|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 9, 2017 14:38:53 GMT
What do you think would be the best way initiating fusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Jun 9, 2017 14:40:29 GMT
Amat 4 life
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 9, 2017 14:45:25 GMT
Fission Explosives
|
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 9, 2017 17:23:17 GMT
Mass. It may ultimately be the case that fusion starships necessarily be actual stars propelled by Shkadov thrusters. Could look like one of Enzmann's giant lollipops in reverse.
Out of the poll options, as there are some interesting positions put out by electric universe theorists, I'm partial to zeta pinch. Not something I can claim to know about though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 9, 2017 17:37:20 GMT
Mass. It may ultimately be the case that fusion starships necessarily be actual stars propelled by Shkadov thrusters. Could look like one of Enzmann's giant lollipops in reverse. I think you took the star in starship to seriously, sounds a little bit over the top. Rocket Witch Zeta Pinch: You send a bolt of electricity down a tube full of plasma, creating magnetic fields which compresses the plasma to ignite fusion, it's advantage is that you can increase confinement time by using a longer reaction chamber. Personally I would combine Antimatter and z-pinch. Achieving near 100% burn-rates. |
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Jun 10, 2017 0:00:33 GMT
Z-pinch by far. Very strong forces can be generated using superconductors to transport the current, and you do not suffer the inefficiencies of converting your electricity into lasers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 10, 2017 0:15:15 GMT
antimatter works, the real tiny nukes used can also work. If not AM, then A-Bomb!
|
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Jun 10, 2017 0:39:43 GMT
antimatter works, the real tiny nukes used can also work. If not AM, then A-Bomb! Antimatter... is great! But we have no experience handling it for fusion-ignition purposes, and producing it in a realistic way is quite the worldbuilding attempt. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 10, 2017 0:41:00 GMT
antimatter works, the real tiny nukes used can also work. If not AM, then A-Bomb! Antimatter... is great! But we have no experience handling it for fusion-ignition purposes, and producing it in a realistic way is quite the worldbuilding attempt. yep, which is why low yield nuclear weapons are second in the list (can't be that hard to contain half a kiloton of TNT, right?) |
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Jun 10, 2017 1:28:53 GMT
Antimatter... is great! But we have no experience handling it for fusion-ignition purposes, and producing it in a realistic way is quite the worldbuilding attempt. yep, which is why low yield nuclear weapons are second in the list (can't be that hard to contain half a kiloton of TNT, right?) Low-yield fission is synonymous with low-efficiency. The technical term for this phenomenon is low burnup - only a few percent of the fission fuel you packed in actually undergoes nuclear detonation. Its a very wasteful way to use your fissile fuels. |
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 10, 2017 1:42:31 GMT
yep, which is why low yield nuclear weapons are second in the list (can't be that hard to contain half a kiloton of TNT, right?) Low-yield fission is synonymous with low-efficiency. The technical term for this phenomenon is low burnup - only a few percent of the fission fuel you packed in actually undergoes nuclear detonation. Its a very wasteful way to use your fissile fuels. boosted fission, and that doesn't matter too much, I was just using the bomb to start the fusion, don't plan on turning it off. |
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jun 10, 2017 6:45:22 GMT
I think you took the star in starship to seriously, sounds a little bit over the top. Well, it may turn out to be the only method that works at all for sustainable fusion, so by default it would become the best. That places fusion exploitation very far in the future, out to a point where it's unclear how much or even if the scale of operations will matter. The cool thing about megastructures is that there is nothing principally high-tech about them (relative to achieving spaceflight). The limit is us; how long we live and how far ahead we plan. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 10, 2017 7:05:17 GMT
Antimatter... is great! But we have no experience handling it for fusion-ignition purposes, and producing it in a realistic way is quite the worldbuilding attempt. yep, which is why low yield nuclear weapons are second in the list (can't be that hard to contain half a kiloton of TNT, right?) With a engine bell radius of 125m your wall will experience 10 MW/m² according to the inverse square law, this is considering that all x-ray and neutrons reach the wall, considering that the majority of the radiation is supposed to be absorbed by the fusion fuels, plus and a little bit of active cooling your engine can very well survive half a kiloton of TNT, but only when it is fourth kilometer in diameter. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 10, 2017 7:09:54 GMT
Low-yield fission is synonymous with low-efficiency. The technical term for this phenomenon is low burnup - only a few percent of the fission fuel you packed in actually undergoes nuclear detonation. Its a very wasteful way to use your fissile fuels. boosted fission, and that doesn't matter too much, I was just using the bomb to start the fusion, don't plan on turning it off. What's the efficiency of your boosted fission 0.5kT nuke? Under 20%? If your nuke has 50g of uranium and you ignite like, 250g of fusion fuel with it, then you are running into great demands of highly enriched fission fuel. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Jun 10, 2017 7:24:00 GMT
I think you took the star in starship to seriously, sounds a little bit over the top. Well, it may turn out to be the only method that works at all for sustainable fusion, so by default it would become the best. That places fusion exploitation very far in the future, out to a point where it's unclear how much or even if the scale of operations will matter. The cool thing about megastructures is that there is nothing principally high-tech about them (relative to achieving spaceflight). The limit is us; how long we live and how far ahead we plan. You are suggesting that building a hypothetical megastructure which uses a giant solar sail, (with nearly the same area as the sun itself) which pushes the sun with it's own light? We need to mine the entire solar system, the thrust is extremely low, heck, I even think that the expansion of the universe would be faster than this ship. If half of the solar radiation thrust is directed on the sun itself back, we achieve an acceleration of 4m/...... 100,000 years. |
|
