|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 7:56:06 GMT
ironclad6 : Magnetic energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy) in the drive coils must exceed pulse energy by a good margin for the magnetic nozzle to deflect all charged particles. Then, the structural support of the magnetic nozzle must absorb all this force and transmit it to the spaceship's thrust frame. I can't figure out how to use tags, so excuse me please while I just use the reply button and set up inline posts. If I've understood you correctly, assuming perfect efficiency, total power output from my power plant should be equal to thrust power, minus the energy cost of maintaining the magnetic confinement field? Did I understand that correctly? I should be able to take thrust power, minus the power of my magnetic confinement nozzles and multiply it by my throttle percentage and then by the efficiency of my MHDs and that should give me my power budget to run this like HVAC or big ass lasers? It follows then that either my power generation capability is waaaaaaay low or my ability to generate thrust is waaaaaaay high. Does that sound about right? It doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. An fusion engine and an fusion reactor will have same amounts of energies at the same burn efficiency in a closed-system. The fusion-mpdt in my case has an 125gw fusion stellerator, this would result in extremely low thrust. So I use MHDs to convert fusion power to electrical power. Just multiply your current power of your stellerator (depending on throttle) with your MHDs efficiency. Then substract your power requirments. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 8:09:28 GMT
You should start tagging people. 1. You don't necessarily need particle accelerators. Nor Lasers. There is Antimatter, Z-pinch, Polywell, Magnetic Confinement. 2. An fusion reactor can provide it's own immense power demnand. Your ship can give an impulse to start if you choose to. 3. You can't expect that people know your tech level. Wormholes give the impression that this civilization is on a technological level extremely well developed. Type 2.5-3. I didn't knew that the stellerators were that hard to produce. Yes, you are right about scale, this is also why your ship had a higher fusion power density, even thought the fact that your have seemingly less mass devoted into stellerators, but feel free to correct if I am wrong, maybe you do have tens of kilotons of stellerators. Althought, the Adamites have no problem utilizing NSWR in masses. Which is weird considering the scarcity of fissiles, espacially enriched ones. Or is this an wanted trait? You shouldn't use the MPTD-Fusion bus as an standart missile. More as an tactical weapon. Something like a Tomahawk, expensive, effective, but most often overkill. Thanks for your reply. I'll take your points in order. 1) I understood from previous conversations here that starting a p-B11 fusion required a particle beam. If this isn't the case why I can't I have p-B11 nozzles on my drones? 2) It would appear to violate conservation of energy, to use the energy of and explosion to contain that explosion. I understood that I needed to generate energy to maintain the magnetic confinement field in addition to energy tapped from that fusion. 3) I don't expect anyone to know what's going on inside my head. If it helps I'll explain a little further. The wormhole model I'm using is the Visser non-rotating wormhole. Essentially space time is a crunched up N-dimensional space with a minimum of seven dimensions. Some of these dimensions are collapsed because of their low energy states. Wormholes take advantage of this in that the Visser bridges they are using are naturally occurring in places where certain conditions are met. The presence of a sufficiently massive star, with a sufficiently massive satellite holding a stable orbit, with stable, non-rotating lagrangian points. At the L1 point there will be a point where the gravitational stresses of the who objects are balanced and there is enough "play" in space time. In practical terms you also need the presence of a strong magnetosphere at that planet, preferably through which moves another satellite, acting as a sort of cosmic dynamo. In brief, you can tap energy from that magnetosphere in a variety of ways and you can energize that low energy dimension and usually it forms a bridge between you and another similar system elsewhere. This takes a truly staggering amount of energy, far beyond the capabilities of my ships. Wormholes therefore have to be maintained by dedicated structures. Anywhere these conditions are not met cannot be formed into a wormhole. The tech level of the systems commonwealth is extremely high but they are not quite yet post scarcity. I'd say they're edging towards almost a type two civilization. The Adamites are slightly lower tech level but a strongly stratified society making it easier for them to centralize the resources and wealth required to build big set piece dreadnoughts. These ships also act as symbols of the personal wealth of prestige of the men who pay for them. I have borrowed liberally from the late period of the Roman Republic here. They also really don't mind the mess and fuss that goes with it because the decision makers don't have to live with the mess. In any case, NSWR is really their only option if they want to compete with the SC's confinement bottle technology. It doesn't really work but it's better than the alternatives. I'm aware there are both flaws in my knowledge and gaps in my narrative. This is why I'm here, hoping to improve my work. I am therefore very grateful for the help you give. Let's just say I take a more skeptical view about what's going to be possible in future. For example, I generally take a dim view of anything that requires antimatter. I think it's just too much of a pain in the arse to be worth dealing with. Also, I thought of a use for your MPDT boosted missile. I stuck a 10kg osmium slug in the nose and coated it in VANTA and gave it a great big ass battery to give it ten seconds of thrust. I'm using it as a really nasty kinetic mine. It's low signature and high acceleration make it ideal for applications where it doesn't have a first stage booster. 1. No, particle accelerators are just more efficent when it comes to igniting p-B11. But I talked about fusion in general. 2. Wouldn't that make your ships impossible? An 120kt ship with 0.67g powered by p-B11 has 4.4PW Thrust Power. If use 100% of your fusion power for MHDs you will get 2.2PW. And you said you only have to use 70GW from 240GW for your propulsion system. Meaning every GW input results in 63TW output (MHDs not included in the second calculation). 3. It just weird that you have wormhole technology but not sufficent production capabilities and technology to mass produce stellerators. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 15:26:08 GMT
Thanks for your reply. I'll take your points in order. 1) I understood from previous conversations here that starting a p-B11 fusion required a particle beam. If this isn't the case why I can't I have p-B11 nozzles on my drones? 2) It would appear to violate conservation of energy, to use the energy of and explosion to contain that explosion. I understood that I needed to generate energy to maintain the magnetic confinement field in addition to energy tapped from that fusion. 3) I don't expect anyone to know what's going on inside my head. If it helps I'll explain a little further. The wormhole model I'm using is the Visser non-rotating wormhole. Essentially space time is a crunched up N-dimensional space with a minimum of seven dimensions. Some of these dimensions are collapsed because of their low energy states. Wormholes take advantage of this in that the Visser bridges they are using are naturally occurring in places where certain conditions are met. The presence of a sufficiently massive star, with a sufficiently massive satellite holding a stable orbit, with stable, non-rotating lagrangian points. At the L1 point there will be a point where the gravitational stresses of the who objects are balanced and there is enough "play" in space time. In practical terms you also need the presence of a strong magnetosphere at that planet, preferably through which moves another satellite, acting as a sort of cosmic dynamo. In brief, you can tap energy from that magnetosphere in a variety of ways and you can energize that low energy dimension and usually it forms a bridge between you and another similar system elsewhere. This takes a truly staggering amount of energy, far beyond the capabilities of my ships. Wormholes therefore have to be maintained by dedicated structures. Anywhere these conditions are not met cannot be formed into a wormhole. The tech level of the systems commonwealth is extremely high but they are not quite yet post scarcity. I'd say they're edging towards almost a type two civilization. The Adamites are slightly lower tech level but a strongly stratified society making it easier for them to centralize the resources and wealth required to build big set piece dreadnoughts. These ships also act as symbols of the personal wealth of prestige of the men who pay for them. I have borrowed liberally from the late period of the Roman Republic here. They also really don't mind the mess and fuss that goes with it because the decision makers don't have to live with the mess. In any case, NSWR is really their only option if they want to compete with the SC's confinement bottle technology. It doesn't really work but it's better than the alternatives. I'm aware there are both flaws in my knowledge and gaps in my narrative. This is why I'm here, hoping to improve my work. I am therefore very grateful for the help you give. Let's just say I take a more skeptical view about what's going to be possible in future. For example, I generally take a dim view of anything that requires antimatter. I think it's just too much of a pain in the arse to be worth dealing with. Also, I thought of a use for your MPDT boosted missile. I stuck a 10kg osmium slug in the nose and coated it in VANTA and gave it a great big ass battery to give it ten seconds of thrust. I'm using it as a really nasty kinetic mine. It's low signature and high acceleration make it ideal for applications where it doesn't have a first stage booster. 1. No, particle accelerators are just more efficent when it comes to igniting p-B11. But I talked about fusion in general. 2. Wouldn't that make your ships impossible? An 120kt ship with 0.67g powered by p-B11 has 4.4PW Thrust Power. If use 100% of your fusion power for MHDs you will get 2.2PW. And you said you only have to use 70GW from 240GW for your propulsion system. Meaning every GW input results in 63TW output (MHDs not included in the second calculation). 3. It just weird that you have wormhole technology but not sufficent production capabilities and technology to mass produce stellerators. 1. That makes sense. I expect that what I'll do then, is use p-B11 fusion on my capital ships and add a black box module to account for the mass and power demand of the particle accelerator. This leaves me with still having to settle on a propulsion option for the Whisker IV drones. I'll solve that problem later because I suspect that once I work out my technological assumptions and rationalize my economic modelling the answer will become obvious. 2) Yeah, it would. As I was saying the Matterbeam, the Royal Navy ships I've designed are either over-powered from a thrust perspective or underpowered from an onboard generation perspective. I did the maths as you said yesterday and revised Morokweng's power generation up substantially with an assumption of 66% efficiency on my MHDs. In lore I will be assuming a variable throttle setting allowing me to choose between onboard power and thrust on a sliding scale. 3) Yeah, the wormhole thing implies a god like technology level if you are using Einstein-Rosen bridges. That type of wormhole gives you at will point to point travel as long as you can meet the power requirements. I actually was worried about the implications for causality implied by that model which is why I went with the Visser non-rotating N-dimensional model. Ships cannot generate their own wormholes. They can't generate even close to enough power and it would cause all sorts of interesting conservation of energy problems if they attempted to do so. Think of it this way. They're highly advanced, with high quality molecular manufacturing capabilities and highly automated factories. They can produce almost anything they want, but not in unlimited quantities. They have to make sure not to use a high tech, high cost option when a lower cost option will do. They are afterall locked in a cold war with a faction that is much much more willing to spend on it's military than they are. 4) Thank you for the help with the equation. I'm assuming 66.6% efficiency on my MHDs which gives the Crater class drone tenders a simply monstrous power generating capability. So much so that I'm actually not totally sure what to do with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 15:30:13 GMT
1. No, particle accelerators are just more efficent when it comes to igniting p-B11. But I talked about fusion in general. 2. Wouldn't that make your ships impossible? An 120kt ship with 0.67g powered by p-B11 has 4.4PW Thrust Power. If use 100% of your fusion power for MHDs you will get 2.2PW. And you said you only have to use 70GW from 240GW for your propulsion system. Meaning every GW input results in 63TW output (MHDs not included in the second calculation). 3. It just weird that you have wormhole technology but not sufficent production capabilities and technology to mass produce stellerators. 1. That makes sense. I expect that what I'll do then, is use p-B11 fusion on my capital ships and add a black box module to account for the mass and power demand of the particle accelerator. This leaves me with still having to settle on a propulsion option for the Whisker IV drones. I'll solve that problem later because I suspect that once I work out my technological assumptions and rationalize my economic modelling the answer will become obvious. 2) Yeah, it would. As I was saying the Matterbeam, the Royal Navy ships I've designed are either over-powered from a thrust perspective or underpowered from an onboard generation perspective. I did the maths as you said yesterday and revised Morokweng's power generation up substantially with an assumption of 66% efficiency on my MHDs. In lore I will be assuming a variable throttle setting allowing me to choose between onboard power and thrust on a sliding scale. 3) Yeah, the wormhole thing implies a god like technology level if you are using Einstein-Rosen bridges. That type of wormhole gives you at will point to point travel as long as you can meet the power requirements. I actually was worried about the implications for causality implied by that model which is why I went with the Visser non-rotating N-dimensional model. Ships cannot generate their own wormholes. They can't generate even close to enough power and it would cause all sorts of interesting conservation of energy problems if they attempted to do so. Think of it this way. They're highly advanced, with high quality molecular manufacturing capabilities and highly automated factories. They can produce almost anything they want, but not in unlimited quantities. They have to make sure not to use a high tech, high cost option when a lower cost option will do. They are afterall locked in a cold war with a faction that is much much more willing to spend on it's military than they are. 4) Thank you for the help with the equation. I'm assuming 66.6% efficiency on my MHDs which gives the Crater class drone tenders a simply monstrous power generating capability. So much so that I'm actually not totally sure what to do with it. 4. No! This was for the Fusion-MPDT. If you use it that way you get zero thrust. Or you can make it selectable, no thrust but godly power. Or nearly no effect on thrust and still amazing power levels. If 0,01% of thrust power converted on Morokweg at 66% efficency you will get 293GW of power. 3. But this would make your cost only limited by power demnads. The higher the more complex. Which in your scenario is practically 0. And material costs. And most superconductors aren't made out of very rare elements |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 15:45:26 GMT
1. That makes sense. I expect that what I'll do then, is use p-B11 fusion on my capital ships and add a black box module to account for the mass and power demand of the particle accelerator. This leaves me with still having to settle on a propulsion option for the Whisker IV drones. I'll solve that problem later because I suspect that once I work out my technological assumptions and rationalize my economic modelling the answer will become obvious. 2) Yeah, it would. As I was saying the Matterbeam, the Royal Navy ships I've designed are either over-powered from a thrust perspective or underpowered from an onboard generation perspective. I did the maths as you said yesterday and revised Morokweng's power generation up substantially with an assumption of 66% efficiency on my MHDs. In lore I will be assuming a variable throttle setting allowing me to choose between onboard power and thrust on a sliding scale. 3) Yeah, the wormhole thing implies a god like technology level if you are using Einstein-Rosen bridges. That type of wormhole gives you at will point to point travel as long as you can meet the power requirements. I actually was worried about the implications for causality implied by that model which is why I went with the Visser non-rotating N-dimensional model. Ships cannot generate their own wormholes. They can't generate even close to enough power and it would cause all sorts of interesting conservation of energy problems if they attempted to do so. Think of it this way. They're highly advanced, with high quality molecular manufacturing capabilities and highly automated factories. They can produce almost anything they want, but not in unlimited quantities. They have to make sure not to use a high tech, high cost option when a lower cost option will do. They are afterall locked in a cold war with a faction that is much much more willing to spend on it's military than they are. 4) Thank you for the help with the equation. I'm assuming 66.6% efficiency on my MHDs which gives the Crater class drone tenders a simply monstrous power generating capability. So much so that I'm actually not totally sure what to do with it. 4. No! This was for the Fusion-MPDT. If you use it that way you get zero thrust. Or you can make it selectable, no thrust but godly power. Or nearly no effect on thrust and still amazing power levels. Okay so correct me if I'm wrong. I think I might have simply failed to explain myself correctly. I'm assuming 66.6% efficiency on my MHDs. The Crater Class Drone Tenders have a total thrust power of 8.2 petawatts. If I assume a throttleable capability that gives me the option of choosing between 8.2 petawatts of thrust or 5.42 petawatts of electricity on a more of less infinitely variable sliding scale. All I have to do is remember that every watt of electricity I generate costs me 1.5 watts of thrust power and vice versa. Basically I take thrust power, multiply by throttle setting and then by efficiency to get electrical power generation. Am I still missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 15:49:28 GMT
4. No! This was for the Fusion-MPDT. If you use it that way you get zero thrust. Or you can make it selectable, no thrust but godly power. Or nearly no effect on thrust and still amazing power levels. Okay so correct me if I'm wrong. I think I might have simply failed to explain myself correctly. I'm assuming 66.6% efficiency on my MHDs. The Crater Class Drone Tenders have a total thrust power of 8.2 petawatts. If I assume a throttleable capability that gives me the option of choosing between 8.2 petawatts of thrust or 5.42 petawatts of electricity on a more of less infinitely variable sliding scale. All I have to do is remember that every watt of electricity I generate costs me 1.5 watts of thrust power and vice versa. Basically I take thrust power, multiply by throttle setting and then by efficiency to get electrical power generation. Am I still missing something? Yea thats correct. Can you list radiator stats on your crater class drone? They look too small/cold |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 15:57:45 GMT
Okay so correct me if I'm wrong. I think I might have simply failed to explain myself correctly. I'm assuming 66.6% efficiency on my MHDs. The Crater Class Drone Tenders have a total thrust power of 8.2 petawatts. If I assume a throttleable capability that gives me the option of choosing between 8.2 petawatts of thrust or 5.42 petawatts of electricity on a more of less infinitely variable sliding scale. All I have to do is remember that every watt of electricity I generate costs me 1.5 watts of thrust power and vice versa. Basically I take thrust power, multiply by throttle setting and then by efficiency to get electrical power generation. Am I still missing something? Yea thats correct. Awesome. Thanks. Man, that took a while for me to get. The other big question is what's the efficiency rating likely to be on a stellarator? I suspect my rads might have been somewhat undersized. At the moment I'm simply doubling the efficiency of the best fission reactor I've managed to produce so far. Now, to the drone problem. I'm thinking of actually powering them using a huge battery driving an MPDT. That strikes me a much more cost efficient than positing extremely small stellarators. The other problem with stellarator powered drones is that Stellarators scale to size so I'd have to assume much lower efficiency for a small stellarator. Project Rho implies that efficiency would rise to the square of the diameter, which actually could make drone sized Stellarators effectively impossible. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 16:16:01 GMT
 Procellarum returns to the fleet yards at Callisto. Early January 2478. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 16:21:34 GMT
Awesome. Thanks. Man, that took a while for me to get. The other big question is what's the efficiency rating likely to be on a stellarator? I suspect my rads might have been somewhat undersized. At the moment I'm simply doubling the efficiency of the best fission reactor I've managed to produce so far. Now, to the drone problem. I'm thinking of actually powering them using a huge battery driving an MPDT. That strikes me a much more cost efficient than positing extremely small stellarators. The other problem with stellarator powered drones is that Stellarators scale to size so I'd have to assume much lower efficiency for a small stellarator. Project Rho implies that efficiency would rise to the square of the diameter, which actually could make drone sized Stellarators effectively impossible. Thoughts? Projects Rho lists an 200GW MC Fusion engine weighting mere 600kg. In my design it weights 1t and produces 125-150GW. Getting efficiencies for the stellerators is hard because no accurate stats exist. And calculating might take weeks of research. Using an CDE fission reactor might not be that good because the thermocouples produce most of the weight. For Stellerators I might go with 10-100GW per ton. Can you give your Whisker IV diameter? I want to build an mommentum wheel using nanomaterials as a battery. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 16:27:26 GMT
Awesome. Thanks. Man, that took a while for me to get. The other big question is what's the efficiency rating likely to be on a stellarator? I suspect my rads might have been somewhat undersized. At the moment I'm simply doubling the efficiency of the best fission reactor I've managed to produce so far. Now, to the drone problem. I'm thinking of actually powering them using a huge battery driving an MPDT. That strikes me a much more cost efficient than positing extremely small stellarators. The other problem with stellarator powered drones is that Stellarators scale to size so I'd have to assume much lower efficiency for a small stellarator. Project Rho implies that efficiency would rise to the square of the diameter, which actually could make drone sized Stellarators effectively impossible. Thoughts? Projects Rho lists an 200GW MC Fusion engine weighting mere 600kg. In my design it weights 1t and produces 125-150GW. Getting efficiencies for the stellerators is hard because no accurate stats exist. And calculating might take weeks of research. Using an CDE fission reactor might not be that good because the thermocouples produce most of the weight. For Stellerators I might go with 10-100GW per ton. Can you give your Whisker IV diameter? I want to build an mommentum wheel using nanomaterials as a battery. They're 2.8 meters diameter with a design weight of less than seven tons. A nanomaterial flywheel battery is actually a pretty good idea. As you can see from the screen shots. I've increased the size of the main rads, added a second set of rads forward of the main laser batteries and increased the outlet temperature to 3000 K. I'm currently assuming 50% efficiency on my black box stellarators but I'm honestly not convinced of that number. I've seen reasonably solid efficiency numbers coming out of the research reactor in Germany claiming 66-80% efficiency. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 16:50:36 GMT
Projects Rho lists an 200GW MC Fusion engine weighting mere 600kg. In my design it weights 1t and produces 125-150GW. Getting efficiencies for the stellerators is hard because no accurate stats exist. And calculating might take weeks of research. Using an CDE fission reactor might not be that good because the thermocouples produce most of the weight. For Stellerators I might go with 10-100GW per ton. Can you give your Whisker IV diameter? I want to build an mommentum wheel using nanomaterials as a battery. They're 2.8 meters diameter with a design weight of less than seven tons. A nanomaterial flywheel battery is actually a pretty good idea. As you can see from the screen shots. I've increased the size of the main rads, added a second set of rads forward of the main laser batteries and increased the outlet temperature to 3000 K. I'm currently assuming 50% efficiency on my black box stellarators but I'm honestly not convinced of that number. I've seen reasonably solid efficiency numbers coming out of the research reactor in Germany claiming 66-80% efficiency. 66-80% sounds more realistic for your period of time and tech level. Increase temp to 4000K, it will result in 3x higher output than 3000K. Got an CNT flywheel with 1.75t weight. 2.1m diameter and 350GJ of energy. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 17:03:51 GMT
They're 2.8 meters diameter with a design weight of less than seven tons. A nanomaterial flywheel battery is actually a pretty good idea. As you can see from the screen shots. I've increased the size of the main rads, added a second set of rads forward of the main laser batteries and increased the outlet temperature to 3000 K. I'm currently assuming 50% efficiency on my black box stellarators but I'm honestly not convinced of that number. I've seen reasonably solid efficiency numbers coming out of the research reactor in Germany claiming 66-80% efficiency. 66-80% sounds more realistic for your period of time and tech level. Increase temp to 4000K, it will result in 3x higher output than 3000K. Got an CNT flywheel with 1.75t weight. 2.1m diameter and 350GJ of energy. That's a lotta juice, but that's only three and a half seconds of full power thrust for the MPDT thruster you showed me. I'm looking into the theoretical limits of lithium batteries at the moment to see if they might be viable. If they're not then we're back to low efficiency fusion power or metallic hydrogen. You're right about the rads though. They're super pretty colour too. |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 17:06:32 GMT
66-80% sounds more realistic for your period of time and tech level. Increase temp to 4000K, it will result in 3x higher output than 3000K. Got an CNT flywheel with 1.75t weight. 2.1m diameter and 350GJ of energy. That's a lotta juice, but that's only three and a half seconds of full power thrust for the MPDT thruster you showed me. I'm looking into the theoretical limits of lithium batteries at the moment to see if they might be viable. If they're not then we're back to low efficiency fusion power or metallic hydrogen. You're right about the rads though. They're super pretty colour too. Lithium-air is the best as far as I know it. There are no better batteris than nanomaterial flywheels. |
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Aug 31, 2017 17:11:09 GMT
That's a lotta juice, but that's only three and a half seconds of full power thrust for the MPDT thruster you showed me. I'm looking into the theoretical limits of lithium batteries at the moment to see if they might be viable. If they're not then we're back to low efficiency fusion power or metallic hydrogen. You're right about the rads though. They're super pretty colour too. Lithium-air is the best as far as I know it. There are no better batteris than nanomaterial flywheels. Yeah. I was thinking that. I think a carbon nanotube flywheel works for the K-mine concept. I basically only need to provide power for 3-5 seconds to accelerate from point blank and I'm away. Also, thus far I've been coating all of my Systems Commonwealth ships in VANTA but their signature is so bright from their radiators that this seems kinda pointless. What do you think thematically about switching to a very clean white paint instead? I like the very sinister looking invisible black hulls but maybe white would work? |
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Aug 31, 2017 17:22:03 GMT
Lithium-air is the best as far as I know it. There are no better batteris than nanomaterial flywheels. Yeah. I was thinking that. I think a carbon nanotube flywheel works for the K-mine concept. I basically only need to provide power for 3-5 seconds to accelerate from point blank and I'm away. Also, thus far I've been coating all of my Systems Commonwealth ships in VANTA but their signature is so bright from their radiators that this seems kinda pointless. What do you think thematically about switching to a very clean white paint instead? I like the very sinister looking invisible black hulls but maybe white would work? Forget the signature of the radiators. What about the signature of the fusion exhaust which is millions to billions of kelvin hot. Doubling temp increases irradiance by 16x. Tactically somethinh like aluminium would be the best because of lasers. But Adamites use particle emitter. A clean white would fit with the Commonwealth nature. So your Whisker IV has to use metallic hydrogen. Low efficenncy fusion makes not much sense because you could use them for powering MPDTs which have 10-100 times better thrust. |
|
