|
Post by kjakker on Apr 18, 2021 21:22:23 GMT
I just watched this video talking about nuclear thermal propulsion. Did the producer of the video make a mistake with regard to type of reaction mass? I am used to using methane for that in COADE yet he is saying that you would need to use hydrogen in a nuclear thermal rocket.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Jan 13, 2021 2:02:14 GMT
I just saw this and thought I should share it.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Aug 21, 2018 19:55:47 GMT
I thought I would share this video, it being relevant to the topic.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Jul 2, 2018 0:50:24 GMT
@qswitched
The change list date says it is for June 1st not July 1st. Is that a typo or from an older file?
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Apr 30, 2018 18:34:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Mar 15, 2018 23:34:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Feb 3, 2017 22:47:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 21, 2016 19:34:22 GMT
I am having a crash to desktop that occurs upon detonation of the nuclear warheads on a missile that uses external fuel tanks for added range and is armed with both nuclear and flak warheads to act as a NEFP. I have attached the latest crash log. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 19, 2016 4:49:37 GMT
Given the Chlorine TriFluoride mention I thought I should post this.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 19, 2016 2:39:01 GMT
You could try this, although I am not sure how good it is. About half of the power you want.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 18, 2016 20:16:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 15, 2016 0:48:17 GMT
Did you include the increased mass in radiators (assuming the use of minimum weight Amorphous Carbon radiators) that comes from dropping the outlet temperature to 1000 Kelvin from the 2400+ Kelvin that is so common in everyone else's reactors? Because if you didn't, you should check and see if the decreased radiator efficiency of your designs makes them ultimately less effective than the reactor apophys created in terms of weight and cost. Okay, I see what you mean with regard to radiator mass. I did manage to modify the heavier reactor into a slightly better version of the 40.1 GW design.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 14, 2016 17:12:43 GMT
Have you tried building ships with your reactors? I suspect not.... ...Conclusion: I don't know how to say this in a nice way, so I'm going to tell you straight - your reactors are not even mediocre, they're awful. When the stock reactors are plain better than your designs, you know you're doing it wrong. Use 5+ Apophys 25GW if you need a fuckload of power. Much more efficient, power/weight/cost wise. And that's not even counting the saved radiator cost/mass. If you want to be a hipster and can't use apophys designs, my Maxima series of reactors have received the Apophys Seal of ApprovalMy only intention with these two reactors was to make ones with lower mass, lower cost, and more power output than the one apophys posted back on page 16 of this thread. The reactor in that post has the following power, mass, and cost. Power: 40.1 GW, Mass: 75.0 kt, Cost: 207 Mc. Let's compare it to the reactors I posted above. Power: 52.9 GW, Mass: 5.44 kt, Cost: 25.2 Mc Power: 70.9 GW, Mass: 60.5 kt, Cost: 169 Mc As such I achieved the limited goals I was aiming for. Still thank you for taking the time to do a critical analysis.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 14, 2016 2:28:29 GMT
A couple more large reactors.
|
|
|
Post by kjakker on Dec 8, 2016 17:12:45 GMT
warhead is 4 sets 50kg osmium frags, behind them were 19x125t pocket nukes pretty bog standard 1t missile really I tried out a variation of your NEFP warhead layout and it did the following damage to a stock gunship. The whole side of the Reactor and Engine compartment has been ripped away, destroyed everything inside it aft of the rad shield and left an exit hole out the far side of the hit. Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|