Dave,
hope you'll forgive me but the critics always said the problem with heplar (well, one of the problems) was that to get the specific impulse you required the exhaust had to be coming out at a significant fraction of light speed. No problems in deep space, but TNE uses heplar to power grav vehicles and that would be a BIG problem on any populated world. (Joe takes off for work in his MKII grav car and eviscerates his house)
I'd love to hear your viewpoint on this issue. What were the critics missing?
--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> >>
> >>Did I answer your question?
> >>
>
> > yep
> >
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
From: "dcndcn13@..." dcndcn13@...
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
>
hope you'll forgive me but the critics always said the problem with heplar (well, one of the problems) was that to get the specific impulse you required the exhaust had to be coming out at a significant fraction of light speed. No problems in deep space, but TNE uses heplar to power grav vehicles and that would be a BIG problem on any populated world. (Joe takes off for work in his MKII grav car and eviscerates his house)
I'd love to hear your viewpoint on this issue. What were the critics missing?
--- In , dcndcn13@... wrote:
>
> Cool.
>
> >>
> >>Did I answer your question?
> >>
>
> > yep
> >
> >
> >
> >>________________________________
From: "dcndcn13@..." dcndcn13@...
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
>