Craige--
That's some good food for thought. My assumptions/beliefs/BS/Handwavium
about HEPlaR are that there is no radiation from the fusion reactor for
reasons already discussed (closed cycle system that imparts energy without
primary radiation; the fact that we have commercial fusion power without
killing the neighbors is evidence that fusion reactors, like fission,
don't spew radioactive products around when in good repair).
But you make a good point about radiation from the plasma itself. I don't
pretend to know how much radiation is generated by plasma in what
quantities, and from your analysis you don't either (that's not an
insult), you are simply saying that probably some is produced, which I
think is a fair statement. My understanding is that gamma radition from
plasma would come from fast-moving electrons slowing down in another
medium (bremsstrahlung), the greater the deceleration, the greater the
energy of the electon release. This is supposedly what causes the gamma
release high in our atmosphere around thunderstorms or something like
that.
Like you, I believe that TNE starships use a combination of means to get
around, specifically in the same ship: contragrav and HEPlaR. Starships
that operate in planetary atmospheres and land on the surface have
contragrav which negates their weight, reducing the required thrust to
maneuver and not fall into the ground. High performance aircraft have
thrust:weight ratios of not much greater than 1, which for approximate
purposes is about equivalent to G-rating. Aircraft are able to maneuver on
this "low" g-rating because of aerodynamic lift (most aircraft have T:W of
much less than 1), which is why spacecraft able to land on an atmosphered
planet are required to be streamlined. So a starship operating in atmo is
throttled way back, much less than 1G because they've got the contragrav
operating as well.
My assumption is that any beta or gamma radiation produced by the HEPlaR
plasma is going to be directly proportional to the power at which the
plant is operated. So the radiation produced by HEPlaR plasma from a
starship pumping out 6Gs in deep space is going to be much different than
the radition produced by HEPlaR in atmosphere at a pretty small fraction
of 1G (because of contra-grav, we get to subtract ALL planetary Gs, so on
Earth 1G, from any thrust required to maneuver analagously to real-world
aircraft). So I assume plasma radiation generation is tremendously reduced
in atmo because you will never have to be running it that hot. I'm going
to get back to maneuvering thrusters in a minute, but first I want to
mention something else.
I will also assume that in an imaginary future where some of us players
say, "we've got reactionless thrusters here, harnessing gravitons," but
others say, "no reactionless thrusters here, we use HEPlaR, but we do have
contragrav, so we know something about manipulating gravity," the stroke
of the pen that says "No reactionless thrusters/Yes reactionless
thrusters" is independent of the tech level, i.e., the tech levels are
"the same," just expressed differently by editorial fiat.
Within that future, where they both know something about manipulating
gravity, in the universe which has HEPlaR but no reactionless thrusters,
they have deliberately designed HEPlaR to be able to be used safely in the
environment. How they do this I don't know, because it's all imaginary,
but if the same TL but for the stroke of a pen could make reactionless
thrusters, I'll bet they know how to use gravitons or whatever else to
help mitigate radiation release and propagation. And I say gravitons
simply because I believe that gravity manipulation is integral to the
creation of ever more effective fusion drives, and would also be integral
to the manipulation of the HEPlaR stream that comes out the back.
Seriously, once you have gravity manipulation, after a certain number of
TLs it's being used everywhere, including your coffee tables at home. So
if we say we can invent reactionless thrusters, we can also say we can
create plasma thrusters where the radiation is controlled in some fashion
to allow its safe use. That's what perfecting highly energetic technology
is about, harnessing the energy without exposing yourself to uncontrolled
release of that energy, whether it's fire, steam, internal combustion,
nuclear fission, etc.
So while I think you're right that pure, raw, HEPlaR could/would generate
radiation, I believe that HEPlaR perfected as a product would not need to.
Particularly when you realize that you will barely be idling it when
you're in the atmosphere.
Last thought, that I said I'd loop back to, is the LOOK of the starships.
Certainly when you look at the pictures you can see where the big HEPlaR
exhausts are at the back, and to apply your 6G to decelerate, you'd have
to spin around, point your engines forward, and fire them. However, in a
lot of cases you're not going to want to be having to spin the ship a
round all three of its axes, and TNE ships actually do have little
"thrusters" pointed in different directions. I wanted to be able to show
these in some of our pictures, but that was another one of the things that
there was never really time for, because coordinating art with contracted
artists to show all kinds of specific technical details is EXCRUCIATINGLY
difficult, so it ended up not happening. So I always assumed that little
corner thrusters existed, but were small enough that they got lost in the
other surface details. These thrusters would be connected to the HEPlaR
system, because the "M-Drive" is not just one single lump in the back, but
has distributed systems. And those thrusters in many cases, such as
orbital orientation, is putting out really low-energy stuff, just hot
hydrogen, well-below plasma levels. So I have always believed that
"HEPlaR" doesn't only just pump out plasma, but is capable of it when
operating at highest capacity.
So I still think that HEPlaR works just fine, IF you want it in your
universe. If you prefer reactionless thrusters, we had those in FF&S as
well, but obviously we didn't build much in-game continuity around that.
And I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, for my money the
only really significant (non-aesthetic) reason to prefer HEPlaR over
reactionless thrusters is because of the tactical flavor you get from
expending reaction mass, and I thought that really added a lot to the art
and science of space combat. So I like HEPlaR.
I really like your ideas about the environmental preservation aspect
around starports, because it all makes perfect sense. All of the stuff I
said about about how HEPlaR CAN be safe assumes it's in good repair, that
there aren't irresponsible pilots firing it off at high power in
atmosphere (that may be what they did on Firefly when they went to "hard
burn" burn in atmo when they caught the Reaver ship in the "blowback"),
etc. And that is analagous to all of the safety measures that have to be
observed in a modern "spaceport," concern about hydrazine leaks, flammable
rocket fuel and LOX, etc. And as you observe, there would be regulations
about HEPlaR operation in atmosphere (probably not a lot different than
noise regulations around airports), so that if Wash does go hard-burn
above the city, he's in big trouble.
As you do, I think the issue of HEPlaR radiation is an eminently
manageable issue (actually, I've reasoned above that it is more manageable
than you did, but we both admit the possibility), which for our purposes
in introducing the thing into TNE, is tantamount to saying, "no meaningful
amount of radiation." It was certainly our design intent that "HEPlaR
doesn't release radiation," (certainly no more than terrestrial lightning
storms do) and I think we can say that within the same burden-of-proof
envelope that says you can make reactionless thrusters.
HEPlaR, Magic drives, they work the same, only the names have changed.
Those are my initial thoughts.
Cool post, thanks for sending that.
Dave
> Â HEPlaR High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion
>
> Fusion Exhaust
>
> I have considered both sides of the argument before responding.
>
> Tim OReilly wrote: âMany of our designs assume that because the
> drive is powered by an atomic or fusion powered source that the
> exhaust must be radioactive. However I think this assumption is
> misplaced.â
>
> Sorry I donât agree.
>
> Both beta and gamma radiation and possibly alpha particles would be
> emitted by the exhaust of HEPlaR drives. However, these are very short
> term radiation with mostly fairly short ranges. Though problly in game
> I wouldnât recommend a fly over of the Grand Chancellorâs house
> with your HEPlar driven scout courier for many reasonsâ¦
>
> ===============================================================================
>
> Radiation includes:
>
> Alpha particles: are helium nuclei and they travel at great speeds
> and interact with matter causing damage particularly to biological
> systems.
>
> Beta particles: are energetic electrons that have a highly ionizing
> effect. These are produced by plasma.
>
> Gamma radiation: high energy photons. This radiation is produced by
> the sun which is composed of hydrogen plasma. I think it is safe to
> assume that this radiation is produced by plasma in HEPlaR.
>
> ==============================================================================
>
> Tim OReilly wrote:Â âYet, the current ones do not habitually cause
> environmental problems due to radiation.â
>
> Sorry again I couldnât categorically agree, also not relevant
> because âthe current onesâ are nuclear fission reactors that use
> fissile materials such as Uranium, Plutonium and other highly
> radioactive substances that breakdown into other radioactive
> substances releasing large amounts of neutrons, alpha particles and
> gamma radiation. But try doing a dedicated search for uranium mining
> and refining to get an idea of actually how much radiation is released
> into the environment as a result of these processes. This is before
> you consider the costs of a nuclear meltdown in the environment. The
> facts are alarming!Â
>
> Â
>
> In Traveller we are positing that nuclear fusion, the use of Hydrogen
> fusion which is the reaction that powers the sun, making deuterium,
> tritium, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, etc. etc. has been made to
> work on a commercial scale (a reasonable assumption).
>
> Â
>
> It is for this reason that IMTU starships have at least three types
> of drives including HEPlaR, Thruster, and contragrav. Two of these
> drives use the hitherto undiscovered graviton, which utilizes the
> universal gravitational constant. We may posit that the thrusters and
> contra-grav devices of the graviton do not have the radiation effects.
> Thus these (safer) Â drives are used by starships and spaceships
> during landing maneuvers. HEPlaR comes into its own in deep space
> where it seems there is a consensus that the gravitonâs effect is
> lessened at least and radiation is really not an issue.
>
> Starports of the future probably have some kind of condensers that
> remove these highly radioactive particles and also have specific
> flight paths for the intransigent starship captains that insist on
> landing on the planet. Additionally there would also be some sort of
> graduated scale for the regulations associated with the above based on
> TL, law level and population (ie perceived population risk). These
> condensers  recombine Helium nuclei with their electron shells using
> some sort of terraforming technology (ie large scale). But it is
> unlikely that the starships actually recombine ions or collect high
> energy photons because this would greatly reduce the efficiency of
> these drives.
>
> Â
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Â
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Craige
>
That's some good food for thought. My assumptions/beliefs/BS/Handwavium
about HEPlaR are that there is no radiation from the fusion reactor for
reasons already discussed (closed cycle system that imparts energy without
primary radiation; the fact that we have commercial fusion power without
killing the neighbors is evidence that fusion reactors, like fission,
don't spew radioactive products around when in good repair).
But you make a good point about radiation from the plasma itself. I don't
pretend to know how much radiation is generated by plasma in what
quantities, and from your analysis you don't either (that's not an
insult), you are simply saying that probably some is produced, which I
think is a fair statement. My understanding is that gamma radition from
plasma would come from fast-moving electrons slowing down in another
medium (bremsstrahlung), the greater the deceleration, the greater the
energy of the electon release. This is supposedly what causes the gamma
release high in our atmosphere around thunderstorms or something like
that.
Like you, I believe that TNE starships use a combination of means to get
around, specifically in the same ship: contragrav and HEPlaR. Starships
that operate in planetary atmospheres and land on the surface have
contragrav which negates their weight, reducing the required thrust to
maneuver and not fall into the ground. High performance aircraft have
thrust:weight ratios of not much greater than 1, which for approximate
purposes is about equivalent to G-rating. Aircraft are able to maneuver on
this "low" g-rating because of aerodynamic lift (most aircraft have T:W of
much less than 1), which is why spacecraft able to land on an atmosphered
planet are required to be streamlined. So a starship operating in atmo is
throttled way back, much less than 1G because they've got the contragrav
operating as well.
My assumption is that any beta or gamma radiation produced by the HEPlaR
plasma is going to be directly proportional to the power at which the
plant is operated. So the radiation produced by HEPlaR plasma from a
starship pumping out 6Gs in deep space is going to be much different than
the radition produced by HEPlaR in atmosphere at a pretty small fraction
of 1G (because of contra-grav, we get to subtract ALL planetary Gs, so on
Earth 1G, from any thrust required to maneuver analagously to real-world
aircraft). So I assume plasma radiation generation is tremendously reduced
in atmo because you will never have to be running it that hot. I'm going
to get back to maneuvering thrusters in a minute, but first I want to
mention something else.
I will also assume that in an imaginary future where some of us players
say, "we've got reactionless thrusters here, harnessing gravitons," but
others say, "no reactionless thrusters here, we use HEPlaR, but we do have
contragrav, so we know something about manipulating gravity," the stroke
of the pen that says "No reactionless thrusters/Yes reactionless
thrusters" is independent of the tech level, i.e., the tech levels are
"the same," just expressed differently by editorial fiat.
Within that future, where they both know something about manipulating
gravity, in the universe which has HEPlaR but no reactionless thrusters,
they have deliberately designed HEPlaR to be able to be used safely in the
environment. How they do this I don't know, because it's all imaginary,
but if the same TL but for the stroke of a pen could make reactionless
thrusters, I'll bet they know how to use gravitons or whatever else to
help mitigate radiation release and propagation. And I say gravitons
simply because I believe that gravity manipulation is integral to the
creation of ever more effective fusion drives, and would also be integral
to the manipulation of the HEPlaR stream that comes out the back.
Seriously, once you have gravity manipulation, after a certain number of
TLs it's being used everywhere, including your coffee tables at home. So
if we say we can invent reactionless thrusters, we can also say we can
create plasma thrusters where the radiation is controlled in some fashion
to allow its safe use. That's what perfecting highly energetic technology
is about, harnessing the energy without exposing yourself to uncontrolled
release of that energy, whether it's fire, steam, internal combustion,
nuclear fission, etc.
So while I think you're right that pure, raw, HEPlaR could/would generate
radiation, I believe that HEPlaR perfected as a product would not need to.
Particularly when you realize that you will barely be idling it when
you're in the atmosphere.
Last thought, that I said I'd loop back to, is the LOOK of the starships.
Certainly when you look at the pictures you can see where the big HEPlaR
exhausts are at the back, and to apply your 6G to decelerate, you'd have
to spin around, point your engines forward, and fire them. However, in a
lot of cases you're not going to want to be having to spin the ship a
round all three of its axes, and TNE ships actually do have little
"thrusters" pointed in different directions. I wanted to be able to show
these in some of our pictures, but that was another one of the things that
there was never really time for, because coordinating art with contracted
artists to show all kinds of specific technical details is EXCRUCIATINGLY
difficult, so it ended up not happening. So I always assumed that little
corner thrusters existed, but were small enough that they got lost in the
other surface details. These thrusters would be connected to the HEPlaR
system, because the "M-Drive" is not just one single lump in the back, but
has distributed systems. And those thrusters in many cases, such as
orbital orientation, is putting out really low-energy stuff, just hot
hydrogen, well-below plasma levels. So I have always believed that
"HEPlaR" doesn't only just pump out plasma, but is capable of it when
operating at highest capacity.
So I still think that HEPlaR works just fine, IF you want it in your
universe. If you prefer reactionless thrusters, we had those in FF&S as
well, but obviously we didn't build much in-game continuity around that.
And I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, for my money the
only really significant (non-aesthetic) reason to prefer HEPlaR over
reactionless thrusters is because of the tactical flavor you get from
expending reaction mass, and I thought that really added a lot to the art
and science of space combat. So I like HEPlaR.
I really like your ideas about the environmental preservation aspect
around starports, because it all makes perfect sense. All of the stuff I
said about about how HEPlaR CAN be safe assumes it's in good repair, that
there aren't irresponsible pilots firing it off at high power in
atmosphere (that may be what they did on Firefly when they went to "hard
burn" burn in atmo when they caught the Reaver ship in the "blowback"),
etc. And that is analagous to all of the safety measures that have to be
observed in a modern "spaceport," concern about hydrazine leaks, flammable
rocket fuel and LOX, etc. And as you observe, there would be regulations
about HEPlaR operation in atmosphere (probably not a lot different than
noise regulations around airports), so that if Wash does go hard-burn
above the city, he's in big trouble.
As you do, I think the issue of HEPlaR radiation is an eminently
manageable issue (actually, I've reasoned above that it is more manageable
than you did, but we both admit the possibility), which for our purposes
in introducing the thing into TNE, is tantamount to saying, "no meaningful
amount of radiation." It was certainly our design intent that "HEPlaR
doesn't release radiation," (certainly no more than terrestrial lightning
storms do) and I think we can say that within the same burden-of-proof
envelope that says you can make reactionless thrusters.
HEPlaR, Magic drives, they work the same, only the names have changed.
Those are my initial thoughts.
Cool post, thanks for sending that.
Dave
> Â HEPlaR High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion
>
> Fusion Exhaust
>
> I have considered both sides of the argument before responding.
>
> Tim OReilly wrote: âMany of our designs assume that because the
> drive is powered by an atomic or fusion powered source that the
> exhaust must be radioactive. However I think this assumption is
> misplaced.â
>
> Sorry I donât agree.
>
> Both beta and gamma radiation and possibly alpha particles would be
> emitted by the exhaust of HEPlaR drives. However, these are very short
> term radiation with mostly fairly short ranges. Though problly in game
> I wouldnât recommend a fly over of the Grand Chancellorâs house
> with your HEPlar driven scout courier for many reasonsâ¦
>
> ===============================================================================
>
> Radiation includes:
>
> Alpha particles: are helium nuclei and they travel at great speeds
> and interact with matter causing damage particularly to biological
> systems.
>
> Beta particles: are energetic electrons that have a highly ionizing
> effect. These are produced by plasma.
>
> Gamma radiation: high energy photons. This radiation is produced by
> the sun which is composed of hydrogen plasma. I think it is safe to
> assume that this radiation is produced by plasma in HEPlaR.
>
> ==============================================================================
>
> Tim OReilly wrote:Â âYet, the current ones do not habitually cause
> environmental problems due to radiation.â
>
> Sorry again I couldnât categorically agree, also not relevant
> because âthe current onesâ are nuclear fission reactors that use
> fissile materials such as Uranium, Plutonium and other highly
> radioactive substances that breakdown into other radioactive
> substances releasing large amounts of neutrons, alpha particles and
> gamma radiation. But try doing a dedicated search for uranium mining
> and refining to get an idea of actually how much radiation is released
> into the environment as a result of these processes. This is before
> you consider the costs of a nuclear meltdown in the environment. The
> facts are alarming!Â
>
> Â
>
> In Traveller we are positing that nuclear fusion, the use of Hydrogen
> fusion which is the reaction that powers the sun, making deuterium,
> tritium, helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, etc. etc. has been made to
> work on a commercial scale (a reasonable assumption).
>
> Â
>
> It is for this reason that IMTU starships have at least three types
> of drives including HEPlaR, Thruster, and contragrav. Two of these
> drives use the hitherto undiscovered graviton, which utilizes the
> universal gravitational constant. We may posit that the thrusters and
> contra-grav devices of the graviton do not have the radiation effects.
> Thus these (safer) Â drives are used by starships and spaceships
> during landing maneuvers. HEPlaR comes into its own in deep space
> where it seems there is a consensus that the gravitonâs effect is
> lessened at least and radiation is really not an issue.
>
> Starports of the future probably have some kind of condensers that
> remove these highly radioactive particles and also have specific
> flight paths for the intransigent starship captains that insist on
> landing on the planet. Additionally there would also be some sort of
> graduated scale for the regulations associated with the above based on
> TL, law level and population (ie perceived population risk). These
> condensers  recombine Helium nuclei with their electron shells using
> some sort of terraforming technology (ie large scale). But it is
> unlikely that the starships actually recombine ions or collect high
> energy photons because this would greatly reduce the efficiency of
> these drives.
>
> Â
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
> Â
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Craige
>