Thread: Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?

Many 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.  True an improperly maintained system could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could any of our current nuclear power systems. 
Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems due to radiation.  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?
 
Your thoughts please
Tim

>________________________________
From: Antony Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Alcatraz class in-system prison transport
>
>
> 
>
>This is a new design which came about when I started reviewing the old ones on the web site. It could also be used as a specialised boat on a starship.
> 
>Antony
>Alcatraz class in-system prisoner transport (QL)
>Federated States of Sol (United Worlds Commonwealth)
>The Alcatraz class of in-system prisoner transport is another variant of the Calliope class cargo sloop. The vessel generally carried its complement of prisoners in cryo-suspension. A small number of conscious passengers such as prison staff could also be transported. A number were also used during the Centauri war to ferry critically wounded in cryo-berths to places where they could be treated.
> 
>General Data  
>Displacement:400 displacement tons Hull Armour:24 (6cm Composite Laminate)
>Length:44 meters Volume:5,600 cubic meters
>Price:330,693,157 Cr. (including series discount) Target Size:S
>Configuration:Cylinder SL Tech Level:9
>Mass:(Loaded/Empty) 3,277.6817/2,677.5907 tons
>   
>Engineering Data  
>G Rating:2G (Fusion rocket, produces 80Mw per G), No Contra-Grav Lifters
>G Turns:140, 10 cubic meters each
>Atmospheric Performance:The vessel is capable of atmospheric entry and may manoeuvre at up to 1,100kph. However the exhaust is radioactive.
>Maintenance:168  
>   
>Electronics:3xTL9 Standard Computers (0.25Mw each)
>Communications:30,000km Radio (1 hex; 1Mw), 30,000km Maser (1 hex; 0.15Mw each)
>Avionics:TL8+ Flight Avionics  
>Sensors:30,000km Passive HRT with folding array (1 hex; 0.06Mw), 30,000km Radar (1 hex; 4Mw), 3xNavigation Lights (0.0001Mw each)
>ECM/ECCM:None
>Controls:Flight Deck with 5xWorkstations
>   
>Armament:  
>Offensive/Defensive:None
>   
>Accomodations:  
>Life Support:Extended (1.12Mw), Hamster cage (13m radius producing 0.14G pseudo gravity; contains 2xAirlocks, 31xLarge Staterooms, 12xSmall Staterooms and 6xCryoberths)
>Crew:9 (2xElectronics, 2xManeuver, 1xMaintenance, 2xFlight Crew, 1xCommand, 1xMedical)
>Crew Accomodations:1xLarge Stateroom (0.001Mw), 8xSmall Staterooms (0.0005Mw each)
>Passenger Accomodations:4xSmall Staterooms (0.0005Mw each), 120xCryoberths (0.001Mw each)  
>Cargo Capacity:464.2 cubic meters (464.2 tons), two large cargo hatches
>Small Craft and Launch Facilities:2 TL9 28 cubic meter Skyreach class aircars or similar with internal hangers (minimal) and one launch port each  
>Airlocks:4xAirlocks  
>Additional Fittings:None  
>Design Notes:Fuel purification equipment is sufficient to purify 700 cubic meters of L-Hyd in 6 hours. Fuel scoop capacity is 1,120 cubic meters of L-Hyd per hour (1.25 hours to refuel exclusive of power plant fuel.)
>
> 
> 
>Operational Notes: Normally used as an orbit to prison transport vessel with some cargo capacity. The radioactive exhaust was generally not considered a problem as most prisons were constructed on/in asteroids or on bodies which were either airless or the atmosphere was already poisonous to human life.
>   
>DAMAGE TABLES:
>Area Surface Hits Internal Explosion Systems
>1 1-8:Ant Hold FPP-9H, MD-9H,
>2-3   Hold LS-4H, ELS-2H,
>4-7   Qtrs Hanger-1H, LSR-1H,
>8-9 1-5:CH Hold PP-1H, Radar-1H,
>10 1:AL,2-9:LP 1-13:Qtrs,14-19:Elec,20:Hold AG-1H, SSR-(2h),
>11   1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Hold All others-(1h)
>12,15 1:AL 1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Eng  
>13-14   1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Eng  
>16-17,19   1-9:Eng,10-20:Hold  
>18 1:AL Eng  
>20   Eng  
> 
>

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.  However I
> think this assumption is misplaced.  True an improperly maintained system
> could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could any
> of our current nuclear power systems. 
> Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems due
> to radiation.  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?
>  
> Your thoughts please
> Tim
>
>
>>________________________________
From: Antony Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Alcatraz class in-system prison transport
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>This is a new design which came about when I started reviewing the old
>> ones on the web site. It could also be used as a specialised boat on a
>> starship.
>> 
>>Antony
>>Alcatraz class in-system prisoner transport (QL)
>>Federated States of Sol (United Worlds Commonwealth)
>>The Alcatraz class of in-system prisoner transport is another variant of
>> the Calliope class cargo sloop. The vessel generally carried its
>> complement of prisoners in cryo-suspension. A small number of conscious
>> passengers such as prison staff could also be transported. A number were
>> also used during the Centauri war to ferry critically wounded in
>> cryo-berths to places where they could be treated.
>> 
>>General Data  
>>Displacement:400 displacement tons Hull Armour:24 (6cm Composite
>> Laminate)
>>Length:44 meters Volume:5,600 cubic meters
>>Price:330,693,157 Cr. (including series discount) Target Size:S
>>Configuration:Cylinder SL Tech Level:9
>>Mass:(Loaded/Empty) 3,277.6817/2,677.5907 tons
>>   
>>Engineering Data  
>>G Rating:2G (Fusion rocket, produces 80Mw per G), No Contra-Grav Lifters
>>G Turns:140, 10 cubic meters each
>>Atmospheric Performance:The vessel is capable of atmospheric entry and
>> may manoeuvre at up to 1,100kph. However the exhaust is radioactive.
>>Maintenance:168  
>>   
>>Electronics:3xTL9 Standard Computers (0.25Mw each)
>>Communications:30,000km Radio (1 hex; 1Mw), 30,000km Maser (1 hex; 0.15Mw
>> each)
>>Avionics:TL8+ Flight Avionics  
>>Sensors:30,000km Passive HRT with folding array (1 hex; 0.06Mw), 30,000km
>> Radar (1 hex; 4Mw), 3xNavigation Lights (0.0001Mw each)
>>ECM/ECCM:None
>>Controls:Flight Deck with 5xWorkstations
>>   
>>Armament:  
>>Offensive/Defensive:None
>>   
>>Accomodations:  
>>Life Support:Extended (1.12Mw), Hamster cage (13m radius producing 0.14G
>> pseudo gravity; contains 2xAirlocks, 31xLarge Staterooms, 12xSmall
>> Staterooms and 6xCryoberths)
>>Crew:9 (2xElectronics, 2xManeuver, 1xMaintenance, 2xFlight Crew,
>> 1xCommand, 1xMedical)
>>Crew Accomodations:1xLarge Stateroom (0.001Mw), 8xSmall Staterooms
>> (0.0005Mw each)
>>Passenger Accomodations:4xSmall Staterooms (0.0005Mw each),
>> 120xCryoberths (0.001Mw each)  
>>Cargo Capacity:464.2 cubic meters (464.2 tons), two large cargo hatches
>>Small Craft and Launch Facilities:2 TL9 28 cubic meter Skyreach class
>> aircars or similar with internal hangers (minimal) and one launch port
>> each  
>>Airlocks:4xAirlocks  
>>Additional Fittings:None  
>>Design Notes:Fuel purification equipment is sufficient to purify 700
>> cubic meters of L-Hyd in 6 hours. Fuel scoop capacity is 1,120 cubic
>> meters of L-Hyd per hour (1.25 hours to refuel exclusive of power plant
>> fuel.)
>>
>> 
>> 
>>Operational Notes: Normally used as an orbit to prison transport vessel
>> with some cargo capacity. The radioactive exhaust was generally not
>> considered a problem as most prisons were constructed on/in asteroids or
>> on bodies which were either airless or the atmosphere was already
>> poisonous to human life.
>>   
>>DAMAGE TABLES:
>>Area Surface Hits Internal Explosion Systems
>>1 1-8:Ant Hold FPP-9H, MD-9H,
>>2-3   Hold LS-4H, ELS-2H,
>>4-7   Qtrs Hanger-1H, LSR-1H,
>>8-9 1-5:CH Hold PP-1H, Radar-1H,
>>10 1:AL,2-9:LP 1-13:Qtrs,14-19:Elec,20:Hold AG-1H, SSR-(2h),
>>11   1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Hold All others-(1h)
>>12,15 1:AL 1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Eng  
>>13-14   1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Eng  
>>16-17,19   1-9:Eng,10-20:Hold  
>>18 1:AL Eng  
>>20   Eng  
>> 
>>

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.

I've pictured the fusion rocket as essentially a fusion bottle, open at
one end. The fusion exhaust won't necessarily have a lot of radioactive
particles, but is putting out high-energy radiation directly.
Essentially, you're riding a powerful particle accelerator and hitting
anything behind you with cosmic rays.

HEPlaR is a something of a magic tech, to give us more of a hard SF
feel, without completely doing away with what's come before.

On 12-07-11 15:01, Jeff Dougherty wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 s ystem
> 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.
>
>

--
Edward Swatschek -

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.
>
>

Yeah, Ed, that's how we pictured them too. Primarily because that's what
we found out many of our players thought about HEPlaR when TNE first came
out!

Yep, magic tech, whose performance was derived from the amount of energy
required to move around on a starship combat hex grid scaled from
published CT and MT laser range figures, and then projected from
"reasonable" imaginary design approaches.

But hopefully you'll forgive us that one bit of magic, because everything
else in Traveller is real! ;-)

> I've pictured the fusion rocket as essentially a fusion bottle, open at
> one end. The fusion exhaust won't necessarily have a lot of radioactive
> particles, but is putting out high-energy radiation directly.
> Essentially, you're riding a powerful particle accelerator and hitting
> anything behind you with cosmic rays.
>
> HEPlaR is a something of a magic tech, to give us more of a hard SF
> feel, without completely doing away with what's come before.
>
>

yep

>________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>
>
>
> 
>
>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.  However I
>> think this assumption is misplaced.  True an improperly maintained system
>> could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could any
>> of our current nuclear power systems. 
>> Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems due
>> to radiation.  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?
>>  
>> Your thoughts please
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>>________________________________
From: Antony Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Alcatraz class in-system prison transport
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>This is a new design which came about when I started reviewing the old
>>> ones on the web site. It could also be used as a specialised boat on a
>>> starship.
>>> 
>>>Antony
>>>Alcatraz class in-system prisoner transport (QL)
>>>Federated States of Sol (United Worlds Commonwealth)
>>>The Alcatraz class of in-system prisoner transport is another variant of
>>> the Calliope class cargo sloop. The vessel generally carried its
>>> complement of prisoners in cryo-suspension. A small number of conscious
>>> passengers such as prison staff could also be transported. A number were
>>> also used during the Centauri war to ferry critically wounded in
>>> cryo-berths to places where they could be treated.
>>> 
>>>General Data  
>>>Displacement:400 displacement tons Hull Armour:24 (6cm Composite
>>> Laminate)
>>>Length:44 meters Volume:5,600 cubic meters
>>>Price:330,693,157 Cr. (including series discount) Target Size:S
>>>Configuration:Cylinder SL Tech Level:9
>>>Mass:(Loaded/Empty) 3,277.6817/2,677.5907 tons
>>>   
>>>Engineering Data  
>>>G Rating:2G (Fusion rocket, produces 80Mw per G), No Contra-Grav Lifters
>>>G Turns:140, 10 cubic meters each
>>>Atmospheric Performance:The vessel is capable of atmospheric entry and
>>> may manoeuvre at up to 1,100kph. However the exhaust is radioactive.
>>>Maintenance:168  
>>>   
>>>Electronics:3xTL9 Standard Computers (0.25Mw each)
>>>Communications:30,000km Radio (1 hex; 1Mw), 30,000km Maser (1 hex; 0.15Mw
>>> each)
>>>Avionics:TL8+ Flight Avionics  
>>>Sensors:30,000km Passive HRT with folding array (1 hex; 0.06Mw), 30,000km
>>> Radar (1 hex; 4Mw), 3xNavigation Lights (0.0001Mw each)
>>>ECM/ECCM:None
>>>Controls:Flight Deck with 5xWorkstations
>>>   
>>>Armament:  
>>>Offensive/Defensive:None
>>>   
>>>Accomodations:  
>>>Life Support:Extended (1.12Mw), Hamster cage (13m radius producing 0.14G
>>> pseudo gravity; contains 2xAirlocks, 31xLarge Staterooms, 12xSmall
>>> Staterooms and 6xCryoberths)
>>>Crew:9 (2xElectronics, 2xManeuver, 1xMaintenance, 2xFlight Crew,
>>> 1xCommand, 1xMedical)
>>>Crew Accomodations:1xLarge Stateroom (0.001Mw), 8xSmall Staterooms
>>> (0.0005Mw each)
>>>Passenger Accomodations:4xSmall Staterooms (0.0005Mw each),
>>> 120xCryoberths (0.001Mw each)  
>>>Cargo Capacity:464.2 cubic meters (464.2 tons), two large cargo hatches
>>>Small Craft and Launch Facilities:2 TL9 28 cubic meter Skyreach class
>>> aircars or similar with internal hangers (minimal) and one launch port
>>> each  
>>>Airlocks:4xAirlocks  
>>>Additional Fittings:None  
>>>Design Notes:Fuel purification equipment is sufficient to purify 700
>>> cubic meters of L-Hyd in 6 hours. Fuel scoop capacity is 1,120 cubic
>>> meters of L-Hyd per hour (1.25 hours to refuel exclusive of power plant
>>> fuel.)
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Operational Notes: Normally used as an orbit to prison transport vessel
>>> with some cargo capacity. The radioactive exhaust was generally not
>>> considered a problem as most prisons were constructed on/in asteroids or
>>> on bodies which were either airless or the atmosphere was already
>>> poisonous to human life.
>>>   
>>>DAMAGE TABLES:
>>>Area Surface Hits Internal Explosion Systems
>>>1 1-8:Ant Hold FPP-9H, MD-9H,
>>>2-3   Hold LS-4H, ELS-2H,
>>>4-7   Qtrs Hanger-1H, LSR-1H,
>>>8-9 1-5:CH Hold PP-1H, Radar-1H,
>>>10 1:AL,2-9:LP 1-13:Qtrs,14-19:Elec,20:Hold AG-1H, SSR-(2h),
>>>11   1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Hold All others-(1h)
>>>12,15 1:AL 1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Eng  
>>>13-14   1-13:Qtrs,14-20:Eng  
>>>16-17,19   1-9:Eng,10-20:Hold  
>>>18 1:AL Eng  
>>>20   Eng  
>>> 
>>>
>
>
>
>
>

Cool.

>>
>>Did I answer your question?
>>

> yep
>
>
>
>>________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 3:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>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. 
>>> However I
>>> think this assumption is misplaced.  True an improperly maintained
>>> system
>>> could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could
>>> any
>>> of our current nuclear power systems. 
>>> Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems
>>> due
>>> to radiation.  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?
>>>  
>>> Your thoughts please
>>> Tim

Wait, you're saying I could get Kaylee to mock up the drive so it looks like we're flying without containment, but not enough to fry us?

Sweet mother of god. 😄

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

On 2012-07-11, at 14:41, wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>

Totally off topic, if you have not seen the outtakes from Serenity, do yourself a favour.

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

On 2012-07-11, at 19:54, DEREK STANLEY <> wrote:

> Wait, you're saying I could get Kaylee to mock up the drive so it looks like we're flying without containment, but not enough to fry us?
>
> Sweet mother of god. 😄
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-07-11, at 14:41, wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>

Yes, but only because she has the psionic talent of Engineering Empathy.

And tie Shepherd Book to the nose.

> Wait, you're saying I could get Kaylee to mock up the drive so it looks
> like we're flying without containment, but not enough to fry us?
>
> Sweet mother of god. 😄
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-07-11, at 14:41, wrote:
>
>> 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.

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?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >>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. 
> >>> However I
> >>> think this assumption is misplaced.  True an improperly maintained
> >>> system
> >>> could easily vent some radioactives into the environment, but so could
> >>> any
> >>> of our current nuclear power systems. 
> >>> Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause environmental problems
> >>> due
> >>> to radiation.  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?
> >>>  
> >>> Your thoughts please
> >>> Tim
>

> I'd love to hear your viewpoint on this issue. What were the critics
> missing?

Maybe nothing, maybe they're right about the exhaust speed.

As I said, HEPlaR performance was established by the requirement to see
meaningful movement on a hex grid that functioned with the established
laser ranges published in CT and MT. We did start out by looking at more
realistic movement, but if we kept established laser ranges, the game
would have been dumb, the equivalent of microbes moving around inside the
drop of water on a microscope slide with people firing at them from across
the room. So if we reduced laser range to make it proportional to movement
ability, then you've got combat taking place at very short ranges, which
not only violates what has been published by Traveller all along, but
makes the fire control solution trivial, and it is impossible to miss. So
again the game becomes ridiculous: a bunch of ships crawl toward each
other and never miss once. Again, a major change in the game dynamics. In
order to keep the feel of Traveller we had to have a game whose "ground
scale" preserved established laser ranges in order to allow you to evade
and miss, and thereby keep the feel of the game, and be able to move
meaningful distances in the game's time scale. It's as simple as that.

And here comes there part where I am not responding to you, Jake, I am
responding to the straw man of the criticism itself. So put on your
seatbelts, or look away.

If the solution violates someone's sensibilities, well, duh. Lasers don't
really work at that range, and any movement system which allows you to
move at that speed doesn't exist anyway. Did these critics have problems
with the previous editions of Traveller that had ships moving at those
rates? Why not? Because it was called bull$#!tium, unobtanium, handwavium
reactionless Magic Drive (BUHRMD)? What's the difference? It was
impossible before and it's still impossible, what do people want? We are
doing nothing different than what was done in the previous editions of
Traveller, we just hung a different name on it because Frank didn't want
reactionless drives, and adding reaction mass gave a really nice tactical
planning feel to the game. I think it was a nice touch tactically, and the
change in the name of the Magic Drive is ultimately a distinction without
a difference, because the speeds are the same, it's only the phony name
that has changed.

You pick your BS and you move on. It's science FICTION, and it's a GAME.
Either you want to play the game or you don't. Either you do the willing
suspension of disbelief or you make up a house rule to protect your tender
sensibilities that, "Well, I believe jump drive is possible, I believe
psionics is possible, I believe antigrav is possible, I believe that the
Ancients invented the Vargr, I believe that putting the full memories and
personalities of a person into a clone is possible, but BY GOD, I draw the
line at this maneuver drive." Whatever, man. At some point your hobby is
no longer playing the game, it's nit-picking the game. And at what point
did the label "Science FICTION roleplaying GAME" not warn you away?

There are lots of ways to "play" Traveller, and unfortunately one of them
is sitting around saying, "it's not realistic, I refuse to play it." Well,
then, don't play it. How many times do I have to say, "DUH!"

You make what mental accomodations with the game you need to enjoy it, or
God forbid, have to be the stupid sap that agreed to try to write it.

Those, roughly, would likely be my reactions, if I were to think about
them. :-)

Dave

This has been my reply to Ct/MT fans that just don’t like TNE/FF&S because of the gravitic focusing, near lightspeed exhaust, computer software that program themselves and rewrites curcuitry etc... Although less wordy and not so eloquently =0)

PS: can I use this on my website?

---
Roger Malmstein
Administrator / Webmaster
www.travellerfreeport.com

From:
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?

If the solution violates someone's sensibilities, well, duh. Lasers don't
really work at that range, and any movement system which allows you to
move at that speed doesn't exist anyway. Did these critics have problems
with the previous editions of Traveller that had ships moving at those
rates? Why not? Because it was called bull$#!tium, unobtanium, handwavium
reactionless Magic Drive (BUHRMD)? What's the difference? It was
impossible before and it's still impossible, what do people want? We are
doing nothing different than what was done in the previous editions of
Traveller, we just hung a different name on it because Frank didn't want
reactionless drives, and adding reaction mass gave a really nice tactical
planning feel to the game. I think it was a nice touch tactically, and the
change in the name of the Magic Drive is ultimately a distinction without
a difference, because the speeds are the same, it's only the phony name
that has changed.

You pick your BS and you move on. It's science FICTION, and it's a GAME.
Either you want to play the game or you don't. Either you do the willing
suspension of disbelief or you make up a house rule to protect your tender
sensibilities that, "Well, I believe jump drive is possible, I believe
psionics is possible, I believe antigrav is possible, I believe that the
Ancients invented the Vargr, I believe that putting the full memories and
personalities of a person into a clone is possible, but BY GOD, I draw the
line at this maneuver drive." Whatever, man. At some point your hobby is
no longer playing the game, it's nit-picking the game. And at what point
did the label "Science FICTION roleplaying GAME" not warn you away?

Yes, feel free to use that.

And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate me
and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful since
1991.

Dave

> This has been my reply to Ct/MT fans that just don’t like TNE/FF&S
> because of the gravitic focusing, near lightspeed exhaust, computer
> software that program themselves and rewrites curcuitry etc... Although
> less wordy and not so eloquently =0)
>
> PS: can I use this on my website?
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
> From:
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>
>
> If the solution violates someone's sensibilities, well, duh. Lasers don't
> really work at that range, and any movement system which allows you to
> move at that speed doesn't exist anyway. Did these critics have problems
> with the previous editions of Traveller that had ships moving at those
> rates? Why not? Because it was called bull$#!tium, unobtanium, handwavium
> reactionless Magic Drive (BUHRMD)? What's the difference? It was
> impossible before and it's still impossible, what do people want? We are
> doing nothing different than what was done in the previous editions of
> Traveller, we just hung a different name on it because Frank didn't want
> reactionless drives, and adding reaction mass gave a really nice tactical
> planning feel to the game. I think it was a nice touch tactically, and the
> change in the name of the Magic Drive is ultimately a distinction without
> a difference, because the speeds are the same, it's only the phony name
> that has changed.
>
> You pick your BS and you move on. It's science FICTION, and it's a GAME.
> Either you want to play the game or you don't. Either you do the willing
> suspension of disbelief or you make up a house rule to protect your tender
> sensibilities that, "Well, I believe jump drive is possible, I believe
> psionics is possible, I believe antigrav is possible, I believe that the
> Ancients invented the Vargr, I believe that putting the full memories and
> personalities of a person into a clone is possible, but BY GOD, I draw the
> line at this maneuver drive." Whatever, man. At some point your hobby is
> no longer playing the game, it's nit-picking the game. And at what point
> did the label "Science FICTION roleplaying GAME" not warn you away?
>
>
>
>
>

New article is up.
I don’t mind taking the occational bullet. If it start to hail too much, I’ll send them to you =0)

---
Roger Malmstein
Administrator / Webmaster
www.travellerfreeport.com

From:
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:35 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?

Yes, feel free to use that.

And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate me
and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful since
1991.

Dave

I'm so full of holes, who would notice the difference?

> New article is up.
> I don’t mind taking the occational bullet. If it start to hail too much,
> I’ll send them to you =0)
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:35 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>
>
> Yes, feel free to use that.
>
> And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate me
> and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful since
> 1991.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

I took a look at it. People are going to SO hate me. Good thing I'm used
to it.

The sad thing is, I think I've been so user-friendly and nice and relaxed
in my retirement on this list, but those three paragraphs taken out of
that context read like, "Oh my God, the freak lunatic is back from his
cave! Shoot him before he gets any closer!"

Darn. Life sucks and someday I'll die. (Things like this just increase the
likelihood that it will be at the hands of a Traveller fan.)

Dave

> New article is up.
> I don’t mind taking the occational bullet. If it start to hail too much,
> I’ll send them to you =0)
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
>
>
> From:
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:35 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>
>
> Yes, feel free to use that.
>
> And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate me
> and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful since
> 1991.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>

> And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate me
> and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful since
> 1991.

Damn it, Dave. You owe me a keyboard, my old one seems to have coffee all over it now for some reason.

You should put that on your business cards.

-JTD

Not sent from my iPad

Thank you, Jeff.

It's funny, as that typing came out of my fingertips I had just about that
same thought.

>> And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate
>> me
>> and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful
>> since
>> 1991.
>
> Damn it, Dave. You owe me a keyboard, my old one seems to have coffee all
> over it now for some reason.
>
> You should put that on your business cards.
>
> -JTD
>
> Not sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
>

 
  HEPlaR High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion

Fusion Exhaust

I have considered both sides of the argument before responding.

Tim OReilly wrote: “Many 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.”

Sorry I don’t 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 wouldn’t recommend a fly over of the Grand Chancellor’s house
with your HEPlar driven scout courier for many reasons…

===============================================================================

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:  “Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause
environmental problems due to radiation.”

Sorry again I couldn’t categorically agree, also not relevant
because “the current ones” 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! 

 

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).

 

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)  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 graviton’s 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.

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Enjoy!

Craige

 
 

David Nilsen wrote:  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.

I don’t agree with this premise.

HEPlaR or High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion requires a heat
exchanger recombustion chamber. Hydrogen is injected into the
recombustion chamber and the power generated by the engine (fusion
power plant) heats the hydrogen to a plasma state. The plasma is then
released as a high velocity stream of reaction mass (FF&S Pg 70)

Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and
therefore thrust for the ship SO how can you say that fusion products
are not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is
radioactive, though only for a short time.

 

Enjoy!

Craige

It’s funny but I always thought that HePlar vented well plasma not fusion by products. Is there a bit missing in FF&S regarding HePlar in relation to what types of power plant it can be used with, as written you could attach a HePlar drive to any power plant (mental image of a steam engine powering a ships maneuver drive – Space 1889 variant)

Antony

From: [] On Behalf Of Craige Cook
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 11:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?

David Nilsen wrote: 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. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I don’t agree with this premise.

HEPlaR or High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion requires a heat exchanger recombustion chamber. Hydrogen is injected into the recombustion chamber and the power generated by the engine (fusion power plant) heats the hydrogen to a plasma state. The plasma is then released as a high velocity stream of reaction mass (FF&S Pg 70)

Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and therefore thrust for the ship. SO how can you say that fusion products are not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is radioactive, though only for a short time.

Enjoy!

Craige

_____

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2194 / Virus Database: 2437/5130 - Release Date: 07/13/12

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

>   HEPlaR High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion
>
> Fusion Exhaust
>
> I have considered both sides of the argument before responding.
>
> Tim OReilly wrote: “Many 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.”
>
> Sorry I don’t 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 wouldn’t recommend a fly over of the Grand Chancellor’s house
> with your HEPlar driven scout courier for many reasons…
>
> ===============================================================================
>
> 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:  “Yet, the current ones do not habitually cause
> environmental problems due to radiation.”
>
> Sorry again I couldn’t categorically agree, also not relevant
> because “the current ones” 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! 
>
>  
>
> 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).
>
>  
>
> 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)  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 graviton’s 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.
>
>  
>
> Thoughts anyone?
>
>  
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Craige
>

> Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and
> therefore thrust for the ship SO how can you say that fusion products
> are not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is
> radioactive, though only for a short time.

You're confusing possible meanings of the phrase "fusion products."

By "fusion product" I mean the direct products of the act of fusion
itself, the fusing nuclei, the stuff that remains in the reactor.

Your use of "fusion product" is in the sense that electricity is a product
of a coal-fired power plant, which it is. But the direct product of that
coal burning is the ash and sulfur dioxide. The electricity comes from
harnessing the heat released.

So in the HEPlaR example, neither the direct fusion product, nor any of
its direct effects, are released. These remain in the fusion reactor.
Harnessing the heat through the heat exchanger, as you quote, results in a
secondary product, like the coal fire heating water to turn a turbine.
These heat exchangers do not cause the hydrogen to begin fusing, but
merely heat it to a plasma state. So the direct fusion products are
retained in the core, and the HEPlaR does not cause any fusion to take
place outside of the fusion core.

So the reason I said that is because I was using a different meaning of
"fusion products" than you assumed. Your use of "fusion products" would
more accurately be called "by products" or "secondary products," with the
thrust itself being that secondary product via the heat exchanger.

You then re-introduce your point from the earlier message about the plasma
itself releasing radioactivity, which I've discussed in my previous
response. However, simply because the plasma releases radiation does not
mean it is a fusion product from the fusion core, anymore than getting an
electrical shock from a coal-fired power plant means that you got sulfur
dioxide poisoning.

> David Nilsen wrote:  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.
>
> I don’t agree with this premise.
>
> HEPlaR or High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion requires a heat
> exchanger recombustion chamber. Hydrogen is injected into the
> recombustion chamber and the power generated by the engine (fusion
> power plant) heats the hydrogen to a plasma state. The plasma is then
> released as a high velocity stream of reaction mass (FF&S Pg 70)
>
> Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and
> therefore thrust for the ship SO how can you say that fusion products
> are not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is
> radioactive, though only for a short time.

>
>  
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Craige
>
>
>

I was gong to post on this point - in RCEG both the RC Ragtop Air-Raft and the Sensor Drone use Heplar Coupled with an MHD Generator. In the main rulebook the Air-Raft, G-Carrier and Enclosed Air-Raft have the same set-up.

________________________________
From: Antony Farrell
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012, 12:40
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?


It’s funny but I always thought that HePlar vented well plasma not fusion by products. Is there a bit missing in FF&S regarding HePlar in relation to what types of power plant it can be used with, as written you could attach a HePlar drive to any power plant (mental image of a steam engine powering a ships maneuver drive – Space 1889 variant)
 
Antony
 
From: [] On Behalf Of Craige Cook
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 11:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
 

 
 
David Nilsen wrote:  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. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I don’t agree with this premise.
HEPlaR or High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion requires a heat exchanger recombustion chamber. Hydrogen is injected into the recombustion chamber and the power generated by the engine (fusion power plant) heats the hydrogen to a plasma state. The plasma is then released as a high velocity stream of reaction mass (FF&S Pg 70)
Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and therefore thrust for the ship. SO how can you say that fusion products are not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is radioactive, though only for a short time.
 
Enjoy!
Craige

________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2194 / Virus Database: 2437/5130 - Release Date: 07/13/12

Antony--

You are correct. It was intended that HEPlaR vented only plasma, and never
fusion byproducts. Plasma is plasma, and fusion does not take place in it.

You are also correct that you could hook up a HEPlaR to another power
source. Our assumption being that HEPlaR was a large umbrella technology
that had to do with harnessing a sufficiently energetic powerplant to heat
and accelerate hydrogen for thrust. As I wrote last night, in my mind, the
HEPlaR power and performance was directly related to the energetic
qualities of the plant it was hooked up to, which I think comes out in the
design sequence. I don't know that we ever put in a lower limit of what
you could hook up to one, but I think the power calculations sort of did
that for you, in that at lower power densitities what you were getting out
the back end was closer to high-pressure "steam" than plasma, cue the 1889
reference. And since you don't need that much G-performance in atmosphere
with contra-grav, you don't need as much HEPlaR performance.

Your Universe May Vary. Does not include taxes, titles, or delivery fees.
May cause swelling, bleeding, or sudden death. If a horn grows from your
forehead, contact your doctor.

> It’s funny but I always thought that HePlar vented well plasma not
> fusion by products. Is there a bit missing in FF&S regarding HePlar in
> relation to what types of power plant it can be used with, as written you
> could attach a HePlar drive to any power plant (mental image of a steam
> engine powering a ships maneuver drive – Space 1889 variant)
>
>
>
> Antony
>
>
>
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Craige Cook
> Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 11:27 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Nilsen wrote: 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. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
>
> I don’t agree with this premise.
>
> HEPlaR or High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion requires a heat exchanger
> recombustion chamber. Hydrogen is injected into the recombustion chamber
> and the power generated by the engine (fusion power plant) heats the
> hydrogen to a plasma state. The plasma is then released as a high velocity
> stream of reaction mass (FF&S Pg 70)
>
> Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and
> therefore thrust for the ship. SO how can you say that fusion products are
> not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is
> radioactive, though only for a short time.
>
>
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Craige
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2194 / Virus Database: 2437/5130 - Release Date: 07/13/12
>
>

Eamon--

Your msg below prompted me to find Antony's original in my spam folder,
which I just responded to, and I think addresses your thoughts as well.

Talk with your doctor to see if you are healthy enough for sexual
activity. Do not consume with nitrates as this may cause an unsafe hole to
open in the back of your head.

Dave

> I was gong to post on this point - in RCEG both the RC Ragtop Air-Raft and
> the Sensor Drone use Heplar Coupled with an MHD Generator. In the main
> rulebook the Air-Raft, G-Carrier and Enclosed Air-Raft have the same
> set-up.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
From: Antony Farrell
Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012, 12:40
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>
>
> It’s funny but I always thought that HePlar vented well plasma not
> fusion by products. Is there a bit missing in FF&S regarding HePlar in
> relation to what types of power plant it can be used with, as written you
> could attach a HePlar drive to any power plant (mental image of a steam
> engine powering a ships maneuver drive – Space 1889 variant)
>  
> Antony
>  
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Craige Cook
> Sent: Saturday, 14 July 2012 11:27 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Fusion Exhaust Radioactive or Not?
>  
>
>
>  
>  
> David Nilsen wrote:  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. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> I don’t agree with this premise.
> HEPlaR or High Efficiency Plasma Recombustion requires a heat exchanger
> recombustion chamber. Hydrogen is injected into the recombustion chamber
> and the power generated by the engine (fusion power plant) heats the
> hydrogen to a plasma state. The plasma is then released as a high velocity
> stream of reaction mass (FF&S Pg 70)
> Plasma is made and sent outside the ship to provide reaction mass and
> therefore thrust for the ship. SO how can you say that fusion products are
> not vented? The fusion product of plasma is vented and yes it is
> radioactive, though only for a short time.
>  
> Enjoy!
> Craige
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2194 / Virus Database: 2437/5130 - Release Date: 07/13/12

> ??? Was it really only 2 years? There was so much material released, I
> thought it was much longer?

I know, when I came up with that figure it shocked me too. We released TNE
in 1993 (I don't remember what month), and made the decision to shut down
in Sept/Oct 95. If you could TNE as starting with Survival Margin, that's
still late-ish 1992 somewhere. If you figure that things like Astrogator's
Guide to Diaspora and Arrival Vengeance were already pointing toward TNE
it goes a little farther, but those were still strictly speaking MT
products.

>> And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate
>> me
>> and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful
>> since 1991.
>
> Man, that reminds me, we've really gotta get you some business cards...

Yeah... :-)

> (BTW, did you ever see the convention pic of Nathan Filion with dice in
> his hand? He was playing - of all characters - _River Song_ in someone's
> home-grown Firefly game setting...)

No, I have not. Firefly is going to still have some kind of coda, I have
to believe. Maybe Joss or Nathan can get on kickstarter.

If someone has already mentioned it then ignore me, still trying to catch up on the latest burst of traffic.

River Song is from the latest series of Doctor Who.

Brett.

>
> River Tamm 😄
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
> On 2012-07-16, at 1:44, "Hyphen_DJW" <davidjw@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Folks -
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> > > Thank you, Axel. I really appreciate your saying that.
> > >
> > > It's my favorite version of Traveller as well. Hard to believe it lasted only a little over two years
> >
> > ??? Was it really only 2 years? There was so much material released, I thought it was much longer?
> >
> > > And make sure you cite me as the author. That way your readers can hate me and not you, a service I've been providing to the Traveller Faithful since 1991.
> >
> > Man, that reminds me, we've really gotta get you some business cards...
> >
> > <g, d & r> ;-) ;-)
> >
> > (BTW, did you ever see the convention pic of Nathan Filion with dice in his hand? He was playing - of all characters - _River Song_ in someone's home-grown Firefly game setting...)
> >
> >
>