Lockheed says they can make a fusion power plant

Rick said:
Hell, a big tank of seawater would do it - heat it up and send it out of a jet nozzle. Refuel on Martian icecaps, or an icy asteroid and return.

Seawater, at the surface, on average weighs 1027 kg/m3 or about 14 tons per dton in Traveller perspective. How much would you need to safely get a craft to Mars and how much propulsion would it produce? It might be cheap but not very efficient in any other way except maybe in a steampunk weird science reality. That's why we use energy efficient fuels to propel craft.

If and when we actually create a working fusion reactor, it will power cities not spacecraft without a lot of design improvements. The Third Imperium succeeded because of Fusion+, a working cold fusion. Much different.
 
Reynard said:
The Third Imperium succeeded because of Fusion+, a working cold fusion. Much different.

A buzzword at the time T4 was written, nothing more.

Instead of wallowing in the precise technical details (not saying you are, but the "community" sure did when T4 came out), it makes the most sense to treat "Fusion+" as the brand name for whatever the differences between TL12 Fusion and TL13 Fusion are.
 
Reynard said:
If and when we actually create a working fusion reactor, it will power cities not spacecraft without a lot of design improvements.

Yes, WAY too much heat to get rid of to have anything like Trav ships using "hot" fusion PP's.
 
Reynard said:
If it's the size of an 18 wheeler, I assume you mean the trailer part, it will be HUGE and easily crush the entire thing. These reactors still need heavy shielding plus all the other guts to run it.

Also, a fusion reactor, as in Traveller too, doesn't generate thrust, only power. You need something like an ion drive that can convert the electricity created to an ion beam. Even so, it will take much longer than 30 days. A real fusion reactor is no where as efficient as the cold Fusion+ reactor of Traveller.

Reality sucks.
If the reactor is part of a spacecraft, then you shield the crew area and all the electronics that are sensitive to radiation, in the case of fusion reactors. it would be neutron flux and gamma rays. Tritium-deuterium fusion produces neutrons. The main purpose of the shielding would be to capture the energy of the fusion reaction so it can do useful things. A fusion rocket is a reactor with a leak in it, so the fusion plasma is expelled out the back to push the ship forward, ideally enough gamma rays are absorbed by the fusing plasma to sustain the fusion reaction, the neutrons create more tritium, this deuterium is fed into the fusion reactor where it is fused with created tritium, and mostly helium ions, gamma rays, and neutrons are the products of this fusion. For safety purposes, the only part you need to shield is the crew compartments and the sensitive electronics, there is no reason to shield the vacuum of space from radiation. Cold fusion has never been proven to work, so it is a hypothetical, just like matter conversion.
 
Reynard said:
Rick said:
Hell, a big tank of seawater would do it - heat it up and send it out of a jet nozzle. Refuel on Martian icecaps, or an icy asteroid and return.

Seawater, at the surface, on average weighs 1027 kg/m3 or about 14 tons per dton in Traveller perspective. How much would you need to safely get a craft to Mars and how much propulsion would it produce? It might be cheap but not very efficient in any other way except maybe in a steampunk weird science reality. That's why we use energy efficient fuels to propel craft.

If and when we actually create a working fusion reactor, it will power cities not spacecraft without a lot of design improvements. The Third Imperium succeeded because of Fusion+, a working cold fusion. Much different.
Here are a few proposed fusion starships:
article-2199247-14DE6E17000005DC-938_964x625.jpg


article-2199247-14DE6E06000005DC-887_964x628.jpg


mfr_l_1024.jpg

This is a mirror fusion spaceship, of the sort of fusion Lockheed is developing.

6a00d8341bf7f753ef014e87497762970d-pi


Daedalus.jpg
 
Thank you for your lecture, Tom and pretty much verifying what I said that a fusion reactor will be huge especially by adding more shielding and a thrust mechanism. You still don't show data for the actual locomotion efficiency compared to the size of the power/ drive system and fuel. I hope that tiny payload is worth it.

I guess you need to start somewhere and maybe in a few hundred years we can develop a workable fusion drive just to putter around the solar system.
 
Reynard said:
Thank you for your lecture, Tom and pretty much verifying what I said that a fusion reactor will be huge especially by adding more shielding and a thrust mechanism. You still don't show data for the actual locomotion efficiency compared to the size of the power/ drive system and fuel. I hope that tiny payload is worth it.

I guess you need to start somewhere and maybe in a few hundred years we can develop a workable fusion drive just to putter around the solar system.

There is this article which describes it a bit more
http://news.yahoo.com/lockheed-says-makes-breakthrough-fusion-energy-project-105429233--finance.html
The way I see it, the value of a fusion drive is its specific impulse, not its thrust. A fusion drive doesn't have to accelerate at multiple Gs or take off from the surface of a planet to be useful. For getting off the surface of the Earth, a simple chemical rocket will do. Since Lockheed's reactor is small enough to fit in the back of a truck, there are rockets that could also lift it into orbit. A Fusion rocket could fetch an asteroid and place it into orbit around the Earth. I also think if your talking about a century, then ITER people must be doing something wrong. Maybe Lockheed got a breakthrough, they built the Stealth Bomber after all. If the company is putting its reputation behind this, it might be on to something.
 
The oft repeated question here is how will that 100Mwt translate to thrust. Will a truck sized reactor and the thrust mechanism (plus a the specialized fuel) be actually efficient and cost effective both for a useful payload and getting someplace? Oh, you did notice they mention the radioactive waste issue? Compound this with a fusion drive dumping tremendous amounts of radioactive death out it's nozzles and you will NEVER use it anywhere near Earth let alone as a surface to orbit system! Page 71 of Fire, Fusion and Steel describes as much for a fusion rocket. Such a ship needs to be built in space and aimed away from the planet. It's not clean Star Trek stuff, it's big, dirty and probably slow as a snail.

And again, reality sucks.
 
Reynard said:
The oft repeated question here is how will that 100Mwt translate to thrust. Will a truck sized reactor and the thrust mechanism (plus a the specialized fuel) be actually efficient and cost effective both for a useful payload and getting someplace? Oh, you did notice they mention the radioactive waste issue? Compound this with a fusion drive dumping tremendous amounts of radioactive death out it's nozzles and you will NEVER use it anywhere near Earth let alone as a surface to orbit system! Page 71 of Fire, Fusion and Steel describes as much for a fusion rocket. Such a ship needs to be built in space and aimed away from the planet. It's not clean Star Trek stuff, it's big, dirty and probably slow as a snail.

And again, reality sucks.
Your assuming again that it is launched under its own power from the surface of the Earth, that is incorrect, it is magnetic confinement fusion, that means a vacuum is required. After all the fusion plasma must be kept at a certain temperature, at about 5 times the core temperature of the Sun, as I understand it, this plasma is extremely diffuse, as fusion a tiny amount of it per second generates 100 megawatts, so density wise this plasma is very close to a laboratory vacuum, only very hot. To get a fusion drive to lift a spaceship off the ground, you would have to open up the fusion reactor to the outside to make it a rocket, and if you do that on Earth, the air would rush in, cool the plasma till it was no longer a plasma, and therefore would no longer be confined by magnetic fields, thus the fusion would stop. A fusion rocket of this sort only works in a vacuum. The good news is if it could be hauled by a truck it could also be launched into orbit by the SLS, which can lift 100 tons into orbit, it is a chemical rocket, but it can lift the entire reactor in one piece into orbit, so you don't have to build it in orbit. All you would basically do is add the crew module and fuel tanks, the advantage of this thing is it could deliver a crew to Mars in less than 30 days, and it would also open up the outer Solar System, Jupiter and Saturn to Human colonization because it reduces the travel time to those place. A trip to Mars with chemical rockets takes 6 months, it takes about 3.6 years to get to Saturn, it would take only 6 month with a fusion drive, so if we could reach Mars in 6 months with a chemical drive, a fusion drive would get you to Saturn in that same 6 months, and a fusion reactor would make a convenient power source for a settlement on Titan, as Solar Power is quite out of the question at this distance from the Sun, and with Titan's cloud cover. Titan has deuterium however, as much of its crust is made of water ice, and also there are methane lakes, methane contains hydrogen, a portion of that is deuterium. 100 megawatts could heat a lot of air. Warming up Titan's air and adding oxygen, is about what would be required to make it breathable, as its mostly nitrogen anyway, much like Earth's atmosphere.
 
Would you please cite the source that states a fully functioning spacecraft powered by this particular fusion reactor actually can reach Mars in 30 days. Sounds wonderful, however...
 
Reynard said:
Would you please cite the source that states a fully functioning spacecraft powered by this particular fusion reactor actually can reach Mars in 30 days. Sounds wonderful, however...

He can go here: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/engines.php and scroll down to the Deuterium-tritium fusion rocket section and do the calcs if he can't find it elsewhere.

Also here is a link that highlights just how far the space program has REGRESSED since the 50's-60's... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
 
Reynard said:
Would you please cite the source that states a fully functioning spacecraft powered by this particular fusion reactor actually can reach Mars in 30 days. Sounds wonderful, however...

The light from the propulsion unit exploding will reach Mars quickly. :mrgreen:
 
dragoner said:
Reynard said:
Would you please cite the source that states a fully functioning spacecraft powered by this particular fusion reactor actually can reach Mars in 30 days. Sounds wonderful, however...

The light from the propulsion unit exploding will reach Mars quickly. :mrgreen:

Well, technically part of the ship would arrive on Mars...
 
So.... back to space opera working fusion drives so we can play the game. Works for me!

This is also why I use the Traveller warp drive instead of the 'real' one we discussed elsewhere. I was getting tired waiting.
 
Back
Top