Cool.
>>
>>Did I answer your question?
>>
> yep
>
>
>
>>________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>>
>>
>>
>>Â
>>
>>Yes, I almost went into that sidebar in my previous post.
>>
>>HEPlaR is designed so that fusion products are not vented into the
>>exhaust. That CAN be done, the same way that in a pressurized water
>>nuclear reactor the steam that goes into the turbine is not radioactive.
>>The primary coolant that goes through the core passes heat to the
>>secondary coolant that goes into the turbines. That's the same premise
>>with HEPlaR.
>>
>>HOWEVER, since there is fission/fusion going on nearby, there can be
>>leaks. I would imagine that a HEPlaR in poor repair could put out some
>>trace radioactivity.
>>
>>> So, why would it be either necessary or allowable for a
>>> space ship of any type to be allowed anywhere near an occupied
>>> planetary
>>> system wilst spewing a radioactive cloud all about?
>>
>>It wouldn't. If you saw one coming to your planet, orbital control would
>>say, "you're staying in orbit until you get that fixed." Unless there is
>>no orbital control, you're a military ship attacking, etc.
>>
>>If you're asking about fusion rockets, we put that it because people
>> asked
>>for them. When the TNE basic rules came out, people assumed that HEPlaR
>>WAS fusion rockets (and we may not have had that name yet; we may have
>>come up with that name later to make clear the distinction with fusion
>>rockets), and when we told them, "no, it's not," a lot of them said, "but
>>fusion rockets are cool, we want to be able to play fusion rockets in a
>>universe where stardrives are really dangerous and stuff."
>>
>>And we said, "cool, dude, fusion rockets coming up in FF&S. Have a ball."
>>Fusion rockets were not intended to be used in the 3I based background we
>>are familiar with.
>>
>>Did I answer your question?
>>
>>> Many of our designs assume that because the drive is powered by an
>>> atomic
>>> or fusion powered source that the exhaust must be radioactive.ÃÂ
>>> However I
>>> think this assumption is misplaced.ÃÂ True an improperly maintained
>>> system
>>> could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could
>>> any
>>> of our current nuclear power systems.ÃÂ
>>> Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems
>>> due
>>> to radiation.ÃÂ So, why would it be either necessary or allowable for
>>> a
>>> space ship of any type to be allowed anywhere near an occupied
>>> planetary
>>> system wilst spewing a radioactive cloud all about?
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Your thoughts please
>>> Tim
>>
>>Did I answer your question?
>>
> yep
>
>
>
>>________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>>
>>
>>
>>Â
>>
>>Yes, I almost went into that sidebar in my previous post.
>>
>>HEPlaR is designed so that fusion products are not vented into the
>>exhaust. That CAN be done, the same way that in a pressurized water
>>nuclear reactor the steam that goes into the turbine is not radioactive.
>>The primary coolant that goes through the core passes heat to the
>>secondary coolant that goes into the turbines. That's the same premise
>>with HEPlaR.
>>
>>HOWEVER, since there is fission/fusion going on nearby, there can be
>>leaks. I would imagine that a HEPlaR in poor repair could put out some
>>trace radioactivity.
>>
>>> So, why would it be either necessary or allowable for a
>>> space ship of any type to be allowed anywhere near an occupied
>>> planetary
>>> system wilst spewing a radioactive cloud all about?
>>
>>It wouldn't. If you saw one coming to your planet, orbital control would
>>say, "you're staying in orbit until you get that fixed." Unless there is
>>no orbital control, you're a military ship attacking, etc.
>>
>>If you're asking about fusion rockets, we put that it because people
>> asked
>>for them. When the TNE basic rules came out, people assumed that HEPlaR
>>WAS fusion rockets (and we may not have had that name yet; we may have
>>come up with that name later to make clear the distinction with fusion
>>rockets), and when we told them, "no, it's not," a lot of them said, "but
>>fusion rockets are cool, we want to be able to play fusion rockets in a
>>universe where stardrives are really dangerous and stuff."
>>
>>And we said, "cool, dude, fusion rockets coming up in FF&S. Have a ball."
>>Fusion rockets were not intended to be used in the 3I based background we
>>are familiar with.
>>
>>Did I answer your question?
>>
>>> Many of our designs assume that because the drive is powered by an
>>> atomic
>>> or fusion powered source that the exhaust must be radioactive.ÃÂ
>>> However I
>>> think this assumption is misplaced.ÃÂ True an improperly maintained
>>> system
>>> could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could
>>> any
>>> of our current nuclear power systems.ÃÂ
>>> Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems
>>> due
>>> to radiation.ÃÂ So, why would it be either necessary or allowable for
>>> a
>>> space ship of any type to be allowed anywhere near an occupied
>>> planetary
>>> system wilst spewing a radioactive cloud all about?
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Your thoughts please
>>> Tim