 October 25, 2007 - 11:21am | This thread has been transformed. It is now for discussing Nevada politics and decisions and whatever else. If you still wish to discuss Delta Dawn, Mecha, or invasions, here's a list of new threads I made in the Delta Dawn forum to continue the discussion: Assault Walkers (Mecha) Squadron and Fleet Construction Tracking Fleets on a Planet Tracking Fleets in Space Invasion Actions |
October 27, 2007 - 4:28am | I think the difference has to do with radiation. Chemical drives have virtually no radiation, while atomic drives are seeping it. I mean they put atomic drives away from the hull of the ship to protect the pilot and passengers. Clearly, it would be severely damaging to a planet's ecosphere. Not to mention, having the engines on struts makes it difficult to land or take off, particularly considering the air friction pulling on the engine and its struts. |
 October 27, 2007 - 4:36am | If we are to assume that the exhaust/thrust itself is radiated, yes. But on the same token, U.S. Naval submarines are also nuclear, yet we eat fish that swim in the same water with them... Now I'm no nuclear engineer so I have absolutely no idea how this atomic fission drive would work. The rules say an assault scout can land (and there's even an illustration or two of one grounded), that's what I go by in this presumption. Suffice to say, even if it were a nuclear thrust/exhaust, a secondary chemical rocket booster could be incorporated for atmospheric use, thus deactivating the atomic drive during such use. Either way, it would no doubt be an illegal act for a crew to perform an overhaul on an atomic drive while docked at the local starport...as that would expose the radiated innards to the atmosphere. |
October 27, 2007 - 4:56am | I've seen the answer to this somewhere in the questions. I'll try to find it tonight. |
October 27, 2007 - 2:02pm | I think only a KH size 3 with Atomic drives is able to land and take off on a planet. See http://starfrontiers.us/node/1271#comment-1309 According to the rules...yes only up to HS:3 starships may land. However, there's an arguable glitch within the same rulebook: it states that a system ship up to HS:5 may land. I fail to see why a chemical drive HS:5 craft can be atmospheric-capable but an atomic powered HS:5 craft can't. Since the atomic drive is more powerful than the chem drive, there's no reason why a HS:5 starship with a streamlined hull couldn't make planetfall and take off as well. SS: Are you making a new house rule to post? 
|
October 28, 2007 - 9:03am | Possibly, if the question defaults itself as such. I think this may have been covered at the SF.org forum but I couldn't find it. |
October 28, 2007 - 10:17am | Possibly, if the question defaults itself as such. I think this may have been covered at the SF.org forum but I couldn't find it. Remember, I'm not the one declaring that the people inside the craft need protection from the engine's radiation. That's KH that said it. So if the people inside need protection, then everyone outside needs more protection. |
October 28, 2007 - 10:57am | I agree with the crew protection thing. The engine struts act as "airlocks" to access the drives from the main hull (or in the case of an Assault Scout, the narrow profile wings mean the crew has to spacewalk to access them). Such airlocks would include decontamination chambers, much like a naval sub, as that is the access to the actual reactor where all the fun and excitement occurs. Again, not being a nuclear physicist...the best I can recall about nuclear fission is that by splitting the atom, a tremendous amount of energy is released (and thus harnessed and put to use by nuclear power devices). Where this energy is directed and how it is harnessed and put to use is beyond me, as is how dangerous this energy is in it's raw state. I seem to remember that the uranium or plutonium is used as a catalyst to create the fission reaction, and that the expended catalyst (used uranium/plutonium) that is leftover afterwards is not something you want on display in your home (we have this big Yucca Mountain debate going on in my state as to if this stuff should be stored here)...I'm just unclear about if the actual reaction of the splitting atoms is the radiated danger. So my question is basicly this: the energy released from said atom splitting is what is directed out the tail cone as thrust, is this energy radiated or is it merely just a transfer of force (i.e. work and load, action/reaction)? If I didn't waste so much time on the internet with Star Frontiers and motorcycle forums I'd probably research it a bit more LOL |
 October 28, 2007 - 12:52pm | I was in the Navy as a Nuclear Field Machinist Mate and Engineering Laboratory Technician... basically a Nuclear Pool Man, but I did have to go to school for almost 2 years learning about how things work in Nuclear Powered Boats (subs) and Ships. First, in the reactor the Uranium-235 is fissioned (split) creating 2 smaller atoms, but because of the energy release is so fast and powerful, the Electrons are stripped from these 2 smaller atomic masses. Because the electrons fly off in many directions (lots of random negetive charge particles), and the nucleus materials (2 very super highly charged positive particles) fly off in other directions. These charges act like magnets on other materials, yanking and pushing on the rest of the material around... the net effect is excited molecules or 'HEAT'... oh, and randomly released free neutrons go on to get absorbed by other Uranium atoms, making the process self-sustainable once started. I can go on about how the halfnium control rods suck up the free neutrons to control the rate of overall fission, but that is probably not necessary for this process. Well, now the reactor core is HOT with a capital H, and pressurized water is run through the core. Since it is pressurized, it does not turn to steam... it is simple used to transfer the HEAT to another part of the Engine room. A secondary source of water is turned to steam by running it over tubes of the super hot reactor water... and it is this non-radioactive steam that is used to turn turbines (electricity) and to turn the main engine shaft (but in some boats this is only done via the electricity also). I could go on into more detail and draw diagrams... but it is not really relevant. What is relevant is that moving forward in time and technology... the steam part of the equation is what is probably eliminated and the electrically charged particles themselves would be somehow utilized directly for thrust. I would think that it would be similar to what is called ION drives, where the charged particles act upon particles in the environment, pushing the ship forward much like a magnet pushing on other magnetic materials. The nuclear part of the equation is still just a factory for highly charged particles... forget atomic blasts channeled through ports, as that is just wonky by my view, and not efficient management of the material. In a nutshell, the core is radioactive and dangerous to be near while operating, but it does not simply spew radioactive material out into the environment. Futuristic use of this kind of technology would also not be releasing this material into the environment.. even into space... it just is not efficient. Atomic bombs are big explosions, but they suck up all the nearby material to fuel that reaction. Engines on Nuclear Drives would be safer on the struts, but this would be for ease of jetisoning or for crew protection... as it would be cheaper to produce, than huge heavy layers of lead or similar shielding materials if the core was 'onboard'... all in all, a contruction cost and crew safety would be the reasons for drives on the struts. if this is all too confusing, then just take my word on it... it took me 2 years of schooling to become familiar with all the hoo-ha's of nuclear power. <insert witty comment here> |
October 28, 2007 - 1:35pm | I agree with the crew protection thing. The engine struts act as "airlocks" to access the drives from the main hull (or in the case of an Assault Scout, the narrow profile wings mean the crew has to spacewalk to access them). Such airlocks would include decontamination chambers, much like a naval sub, as that is the access to the actual reactor where all the fun and excitement occurs. EDIT: As RK pointed out, nuclear submarines actually don't use the energy itself, but use the heat from the nuclear reaction to power steam turbines. This is known as a thermal powerplant.Again, not being a nuclear physicist...the best I can recall about nuclear fission is that by splitting the atom, a tremendous amount of energy is released (and thus harnessed and put to use by nuclear power devices). Where this energy is directed and how it is harnessed and put to use is beyond me, as is how dangerous this energy is in it's raw state. I seem to remember that the uranium or plutonium is used as a catalyst to create the fission reaction, and that the expended catalyst (used uranium/plutonium) that is leftover afterwards is not something you want on display in your home (we have this big Yucca Mountain debate going on in my state as to if this stuff should be stored here)...I'm just unclear about if the actual reaction of the splitting atoms is the radiated danger. So my question is basicly this: the energy released from said atom splitting is what is directed out the tail cone as thrust, is this energy radiated or is it merely just a transfer of force (i.e. work and load, action/reaction)? If I didn't waste so much time on the internet with Star Frontiers and motorcycle forums I'd probably research it a bit more LOL After researching it, I found that only 1 type of nuclear propulsion rocket would rely on the actual nuclear reaction itself, or rather a sustained nuclear explosion, for propulsion. All the others use only the heat from the nuclear reactor. Though the most effective, it's obviously the most dangerous, but is really the only way for very large spaceships to exist. Releasing such a thruster within the earth's magnetosphere (up to 70,000 km away from the earth) may be dangerous, especially if you have many such ships going in and out of the magnetosphere. This was clearly the type expected in Star Frontiers, and is still the only one expected capable of producing enough energy to get these large vessels to the desired speed. Nasty stuff. So yes, these produce a massive radiation signature not to be used within the earth's atmosphere. See Nuclear Pulse Propulsion at Wikipedia As a side note, the Yucco mountain area is ideal for housing nuclear waste because its ground composition matches a place in Gabon, West Africa where an ancient natural nuclear reactor was found that safely prevents the nuclear waste from escaping. Seeing as West Africa is in the area of the "birthplace of man" and some of the most dense jungle in the world, including home of the congo, I'd trust the claim. (Who says God doesn't provide?) |
 October 28, 2007 - 6:43pm | Actually, I was thinking over this at work the other night. The troops, vehicles and gear can be housed in ballistic re-entry shells which can then be dropped into orbit from their parent craft...the heat of re-entry breaks up the shell, creating chaff to throw off radar, the troops and other equipment able to parachute or jetpack their way into the battlefield once the shell breaks up completely. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 28, 2007 - 10:56pm | Actually, I was thinking over this at work the other night. Actually, by that time system satallites would have picked up the fleet. Also, radar would not weed out a cloud of debris. It would actually look like a giant mass on the radar. Shure, it could hide the numbers, but not the invasion. The fact is, there is no way to hide an invasion. The question is how fast and how hard you can strike. That's why I came up with the disposable drop ship. It would get your major vehicles to the ground the fastest, and as someone pointed out earlier, can provide you with an instant command center. Bombers can also be made to enter atmosphere as quickly as the drop ship.The troops, vehicles and gear can be housed in ballistic re-entry shells which can then be dropped into orbit from their parent craft...the heat of re-entry breaks up the shell, creating chaff to throw off radar, the troops and other equipment able to parachute or jetpack their way into the battlefield once the shell breaks up completely. Another useful tool are individual vehicle drop ships. Larger armored vehicles can be dropped in one at a time with re-useable drop ships that double as gunships, like the LAAT's from Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. |
October 29, 2007 - 2:44am | So which type of exhaust are we agreeing to on the atomic drive end? Radioactive exhaust or the harmless energy release? Going by published material, we ahve "HS:3 starships can land on planets", several illos of scout ships landed (can't seem to find them at the moment...one shows a scout with dralasites exiting the nose cone landing gear and then there's the Eleanor Moraes). Then there's the counter productive "ships with ion engines can't land", and of course there's all the depictions of fighters and assault scouts with airfoils. Granted, if we go with radioactive thrust it's merely a simple matter of adding a chemical drive boosterto allow for atmospheric use, along with operating software & upping the Alarm & Damage Control program levels to accomodate the additional drives. As a side note, the Yucco mountain area is ideal for housing nuclear waste... And then there's that fault line they recently discovered running underneath the storage area LOL My personal thoughts, despite living a hundred miles south of the place, is that we (Nevadans) need to negotiate the use of this thing rather than fight it. The site was picked out in the 1970s, that's where they're gonna stash it. Get a sweetheart deal like Alaskan residents for the pipeline: a check every month, or no homeowners tax, etc...of course the big obstacle there is our own Senate Majority Leader's opposition to both nuclear power and fossil fuel powerplants. C'mon Harry, it's Las #$!&-ing Vegas--- we use a bit of electricity here LOL |
October 29, 2007 - 6:41am | So which type of exhaust are we agreeing to on the atomic drive end? Radioactive exhaust or the harmless energy release? Going by published material, we ahve "HS:3 starships can land on planets", several illos of scout ships landed (can't seem to find them at the moment...one shows a scout with dralasites exiting the nose cone landing gear and then there's the Eleanor Moraes). Then there's the counter productive "ships with ion engines can't land", and of course there's all the depictions of fighters and assault scouts with airfoils. Granted, if we go with radioactive thrust it's merely a simple matter of adding a chemical drive boosterto allow for atmospheric use, along with operating software & upping the Alarm & Damage Control program levels to accomodate the additional drives. If we could settle on "which" HS ship could land on a planet or moon and with "what" type of drives I would enjoy adding this to my own adventure and articles. -w00t "I'm all about community census." |
October 29, 2007 - 8:34am | So which type of exhaust are we agreeing to on the
atomic drive end? Radioactive exhaust or the harmless energy release? I was thinking about
this just yesterday, as a transfer between chemical and atomic thrust.
Here's how.Going by published material, we ahve "HS:3 starships can land on planets", several illos of scout ships landed (can't seem to find them at the moment...one shows a scout with dralasites exiting the nose cone landing gear and then there's the Eleanor Moraes). Then there's the counter productive "ships with ion engines can't land", and of course there's all the depictions of fighters and assault scouts with airfoils. Granted, if we go with radioactive thrust it's merely a simple matter of adding a chemical drive boosterto allow for atmospheric use, along with operating software & upping the Alarm & Damage Control program levels to accomodate the additional drives. The chemical thrust would be located at the back of the ship itself, while the atomic engines rest on struts. The smaller atomic engines can be treated with an element in transit after use that bonds the radiation and renders it mostly harmless. Perhaps some kind of sprayer that sprays the engines automatically after the engines cool. Larger engines would be too large to treat and thus leave dangerous radioactive signatures The problem with this is expense and fuel. The rules don't account for these things when including the ship, but don't really say you can't have both types of engines that I recall. Also is the engineering compliment. You would have to have more engineers, and as SS said, program and security, so it's very expensive. So transatmospheric starships would actually be very expensive, but certainly possible. It's also possible that the atomic engines on larger ships are different than the atomic engines on smaller ships. The smaller ships may be using thermal powerplants, while the larger ships are using the pulse drives. Problem with heat propulsion is that it produces only a thousandth of the power of a pulse drive. I also considered that the reactors controlling the pulse drives might also be used to control the other drives, transforming them into heat powerplants to power the drives attached to the ship when not being operated as pulse drives, so this would account for why you don't have to buy chemical drives, because the assault scouts that can land on planets have both. The larger size 4 and 5 ships have engines too large to treat, so can't be planetside, which is why chemical drive ships of size 4 and 5 can. This would mostly nullify the expenses I mentiioned above and make the engines easier to maintain, not to mention you don't have to increase the program and security. |
October 29, 2007 - 8:44am | I think that it would be absolutely essential that there be multiple types of power/thrust systems. Going back to my Naval experience, even Nuclear Submarines had Diesel Engines in addition to the nuclear powered propulsion. In fact, multiple redundant systems are a feature of virtually every type of shipboard equipment of any type. When it comes to Submarines, your analogy of one type of thrust while in the atmosphere and another while in deep space holds very true. Submarines do not bring the reactors out of standy until a certain distance from coastal regions is achieved (nuclear reactors are never truly shut down, except at decommissioning). Diesel (chemical) power is used until that distance is achieved.... ... but do not get me started on the Navy's poor environmental practices once out in international waters. Just let me say, "let the dumping begin" and this includes venting of reactor water when it is necessary (done at times to control the pH and other chemical composition within the reactor side - controls corrosion). But I will leave that topic alone now... I don't want Naval Intelligence or others looking me up! <insert witty comment here> |
October 29, 2007 - 10:13am | None of which comes from nearby Hoover Dam, or at least it didn't at last report...I agree with the idea you proposed though, concerning Yucca Mountain. Here ends the off-topic pol discussion, and the moronicism that is Senator Hairy Reedy Git. Bad enough he'll prolly be joined by our idiot governor once Brad Henry's last term in office ends in 2011.... "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 29, 2007 - 10:16am | Naval Intelligence...isn't that an oxymoron? More likely the fine folks from the Kriegsmarine Gessicht Staat Polizei, aka the Naval Criminal Investigative Service will be around to ask you a few questions, prolly with a rubber hose.....  "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 29, 2007 - 10:30am | So far this thread has gotten totally off subject with the atomic propulsion issue. If you wish to discuss it more, please start a new thread and let's get this thread back on topic. What we should be discussing is tactical warfare and Delta Dawn. However, since this thread has gone so far afield, I'd like to just start with a new thread in the Delta Dawn Sourcebook forum. Here's a list of new threads I made in that forum: Assault Walkers (Mecha) Squadron and Fleet Construction Tracking Fleets on a Planet Tracking Fleets in Space Invasion Actions Please choose one of those to continue the discussion. Be sure to join the project! |
October 29, 2007 - 10:23am | Actually, I was thinking over this at work the other night. Actually, by that time system satallites would have picked up the fleet. Also, radar would not weed out a cloud of debris. It would actually look like a giant mass on the radar. Shure, it could hide the numbers, but not the invasion. The fact is, there is no way to hide an invasion. The question is how fast and how hard you can strike. That's why I came up with the disposable drop ship. It would get your major vehicles to the ground the fastest, and as someone pointed out earlier, can provide you with an instant command center. Bombers can also be made to enter atmosphere as quickly as the drop ship.The troops, vehicles and gear can be housed in ballistic re-entry shells which can then be dropped into orbit from their parent craft...the heat of re-entry breaks up the shell, creating chaff to throw off radar, the troops and other equipment able to parachute or jetpack their way into the battlefield once the shell breaks up completely. The chaff is less about concealing the invasion and more about frustrating the enemy's fire control(which would be radar-dependent)...as for the command center, command will rest with the ships in orbit, and dispersed via comms along with the officers actually leading the assault(ala the "everybody fights" protocol of Heinlein's Mobile Infantry), or, if you prefer, with an APC dedicated to that purpose(e.g., the M577 tactical command center conversion of the M113 APC used in Vietnam and other conflicts). Fighters and bombers would enter the invasion ahead of the drop ships, BTW. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 29, 2007 - 10:40am | I fixed the links in my last post and put your comment over at the Invasion Actions thread. Here's your post: http://starfrontiers.us/node/1543#comment-1778 So far this thread has gotten totally off subject with
the atomic propulsion issue. If you wish to discuss it more, please
start a new thread and let's get this thread back on topic. What we should be discussing is tactical warfare and Delta Dawn. However, since this thread has gone so far afield, I'd like to just start with a new thread in the Delta Dawn Sourcebook forum. Here's a list of new threads I made in that forum: Assault Walkers (Mecha) Squadron and Fleet Construction Tracking Fleets on a Planet Tracking Fleets in Space Invasion Actions Please choose one of those to continue the discussion. Be sure to join the project! |
October 30, 2007 - 2:05am | None of which comes from nearby Hoover Dam, or at least it didn't at last report...I agree with the idea you proposed though, concerning Yucca Mountain. Here ends the off-topic pol discussion, and the moronicism that is Senator Hairy Reedy Git. Bad enough he'll prolly be joined by our idiot governor once Brad Henry's last term in office ends in 2011.... Crikey lad, don't get me started on the assininity behind the Hoover Dam/Lake Mead allocations! To top off the electrical end, we also transport the bulk of our fresh water supply to Califronia. Got that? A small town in the middle of a desert climate is required to send the bulk of their water to a state parked next to an ocean filled with endless supllies of water. The nuts are definitely running the nuthouse. Popular prediction has it once Reid's term expires, he'll get appointed as one of Hilary's cabinet members. EDIT --- sorry 'bout the thread-jack. That was all me...I just responded to an early post without diving into the rest of the lengthy discussion afterwards. A habit of mine, as illustrated in this very post LOL |
October 30, 2007 - 3:57am | I give up. Okay. Can't beat 'em, join 'em. The thread was going to be dead anyway. None of which comes from nearby Hoover Dam, or at least it didn't at last report...I agree with the idea you proposed though, concerning Yucca Mountain. Crikey lad, don't get me started on the assininity behind the Hoover Dam/Lake Mead allocations! To top off the electrical end, we also transport the bulk of our fresh water supply to Califronia. Got that? A small town in the middle of a desert climate is required to send the bulk of their water to a state parked next to an ocean filled with endless supllies of water. The nuts are definitely running the nuthouse.Here ends the off-topic pol discussion, and the moronicism that is Senator Hairy Reedy Git. Bad enough he'll prolly be joined by our idiot governor once Brad Henry's last term in office ends in 2011.... Popular prediction has it once Reid's term expires, he'll get appointed as one of Hilary's cabinet members. EDIT --- sorry 'bout the thread-jack. That was all me...I just responded to an early post without diving into the rest of the lengthy discussion afterwards. A habit of mine, as illustrated in this very post LOL That's just a guess, but it does make sense. |
October 30, 2007 - 8:39am | More likely, Edwards might make him his running mate once he gets the nomination—West balancing East—assuming he doesn't give that to Kerry(no, I don't think Hillary will make it past the primaries). Incidentally, in a near-future novel I'm trying to write, Reid ends up being President. Yeah, it's a horror story.... "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 30, 2007 - 8:46am | But, Corjay, California also has plenty of fresh-water sources from which to draw their drinking water, especially in the central and northern parts of the state. Shadow, what can I say, except what Jello Biafra said following Der Arnie's succession to the State house: "California, über alles. California, über alles. Über alles, California. California, über alles....." "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 30, 2007 - 10:17am | But, Corjay, California also has plenty of fresh-water sources from which to draw their drinking water, especially in the central and northern parts of the state. I was referring to maximizing the amount of water processed for the country, not just for California. You pool it all into the same area, allowing the purification facilities to reduce processing costs (because they don't have to have processing plants in different states. Again, this was just a guess, but it's different than just that California needs the water, because they clearly don't.Shadow, what can I say, except what Jello Biafra said following Der Arnie's succession to the State house: "California, über alles. California, über alles. Über alles, California. California, über alles....." |
October 30, 2007 - 11:32am | Great theory, except Georgia sure isn't getting its fair share. :D "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 30, 2007 - 1:07pm | Great theory, except Georgia sure isn't getting its fair share. :D Drinking water (bottled), not water service. |
 November 2, 2007 - 12:14pm | Never mind ... was discussing engines. Not Nevada. Sorry, disregard ... |
