, and screw whoever's underneath the ship when it comes
> down. Virus anyone?
Or, to cite my favorite "we all know it's Traveller even if he won't admit
it" example, Reavers.
> There's no a priori reason that a fusion or fission drive has to have
> radioactive exhaust products. However, most if not all nuclear reactions
> are going to have radioactive byproducts, and if the working fluid for
> your exhaust comes into contact with the reactor it's going to pick them
> up. To cite an extreme example, the exhaust for NASA's NERVA rocket
> design was predicted to be highly radioactive, because the high-speed flow
> of liquid hydrogen through the fission core would actually erode the
> uranium fuel elements and expel particles of uranium with the exhaust,
> enough so that fuel element erosion rather than uranium depletion would be
> the limit on the core's working life. In order to avoid this, you need
> some kind of heat exchanger system to keep the working fluid for your
> reactor and the working fluid for your exhaust separate. On a conceptual
> level, this is what HEPlaR does. But- in the real world introducing a
> head exchanger into the system is always going to cut down on efficiency
> somewhat, because there's never going to be a perfect transfer of heat
> from one side of the exchanger to the other. As far as I can tell, FF&S
> assumes that by the time you get to HEPlaR TLs the exchangers are
> efficient enough that the loss is negligible compared to the benefit of
> not having your ship glow in the dark.
>
> Of course, there's always the possibility of a starship operator
> antisocial enough to cut out the exchanger and get even more efficiency
> out of his drive, and screw whoever's underneath the ship when it comes
> down. Virus anyone?
>
> Mweh. Heh heh heh...
>
> -JTD
>
> Any sufficiently stupid human is indistinguishable from a computer.
>
>
HEPlaR doesn't have radioactive byproducts because you can't posit a
responsible future society like our beloved 3I irradiating everyone all
day long. And we have long shown that starships routinely land in close
proximity to people and buildings and hang around outside them like Han
Solo (many of them even wear the same outfit he does--why is that?)
without wearing radiation suits.
> As far as I can tell, FF&S
> assumes that by the time you get to HEPlaR TLs the exchangers are
> efficient enough that the loss is negligible compared to the benefit of
> not having your ship glow in the dark.
Either that, or your fusion plant generates enough excess power (i.e., raw
power vs. useable rated power) that you can afford the loss. Either way,
it works out.
> Of course, there's always the possibility of a starship operator
> antisocial enough to cut out the exchanger and get even more efficiency
> out of his drive, and screw whoever's underneath the ship when it comes
> down. Virus anyone?
Or, to cite my favorite "we all know it's Traveller even if he won't admit
it" example, Reavers.
> There's no a priori reason that a fusion or fission drive has to have
> radioactive exhaust products. However, most if not all nuclear reactions
> are going to have radioactive byproducts, and if the working fluid for
> your exhaust comes into contact with the reactor it's going to pick them
> up. To cite an extreme example, the exhaust for NASA's NERVA rocket
> design was predicted to be highly radioactive, because the high-speed flow
> of liquid hydrogen through the fission core would actually erode the
> uranium fuel elements and expel particles of uranium with the exhaust,
> enough so that fuel element erosion rather than uranium depletion would be
> the limit on the core's working life. In order to avoid this, you need
> some kind of heat exchanger system to keep the working fluid for your
> reactor and the working fluid for your exhaust separate. On a conceptual
> level, this is what HEPlaR does. But- in the real world introducing a
> head exchanger into the system is always going to cut down on efficiency
> somewhat, because there's never going to be a perfect transfer of heat
> from one side of the exchanger to the other. As far as I can tell, FF&S
> assumes that by the time you get to HEPlaR TLs the exchangers are
> efficient enough that the loss is negligible compared to the benefit of
> not having your ship glow in the dark.
>
> Of course, there's always the possibility of a starship operator
> antisocial enough to cut out the exchanger and get even more efficiency
> out of his drive, and screw whoever's underneath the ship when it comes
> down. Virus anyone?
>
> Mweh. Heh heh heh...
>
> -JTD
>
> Any sufficiently stupid human is indistinguishable from a computer.
>
>