there are thermally conductive ceramics, alloys, pretty much anything that works here in atmosphere would work in space for radiating heat. the system would have no coolant losses...it would be a closed loop. pumps carry the coolant to the radiating surfaces, and then returned to be reheated for power generation.
the only caveat is surface area, and exposure to sun light would have to minimized, either through shielding or rotation of the surfaces. shielding being the simpler. fins around the power core, with insulators at the tips to attach a shield protecting them, could be something as flimsy as mylar or equiv. highly reflective. get fancier, it could be polarized and electrically active to repel lower energy particles as well.
nasa and others have experimented with electromagnetic shielding, as with with many things power has been the stumbling block. to be useful you need quite a bit.
though any design for a manned mission should have multiple power sources in multiple locations, the whole star trek engine room is inherently unsafe. all your eggs in one basket, anything happens you're f*cked.
smaller size potential of the lenr type devices would allow at least some dispersion throughout the craft. dedicated engine power area, and separate but still connected life support power supply, with possibly a third for onboard electronics and back-up.there's a carbon fiber composite that could be used for structural members that also double as a battery storage system along with a main battery backup system would provide even further safety. but if possible it should never follow the model of all power producing equipment goes in one place. just horrible safety design >.<
edit: ah yes, the reason for fins with attached shielding, you don't want the re-radiation from your shielding affecting your cooling surfaces, so insulated standoffs would be required. and the attempt at a film rather than something more solid is about saving weight. same with the carbon fiber structural members doubling as a storage battery. though, actually there's solar films that can convert sunlight as well...so many possibilities >.<
and yes, paranoid about the safety of any manned mission...there would be no help coming in case of a problem, they're on their own with what they have onboard and that's it.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
there are thermally conductive ceramics, alloys, pretty much anything that works here in atmosphere would work in space for radiating heat. the system would have no coolant losses...it would be a closed loop. pumps carry the coolant to the radiating surfaces, and then returned to be reheated for power generation.
the only caveat is surface area, and exposure to sun light would have to minimized, either through shielding or rotation of the surfaces. shielding being the simpler. fins around the power core, with insulators at the tips to attach a shield protecting them, could be something as flimsy as mylar or equiv. highly reflective. get fancier, it could be polarized and electrically active to repel lower energy particles as well.
nasa and others have experimented with electromagnetic shielding, as with with many things power has been the stumbling block. to be useful you need quite a bit.
though any design for a manned mission should have multiple power sources in multiple locations, the whole star trek engine room is inherently unsafe. all your eggs in one basket, anything happens you're f*cked.
smaller size potential of the lenr type devices would allow at least some dispersion throughout the craft. dedicated engine power area, and separate but still connected life support power supply, with possibly a third for onboard electronics and back-up.there's a carbon fiber composite that could be used for structural members that also double as a battery storage system along with a main battery backup system would provide even further safety. but if possible it should never follow the model of all power producing equipment goes in one place. just horrible safety design >.<
edit: ah yes, the reason for fins with attached shielding, you don't want the re-radiation from your shielding affecting your cooling surfaces, so insulated standoffs would be required. and the attempt at a film rather than something more solid is about saving weight. same with the carbon fiber structural members doubling as a storage battery. though, actually there's solar films that can convert sunlight as well...so many possibilities >.<
and yes, paranoid about the safety of any manned mission...there would be no help coming in case of a problem, they're on their own with what they have onboard and that's it.
interesting, Im sure this will many backups and fail safes on board. It will be like the pioneering sailors when they were all on there own in the middle off now where on the on the ocean. Anyway i have been searching around and can't find and article to answer one of my questions so here it is, out of all the ion/electric propulsion that has been made which will be better for space travel or which is faster to use. The ion engine which was used ion deep space one and other satailites or vasimr? Can't they use both?
Also does anyone know how long will it take for this engine plus the other ion engines that exist to have enough thruster to move.
Anyway i have been searching around and can't find an article to answer some of my questions so here it is, out of all the ion/electric propulsion that has been made which will be better for space travel or which is faster to use. The ion engine which was used ion deep space one and other satailites or vasimr? Can't they use both?Also does anyone know how long will it take for this engine plus the other ion engines that exist to have enough thruster to move.
Kamiyama was trying to understand how heat would dissipate into a vacuum. Hot objects naturally give off infra-red radiation which travels through a vacuum just fine.
Kamiyama was trying to understand how heat would dissipate into a vacuum. Hot objects naturally give off infra-red radiation which travels through a vacuum just fine.
So this will be perfect to reduce the heat build up from the reactor or engine?
can't there be just an exhaust like a car has where the heat escapes in to space? What would the material of these radiators that radiate the heat away be made off?
The thing is, whatever you are venting as exhaust has to have been carried on your spacecraft in a tank. Cooling a nuclear reactor via water evaporation will require about one kilogram of water per kilowatt-hour of energy (the energy required to heat water from freezing to boiling and then boil it away is about 3/4 of a kilowatt hour per kilogram). Thus, a megawatt-class reactor will require about a ton of cooling water PER HOUR. Every six weeks of flight time will thus require about one thousand tons of cooling water--which is problematic when you consider that a spacecraft that would be using a one megawatt reactor would have a total non-fuel mass of only a few hundred tons to begin with--a heavier ship would demand an even bigger, hotter reactor. (Please note also that there are VERY few possible coolant materials that would carry away significantly more heat per kilogram than water while also being relatively safe for humans, and all of those cost quite a bit of money if you want to exhaust hundreds of tons of them per flight.)
though any design for a manned mission should have multiple power sources in multiple locations, the whole star trek engine room is inherently unsafe. all your eggs in one basket, anything happens you're f*cked.
Redundancy is good, but it adds bulk and mass, and when you are paying US$1000 or more per kilogram launched from Earth's surface to orbit, you want to make everything as lightweight as possible. A single 1-megawatt reactor weighs less than two 500-kilowatt reactors, since you don't have to double the mass of every component in order to double the power output. Likewise, in Star Trek, having several warp cores working together would take up more space and mass (and more labor to operate and maintain) than a single large one, which means that the more efficient plan is to have the main warp core and a smaller emergency one so that the ship isn't stranded if the main one fails. Note that in Star Trek, the only Federation ships to have more than two warp cores are the ones made to separate into multiple warp-capable sections, such as the Prometheus.
The thing is, whatever you are venting as exhaust has to have been carried on your spacecraft in a tank. Cooling a nuclear reactor via water evaporation will require about one kilogram of water per kilowatt-hour of energy (the energy required to heat water from freezing to boiling and then boil it away is about 3/4 of a kilowatt hour per kilogram). Thus, a megawatt-class reactor will require about a ton of cooling water PER HOUR. Every six weeks of flight time will thus require about one thousand tons of cooling water--which is problematic when you consider that a spacecraft that would be using a one megawatt reactor would have a total non-fuel mass of only a few hundred tons to begin with--a heavier ship would demand an even bigger, hotter reactor. (Please note also that there are VERY few possible coolant materials that would carry away significantly more heat per kilogram than water while also being relatively safe for humans, and all of those cost quite a bit of money if you want to exhaust hundreds of tons of them per flight.)
Redundancy is good, but it adds bulk and mass, and when you are paying US$1000 or more per kilogram launched from Earth's surface to orbit, you want to make everything as lightweight as possible. A single 1-megawatt reactor weighs less than two 500-kilowatt reactors, since you don't have to double the mass of every component in order to double the power output. Likewise, in Star Trek, having several warp cores working together would take up more space and mass (and more labor to operate and maintain) than a single large one, which means that the more efficient plan is to have the main warp core and a smaller emergency one so that the ship isn't stranded if the main one fails. Note that in Star Trek, the only Federation ships to have more than two warp cores are the ones made to separate into multiple warp-capable sections, such as the Prometheus.
Can't they use liquid nitrogen as a coolant for the nuclear reactor or just have the reactor expose to space since it is what -300c? wouldn't that be enough? Ya prometheus is the only ship known to have more then one warp core which is a good idea to have a backup but I guess since sub communication can travel faster than warp speeds at great distance too maybe there is know need.
Can't they use liquid nitrogen as a coolant for the nuclear reactor or just have the reactor expose to space since it is what -300c? wouldn't that be enough? Ya prometheus is the only ship known to have more then one warp core which is a good idea to have a backup but I guess since sub communication can travel faster than warp speeds at great distance too maybe there is know need.
You haven't been paying attention, have you...
Liquid nitrogen idea: That's essentially limited fuel, as you can't cool the nitrogen down effectively enough.
Exposure to space: Space is cold because there is little matter to transfer heat. Therefore, you have little matter to target for the reactor heat transfer. That's why the radiation and infrared ideas were mentioned in above posts.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Liquid nitrogen idea: That's essentially limited fuel, as you can't cool the nitrogen down effectively enough.
Exposure to space: Space is cold because there is little matter to transfer heat. Therefore, you have little matter to target for the reactor heat transfer. That's why the radiation and infrared ideas were mentioned in above posts.
Actually I have been and do remember what you have said. Just thought of other ideas for the cooling problem. :rolleyes:
Anyway back on topic, lilchibiclarim, dalolorn has mentioned that they can use infra red to cool the reactor and material which transfer the heat outside.
The thing is, whatever you are venting as exhaust has to have been carried on your spacecraft in a tank. Cooling a nuclear reactor via water evaporation will require about one kilogram of water per kilowatt-hour of energy (the energy required to heat water from freezing to boiling and then boil it away is about 3/4 of a kilowatt hour per kilogram). Thus, a megawatt-class reactor will require about a ton of cooling water PER HOUR. Every six weeks of flight time will thus require about one thousand tons of cooling water--which is problematic when you consider that a spacecraft that would be using a one megawatt reactor would have a total non-fuel mass of only a few hundred tons to begin with--a heavier ship would demand an even bigger, hotter reactor. (Please note also that there are VERY few possible coolant materials that would carry away significantly more heat per kilogram than water while also being relatively safe for humans, and all of those cost quite a bit of money if you want to exhaust hundreds of tons of them per flight.)
LENR device or similar can be cooled with less, and does not require water. gases. salts, even just the heat to drive a stirling engine to drive the generator could be used. there are no losses in a closed system. you're think of a standard BWR or PWR, neither would be of practical use. they require to much space, technical expertise and are inherently unsafe. the VASIMR engine can use a wide variety of gases. and would require much much less reaction mass than conventional rockets of any kind.
Redundancy is good, but it adds bulk and mass, and when you are paying US$1000 or more per kilogram launched from Earth's surface to orbit, you want to make everything as lightweight as possible. A single 1-megawatt reactor weighs less than two 500-kilowatt reactors, since you don't have to double the mass of every component in order to double the power output. Likewise, in Star Trek, having several warp cores working together would take up more space and mass (and more labor to operate and maintain) than a single large one, which means that the more efficient plan is to have the main warp core and a smaller emergency one so that the ship isn't stranded if the main one fails. Note that in Star Trek, the only Federation ships to have more than two warp cores are the ones made to separate into multiple warp-capable sections, such as the Prometheus.
reactor yes, LENR device no. they are much smaller by far. 2 at least, engines and life support separated. and this craft would not be built on earth, parts would be flown up and it would be built in orbit. the most practical method as attempting to build something to travel to mars with live cargo would require a much stronger structure with greater overall weight than building it in orbit. impractical to build an manned interplanetary craft on earth.
modular construction, each launched by rockets available at present, assembled in orbit. this also brings down the cost of developing a new rocket that could handle all the weight if the entire thing was launched from earth as well as the aforementioned weight savings from not requiring the craft to resist the high G of an earth based launch.
just the oxygen, nitrogen, food supplies, heaters, CO2 scrubbers, living/sleeping/exercise areas alone would take up a great deal of weight and space. then there's the lander, vehicles...this is by no means a small project. the craft itself would never touch ground. would not be built or designed to do so, yet more weight savings.
it also more than likely would not be anything like the pretty smooth hulled ships seen in star trek and most sci-fi. modules tacked together with scaffolding, engines at one end and access tubes running between different modules. rounder than most of the girder builds in sci-fi as well. since having the center and the ends closer reduces any rotational stresses from the decel flip (minor true) or emergency maneuvering.
whole design does depend on LENR or similar device to produce power. though, improvements in piezoelectronics increasing the conversion rate would allow standard steady state nuclear batteries to perform the task as well. requiring no cooling so all in all possibly much lighter as there's no generator either.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Actually I have been and do remember what you have said. Just thought of other ideas for the cooling problem. :rolleyes:
Anyway back on topic, lilchibiclarim, dalolorn has mentioned that they can use infra red to cool the reactor and material which transfer the heat outside.
I merely reminded you of the idea, which was mentioned in an above post.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
NASA seems to explore the possibilities of LENR-driven one-stage space planes, though. So you'd possibly launch into orbit with that vessel, refuel in orbit to get the necessary reaction mass, then use the same vessel for interplanetary travel.
At least in theory, this should be possible with LENR technology. But I guess that would need a few decades of development.
Has anyone else built a LNER reactor other than Rossi? who apparently is taking order already!
Can't they use liquid nitrogen as a coolant for the nuclear reactor or just have the reactor expose to space since it is what -300c? wouldn't that be enough?
Assuming that you are using any form of gas expansion cycle (e.g. Stirling, Brayton, or Rankine cycles) for converting your reactor energy into electricity or propulsion (i.e. reactor --> heat --> gas --> turbine/piston/rocket), then you are almost certainly going to want to run the engine as hot as possible (at LEAST 1200 C if not more), because gas expansion is fundamentally more efficient the greater the difference between maximum and minimum temperatures within the power cycle. Water absorbs a LOT more energy to heat up and boil than just about any non-toxic material in existence--a whopping FOUR TIMES as much energy per kilogram per degree Celsius as liquid nitrogen. Liquid nitrogen is thus only useful as a coolant if you need your coldest temperature to be colder than liquid water--otherwise you will get more cooling from using water.
LENR device or similar can be cooled with less, and does not require water. gases. salts, even just the heat to drive a stirling engine to drive the generator could be used. there are no losses in a closed system. you're think of a standard BWR or PWR, neither would be of practical use. they require to much space, technical expertise and are inherently unsafe.
reactor yes, LENR device no. they are much smaller by far. 2 at least, engines and life support separated. and this craft would not be built on earth, parts would be flown up and it would be built in orbit. the most practical method as attempting to build something to travel to mars with live cargo would require a much stronger structure with greater overall weight than building it in orbit. impractical to build an manned interplanetary craft on earth.
Yes, but two 1-megawatt LENR systems would still be heavier than one 2-megawatt LENR system, simply because there are components of the system that do not scale up in direct proportion to power output. Stuff like the physical housing, mountings, and connectors will not necessarily be twice as massive when you double the power output, just as a 400 horsepower automotive engine is less massive than two 200 horsepower engines. Thus, if you want your system to be as lightweight as possible, you still get a lighter system mass by using a single large power supply instead of multiple smaller ones.
just the oxygen, nitrogen, food supplies, heaters, CO2 scrubbers, living/sleeping/exercise areas alone would take up a great deal of weight and space. then there's the lander, vehicles...this is by no means a small project. the craft itself would never touch ground. would not be built or designed to do so, yet more weight savings.
Studies for near-term interplanetary missions have estimated non-propellant mass in the range of 200-1,000 tonnes. (For comparison, the Space Shuttle Orbiter has a non-propellant mass of 80 tonnes plus up to 25 tonnes carried in the payload bay, while the current configuration of the International Space Station masses 450 tonnes.)
actually it's in testing stages, in several different countries, by different commercial concerns and different government sponsored research. it's been past the theoretical stage for several years....except why it happens. they can duplicate the effect, but the reaction itself is still a black box. being nearly universally decried by physicists who want to believe that the standard model and theories we have now are perfect doesn't help.
it's sad when so-called scientists get religious about theories that they know can't explain everything, and have glaring flaws yet they treat them as if they are the holy truth...just because they work for most things >.>
very old document, and the sheer tonnage is staggering, abit of extra equipment that will actually be less than what they were planning on going with doesn't seem too outrageous. though cargo sent first is great thinking, also can expose any hazards in propulsion or power systems before the live crew is sent. RTG's or advanced versions still seem safer than any type of dynamically cooled reactor.
something that maintains a steady temp regardless of exterior conditions or load is safer than something that requires cooling or else. while high temps can be achieved in the more bang per size...is it entirely necessary? power companies do that now with unsafe reactor designs...and it's worked out so well >.>
then there's required shielding for any conventional design=more weight. 2 cooling systems, a cooling medium, etc. LENR or RTG's of various and advanced designs are more practical by being simpler, less weight, and less hazardous overall. still think piezo conversion would be the best choice, no moving parts, nothing to break down....low power output and efficiency kind of blows however
since there's no concrete due date yet...there's still time for several of the technologies to mature. nano tech electronics themselves could completely change vessel power requirements and generation with a new gen of piezo converters, printed electronics (weight savings) solar conversion films, fuel cells, filters, catalysts, efficient motors, etc.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
wow this is all very interesting, how much power can one of these generate? Also how soon do you think these will be out, apparently a inventor named Rossi has claimed he has done it and that they have been taking orders already and the LENR called E-cat or Energy Catalyser will be out as soon as next year! Don't know if this true, Im a bit sceptic here but it will be awesome if it is true.
actually it's in testing stages, in several different countries, by different commercial concerns and different government sponsored research. it's been past the theoretical stage for several years....except why it happens. they can duplicate the effect, but the reaction itself is still a black box. being nearly universally decried by physicists who want to believe that the standard model and theories we have now are perfect doesn't help.
it's sad when so-called scientists get religious about theories that they know can't explain everything, and have glaring flaws yet they treat them as if they are the holy truth...just because they work for most things >.>
Yeah, Atheists do that a lot...
I suppose my comment wasn't well explained. What I meant to say was: while they can trigger the reaction on command, they're still working on figuring out how to make a functional reactor. Though in retrospect, that isn't the theoretical stage it's the prototype stage.
wow this is all very interesting, how much power can one of these generate? Also how soon do you think these will be out, apparently a inventor named Rossi has claimed he has done it and that they have been taking orders already and the LENR called E-cat or Energy Catalyser will be out as soon as next year! Don't know if this true, Im a bit sceptic here but it will be awesome if it is true.
I suppose my comment wasn't well explained. What I meant to say was: while they can trigger the reaction on command, they're still working on figuring out how to make a functional reactor. Though in retrospect, that isn't the theoretical stage it's the prototype stage.
i am an atheist it's more people do that a lot for rather simple reasons, one being they want the world to work as they understand it, no surprises...another, money. LENR devices even in this early stage of development are making waves with energy producing corporations.
would you like your livelihood yanked out from under you? similar to tobacco companies buying scientists and doctors to claim their product was safe...no different now. patents have been repeatedly blocked by so called professionals who say that because the process doesn't follow the standard model of what is currently known it's impossible >.>
and ya prototype, there a still tons they don't know, but are narrowing that down, even identical materials sometimes don't work the same very touchy process to get started. which stands to reason. it's not something that could ever occur naturally, so it's something for which there are no examples or guide lines to follow.
and like any good science (at least to me) there have been explosions can't have good science without something going boom. ie: you can learn a lot from a catastrophic failure. at the very least what not to do.
Dr. Patricia Tanis ~ "Bacon is for sycophants and products of incest."
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
i am an atheist it's more people do that a lot for rather simple reasons, one being they want the world to work as they understand it, no surprises...another, money. LENR devices even in this early stage of development are making waves with energy producing corporations.
would you like your livelihood yanked out from under you? similar to tobacco companies buying scientists and doctors to claim their product was safe...no different now. patents have been repeatedly blocked by so called professionals who say that because the process doesn't follow the standard model of what is currently known it's impossible >.>
and ya prototype, there a still tons they don't know, but are narrowing that down, even identical materials sometimes don't work the same very touchy process to get started. which stands to reason. it's not something that could ever occur naturally, so it's something for which there are no examples or guide lines to follow.
and like any good science (at least to me) there have been explosions can't have good science without something going boom. ie: you can learn a lot from a catastrophic failure. at the very least what not to do.
Science is about studying nature and making observations. Writing a set of "laws" then expecting nature to follow them is absurd. God is in control of nature, we just watch his handiwork. The models used by theoretical physicists DON'T WORK!!! trying to use them to prove something is fake is a farce.
Anyways, I'm definately interested in hearing how this line of research plays out.
BTW, "identical"? not really. Similar is more like it. Ever hear about Damascus steel and why it's so good? Damascus steel is rather ordinary in it's chemical composition. Modern forging processes using the exact same alloy used for Damascus steel would give you an inferior product. The forging process for Damascus steel creates tiny Iron Carbide crystals embedded in the steel. It's these crystals that give it it's unusual properties. It's possible that LENR is somehow dependent on the internal arrangement of the atoms in the materials used.
As for the Livelyhood thing? If Exxon was to start making these they'd never need to worry about that. Seriously.... Why don't the big energy companies invest in stuff like this?
Big Bussiness hate giving away from next to nothing or free what it can charge lots of money for instead.
Money money money.
Giving away? No... The idea is for them to produce and sell the devices. But I suppose from a long term point of view you could think of it as far less expensive for the consumer.... As the manufacturer you can charge people to do maintenance on the devices to keep them running properly. But... third parties can do that too.
Comments
the only caveat is surface area, and exposure to sun light would have to minimized, either through shielding or rotation of the surfaces. shielding being the simpler. fins around the power core, with insulators at the tips to attach a shield protecting them, could be something as flimsy as mylar or equiv. highly reflective. get fancier, it could be polarized and electrically active to repel lower energy particles as well.
nasa and others have experimented with electromagnetic shielding, as with with many things power has been the stumbling block. to be useful you need quite a bit.
though any design for a manned mission should have multiple power sources in multiple locations, the whole star trek engine room is inherently unsafe. all your eggs in one basket, anything happens you're f*cked.
smaller size potential of the lenr type devices would allow at least some dispersion throughout the craft. dedicated engine power area, and separate but still connected life support power supply, with possibly a third for onboard electronics and back-up.there's a carbon fiber composite that could be used for structural members that also double as a battery storage system along with a main battery backup system would provide even further safety. but if possible it should never follow the model of all power producing equipment goes in one place. just horrible safety design >.<
edit: ah yes, the reason for fins with attached shielding, you don't want the re-radiation from your shielding affecting your cooling surfaces, so insulated standoffs would be required. and the attempt at a film rather than something more solid is about saving weight. same with the carbon fiber structural members doubling as a storage battery. though, actually there's solar films that can convert sunlight as well...so many possibilities >.<
and yes, paranoid about the safety of any manned mission...there would be no help coming in case of a problem, they're on their own with what they have onboard and that's it.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
interesting, Im sure this will many backups and fail safes on board. It will be like the pioneering sailors when they were all on there own in the middle off now where on the on the ocean. Anyway i have been searching around and can't find and article to answer one of my questions so here it is, out of all the ion/electric propulsion that has been made which will be better for space travel or which is faster to use. The ion engine which was used ion deep space one and other satailites or vasimr? Can't they use both?
Also does anyone know how long will it take for this engine plus the other ion engines that exist to have enough thruster to move.
Anyways, LENR stands for "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction". It includes Cold Fusion but is somewhat more broad.
Now for people to figure out how to make an actual powerplant based on it.
My character Tsin'xing
Found some of these questions. On the main site. http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/FAQ
Infra-red? What will they use Infra-red for?
My character Tsin'xing
So this will be perfect to reduce the heat build up from the reactor or engine?
My character Tsin'xing
The thing is, whatever you are venting as exhaust has to have been carried on your spacecraft in a tank. Cooling a nuclear reactor via water evaporation will require about one kilogram of water per kilowatt-hour of energy (the energy required to heat water from freezing to boiling and then boil it away is about 3/4 of a kilowatt hour per kilogram). Thus, a megawatt-class reactor will require about a ton of cooling water PER HOUR. Every six weeks of flight time will thus require about one thousand tons of cooling water--which is problematic when you consider that a spacecraft that would be using a one megawatt reactor would have a total non-fuel mass of only a few hundred tons to begin with--a heavier ship would demand an even bigger, hotter reactor. (Please note also that there are VERY few possible coolant materials that would carry away significantly more heat per kilogram than water while also being relatively safe for humans, and all of those cost quite a bit of money if you want to exhaust hundreds of tons of them per flight.)
Redundancy is good, but it adds bulk and mass, and when you are paying US$1000 or more per kilogram launched from Earth's surface to orbit, you want to make everything as lightweight as possible. A single 1-megawatt reactor weighs less than two 500-kilowatt reactors, since you don't have to double the mass of every component in order to double the power output. Likewise, in Star Trek, having several warp cores working together would take up more space and mass (and more labor to operate and maintain) than a single large one, which means that the more efficient plan is to have the main warp core and a smaller emergency one so that the ship isn't stranded if the main one fails. Note that in Star Trek, the only Federation ships to have more than two warp cores are the ones made to separate into multiple warp-capable sections, such as the Prometheus.
Can't they use liquid nitrogen as a coolant for the nuclear reactor or just have the reactor expose to space since it is what -300c? wouldn't that be enough? Ya prometheus is the only ship known to have more then one warp core which is a good idea to have a backup but I guess since sub communication can travel faster than warp speeds at great distance too maybe there is know need.
You haven't been paying attention, have you...
Liquid nitrogen idea: That's essentially limited fuel, as you can't cool the nitrogen down effectively enough.
Exposure to space: Space is cold because there is little matter to transfer heat. Therefore, you have little matter to target for the reactor heat transfer. That's why the radiation and infrared ideas were mentioned in above posts.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Actually I have been and do remember what you have said. Just thought of other ideas for the cooling problem. :rolleyes:
Anyway back on topic, lilchibiclarim, dalolorn has mentioned that they can use infra red to cool the reactor and material which transfer the heat outside.
LENR device or similar can be cooled with less, and does not require water. gases. salts, even just the heat to drive a stirling engine to drive the generator could be used. there are no losses in a closed system. you're think of a standard BWR or PWR, neither would be of practical use. they require to much space, technical expertise and are inherently unsafe. the VASIMR engine can use a wide variety of gases. and would require much much less reaction mass than conventional rockets of any kind.
reactor yes, LENR device no. they are much smaller by far. 2 at least, engines and life support separated. and this craft would not be built on earth, parts would be flown up and it would be built in orbit. the most practical method as attempting to build something to travel to mars with live cargo would require a much stronger structure with greater overall weight than building it in orbit. impractical to build an manned interplanetary craft on earth.
modular construction, each launched by rockets available at present, assembled in orbit. this also brings down the cost of developing a new rocket that could handle all the weight if the entire thing was launched from earth as well as the aforementioned weight savings from not requiring the craft to resist the high G of an earth based launch.
just the oxygen, nitrogen, food supplies, heaters, CO2 scrubbers, living/sleeping/exercise areas alone would take up a great deal of weight and space. then there's the lander, vehicles...this is by no means a small project. the craft itself would never touch ground. would not be built or designed to do so, yet more weight savings.
it also more than likely would not be anything like the pretty smooth hulled ships seen in star trek and most sci-fi. modules tacked together with scaffolding, engines at one end and access tubes running between different modules. rounder than most of the girder builds in sci-fi as well. since having the center and the ends closer reduces any rotational stresses from the decel flip (minor true) or emergency maneuvering.
whole design does depend on LENR or similar device to produce power. though, improvements in piezoelectronics increasing the conversion rate would allow standard steady state nuclear batteries to perform the task as well. requiring no cooling so all in all possibly much lighter as there's no generator either.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
I merely reminded you of the idea, which was mentioned in an above post.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Has anyone else built a LNER reactor other than Rossi? who apparently is taking order already!
Yes, but two 1-megawatt LENR systems would still be heavier than one 2-megawatt LENR system, simply because there are components of the system that do not scale up in direct proportion to power output. Stuff like the physical housing, mountings, and connectors will not necessarily be twice as massive when you double the power output, just as a 400 horsepower automotive engine is less massive than two 200 horsepower engines. Thus, if you want your system to be as lightweight as possible, you still get a lighter system mass by using a single large power supply instead of multiple smaller ones.
Studies for near-term interplanetary missions have estimated non-propellant mass in the range of 200-1,000 tonnes. (For comparison, the Space Shuttle Orbiter has a non-propellant mass of 80 tonnes plus up to 25 tonnes carried in the payload bay, while the current configuration of the International Space Station masses 450 tonnes.)
Current NASA Mars Mission Design Reference Architecture Document: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf
My character Tsin'xing
actually it's in testing stages, in several different countries, by different commercial concerns and different government sponsored research. it's been past the theoretical stage for several years....except why it happens. they can duplicate the effect, but the reaction itself is still a black box. being nearly universally decried by physicists who want to believe that the standard model and theories we have now are perfect doesn't help.
it's sad when so-called scientists get religious about theories that they know can't explain everything, and have glaring flaws yet they treat them as if they are the holy truth...just because they work for most things >.>
@lilchibiclari
very old document, and the sheer tonnage is staggering, abit of extra equipment that will actually be less than what they were planning on going with doesn't seem too outrageous. though cargo sent first is great thinking, also can expose any hazards in propulsion or power systems before the live crew is sent. RTG's or advanced versions still seem safer than any type of dynamically cooled reactor.
something that maintains a steady temp regardless of exterior conditions or load is safer than something that requires cooling or else. while high temps can be achieved in the more bang per size...is it entirely necessary? power companies do that now with unsafe reactor designs...and it's worked out so well >.>
then there's required shielding for any conventional design=more weight. 2 cooling systems, a cooling medium, etc. LENR or RTG's of various and advanced designs are more practical by being simpler, less weight, and less hazardous overall. still think piezo conversion would be the best choice, no moving parts, nothing to break down....low power output and efficiency kind of blows however
since there's no concrete due date yet...there's still time for several of the technologies to mature. nano tech electronics themselves could completely change vessel power requirements and generation with a new gen of piezo converters, printed electronics (weight savings) solar conversion films, fuel cells, filters, catalysts, efficient motors, etc.
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
I suppose my comment wasn't well explained. What I meant to say was: while they can trigger the reaction on command, they're still working on figuring out how to make a functional reactor. Though in retrospect, that isn't the theoretical stage it's the prototype stage.
My character Tsin'xing
Can someone answer this please.
i am an atheist
would you like your livelihood yanked out from under you? similar to tobacco companies buying scientists and doctors to claim their product was safe...no different now. patents have been repeatedly blocked by so called professionals who say that because the process doesn't follow the standard model of what is currently known it's impossible >.>
and ya prototype, there a still tons they don't know, but are narrowing that down, even identical materials sometimes don't work the same
and like any good science (at least to me) there have been explosions
Donate Brains, zombies in Washington DC are starving.
Anyways, I'm definately interested in hearing how this line of research plays out.
BTW, "identical"? not really. Similar is more like it. Ever hear about Damascus steel and why it's so good? Damascus steel is rather ordinary in it's chemical composition. Modern forging processes using the exact same alloy used for Damascus steel would give you an inferior product. The forging process for Damascus steel creates tiny Iron Carbide crystals embedded in the steel. It's these crystals that give it it's unusual properties. It's possible that LENR is somehow dependent on the internal arrangement of the atoms in the materials used.
As for the Livelyhood thing? If Exxon was to start making these they'd never need to worry about that. Seriously.... Why don't the big energy companies invest in stuff like this?
My character Tsin'xing
Big Bussiness hate giving away from next to nothing or free what it can charge lots of money for instead.
Money money money.
R.I.P
My character Tsin'xing