How fast (or easy) is it to swap hull modules?

In MTU, I use the same time to swap a module as to leave from a Docking Space, because that is basically what to modules are in, a docking space.
D3 rounds for modules of less than 2,000-tons and D6 rounds for modules over 2,000-tons

Edit: I have evolved from My previous answer using a Full Hangar Bay as My point of reference to the Docking Space which seemed to make more sense.
 
What is a module?

It's an internal bulkhead with separation anxiety.

And unless it's self powered, and has it's own waste disposal system, you're going to have plumbing that needs to be hooked up.
 
What is a module?

It's an internal bulkhead with separation anxiety.

And unless it's self powered, and has it's own waste disposal system, you're going to have plumbing that needs to be hooked up.
If by TL-9 we can't build modules that auto-connect and auto-disconnect, we have no business being in space.
 
Thread Necromancy, because I missed this last year.
In 1956, they DID make the boiler light enough. GE made a nuclear powered turbojet engine.
NB-36H carried a reactor to test shielding requirements, but the reactor did not power that craft's engines.
Later test engines are now in the Idaho test range.
ICBM's, along with concerns over crashed nuclear planes, made the project obsolete... but they DID make the boiler light enough to fly.
Not many people remember the nuclear-powered B-36. The reactor didn't actually power the plane, it was just carried as cargo. The windows for the cockpit were massively thick (Something like 12in if I recall correctly). The original model proposed using standard flight equipment to get off the ground and to land, and at a point in flight they'd switch over to reactor power. Crazy idea, but never worked out with the tech they had.
 
Not many people remember the nuclear-powered B-36. The reactor didn't actually power the plane, it was just carried as cargo. The windows for the cockpit were massively thick (Something like 12in if I recall correctly). The original model proposed using standard flight equipment to get off the ground and to land, and at a point in flight they'd switch over to reactor power. Crazy idea, but never worked out with the tech they had.
Never got anywhere other then some testing. Shielding added a lot of weight.
 
Outside of health and safety, you can usually make the political appeal to cost benefit analysis.

There's a case to be made for chemical power plants in spacecraft.

And if you don't mind loopholing, prefusion, now that it doesn't need uranium.
 
Never got anywhere other then some testing. Shielding added a lot of weight.
Something like 50 or 60 flights, then it got scrapped. I think they spent something like $1 billion dollars testing nuclear-powered aircraft overall. Kennedy (I think?) came into office and killed the program.

I'm not sure if they did some flight testing with the B-47 or not. B-36 certainly had the size and payload for testing.
 
Something like 50 or 60 flights, then it got scrapped. I think they spent something like $1 billion dollars testing nuclear-powered aircraft overall. Kennedy (I think?) came into office and killed the program.

I'm not sure if they did some flight testing with the B-47 or not. B-36 certainly had the size and payload for testing.
Yes. Kennedy killed it. Just the NB-36H. GE tested several iterations of nuclear powered turbojet engines, though.
The Soviets tried one, but the radiation levels in the cockpit made it untenable, and they also abandoned their project.
 
Back
Top