|
Post by Crazy Tom on Sept 1, 2016 18:32:40 GMT
I know I'm not the only one itching to try out the beast that is the Orion Drive, but I understand that the available information is less than complete. I assume that Zane known about it and has chosen not to include it because it can't be properly modeled with the information we have. I assume that the pusher plate assembly isn't an issue: Springs and airbags can be dealt with fairly easily. And the game already has nuclear warheads so it can model the that part of the pulse unit. Is the issue modeling the radiation case, channel filler and propellant(as seen below)?
|
|
aiyel
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by aiyel on Sept 1, 2016 19:24:59 GMT
forget Orion, I want God's Own Flamethrower (the Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket.) Just watch out for those propellant tank hits since your tank is probably made of a bunch of boron straws to keep the stuff from going critical with itself and turning you into a miniature supernova.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Sept 1, 2016 19:43:03 GMT
forget Orion, I want God's Own Flamethrower (the Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket.) Just watch out for those propellant tank hits since your tank is probably made of a bunch of boron straws to keep the stuff from going critical with itself and turning you into a miniature supernova. The NSWR is incredibly unstable - wayyyyyyy too unstable for combat craft when an Orion drive can give you similar performance. A single lucky hit near the engine could destroy your entire propulsion system(the whole ship if you're not lucky). Could be a good idea for long range torpedoes through. Orion by comparison is safer: a hit to a pulse unit will at worst cause the tnt to detonate unevenly, like a radioactive hand grenade - this is a pain to clean up, but since the warhead will not achieve critical mass, you can handle it with blowout compartments as one would with traditional explosives. The pusher plate is also a great deal more robust than the NSWR nozzle and can get hit multiple times and maintain functionality.
|
|
aiyel
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by aiyel on Sept 1, 2016 20:04:07 GMT
forget Orion, I want God's Own Flamethrower (the Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket.) Just watch out for those propellant tank hits since your tank is probably made of a bunch of boron straws to keep the stuff from going critical with itself and turning you into a miniature supernova. The NSWR is incredibly unstable - wayyyyyyy too unstable for combat craft when an Orion drive can give you similar performance. A single lucky hit near the engine could destroy your entire propulsion system(the whole ship if you're not lucky). Could be a good idea for long range torpedoes through. Orion by comparison is safer: a hit to a pulse unit will at worst cause the tnt to detonate unevenly, like a radioactive hand grenade - this is a pain to clean up, but since the warhead will not achieve critical mass, you can handle it with blowout compartments as one would with traditional explosives. The pusher plate is also a great deal more robust than the NSWR nozzle and can get hit multiple times and maintain functionality. You're leaving out the most important feature of the NSWR though: It's FUN! (and by "fun" I mean completely insane, of course)
|
|
|
Post by panarchist on Sept 1, 2016 20:57:11 GMT
It's important to note that Orion at least had a (non-nuclear) proof of concept demo, and the science and engineering behind is, at least in part, known. NSWR is almost entirely theoretical. It's got a major cool factor, but in the "real world", would any nation ever allow it to be tested?
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Sept 1, 2016 23:50:19 GMT
Indeed, and IIRC Zubrin made some rather questionable assumptions in his math - correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he model the engine one dimensionally?
|
|
|
Post by qswitched on Sept 2, 2016 1:48:30 GMT
Concerning the Orion drive, it was very much on the cusp of feasible technologies. Everything is there except for certain aspects about the pulse unit.
Side Note: in game, if you drop nukes behind your craft and detonate them manually, you can actually accelerate your craft that way. However, the efficiency is mediocre, because the detonation is omnidirectional. Also, the energy is transferred via photons rather than mass, which increases exhaust velocity and drops thrust to abysmal levels.
The missing piece was how effective the pulse unit could transfer the energy into the channel filler and then into the propellant. From the papers on Orion that I found, they mentioned pulse unit would effectively channel the propellant into a cigar-shaped plasma jet which is... rather impressive. If you dump 10 million degrees K into a material, it will turn into plasma which will expand in every direction. By my calculations, with Tungsten, 10 million K will yield an exhaust velocity of about 100 km/s (it cools through space to the pusher plate, which is why the exhaust velocity is lower).
The pulse unit is somewhat shaped like a nozzle to contain the plasma, but temperatures as high as 10 million K, the nozzle will have very little effect on the propellant as it leaves the pulse unit. The shape will be less a cigar and more of a giant, sprawling cone at best. And since the nozzle will vaporize in microseconds too, much of the energy will still be emitted spherically anyways.
This goes back to a recurring problem that I've seen crop up a lot with many of these designs. To date, as far as I am aware, no nuclear detonation has ever been contained or controlled within a small container. At 10 million K, no material can withstand a nuclear detonation, and there is no data on how many microseconds something can stay together when a nuke detonates inside it.
Regardless, a giant cone of plasma is still pretty feasible for a drive, providing you're okay with far lower efficiencies than what the papers predicted. I could model the plasma jet as less of a jet and more of a fat cone or hemisphere, and the rest would work.
I am a little iffy on doing original calculations rather than taking calculations from peer reviewed papers. However, I have done it for one particular system in game. The explosive lens on the nuclear devices is completely classified, so the equations governing it's implosion is approximated based on various sources. I could do something similar in this case.
With all that in mind, implementing the Orion drive is something I have mulled over a lot over the last two years working on this project. I will say that it will not be in the base game when it ships, however if I ever do further post-ship updates/patches/content, the Orion drive would be very high on the priority list.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Tom on Sept 2, 2016 2:12:18 GMT
Concerning the Orion drive, it was very much on the cusp of feasible technologies. Everything is there except for certain aspects about the pulse unit. Side Note: in game, if you drop nukes behind your craft and detonate them manually, you can actually accelerate your craft that way. However, the efficiency is mediocre, because the detonation is omnidirectional. Also, the energy is transferred via photons rather than mass, which increases exhaust velocity and drops thrust to abysmal levels. The missing piece was how effective the pulse unit could transfer the energy into the channel filler and then into the propellant. From the papers on Orion that I found, they mentioned pulse unit would effectively channel the propellant into a cigar-shaped plasma jet which is... rather impressive. If you dump 10 million degrees K into a material, it will turn into plasma which will expand in every direction. By my calculations, with Tungsten, 10 million K will yield an exhaust velocity of about 100 km/s (it cools through space to the pusher plate, which is why the exhaust velocity is lower). The pulse unit is somewhat shaped like a nozzle to contain the plasma, but temperatures as high as 10 million K, the nozzle will have very little effect on the propellant as it leaves the pulse unit. The shape will be less a cigar and more of a giant, sprawling cone at best. And since the nozzle will vaporize in microseconds too, much of the energy will still be emitted spherically anyways. This goes back to a recurring problem that I've seen crop up a lot with many of these designs. To date, as far as I am aware, no nuclear detonation has ever been contained or controlled within a small container. At 10 million K, no material can withstand a nuclear detonation, and there is no data on how many microseconds something can stay together when a nuke detonates inside it. Regardless, a giant cone of plasma is still pretty feasible for a drive, providing you're okay with far lower efficiencies than what the papers predicted. I could model the plasma jet as less of a jet and more of a fat cone or hemisphere, and the rest would work. I am a little iffy on doing original calculations rather than taking calculations from peer reviewed papers. However, I have done it for one particular system in game. The explosive lens on the nuclear devices is completely classified, so the equations governing it's implosion is approximated based on various sources. I could do something similar in this case. With all that in mind, implementing the Orion drive is something I have mulled over a lot over the last two years working on this project. I will say that it will not be in the base game when it ships, however if I ever do further post-ship updates/patches/content, the Orion drive would be very high on the priority list. Would you mind tossing all the info you have, including the stuff on modeling nuclear lenses into a zip file and PM it to me? I'm heading back to uni right now; and crafting a simulation of a shaped nuclear charge on in Matlab sounds like a pretty good way to spend a few hours every weekend. Might save you some time down the road.
|
|
|
Post by qswitched on Sept 2, 2016 2:32:04 GMT
Sure thing, PM sent.
|
|
|
Post by panarchist on Sept 2, 2016 20:47:25 GMT
Concerning the Orion drive, it was very much on the cusp of feasible technologies. Everything is there except for certain aspects about the pulse unit. Side Note: in game, if you drop nukes behind your craft and detonate them manually, you can actually accelerate your craft that way. However, the efficiency is mediocre, because the detonation is omnidirectional. Also, the energy is transferred via photons rather than mass, which increases exhaust velocity and drops thrust to abysmal levels. The missing piece was how effective the pulse unit could transfer the energy into the channel filler and then into the propellant. From the papers on Orion that I found, they mentioned pulse unit would effectively channel the propellant into a cigar-shaped plasma jet which is... rather impressive. If you dump 10 million degrees K into a material, it will turn into plasma which will expand in every direction. By my calculations, with Tungsten, 10 million K will yield an exhaust velocity of about 100 km/s (it cools through space to the pusher plate, which is why the exhaust velocity is lower). The pulse unit is somewhat shaped like a nozzle to contain the plasma, but temperatures as high as 10 million K, the nozzle will have very little effect on the propellant as it leaves the pulse unit. The shape will be less a cigar and more of a giant, sprawling cone at best. And since the nozzle will vaporize in microseconds too, much of the energy will still be emitted spherically anyways. This goes back to a recurring problem that I've seen crop up a lot with many of these designs. To date, as far as I am aware, no nuclear detonation has ever been contained or controlled within a small container. At 10 million K, no material can withstand a nuclear detonation, and there is no data on how many microseconds something can stay together when a nuke detonates inside it. Regardless, a giant cone of plasma is still pretty feasible for a drive, providing you're okay with far lower efficiencies than what the papers predicted. I could model the plasma jet as less of a jet and more of a fat cone or hemisphere, and the rest would work. I am a little iffy on doing original calculations rather than taking calculations from peer reviewed papers. However, I have done it for one particular system in game. The explosive lens on the nuclear devices is completely classified, so the equations governing it's implosion is approximated based on various sources. I could do something similar in this case. With all that in mind, implementing the Orion drive is something I have mulled over a lot over the last two years working on this project. I will say that it will not be in the base game when it ships, however if I ever do further post-ship updates/patches/content, the Orion drive would be very high on the priority list. That was one of the benefits of Medusa - it would have captured more of the blast than the standard Orion drive. But Medusa is a lot more hypothetical. One of the things I thought interesting about Orion is off-axis detonations being used for steering. It'd be interesting to see how that panned out.
|
|
|
Post by qswitched on Sept 2, 2016 21:11:41 GMT
That was one of the benefits of Medusa - it would have captured more of the blast than the standard Orion drive. But Medusa is a lot more hypothetical. One of the things I thought interesting about Orion is off-axis detonations being used for steering. It'd be interesting to see how that panned out. Absolutely, I think this issue was one of the reasons why the Medusa was developed. The engineers must have realized how wasteful the Orion was. With a full hemisphere sized Medusa drive, you could achieve 50% efficiency at least.
|
|
|
Post by simkoning on Oct 29, 2016 21:47:03 GMT
What about an inertial confinement fusion pulse rocket like the one proposed for Project Daedalus? As far as I can recall, it would be superior to an Orion-style pulse rocket. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_DaedalusWouldn't such systems allow for invasion ships that could actually retreat back home?
|
|
elukka
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by elukka on Jan 1, 2017 18:02:27 GMT
A kinda old thread, but there's a tidbit I wanted to add to qswitched thoughts and it doesn't necessarily warrant a full thread of its own. The missing piece was how effective the pulse unit could transfer the energy into the channel filler and then into the propellant. From the papers on Orion that I found, they mentioned pulse unit would effectively channel the propellant into a cigar-shaped plasma jet which is... rather impressive. I think we can calculate the efficiency of the system from known Orion designs. For various Orion designs, we have three critical known quantities: The yield of the pulse unit, the effective exhaust velocity/isp of the drive, and the thrust of the drive. Since you can get the averaged thrust power of the drive from the thrust and exhaust velocity, it seems to me you could get the efficiency of the system simply by dividing this with the averaged pulse unit power (the total power going into the system). Of course, this doesn't get you full scaling laws, and the posited performance is still untested in practice, but it's something. I did some napkin math on it and the efficiency was something like 0.9%. i.e. when all system inefficiencies are considered, nearly 1% of the nuclear yield is harnessed as kinetic energy to push the ship around. As for the cigar thing, I think that has to do with the dynamics of plasma expansion rather than anything particularly clever they did. It's not a subject I know much anything about, but this is how Freeman Dyson put it: "... something originally in the shape of a cigar expands into the shape of a pancake, and something originally in the shape of a pancake expands into the shape of a cigar. ... That would be quite helpful, of course, if you had a real Orion, to start out with a panĀcake and it will produce then a jet that is collimated within 20 degrees or so quite nicely. The fact that it's so easy to make an asymmetrical explosion may still be classified, for all I know.". From some googling, this effect appears to be known and relevant in the making of thin film coatings by laser ablation. They seem to call it the flip-over effect.
|
|