The Last Battleship
Over the Memorial Day weekend, USS Iowa left San Francisco Bay, presumably for the last time,on its way to become a historical exhibit in, apparently, San Pedro. (She should have become a historical exhibit here, in San Francisco. That she didn't is a travesty for which the political side I generally agree with was to blame, but has roots in an episode that was not the Navy's best moment. See the Wikipedia page on the ship. But watching her leave was a rather moving experience I otherwise would not have had.)
I am not sure in what sense Iowa is the 'last battleship.' It does not seem to have been the very last in commission, but more likely was the last to be 'striken' from the navy list. This came after it rusticated for some years in the Suisun Bay mothball fleet, out of commission but at least nominally available for refurbishment and return to service. (In fact, it seems that even as a museum ship it is in some theoretical sense still available. But its next berth will almost certainly be its last.)
By exquisite coincidence Iowa passed under the Golden Gate Bridge on the day before the bridge's 75th anniversary celibration, and also happened to coincide with the commemoration of Memorial Day, the 'Murrican counterpart to Remembrance Day.
It all lends itself to any number of reflections. Swords and plowshares: After a lifetime of honorable service (70 years since launch, less a few months), Iowa is headed for a twilight afterlife as a waterfront exhibit, while the bridge remains a major regional traffic artery.
The transience of grandeur: The battleship era still conveys a powerful image, but it was remarkably brief, and Iowa's career belongs almost entirely to its epilogue. None of its class was ever seriously tested as a battleship, i.e. in action against enemy battleships.
In World War II the Iowas were used primarily as carrier escorts. During the Cold War era they were periodically recommissioned for offshore fire support. Functionally they were no longer capital ships, though size and impressiveness certainly qualified them for maintaining a presence, one of the most fundamental naval missions.
The first battleship is considerably harder to identify. The last generation of sailing 2-deckers and 3-deckers were called 'line of battle ships' in place of the older 'ships of the line.' But this usage disappeared when ironclads came along.
The first generation of ironclads had an amazing variety of armament layouts and general configurations. No one knew what the capital ship of the future would be like, which gives the era a wonderfully steampunkish flavor. Russia's Admiral Popov was a radical design even for the era, but shows how unsettled the design possibilities were.
By the 1880s the more bizarrely creative designs were set aside. A relatively standard type of capital ship emerged, exemplified by HMS Royal Sovereign, laid down 1889, and the term 'battle ship' came into use to describe them.
Today we mainly know them as pre-dreadnoughts. Let us pause to admire the meta-ness of that term. Pre-dreadnoughts ruled the waves for a generation, but for nearly all of that time absolutely no one thought of them as 'pre-dreadnoughts.' Our ideas about these ships are inevitably filtered through their successors, and for half the battleship era retrospective time flows backward.
The last engagement between battleships - there were never very many - was Surigao Strait in 1944, so that the battleship era lasted just 55 years. If we take Pearl Harbor as the end of battleship supremacy, 52 years. Thus the battleship epilogue, exemplified by Iowa's career, lasted considerably longer than the battleship era itself did.
In fact the battleship era was transitory, not really an 'era' at all. This may be kept in mind when thinking - and most of you are inevitably thinking - of battleships' possible future spacegoing counterparts. Relatively short periods can stand out in our minds and become nearly timeless 'eras,' when in fact they only lasted a few decades.
That said, in an an age of post-industrial technological maturity the overall configuration of capital vehicles might be as stable as it was in the age of sail.
Capital vehicles - how is that for a colorless expression? I have argued before in this blog, more than once, that the familiar and time-honored naval analogy may be misleading when it comes to space forces. Laser stars, as I have speculated about them, have only a fairly tenuous similarity to 'battleships.' If kinetics are dominant, the platforms from which they are deployed might be even more remote from the battleship image.
On the other hand, the similarities might turn out to be greater, if only because impressive weapon systems have power-political significance that extends well beyond their purely military characteristics.
Discuss.
Another Shameless Little Plug: My day gigs include tech blogging for IBM Midsize Insider. No registration hoops or anything like that, and your traffic helps keep this blog online. See my Twitter feed, to the right, for my latest posts there. Feel free to click on them, too!
My phone camera image of Iowa passing under the Golden Gate Bridge was too low-res to be worth posting. The Tumblr image above comes from this naval history page.
I am not sure in what sense Iowa is the 'last battleship.' It does not seem to have been the very last in commission, but more likely was the last to be 'striken' from the navy list. This came after it rusticated for some years in the Suisun Bay mothball fleet, out of commission but at least nominally available for refurbishment and return to service. (In fact, it seems that even as a museum ship it is in some theoretical sense still available. But its next berth will almost certainly be its last.)
By exquisite coincidence Iowa passed under the Golden Gate Bridge on the day before the bridge's 75th anniversary celibration, and also happened to coincide with the commemoration of Memorial Day, the 'Murrican counterpart to Remembrance Day.
It all lends itself to any number of reflections. Swords and plowshares: After a lifetime of honorable service (70 years since launch, less a few months), Iowa is headed for a twilight afterlife as a waterfront exhibit, while the bridge remains a major regional traffic artery.
The transience of grandeur: The battleship era still conveys a powerful image, but it was remarkably brief, and Iowa's career belongs almost entirely to its epilogue. None of its class was ever seriously tested as a battleship, i.e. in action against enemy battleships.
In World War II the Iowas were used primarily as carrier escorts. During the Cold War era they were periodically recommissioned for offshore fire support. Functionally they were no longer capital ships, though size and impressiveness certainly qualified them for maintaining a presence, one of the most fundamental naval missions.
The first battleship is considerably harder to identify. The last generation of sailing 2-deckers and 3-deckers were called 'line of battle ships' in place of the older 'ships of the line.' But this usage disappeared when ironclads came along.
The first generation of ironclads had an amazing variety of armament layouts and general configurations. No one knew what the capital ship of the future would be like, which gives the era a wonderfully steampunkish flavor. Russia's Admiral Popov was a radical design even for the era, but shows how unsettled the design possibilities were.
By the 1880s the more bizarrely creative designs were set aside. A relatively standard type of capital ship emerged, exemplified by HMS Royal Sovereign, laid down 1889, and the term 'battle ship' came into use to describe them.
Today we mainly know them as pre-dreadnoughts. Let us pause to admire the meta-ness of that term. Pre-dreadnoughts ruled the waves for a generation, but for nearly all of that time absolutely no one thought of them as 'pre-dreadnoughts.' Our ideas about these ships are inevitably filtered through their successors, and for half the battleship era retrospective time flows backward.
The last engagement between battleships - there were never very many - was Surigao Strait in 1944, so that the battleship era lasted just 55 years. If we take Pearl Harbor as the end of battleship supremacy, 52 years. Thus the battleship epilogue, exemplified by Iowa's career, lasted considerably longer than the battleship era itself did.
In fact the battleship era was transitory, not really an 'era' at all. This may be kept in mind when thinking - and most of you are inevitably thinking - of battleships' possible future spacegoing counterparts. Relatively short periods can stand out in our minds and become nearly timeless 'eras,' when in fact they only lasted a few decades.
That said, in an an age of post-industrial technological maturity the overall configuration of capital vehicles might be as stable as it was in the age of sail.
Capital vehicles - how is that for a colorless expression? I have argued before in this blog, more than once, that the familiar and time-honored naval analogy may be misleading when it comes to space forces. Laser stars, as I have speculated about them, have only a fairly tenuous similarity to 'battleships.' If kinetics are dominant, the platforms from which they are deployed might be even more remote from the battleship image.
On the other hand, the similarities might turn out to be greater, if only because impressive weapon systems have power-political significance that extends well beyond their purely military characteristics.
Discuss.
Another Shameless Little Plug: My day gigs include tech blogging for IBM Midsize Insider. No registration hoops or anything like that, and your traffic helps keep this blog online. See my Twitter feed, to the right, for my latest posts there. Feel free to click on them, too!
My phone camera image of Iowa passing under the Golden Gate Bridge was too low-res to be worth posting. The Tumblr image above comes from this naval history page.
1,169 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1169 Newer› Newest»Samantha:
That's not a problem. The shutter doesn't need to be part of the focusing system which means that vibrations in the shutter don't matter. Since all the shutter has to do is sit between the two lasers it doesn't even need to be attached to the ship! It could just float out there and snap open with as much vibration as it's little shuttery heart desires!
That strikes me as slightly unlikely. The laserstar is now unable to move or turn when the shutter is deployed. Even then, my point stands. Unless you can somehow train on the enemy before you open the shutter, the more powerful laser wins.
Tony:
First of all, I showed the numbers on the coal-fired plant because they represent the state of the art in electrical generation technology after more than a century of development. And we are, after all, talking about waste heat from electrical generation. The relevance comes from the fact that we're talking about a fluid (probably liquid) cooled fission power plant. Apart from the nature of the heat source, such plants work essentially the same way as fossil fuel plants:
You don't seem to understand that there are different constraints on a space reactor as opposed to a ground-based power plant. A 700 MWe coal-fired plant has access to unlimited water, and no mass budget. He will push towards solutions that are cheap and efficient. The same is manifestly untrue of a space-based plant. Mass matters a great deal, and there is no river available. Therefore, the designer will almost certainly use different options.
That said, I just now discovered a document that describes a 100 MWt reactor. And it says that alphas for the whole system of .1 kg/kW or greater can be achieved. Also, heat pipes can be used with a manifold, and that other systems could be even more efficient. Oh, and it's looking at systems in the hundreds of megawatts.
RE: Cooling
The nuclear reactor probably would not be a BWR, even at hundreds of megawatts.
It would probably be gas cooled - and the electric power would be generated by expanding gas.
Because of the fact that all these space reactors run at some super high temperatures. At those temps the water would disassicate into hydrogen and oxygen.
I have seen suggestions of using both hydrogen and helium as the gas coolant.
The gas would be cooled by an exchanger which would be liquid cooled. The Laser would also probably be liquid cooled, depending on the operating temp.
(SA Phil)
Locki:
Targetting at speed with a high angular velocities is hard.The USAAF is like 0 from 6 in intercepting ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. The USN on the other hand has an almost perfect record in killing Ballistic missiles in the boost phase (much slower closing velocity - not accelleration!) Predicting future location will only get you so far.
Your research is again failing you. The USAAF was turned into the USAF in 1947. The 0 for 6 is not a reliable set of data to assess how difficult the problem is. The AMRAAM, for example, had a similar record early in its development. The USN (I'm assuming that you're referring to the SM-3) does not intercept in the boost phase. It's a midcourse intercept, which is actually harder then terminal intercept. The Nike Zeus was regularly hitting (I want to say 59 for 64, including some number of skin-to-skin hits) back in the 60s.
My statement on Raytheon (lousy wikipedia!) engineers still stands. If you introduced an extra 0.01 second delay (range 1500km) into his hardware he would punch you on the nose. If you introduced an extra 0.1 second delay (range 15,000km) he'd rip your arm off. If you dared mention a 1 second delay (range 150,000km) he'd probably just spontaenously combust.
They routinely have to deal with lags of at least .01 seconds. It's a fact of life. The control system adjusts.
Laserstar scenario. You have decided to bet the house on one giant 30m wide laser with enough power generation and radiators to allow virtually continous firing time.
Right. And that leaves me with absolutely no space for even a secondary blinding laser.
This always bugged me. The laws of phyics dictates that in a vacuum the shorter wavelength laser has an inherent advantage (less diffration far greater range and more likely to hit with shockwave than just heat). Assuming similar tech levels everyone's gonna use the shortest wavelength technically possible.
This assumes that everyone's wavelength is the same. I'm not sure how close one has to be to make a dielectric mirror work. Also, it's angle-dependent, and again, I'm not sure how far off-angle you can be.
The fact is that your laser are counter-laserstar weapons, and are useless against kinetics. Which is therefore my solution. Fire kinetics which reach you before scorch range. You either get killed or unshutter and I zap you.
Not quite. The optimum solution will vary as assumptions about the tech does. As one learns quite well in real world engineering, numbers are worthless when dealing with dueling assumptions.
Of course these are going to be assumptions. We can at least use real world physics to see how improbable the unobtanium is. The massaging game is trying to figure out what sort of incremental performance increases are believable for the setting. YMMV.
Digital computer technology will top out sometime as well. After that, what's next? I can't think of anything, and believe me, I've tried.
We've gone over this in the decellerando thread. While linear projections of performance increases are inaccurate as technologies mature, ignoring the potential for disruptive new technologies is also inaccurate.
We're never going to predict the future with 100% accuracy. All that the spreadsheet would attempt is creating the verisimilitude of advancement and revolution without committing any knee-slappers. If you want a gigawatt laser, this is how big the power source would have to be, this is how much waste heat you have to radiate. Do we know of a theoretical power source that could provide a gigawatt? Is that power source out of line with the technology postulated for the rest of the setting? Can you operate that laser as a continuous beam for hours on end or would you need to charge a capacitor of some kind? Or is the throughput not a problem but waste heat is the sticking point? Would the radiator have to be so big that it can't be retracted? What sort of internal heat sink would be required if you can retract radiators? Would you vent coolant when overheating and thus your number of "shots" is limited to available coolant? Etc etc.
If we 100% know how every last detail works it's no longer science fiction, it's called now.
Personally, I'm happy that the lasers aren't stomp-alls because that would make for a less interesting story. Keep the range down to thousands of miles, ships have to get close in astronomic terms to engage, that keeps things interesting. It's no fun when you can determine the outcome of the battle before it's even fought.
Jollyreaper,
We've gone over this in the decellerando thread. While linear projections of performance increases are inaccurate as technologies mature, ignoring the potential for disruptive new technologies is also inaccurate.
-----------------
You almost have to have some performance increase in a "realisitc" setting -- because the reader is so accostomed to "rapid tech growth"
If you had a war 25 years earlier in the setting - people are going to expect new weapons for the "now"
Even if that itself is the unrealisitc bit- reality is unrealisitc and all that.
(SA Phil)
Byron:
"You don't seem to understand that there are different constraints on a space reactor as opposed to a ground-based power plant. A 700 MWe coal-fired plant has access to unlimited water, and no mass budget. He will push towards solutions that are cheap and efficient. The same is manifestly untrue of a space-based plant. Mass matters a great deal, and there is no river available. Therefore, the designer will almost certainly use different options."
I understand the constraints perfectly well. I also understand that heat engines are heat engines and they work a certain way. If you have to reject x amount of heat pers second/minute/hour as a result of engine operation, you have to move it away from the engine and actually reject it in the volumes that are actually output, in the same amount of time that it is output (for continuous operation over indefinite periods, of course).
Yes, mass matters, but you can't reject a solution you need to use because it's particularly heavy. You have to use what works. Period.
"That said, I just now discovered a document that describes a 100 MWt reactor."
No it doesn't. It describes:
"a power system that rejects 100 Mw of heat while generating 10 Mw of electrical power." (p. 1)
It also states:
"Consistent with this conversion efficiency is a heat rejection temperature of 1000 K." (p. 2)
That's not a very efficient system, compared to the thermal efficiency of current terrestrial reactors, rated at 30-32%, according to The Wiki.
"And it says that alphas for the whole system of .1 kg/kW or greater can be achieved. Also, heat pipes can be used with a manifold, and that other systems could be even more efficient. Oh, and it's looking at systems in the hundreds of megawatts."
As established above, it's looking at systems with ten of megawatts of output power and a thermal efficiency ~= 9%.
WRT alpha for heat pipes, the paper states:
"a 100 Mw heat-rejection system operating at 1000 K would have a mass of about 20,000 kg using heat pipe technology....The entire system for a 10 Mw power level is estimated to be around 30,000 kg." (p. 10)
So that's 3 kg/kw.
If that were to scale linearly, you're looking at a total power supply mass of 375 tons for 125 Mw electrical output, with 1,250 Mw of thermal output to be rejected. But, for our laser that puts out 25 Mw, we also have to reject an additional 100 Mw of heat. So add another 20 tons, for a total power plus heat rejection system mass of 395 tons.
And that's just a relatively low-power laser battle station sitting still in orbit. IIRC, Rick sets the power density of a usable nuclear-electric propulsion system at 1 kg/kw for the entire system, power + propulsion.
In any case, I'm not sure of the scaling properties of such systems. It wouldn't surprise me if they top out at 100 Mw or less, simply because one has to remove more heat from a similar volume as you go up in fission reactor power. Whatever the case, they're still massive. About the only thing that can be said for them is that they reduce cooling system vibration (though I doubt they can totally eliminate it, because turbine exhaust vapors are still circulating through the radiators, and liquids are still circulating through the heat pipes.
Jollyreaper,
If we 100% know how every last detail works it's no longer science fiction, it's called now.
==========
Heck we don't even know every last detail of how our current technology works.
I have yet to work on any project that didn't have significant unknowns all the way up into implementation.
(SA Phil)
Tony,
IIRC, Rick sets the power density of a usable nuclear-electric propulsion system at 1 kg/kw for the entire system, power + propulsion.
-----------
I believe that is for a system that would have an advantage over chemical rockets in the sense of travel times.
Not necessarily a requirment for a usuable system.
Although it would be pretty embarassing to hook up the shiny Laser Star to some "primitive" NTR tug to get it anywhere important.
(SA Phil)
jollyreaper:
"We've gone over this in the decellerando thread. While linear projections of performance increases are inaccurate as technologies mature, ignoring the potential for disruptive new technologies is also inaccurate."
Yes, we have been over it before. You're still refusing to recognize that there are limits to knowledge. A time will come -- probably sooner rather than later, given the energies we already have at our command to probe the properties of nature -- when there will simply be nothing undiscovered on which to base "disruptive new technologies".
For the kinds of things we're talking about, heat engines and pure physics, we actually know the possibilities and limitations fairly well already. If you want to invoke antigravity, be my guest, but understand that as a "disruptive" technology it still requires energy generation, probably by some sort of heat engine. It would be just another means of applying electrical power.
Tony:
I understand the constraints perfectly well. I also understand that heat engines are heat engines and they work a certain way. If you have to reject x amount of heat pers second/minute/hour as a result of engine operation, you have to move it away from the engine and actually reject it in the volumes that are actually output, in the same amount of time that it is output (for continuous operation over indefinite periods, of course).
Yes, mass matters, but you can't reject a solution you need to use because it's particularly heavy. You have to use what works. Period.
You are assuming that steam turbines with this type of cooling are the only option. I've seen documents that seriously proposed hydrogen turbines. Assuming that a future laserstar is limited to modern steam plants is absurd. You can reject a solution that is heavy if lighter ones are available. You have yet to show that they aren't.
No it doesn't. It describes:
"a power system that rejects 100 Mw of heat while generating 10 Mw of electrical power." (p. 1)
MWt is Megawatts thermal. It does exactly what I described.
As established above, it's looking at systems with ten of megawatts of output power and a thermal efficiency ~= 9%.
WRT alpha for heat pipes, the paper states:
"a 100 Mw heat-rejection system operating at 1000 K would have a mass of about 20,000 kg using heat pipe technology....The entire system for a 10 Mw power level is estimated to be around 30,000 kg." (p. 10)
So that's 3 kg/kw.
That is for a modern reactor. A future reactor system would undoubtedly be better. Also, I should have clarified that the .1 kg/kW was not for heat pipes by for rotating balloons, from figure 12.
In any case, I'm not sure of the scaling properties of such systems. It wouldn't surprise me if they top out at 100 Mw or less, simply because one has to remove more heat from a similar volume as you go up in fission reactor power. Whatever the case, they're still massive. About the only thing that can be said for them is that they reduce cooling system vibration (though I doubt they can totally eliminate it, because turbine exhaust vapors are still circulating through the radiators, and liquids are still circulating through the heat pipes.
Do you seriously expect us to believe that numbers from a modern power station are a better guide then numbers from a paper on Cooling multimegawatt space reactors? Both designs are about as far away from the reactor that started this in terms of scale, so why does yours apply and mine doesn't? Assuming scaling factors that would prevent it smacks of special pleading.
SA Phil:
"I believe that is for a system that would have an advantage over chemical rockets in the sense of travel times.
Not necessarily a requirment for a usuable system."
Considering that chemical rockets already use the most efficient, longest travel time trajectories, I think reducing travel time is a pretty good conceptual requirement.
We also have to remember that it's not the massive launch vehicles that put spacecraft on interplanetary trajectories, but a fraction of the capability of a liquid upper stage and/or a small solid kicker. So when comparing chemical and electric rocket efficiencies, one has to make the comparison based on the system weights of just the interplanetary delta-v supply. Chemical rockets really don't look that bad, compared to electrical rockets that can achieve similar performance, because electrical rockets have to have power supplies and heat rejection. Chemical rockets have rockets and propellants. The masses actually come out pretty close, for similar performance. (Yes, current electrical rockets are more mass efficient if time is no object -- but that's not the case with manned spacecraft.)
Yes, there are limits to knowledge. Surely we will bump into them eventually. There are limits to theoretical efficiency for physical matter.
Thing is, we've got just as many examples of cranks promising pseudoscience that doesn't deliver as we've got prophets of a new age with disruptive technology that works.
So on one hand it's prudent to be skeptical of someone promising supersonic flying cars. On the other hand, we've got editors in leading papers harrumphing the idea of heavier than air flight even as it was happening.
I believe that there will still be things out there to surprise us. For how many thousands of years have the brightest human minds been oblivious to the full electromagnetic spectrum? We lacked the tools that would even put us on the path to discovering radio waves, x-rays, etc.
Maybe we'll have continuing progress. Maybe we'll hit a really large slump. Time will tell. I can accept either premise in a scifi story.
Tony,
Considering that chemical rockets already use the most efficient, longest travel time trajectories, I think reducing travel time is a pretty good conceptual requirement.
---------
But it would be comparing to a chem rocket that started out fueled in orbit-- So you could probably live with some reduction in performance depending on the situation.
(SA Phil)
Re: Byron
Let's condense this a bit.
AFAICT, you're invoking unforeseen improvements in heat engine technology. IMO heat engine technology is pretty mature. If you demand a certain power output from a heat engine, there's only so many ways to go about it, and they've been pretty thoroughly explored.
WRT to space vs terrestrial systems, please note that the space systems you're invoking are either entirely speculative or thermally inefficient WRT terrestiral systems. They could be mass efficient. Even if they are mass efficient, they're not radically so. And there's no guarantee that they scale with an order of magnitude (or more) power output.
SA Phil:
"But it would be comparing to a chem rocket that started out fueled in orbit-- So you could probably live with some reduction in performance depending on the situation."
As I hinted above, great mass efficiencies with electric rockets come with accepting long transfer orbit times. All they really do is raise orbital altitude very gradually.
When we start talking about electric rockets with at least the same kind of time-to-destination performance as chemcial rockets, we start running into the increasing mass of electrical power systems and -- though not as critically -- increases in propellant mass.
jollyreaper:
"I believe that there will still be things out there to surprise us. For how many thousands of years have the brightest human minds been oblivious to the full electromagnetic spectrum? We lacked the tools that would even put us on the path to discovering radio waves, x-rays, etc."
And since we developed the energy technologies to explore the elctromagnetic spectrum and subatomic scales, it took us just a century to go from lab bench physics experiments to multi-billion dollar megaprojects. We're running into real physical limits to what we can do, right now.
"Maybe we'll have continuing progress. Maybe we'll hit a really large slump. Time will tell. I can accept either premise in a scifi story."
The problem is that reality has overtaken speculation. To make a good SF story, one has to recognize that future magitech has to be truly magic, because we really are pushing the limits of physical knowledge of nature.
Tony:
AFAICT, you're invoking unforeseen improvements in heat engine technology. IMO heat engine technology is pretty mature. If you demand a certain power output from a heat engine, there's only so many ways to go about it, and they've been pretty thoroughly explored.
No, I'm invoking the fact that the generator does not have to be a Rankine-cycle steam turbine, nor does the reactor have to be a PWR/BWR. Brayton-cycle seems to be the winner for most of the MW-level systems I've looked at, but MHD and something like pebble-bed or gas-core reactors could be an option.
WRT to space vs terrestrial systems, please note that the space systems you're invoking are either entirely speculative or thermally inefficient WRT terrestiral systems. They could be mass efficient. Even if they are mass efficient, they're not radically so. And there's no guarantee that they scale with an order of magnitude (or more) power output.
The paper was on cooling a 100 MWt reactor. The power generation cycle is not really relevant to that. Both power and temperature are of the same order of magnitude as the example. The reactor that started this whole thing was 500 MWt, with 400 MWt heat output. The difference is a factor of 4 or 5. The actual efficiency of the heat engine is another story. Rick (I think) assumed 25%, as that gives the smallest radiators. 20% is more likely.
And yes, my systems are speculative. I think that I'm allowed to invoke them, as this is a discussion of what's possible in PMF, not a discussion of what we could build today.
And here's hypersailing in a blog post. Same ideas I've mentioned here before, just put together in one document.
RE: Nuclear reactor cooling
They are planning Earth based nuclear reactors that are gas cooled as well.
This will make a more efficient reactor since it can run hotter.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/10/now-next/pebble-nukes-main.jpg
(SA Phil)
Well the real solution for some future Admiral Rickover is to find ways around the thermal limitations of heat engines.
For reactors generating thermal power, conversion to electricity might shift to MHD generators, which offer a much higher level of efficiency, for smaller reactors and less waste heat (or huge increases in power output for the same level of waste heat rejection).
Aneutronic fusion promises to deliver high quality current as a direct result of the fusion process; the energy is released in a beam of charged alpha particles.
I'm sure there are other near and mid term systems that offer the theoretical promise of high(er) efficiency; having the black gang shoveling more U 235 into the reactor can't be the only way to do things in the PMF.
Byron:
"No, I'm invoking the fact that the generator does not have to be a Rankine-cycle steam turbine, nor does the reactor have to be a PWR/BWR. Brayton-cycle seems to be the winner for most of the MW-level systems I've looked at, but MHD and something like pebble-bed or gas-core reactors could be an option."
I was referring to this:
"That is for a modern reactor. A future reactor system would undoubtedly be better."
It's still a heat engine, with predictable thermal properties. You optimize for mass efficiency, you implicitly accept low temperatures/pressures, and consequently low thermal effciency. The heat pipe-cooled reactor discussed previously is of that type. If you optimize for thermal efficiency, you accept a heavy equipment set and large masses of coolant (even in closed systems), in order to handle high temperatures and pressures. AFAIK, these are engineering tradeoffs applicable to any heat engine, nuclear, fossil fuel, solar, whatever, and either the Brayton or Rankine cycles.
"And yes, my systems are speculative. I think that I'm allowed to invoke them, as this is a discussion of what's possible in PMF, not a discussion of what we could build today."
You can't speculate your way past thermodynamics and the properties of engineering materials. That's why we're talking about nuclear fission to begin with, rather than fusion, antimatter, or some completely magic power source.
SA Phil:
"They are planning Earth based nuclear reactors that are gas cooled as well.
This will make a more efficient reactor since it can run hotter."
Pebble beds are gas cooled for a specific engineering reason -- you don't want nasty high-temperature chemical reactions between the coolant and the fuel elements. However, you still have a lot of very hot gas that you have to cool very quickly. So while the inner loop is gas, the outer loop that spins the generator turbines is either water, or a very large volume of some other gas, spinning low-p gas turbines. We all know water handling equipment and water coolant are very heavy. But gas coolant in large quantities, high volume heat exchangers, and high volume low-p turbines are all heavy -- and bulky -- machines.
Thucydides:
"For reactors generating thermal power, conversion to electricity might shift to MHD generators, which offer a much higher level of efficiency, for smaller reactors and less waste heat (or huge increases in power output for the same level of waste heat rejection)."
The MHD could be used to improve the combined cycle efficiency of very hot running reactors. Problem is, very hot systems require a lot of mass to contain the temperatures and pressures involved. Also, MHD, because it involves magnets, is not exactly mass efficient in and of itself.
"Aneutronic fusion promises to deliver high quality current as a direct result of the fusion process; the energy is released in a beam of charged alpha particles."
Aneutronic fusion is a conceptual machine of the "man, if we could do this [patently implausible, if not impossible thing], we could really go places" type. 'nuff said.
"I'm sure there are other near and mid term systems that offer the theoretical promise of high(er) efficiency; having the black gang shoveling more U 235 into the reactor can't be the only way to do things in the PMF."
The problem, as always, is thermodynamics and the properties of engineering materials. So your black gang is still going to be playing with heat sources, fluids (even if they are gas, and not liquid, phase), and mass-efficiency tradeoffs.
Byron: Here's an idea. Why not approach the laserstar with a kind of "shutter ship." What it would be would be a kinetically armed starship that has some kind of shutter running through its center. The actual laser would remain some distance behind (say, a half a light second). That way, if the laserstar begins firing on the shutter ship, who's shutter is not very vulnerable to the laserstar at scorch distance, the anti-laserstar has a good second of safe exposure rather than being mission-killed as soon as it tried to open its shutter.
It could do that because the shutter ship could signal that it's about to open its shutter half a second before it does which could signal the anti-laserstar to begin firing. Then it would take a second for the enemy laserstar's light to reach the anti-laserstar which gives you another half second. At the calculated time the anti-laserstar cuts its beam and slams a local shutter closed. No dammage. Mission kill one enemy laserstar.
Samantha:
There are several problems with that. First, you're assuming ranges based on the more optimistic numbers thrown around here. Half a light-second is a very long way indeed. Second, the plan fails in the presence of multiple laserstars. Third, coordination would be very difficult.
Tony:
It's still a heat engine, with predictable thermal properties. You optimize for mass efficiency, you implicitly accept low temperatures/pressures, and consequently low thermal effciency. The heat pipe-cooled reactor discussed previously is of that type.
Ah. That's where you're getting hung up. The entire system is optimized for minimum mass. That includes all of the radiators and heat pumps and such. If the thermal efficiency is low compared to a coal-fired power plant, so what? It's cheaper then pushing that around. This is why 25% is the commonly given number. It keeps radiator area as low as possible. And given that radiator mass is the usually assumed to be linked to radiator area more or less directly, that's the number chosen.
You can't speculate your way past thermodynamics and the properties of engineering materials. That's why we're talking about nuclear fission to begin with, rather than fusion, antimatter, or some completely magic power source.
When did I ever do so? You're invoking them as some sort of roadblock, even after I found a paper on exactly the problem you had raised, which said it was significantly easier then you predicted. This is a government technical paper, which makes me think it's probably more or less accurate.
Tony
It's still a heat engine, with predictable thermal properties.
------------
The problem is no one is denying that.
What people are denying is that it has to be done exactly the same way it is done in all commercial and military reactors now.
For a very good reason - there are designs *now* that are set up differently, today, not even 300 years from now.
You obviously don't want it to work, to win your argument, that is beyond close minded. It is ridiculous.
Modern earth based reactors are simply not designed to be mass efficient, not even on Submarines.
They aren't even designed to be maximized heat engines, which you are stuck on. Advance the needle to the next groove already.
They are instead designed to be as reliable as possible.
We could build better reactors today, we will build better ones tomorrow and in 300 years we will build even better ones.
Will we get to 1 kw/kg - who knows? Will we do better than a B&W 41 in SPaaace??? Um .. yeah.
(SA Phil)
Besides even with a 3kg/kw reactor you can make the Laser-Star work ... if you have Laser-Stars.
Even when "invading". Add a second stage - Laser Thermal... Boost the LTR with another Laser-Star -- and then have it go Nuke-Electric on the decel phase.
Once the Laser-Star is in place it can decel any remaining ships en route.
(SA Phil)
Thucydides:
For reactors generating thermal power, conversion to electricity might shift to MHD generators
==============
An interesting long term proposed reactor is the Gas Core EM reactor which uses UV PV solar panels instead of a working fluid to absorb UV from the reactor and convert it directly into electricity.
That is an interesting idea since UV contains so much energy - the conversion of UV to electricity would probably be quite a bit higher than these heat engines Tony mentions -- since it would also be highly concentrated.
~50% Wouldn't be unreasonable.
(SA Phil)
The advantage to that system is you could probably radiate the IR directly into space, Since you don't really want it.
(SA Phil)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Incorrect_predictions
-----------------
There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
Albert Einstein, 1932.
----------------------
The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine.
Ernest Rutherford, shortly after splitting the atom for the first time.
-----------------------
And the best one for this site ...
A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere.
New York Times, 1936.
(SA Phil)
Byron said...
The fact is that your laser are counter-laserstar weapons, and are useless against kinetics.
OK this is fair. But surely it just means your best, primary weapon becomes kinetics. If you are using kinetics to keep my blinding ships from firing their lasers then hte Laserstar's primary weapon has become kinetics with the laser itself the supporting weapon. Plus I guess you could blind the incoming kinetics but we're getting really purple-green now.
I just found the flaw in your plan. The shutter will introduce its own vibration, quite likely more then training would.
Ah Ha. I have you on the ropes now Byron. To attain your 1 bacteria worth of precision your whole laser array/optical path will have to be isolated from the rest of the ship. Otherwise the first time a crew member exhales you miss by a couple hundred clicks.
The shutter doesn't need to be part of the laser array. It will be attached to the hull. Which is already isolated from the laser array (so it can attain its accuracy)
Re: defocusing the laser to get accurate targetting information
I'll grudgingly admit you find some novel solutions to inherent physics problems. This is clever. My criticisms?
- At the ranges we are talking about (fractional light seconds) your spot would have to initially be huge then narrow down to . Also if the mirror is providing both targetting and focussing abilities for the laserstar you ain't going to be able to both fire and target (see before)
T- he optical path needed to tame 500mw needs to have near virtual 100% efficiences. Anthing you add to the optics (focusing/filters) makes this exponentially harder.
Re: Phased Arrays
OK these totally change the scenarios. Its not just a slightly better weapon its a substantially different weapon,.Lots of clever things like distributed arrays are possible. Your one giant beam of doom can become 10,000 beams of doom at short range for self defence etc etc.
However, the optics needed to aim the phased array at 1 light seconds range are still going to be just as impressive as the the original optical laserstar itself. So you are just moving your vulnerability sideways..
I suspect technically the challenges facing phased array lasers are formidable since AFAIK there are no real world applications despite their many seeming advantages. If I could do the math I guess I could technically tear them apart too.
So to make peace if I grant you Phased Array lasers are possible on a planetry/asteroid body can we call it a draw?
Locki:
OK this is fair. But surely it just means your best, primary weapon becomes kinetics. If you are using kinetics to keep my blinding ships from firing their lasers then hte Laserstar's primary weapon has become kinetics with the laser itself the supporting weapon. Plus I guess you could blind the incoming kinetics but we're getting really purple-green now.
I suppose that it might make the primary weapon the kinetics, but I sort of assumed that the same could be said of the blinding lasers. They were meant to cover your kinetics, and neutralize the laserstar. The problem is that the laserstar can do the same to you.
Ah Ha. I have you on the ropes now Byron. To attain your 1 bacteria worth of precision your whole laser array/optical path will have to be isolated from the rest of the ship. Otherwise the first time a crew member exhales you miss by a couple hundred clicks.
The shutter doesn't need to be part of the laser array. It will be attached to the hull. Which is already isolated from the laser array (so it can attain its accuracy)
And how does the magical floating mirror work, exactly? I'm really confused by that bit. If the laserstar is going to maneuver at all, it has to be physically attached. If the laser is within the hull (as it would have to be) then there has to be a physical connection to keep them aligned.
- At the ranges we are talking about (fractional light seconds) your spot would have to initially be huge then narrow down to . Also if the mirror is providing both targetting and focussing abilities for the laserstar you ain't going to be able to both fire and target (see before)
I've never been an adherent of the requirement of using the main mirror for targeting per se, as the main benefit of that is that you can theoretically resolve features that are of the same size as spot size, allowing you to target them. Pointing accuracy concerns probably prevent that.
T- he optical path needed to tame 500mw needs to have near virtual 100% efficiences. Anthing you add to the optics (focusing/filters) makes this exponentially harder.
Adaptive optics. The mirror must be variable-focus to be effective.
Which also should allow precision pointing without having to move the whole thing.
I suspect technically the challenges facing phased array lasers are formidable since AFAIK there are no real world applications despite their many seeming advantages. If I could do the math I guess I could technically tear them apart too.
The technology isn't quite mature yet, but I understand research is ongoing. On the other hand, we have lots of examples of phased-array microwave systems. I know the scales are different, but the basic idea is sound.
However, the optics needed to aim the phased array at 1 light seconds range are still going to be just as impressive as the the original optical laserstar itself. So you are just moving your vulnerability sideways..
Maybe. I'd imagine that the computer control system could compensate for quite a lot. And why do you people keep trotting out 1 light-second? I've stopping hoping that's feasible long ago. .5 is where I'd put the outer limit, and it's likely to be closer.
SA Phil said ...
All that did was adjust us from dead on to almost exactly dead on. (minus the effect of gravity)
If the defence is in orbit around the planet and my rebel mice from mars are doing a Hohman transfer I'm sure you'll find the angular velocity is very high. I can't do the math for orbital mechnics but I know Marky Mark in Sniper claimed to be compensating for the Coriolis Effect when sniping at a piddly 1200m, on a stationary target.
-> On why shooting at high angular velocities is a BIT*@#! - ESPECIALLY WITH A LASER
The problem is a laser needs some dwell time to kill a target. If you are shooting kinetics at a target with a high relative angular velocity you "merely" have to predict where the target will be in the time it takes for your kinetic to reach them, you have a spectacular near instantaneous impact and they are dead.
Even big bad mother Lasers need some dwell time. So to run some numbers if your angular velocity is 10kps and the dwell time needed to burn through the shutter were 1 second you would need to track your target through 10000m in one second to keep the beam on it. All whilst predicting the position of the target 2 seconds in the future.
So we've previously worked out our targetting gears will need the teeth about the size of 1-2 anorexic bacteria to achieve 5m accuracy at 300,000km. So our bacteria size teeth, holding up several tonnes of laser array would have to click through accurately 20,000 teeth in a second to track the target.
If your dwell time is 0.1 second you only need to pass it through 2,000 teeth. If its 0.01 second you only need 200 teeth. etc.
So my little bacteria sized teeth are moving several tonnes many times a second.
All whilst the molecular sized vibrations are magically dampened (note magnetic arrays have much larger problems with vibration when it comes time to "stop" the movement.
And the teeth retain their near nanometer tolerances in a temperature range of a huge blast furnace.
Lasers epically fail the plausibility test in the PMF hard SF setting. They also win the boredom prize of the year in a literary setting. Surely its time to put them to pasture.
Byron said:
And how does the magical floating mirror work, exactly? I'm really confused by that bit. If the laserstar is going to maneuver at all, it has to be physically attached. If the laser is within the hull (as it would have to be) then there has to be a physical connection to keep them aligned
Ah sorry. I thought we had assumed the laser array was dampened from the hull by some sort of isolation bed like a submarines machinary. It'll need to be dampened somewhat.
And yes a shutter slamming open in 0.001 of a second is gonna set up some serious vibrations even for a mechanical isolation unit. So I'll pay that point.
Maybe with the havok vibrations introduce into targetting we could rescue half of our "submarines in spaaaaaace" trope. Everyone has to be really, really quiet like a submariner of old. Any vibrations means we can't hit diddly at range. All of the warships try to keep their movement/actions as slow and smooth as possible as they stalk each other with fractional light second laser cannons. The crew sits huddled, as still as possible, as the respective lasers gradually hone in on the target on the approach run.
The captain has to make the nerve racking decision on whether to manouvere and avoid the incoming kinetics or sit as still as possible as the vibrations settle down and his laser can finally draw a bead.
Hey! At least there is some narrative tension there. After 600 posts I may have worked out how to save my submarines in spaaaaaace trilogy without using stealth :)
Locki,
If the defence is in orbit around the planet and my rebel mice from mars are doing a Hohman transfer I'm sure you'll find the angular velocity is very high.
==========
Then I should move my Laser-Star to a higher orbit, shouldn't I?
What its range is 100,000 km or more? Maybe I don't need to be in LEO?
(SA Phil)
Locki,
Maybe with the havok vibrations introduce into targetting we could rescue half of our "submarines in spaaaaaace" trope.
--------------
Or just make the Laser-Star a drone
(SA Phil)
Phew! Read up. Maybe for the next subject we could perhaps discuss opera cargo craft and different cargos to transport as a way of getting away from war? Just a suggestion.
On Mass Effect:
"Now they don't fight at light second ranges - because everyone nicely does the "Space is a World War 2 dogfight" trope and fights at hundreds of meters."
There is one scene in on e game where two battlegroups are exchanging fire beyond visual range for a short time... it was done extremely well. Kudos to Bioware for that.
Or just make the Laser-Star a drone
(SA Phil)
You, you $@&+&*!! killjoy. Byron and I had finally come to some agreement after 600+ posts.
The drone operator still at least has an interesting dilemna. Manouvere to get a better tactical position (for defence or attack) and then spend the next couple of minutes waiting for the vibrations to settle down or sit tight and hope your laser eventually scores a hit.
Plus as I said before. Unmanned/remote will be king in any semi-realistic setting, no argument from me. But no one is gonna write about the lovelife of a remote control, semi-autonomous trillion dollar doomstar of death
Geoffrey:
Phew! Read up. Maybe for the next subject we could perhaps discuss opera cargo craft and different cargos to transport as a way of getting away from war? Just a suggestion.
Heresy!!!
:)
Locki:
Ah sorry. I thought we had assumed the laser array was dampened from the hull by some sort of isolation bed like a submarines machinary. It'll need to be dampened somewhat.
Oh, absolutely. However, that's not 100%. There will be some vibration from opening the shutter, particularly if it happens fast.
Plus as I said before. Unmanned/remote will be king in any semi-realistic setting, no argument from me. But no one is gonna write about the lovelife of a remote control, semi-autonomous trillion dollar doomstar of death
Who wants to read about the love life of the operator, either?
(I have on occasion been accused of lacking emotions or a soul.)
Locki,
But no one is gonna write about the lovelife of a remote control, semi-autonomous trillion dollar doomstar of death
================
The Ogre rolled on. It was within howitzer range now, and the big missile cannon were scoring on it. Its missiles were gone, but it still had guns. The infantry had met it – finally – but powered armor notwithstanding, they were dying as fast as they came in.
"It's committed," said a big major, his eyes on the screen. "It can't afford to stop now." The general nodded. "Get behind it," he said into his mike. "It's after the howitzers. They're killing it."
In the flame-lit darkness, men heard the scrambled transmission. Men, and one other. The Ogre took in the surrounding terrain, considered the location of the command post and the howitzers, watched the movement of its enemies, weighed the order it had decoded. Behind, it thought. They have made a mistake.
It was very close now. Had the command post had windows, the men inside could have seen the explosions. The Ogre was moving very slowly now, but two guns still spoke. It no longer dodged; it was a juggernaut, coming straight for its target.
Inside, the general's face was gray. He spoke to no one in particular. "Smart. That thing is smart." A scream still echoed in the big room – the scream from the last missile tank commander. Out of the Ogre's path, safe behind a three-meter ravine, lashing out at the metal giant – and the thing had changed course, ignoring the howitzers, walking over the gully like it wasn't there, crushing the smaller tank. Two GEVs had died a second later; their speed was their best defense, and the Ogre had outguessed them. The side trip had given the howitzers a few more minutes; then they, too, had died.
The screen showed the Ogre grinding on – a shambling monster, barely able to move. "The treads... hit the treads," whispered the general. "Stop that thing." The image changed, and he saw what was left of his force: three GEVs and a handful of infantry.
The Ogre rolled on...
- Mr. Jackson
=======================
(SA Phil)
Locki said:"So we've previously worked out our targetting gears will need the teeth about the size of 1-2 anorexic bacteria to achieve 5m accuracy at 300,000km. So our bacteria size teeth, holding up several tonnes of laser array would have to click through accurately 20,000 teeth in a second to track the target"
What is your big hang-up with physical gears? It sounds like Steampunk and not Rocketpunk to me. Not that I don't enjoy Steampunk, but its just not the subject of the blog... Phased array is a practical solution to many of your objections. Let go of the nanotech projections of 19th century technology.
It seems to me that no one type of weapon will be 'primary' each will have different roles to play, each covering the other's weaknesses.
Ferrell
SA Phil:
No argument from me. Bolos are awesome. You give me something as interesting as selfless, honourable zero-G space knights and I'll give you 12 of my patented magitech free passes (TM)
All right, Unit DNE of the line. Why did you do it? This is your Commander, Unit DNE. Report! Why did you do it? Now, you knew your position was hopeless, didn't you? That you'd be destroyed if you held your ground, to say nothing of advancing. Surely you were able to compute that. You were lucky to have the chance to prove yourself."
For a minute I thought old Denny was too far gone to answer. There was just a kind of groan come out of the amplifier. Then it firmed up. General Bates had his hand cupped behind his ear, but Denny spoke right up.
"Yes, sir."
"You knew what was at stake here. It was the ultimate test of your ability to perform correctly under stress, of your suitability as a weapon of war. You knew that. General Margrave and old Priss Grace and the press boys all had their eyes on every move you made. So instead of using common sense, you waded into that inferno in defiance of all logic—and destroyed yourself. Right?"
"That is correct, sir."
"Then why? In the name of sanity, tell me why! Why, instead of backing out and saving yourself, did you charge? . . . Wait a minute, Unit DNE. It just dawned on me. I've been underestimating you. You knew, didn't you? Your knowledge of human psychology told you they'd break and run, didn't it?"
"No, sir. On the contrary, I was quite certain that they were as aware as I that they held every advantage."
"Then that leaves me back where I started. Why? What made you risk everything on a hopeless attack? Why did you do it?"
"For the honor of the regiment."
Or for something deeper:
However, with the introduction of direct Bolo-human neural interfacing in the Mark XXXII, the enhancement level has gone up once more, and very sharply. While I obviously have no personal experience of the capability, it would appear from my analysis of the battle reports which have been disseminated that the direct linkage between an organic human brain and a Bolo's psychotronics allows the human's intuitive processes to function at very nearly Bolo data-processing levels and speed. It is, in fact, that advantage over the capabilities of my own psychotronics which truly relegates Bolos of my generation to obsolescence."
Maneka felt a sudden irrational flush of irritation whose strength surprised her. She didn't care about what newer models of Bolo might be capable of! She was Benjy's commander, and hearing him calmly state that anything rendered him "obsolescent" infuriated her.
Obsolescence, she thought. What a filthy concept!
She knew her reaction was irrational. That it partook of the Operator Identification Syndrome the Academy instructors had so earnestly warned their students against. Yet there'd always been a stubborn part of her which remained emotionally convinced that "obsolescent" was a label invented by humans to justify discarding intelligent machines—people—who deserved far better from the humanity they had served so well.
"In addition to its overt effect on combat effectiveness, however," Benjy continued, apparently oblivious to her sudden emotional spike, "I believe there is another, uniquely human reason for the practice of pairing human commanders and Bolos and committing them to combat together. Put most simply, it is a sense of obligation."
"Obligation?"
"Indeed. Maneka, do not make the mistake of assuming that your own emotional reaction, your own sense of bonding with the Bolos with whom you serve, is unique to you. It has, throughout the history of the Brigade, been a major concern, not least because of the fashion in which it has so often caused Bolo commanders to hesitate to commit their Bolos against overwhelming Enemy firepower. Ultimately, Bolos are expendable, yet it is often easier for a Bolo's commander to consider himself expendable than it is for him to consider his Bolo in the same fashion. This is the reason your Academy instructors warned you about the dangers of OIS.
"Yet even while they warned you, the entire Dinochrome Brigade suffers from an institutional form of OIS. The traditions of the Brigade, of mutual obligation and of duty, require its human personnel to risk injury and death beside the Bolos they commit to battle. It is a self-imposed, never fully stated, and yet utterly inflexible requirement which probably has seen no equal since the ancient Spartan mother's injunction to her son that he come home carrying his shield in victory . . . or carried dead upon it.
"It is, in fact, a very human attitude, and the fact that it is irrational makes it no less powerful. Nor, I must confess, is it one-sided. In the Bolo, humanity has created a fully self-aware battle companion, and I suspect humans do not truly realize even now how fully they have succeeded in doing so. Bolos, too, have emotions, Maneka. Some were deliberately introduced into our core programming. Duty, loyalty, courage if you will. The qualities and emotions required of a warrior. But there is also affection, and that, I think, was not deliberately engineered into us. We fully recognize that we were created to fight and, when necessary, die for our creators. It is the reason we exist. But we also recognize that if we are asked to fight, and when we are asked to die, our creators fight and die with us. It is a compact which I doubt most humans have ever intellectually examined, and perhaps that is your true strength as a species. It was not necessary for you to consciously grasp it in order to forge it in the first place, because it is so much a part of you, and yet you have given that strength to us, as well as to yourselves."
YEAH Bolos are awesome.
RE: Ferrell's point about physical gears.
Good point - I doubt you would even want physical gears for a normal laser and mirror.
Use an actuator rather than a gear. Or a cam.
And if you lack the granularity - aim ahead of the target and wait. Since you know the target's velocity and its orbit, you can begin firing even before you "see" it get to where it "is"
(SA Phil)
What is your big hang-up with physical gears? It sounds like Steampunk and not Rocketpunk to me. Not that I don't enjoy Steampunk, but its just not the subject of the blog... Phased array is a practical solution to many of your objections. Let go of the nanotech projections of 19th century technology.
It seems to me that no one type of weapon will be 'primary' each will have different roles to play, each covering the other's weaknesses.
Ferrell
=======
1. Every weapon system has its place. No argument from me. But given your mission requirements there are just some that are better suited to being your primary weapon.
HMS Glowworm successfully rammed the Admiral Hipper in WWII. The US special forces fixed bayonets recently in the caves of Tora Bora. It doesn't mean we should start spending trillions on designing the ultimate molecular thickness super bayonet. Now should the royal navy start mounting big rams on their ships (though with the recent budget cutbacks it might help). The trick is finding out where a tool with the unique qualities of a laser fits in as a weapon system.
I obviously am in the camp that if your mission is to destroy something you might as well hit them. Destroying things by lighting them up with phased, coherent light may be kewl but it just isn't very easy nor efficient.
2. My fascination with Steampunk gears:
The Short answer?
- I can't do the math for actuators or cams. My 20yo scientific calculator expired trying to crunch the light second range numbers
The Long answer?
- The discussion had gone on so long we needed some hard numbers. With the sort of required precision we are talking about - the only analogue would be a laboratory laser, which is physically clamped down and than anchored to a stabilising weight the size of our planet. I needed a way to show how difficult aiming at stupendous ranges were. The actuators still need to be accurate to something the width of the smallest bacteria known - that happens to be anorexic. My math is only steampunk grade so I can only do the math for cogs.
3 Phased Arrays:
Phased arrays still suffer from vibration problems. The cooling for a 500 megawatt laser is going to be hell to dampen down, Manouvering is going to be hell for aiming. The diodes or whatever solid state electronic is projecting the laser is still going to be a lot more fragile than an inch of ceramic plate.
Numbers again. If the air con in my room fails and the laser doesn't auto-shut down the diodes will die within seconds of reaching 60C. A quick wiki search shows the shuttle can withstand 1650C for minutes. I know its an imperfect analagy but they are the only numbers I have. Even a phased array will be fragile.
But still as long as people are willing to accept the vibration problems with aiming at stupendous ranges I'm happy to give the laser of doom a free magitech pass. We can at least generate some tension instead of autozapping everything that moves.
And if you lack the granularity - aim ahead of the target and wait. Since you know the target's velocity and its orbit, you can begin firing even before you "see" it get to where it "is"
(SA Phil)
4. Even badass lasers need some dwell time. The angular velocity is going to be high. Don't make me do the math. But I do know we'll probably be using aero-braking to slow down to get into orbit. Saves a bunch of delta-V. So unless you have matched orbits (roll eyes) there's going to be a stack of angular velocity to compensate for.Your laser is going to have to do quite a bit of tracking
Locki:
The drone operator still at least has an interesting dilemna. Manouvere to get a better tactical position (for defence or attack) and then spend the next couple of minutes waiting for the vibrations to settle down or sit tight and hope your laser eventually scores a hit.
Good point, this may bring some unpredictability to the battle.
Still, I see several ways to avoid some (but not all) of the vibrations. The most obvious, have the shutter in a separate vessel. It can be five centimetres of the laser, detach only when the laserstar is in battle configuration, but there is no reason for it to stay attached to the laser when opening or closing.
I'd also imagine dampening parts being in contact with the laserstar and break contact once the vibrations cross them ; this could be a way to trap most of the vibrations in those parts. the difficulties, of course, would be to make them not produce more vibrations by attaching/detaching, and building the laserstar so the vibrations travel in 'packets' that can be trapped.
Those are just on top of my head, it may not work, but there are probably others, less obvious or smarter ways to do it. The point is that if you want arbitrarily low- or high-levels of vibrations in your laserstars, you can still have them.
Even badass lasers need some dwell time.
What is the firing time of a pulse laser? If short enough, it may well be instantaneous wrt dwell time.
Question. The laser has infinite range but the two problems are actually hitting the target and delivering enough energy to cause useful destruction.
So, what if a laserstar is not one ship but many operating as one like an artillery battery?
Up to now, the difference between ship A with a 10m lens and ship B with 30m, assuming similar aiming ability, is that both can hit each other but the bigger lens does more dps and wins.
What if we are talking ten smaller ships with 10m lasers?
It would seem to me that the trade offs are the smaller ships would have less complexities to deal with using smaller lasers but might have a greater operational cost than one large ship.
If we are hunting elephants, one man with an elephant gun is worth ten with pistols, even if the weight of lead they're firing per second and the KE is roughly equal. The elephant gun's bullet will go deep and do useful damage. With lasers, total energy delivered is all that matters, right? Shouldn't matter if it comes from one laser or 10.
The only wrinkle I don't know is if the focus is better on the larger laser so it would take, I don't know, 3gw of smaller lasers to deliver the same energy on target as one large gw laser. Is this an issue?
Nobody has yet explained damage models so I don't know if size confers survivability. Seems like hits should be definitive, either with defanging by laser or KI strike. One good hit on a large laserstar, you lose 100% of your firepower. One good hit on a 10x battery, you lose 10%. And each individual ship can be separated far enough that aiming to hit them all becomes difficult. And the flert's battle computer can always change targets for every ship in the formation on the fly. Lose two ships from a battery, reserve ships are reassigned and moved to position.
What obvious flaws am I overlooking?
jollyreaper said...
Question. The laser has infinite range but the two problems are actually hitting the target and delivering enough energy to cause useful destruction.
So, what if a laserstar is not one ship but many operating as one like an artillery battery?
Up to now, the difference between ship A with a 10m lens and ship B with 30m, assuming similar aiming ability, is that both can hit each other but the bigger lens does more dps and wins.
What if we are talking ten smaller ships with 10m lasers?
I like it. Multiple lasers also makes it more likely you score a hit with all of those pesky vibrations from your drive/coolant/aiming mechanism/shutters.
Because of the vibrations at extreme range even a laser will only have a hit percentage of 1-3% like the battleships of old. It would be better to fire a salvo of lasers.
In fact you might as well just mount all 9 laser cannon on a single ship.
In 3 triple turrets.
On a really stable gun platform.
Hang on!
Hell you don't even need to build the ship you could just refit the USS Iowa with nine 406mm UV Laser cannons and a MHC nuclear reactor.
Geez. If the lasers are phased array types they could even all combine together to give you one giant Yamato blast to annihilate the nearest asteroids/moons etc.
Now there's a laserstar I'm happy to support. It'd have me changing colours and joining Rick and Byron in no time.
Realistically as long as I've got people thinking about the difficulty in aiming at range, the compromises such an absolute vibration free environment needed for targeting requires and the vulnerability of the lasers to blinding then my job is done. I'm happy to call it a majority draw.
I can't resist one parting blow. Lasers are just inherently weak. Kinetics destroy things. If I drop a screw outside the shuttle and the ISS hit it you'd have a catestrophic explosion. In comparison if I took the mightiest weaponised laser man has created so far, the $12 billion ABL, I might scorch the paint work. Maybe.
Still I've said enough on lasers. Thanks for the entertaining discussion guys.
As promised a topic change.
1. Why is there no love for Orion Drives around here? They have good thrust, reasonable ISP. The numbers across on Atomic Rockets look good.
Seems like a perfect drive for bloodthirsty warmongers like us.
Did we crunch the numbers in a previous blog post and find them wanting?
2. Bomb pumped X-ray lasers
I actually love the concept of lasers and these seemed like the best way of making trully dangerous death rays a reality.
There is a significant delay between the conventinoal explosion that and the triggered atomic reaction. The explosive shockwave will travel very quickly through the structure of your bomb. The bomb pumped x-ray would have to be freaking huge to allow the x-rays to overtake the explosive shockwave.
They also ignore the fact the optics needed to aim a laser at 100+ km are really really expensive and not really the sort of thing used on a one shot weapon.
Sadly a no show without laser or anti-matter triggers.
Yikes, this thread is hard to keep up with!
Actually, on further consideration, the argument against meeting the enemy out in space on an opposing trajectory is pretty much the energy argument against space fighters. ... If you want to go out an meet an attacking force, you have to establish a retrograde solar orbit, cancel it, establish a prograde solar orbit, then cancel that when you get back home.
If I were trying to meet you near the halfway point of your trip, this would all be true.
But I'm not trying to do that. I merely want to meet you, say, a million km 'in front' of the planet I am defending. That is 0.07 AU, less than the Hill radius, so on the scale of interplanetary orbits it is barely noticeable.
The reason is mainly to fight the wolf at the threshold, not at the hearth. And specifically to engage before any short-duration submunis can be deployed (or force their premature deployment). I want to shoot the archers, not the arrows.
First of all, I showed the numbers on the coal-fired plant because they represent the state of the art in electrical generation technology after more than a century of development.
Minimizing cooling-system mass is rarely a consideration for coal-fired power plants!
But the problem of lightweight electric power generation is not mainly about laserstars as such - it is about nuke-electric space drive in general. If you cannot get close to the benchmark 1 kw/kg, you cannot achieve half-fast interplanetary travel, at least not with nuke-electric drive.
Which makes regular human interplanetary travel a bit problematic.
Byron:
"Ah. That's where you're getting hung up. The entire system is optimized for minimum mass. That includes all of the radiators and heat pumps and such. If the thermal efficiency is low compared to a coal-fired power plant, so what? It's cheaper then pushing that around. This is why 25% is the commonly given number. It keeps radiator area as low as possible. And given that radiator mass is the usually assumed to be linked to radiator area more or less directly, that's the number chosen.
When did I ever do so? You're invoking them as some sort of roadblock, even after I found a paper on exactly the problem you had raised, which said it was significantly easier then you predicted. This is a government technical paper, which makes me think it's probably more or less accurate."
It's significantly easier if you accept ridiculously low thermal efficiencies. That may be acceptable for one or two relatively small space probes every couple of years. The wasted uranium or plutonium isn't that much, compared to the available resources. When you're talking about numerous weapon systems that have to work for years, followed by replacements that also have to work for years, etc, etc, accepting those thermal efficiencies is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This is the point I'm trying to make. At some point -- and almost certainly before you have enough human activity in space to motivate large scale space warfare -- the kind of wastefulness that mass-optimized nuclear power systems requires would become a serious drag on doing anything useful. That in fact may be a real problem with humans in space -- there could be a real gap between possible power system efficiencies and the required power to move people around and support their activities.
And no amount of "we'll do things more efficiently in the future" is likely to change that. We have a pretty good handle on how materials work and what they can withstand. They can't be made to do more than they can do, just because we're asking them to do it a hundred or a thousand years from now, rather than today.
SA Phil:
"What people are denying is that it has to be done exactly the same way it is done in all commercial and military reactors now.
For a very good reason - there are designs *now* that are set up differently, today, not even 300 years from now.
You obviously don't want it to work, to win your argument, that is beyond close minded. It is ridiculous."
Phil, please do yourself the favor of not presuming to know what I think. I would gladly accept a universe in which what I think isn't a fact. But regardless of the details, future reactors still have to be made out of real world materials and cooled by real world thermodynamic processes. Low temperature and pressures are mass efficient but thermally inefficient. High temperatures and pressures are mass inefficient but thermally efficient. Please see my immediately preceding comments to Byron on the problems of extending mass efficiency, as a predominant requirement, too far.
"Modern earth based reactors are simply not designed to be mass efficient, not even on Submarines.
They aren't even designed to be maximized heat engines, which you are stuck on. Advance the needle to the next groove already.
They are instead designed to be as reliable as possible."
And reliability isn't a requirement in space systems? All nuclear power systems are designed to be as reliable as possible, given the predominating efficiency requirements. That's a given. And while not being maximized heat engines, current reactor technology is acceptably efficient. Now, if you want to talk about maximizing the heat engine potential of nuclear reactors (within real world material limits, of course), be prepared to build even less mass efficient systems.
We could build better reactors today, we will build better ones tomorrow and in 300 years we will build even better ones.
See above. We could build more highly optimized reactors, in whatever direction you want to go. But there are real physical limits. And be prepared to sacrifice something to get there -- either thermal or mass efficiency.
"Will we get to 1 kw/kg - who knows? Will we do better than a B&W 41 in SPaaace??? Um .. yeah."
We'll get what we can get. I doubt it will be technically much more advanced than what we can produce now. It will just be optimized in some direction.
RE: Tony and fissile wastefulness
You are looking at the problem on the wrong end.
Improving the thermal/heat engine efficiency to improve fissile "yield" is only going to net you about 3X improvement.
Improving the way the reactor works will net you between 30 and 300 times the improvement.
Our current generation of reactors arent designed for fuel economy either.
On top of that we have a uranium fission economy - if you really had a space presense of atomic rockets you would want a plutonium economy, which would again increase availible fuel.
(SA Phil)
jollyreaper:
"So, what if a laserstar is not one ship but many operating as one like an artillery battery?"
Many guns can't be calibrated to exactly the same standard, or aligned precisely WRT each other. You want to have each laser platform carry its own fire control sensor system? How much is that going to cost, and is your industry even going to be able to supply it?
Tony,
Phil, please do yourself the favor of not presuming to know what I think
============
I presume you are implying that our current generation of reactors are near the limit of the technology. Since you heavily imply it.
I *know* you are wrong.
----------
I presume you are also implying that coal plants are maximized heat engines. Since you said it.
I *know* coal plants arent designed for maximum coal to electricity either.
I never actually said the nuclear reactor in space has to be a maximized heat engine - I just said our current reactors are not designed for that.
Because they aren't - they dont have to be. Uranium is one of the cheapest aspects to running a nuclear power plant.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"You are looking at the problem on the wrong end.
Improving the thermal/heat engine efficiency to improve fissile "yield" is only going to net you about 3X improvement.
Improving the way the reactor works will net you between 30 and 300 times the improvement.
Our current generation of reactors arent designed for fuel economy either."
More properly fuel cycle economy. I hadn't though of that.
"On top of that we have a uranium fission economy - if you really had a space presense of atomic rockets you would want a plutonium economy, which would again increase availible fuel."
A plutonium economy would be the means of making the fuel cycle more efficient. It wouldn't increase anything in addition to something already being done.
Still, mass optimized reactors would represent a diversion of resources from the fuel cycle because the wouldn't be able to breed. Having said that, such a diversion might be acceptable for high-end applications like weapons and space transport.
Having said that, let's not lose sight of where all of this started. Low-p Brayton cycle reactors, using heat pipe cooling, still use gas turbines to generate electricity, circulating large volumes of hot gas, probably with some kind of high speed, high volume forced draft fan. The vibration energy of all of that is not going to be good for onboard weapons aiming precision.
Tony,
The vibration energy of all of that is not going to be good for onboard weapons aiming precision.
-------
Most definitely. I think that is going to be a huge problem.
A space craft is basically an isolated vibrational mount and source of vibration at the same time.
The only way it can handle the vibrations is by them being converted into heat (which sounds like it would be slow)
I think you would still be vibrating from a previous event when the next one starts.
I think some sort of active vibrational accomodation is going to be needed.
Tranfer vibrations to a sensor (like a knock sensor) .. use these signals as inputs into an active compensation.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I presume you are implying that our current generation of reactors are near the limit of the technology. Since you heavily imply it.
I *know* you are wrong."
Then you're presuming the wrong thing. I'm implying that we know the shape of the problem space WRT heat engines, and the consequent engineering tradeoffs. All I am saying, based on that, is that one can't imagine greater optimizations in current design and operation without making predictable tradeoffs somewhere.
"I presume you are also implying that coal plants are maximized heat engines. Since you said it."
I never said that. I said they represented one example of a highly developed state of the art in heat engine technology. We may not run them at the highest possible thermal efficiency -- though we are certainly getting there with combined cycle technology -- but we understand why we aren't, and why we choose not to. AIUI, current fossil fuel and nuclear plants are optimized highly towards the operating cost corner of the envelope.
"I never actually said the nuclear reactor in space has to be a maximized heat engine - I just said our current reactors are not designed for that.
Because they aren't - they dont have to be. Uranium is one of the cheapest aspects to running a nuclear power plant."
I never said you did. Please don't put words in my mouth. I was thinking primarily in terms of thermal efficiency, without regard to mass costs. It still turns out that mass efficient design isn't exactly all that mass efficient, and doesn't change the fact that you have a lot of moving parts and fluids, which was my whole point to begine with.
I think the thing with reactors and their capabilities is at present they aren't technology constrained;-- they are politically constrained.
They are optimized to be safe and reliable to the state of the art circa 1975.
With some safety monitoring improvements since.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"Most definitely. I think that is going to be a huge problem."
Imagine the gas circulation system developing periodic surges due to thermal buildup in a damaged radiator element...
"The only way it can handle the vibrations is by them being converted into heat (which sounds like it would be slow)"
It usually is. Look at a tuning fork, which is a good example of vibration being turned into heat via sound radiation.
"I think some sort of active vibrational accomodation is going to be needed.
Tranfer vibrations to a sensor (like a knock sensor) .. use these signals as inputs into an active compensation."
Ahhh...but could you achieve adequate syncronization?
Tony,
AIUI, current fossil fuel and nuclear plants are optimized highly towards the operating cost corner of the envelope.
------------
Yes, but interestingly operating costs and efficiency dont really go hand in hand.
Nuclear operating costs are tied up in maintenence, saftey and meeting regulations.
Coal operating costs are tied up in meeting polution regulations -as an example a coal plant runs about 1.5 to 1 air fuel ratio - because if they were to go any higher they would make to much Nox.
They could easily improve their CO2 emissions and coal fuel economy by over 25% by easing up on acid rain realted polution laws, for example.
(SA Phil)
Tony,
Ahhh...but could you achieve adequate syncronization?
-------
I dont know - sounds like it would be hard. It probably is going to be the real range limiter.
Maybe you could with this phased array - since it would be "faster" than mechanical compensation.
Still there would be a lot of errors in the translation there always are.
The active vibration adjustment system I am most familar with is used for gasoline engines, it detects spark knock using a knock sensor which it then sends a signal to the Powertrain Control Module. The PCM then adjusts eninge timing to compensate and bring the vibrations under control. It always adjusts by a specified amount and will just adjust as many times as is needed to reach an acceptable state.
That system sounds like at best 1 order of magnitude less complicated than what you would need to do for each and every laser component that could be affected by vibrations.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I think the thing with reactors and their capabilities is at present they aren't technology constrained;-- they are politically constrained."
No doubt. But we do understand what can be done with them were we not politically constrained.
SA Phil:
"Yes, but interestingly operating costs and efficiency dont really go hand in hand."
Funny how that works out, isn't it?
Still, I think I'll stick to my opinion that whether we operate as efficiently as we could with nothing but engineering constraints, we know pretty well what we could do.
Tony,
It usually is. Look at a tuning fork, which is a good example of vibration being turned into heat via sound radiation.
-----------
And the tuning fork gets held on one end. Dampening vibration.
I wonder if this problem might be better addessed using a remote mirror.
A slightly lazy partly diffused beam gets sent by the Laser-Star to remote mirror 1, which had been tracing the target.
That beam is focused and hits target. Remote mirror one then goes into heat radiation mode, pumps come on, etc. It won't be used again for a while.
The Laser-Star then fires at Remote Mirror 2, which has been tracking target 2...
And so on. Makes everything more complicated, adds a lot of mass to the system.
But it allows you to que up targets and there is no vibration until after you fire. (at least the first go round)
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I wonder if this problem might be better addessed using a remote mirror.
A slightly lazy partly diffused beam gets sent by the Laser-Star to remote mirror 1, which had been tracing the target.
That beam is focused and hits target. Remote mirror one then goes into heat radiation mode, pumps come on, etc. It won't be used again for a while.
The Laser-Star then fires at Remote Mirror 2, which has been tracking target 2...
And so on. Makes everything more complicated, adds a lot of mass to the system.
But it allows you to que up targets and there is no vibration until after you fire. (at least the first go round)"
I think most of the power system vibrational energy is stuck on the beam generating platform. Cooling and precisely aligning the combat mirror is important, but beam alignment and coherence coming out of the generator is just as big a factor.
I'd also be skeptical about maintaining precise alignment between separate spacecraft, even on short baselines.
Yeah that was what I meant by a lazy laser - it will be difussed at that point only say 90% hits the remote mirror (which is fairly close) and gets refocused. The rest gets wasted.
Kind of like skeet shooting.
(SA Phil)
Locki:
1. Why is there no love for Orion Drives around here? They have good thrust, reasonable ISP. The numbers across on Atomic Rockets look good.
First, to paraphrase Rick, "The problems of nuking yourself repeatedly seem to have been understated."
I think that political considerations will probably prevent it from being used, particularly where it would be most useful (launching from Earth). If you want to know more, George Dyson wrote an excellent book.
It's significantly easier if you accept ridiculously low thermal efficiencies. That may be acceptable for one or two relatively small space probes every couple of years. The wasted uranium or plutonium isn't that much, compared to the available resources. When you're talking about numerous weapon systems that have to work for years, followed by replacements that also have to work for years, etc, etc, accepting those thermal efficiencies is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
False dilemma. We either have to haul around a coal plant backend, or accept probe-type efficiencies? Last time I checked, thermocouples were not under consideration. I'd suggest looking at naval reactors for a better baseline, but that stuff is all classified. I see no reason why an efficiency of 20% is not achievable (and that's at least twice what an RTG does).
And no amount of "we'll do things more efficiently in the future" is likely to change that. We have a pretty good handle on how materials work and what they can withstand. They can't be made to do more than they can do, just because we're asking them to do it a hundred or a thousand years from now, rather than today.
Which means we'll still be using BWRs/PWRs then? Hardly. As the temperature involved gets higher, cooling gets relatively easier because there's less stuff to move and the radiators are more efficient. With an RTG, the heat production is probably low enough that they probably can't radiate at the optimum temperature because of solar interference. Also, I'm not sure what the intrinsic efficiency of thermoelectric generators is, but I don't think it's very high.
Oops. Second and third comments are addressed to Tony.
Also, for those of you who don't understand the thermo involved here, the ultimate efficiency of any heat engine is limited to one minus the ratio of cold end temperature (the radiator) to hot end temperature (the reactor). The actual efficiency is somewhat lower due to the fact that the device isn't ideal.
A theorem that can be found on atomic rockets suggests that for an ideal system, the cold end should be 75% of the hot end's temperature to minimize radiator area.
More number crunching on the theorem mentioned above has revealed something interesting. As the efficiency goes down, the ideal value appears to converge on .8 (Tcold/Thot).
Byron:
"False dilemma. We either have to haul around a coal plant backend, or accept probe-type efficiencies? Last time I checked, thermocouples were not under consideration. I'd suggest looking at naval reactors for a better baseline, but that stuff is all classified. I see no reason why an efficiency of 20% is not achievable (and that's at least twice what an RTG does)."
Naval reactors use once-through seawater flow in their condensers, just like any other naval steam plant. According to The Wiki, they get 165 MWe out of 500 MWt. Sounds very much like a land reactor, except for the nature of the heat sink.
Thermocouples? How do you think an RTG operates? (Look at The Wiki if you won't take my word for it.)
I wasn't setting up any kind of dilemma. I was stating simply that the trade space is understood, and that we have to live within it.
"Which means we'll still be using BWRs/PWRs then? Hardly."
It means that if we're using fission-heated thermodynamic engines, we already know the engineering limits of what can be done, to a fair degree of precision. The actual engineering choices made will be within that trade space.
"As the temperature involved gets higher, cooling gets relatively easier because there's less stuff to move and the radiators are more efficient."
Since when? As you increase the operating temperature of the radiator, cooling gets more efficient per unit area (within the material limits of the radiator). How you get the heat to the radiator surface is an entirely different question. Higher temperatures and pressures equate to heavier equipment and denser coolants (or a lot higher volume of coolant, moving faster). If you're interested in mass optimization, you can't take off towards that corner of the envelope.
Tony:
Thermocouples? How do you think an RTG operates? (Look at The Wiki if you won't take my word for it.)
I know exactly how an RTG works. My point was that for the applications under discussion here, we are not considering thermocouples.
It means that if we're using fission-heated thermodynamic engines, we already know the engineering limits of what can be done, to a fair degree of precision. The actual engineering choices made will be within that trade space.
Exactly. But you seem to view the engineering envelope as more limited then it actually is. I've provided several examples of this, which you refuse to get.
Since when? As you increase the operating temperature of the radiator, cooling gets more efficient per unit area (within the material limits of the radiator). How you get the heat to the radiator surface is an entirely different question. Higher temperatures and pressures equate to heavier equipment and denser coolants (or a lot higher volume of coolant, moving faster). If you're interested in mass optimization, you can't take off towards that corner of the envelope.
No, higher coolant temperatures also reduce the amount of coolant per unit heat, as a unit of coolant stores more heat. The paper I linked to said that higher temperatures meant a more efficient heat rejection system, and I see no reason to doubt that. That isn't to say a 10m2 radiator for operations at 1600K will be the same mass as a 10m2 radiator for operations at 400K, but it will be a lot lighter then a 2560m2 radiator at 400K.
Byron:
"My point was that for the applications under discussion here, we are not considering thermocouples."
The way it was written, it seemed like you thought we should be considering them. Or maybe it's just the continued antagonistic tone of the conversation. Phil and I have straightened that out. I'm sure you and I could to.
"Exactly. But you seem to view the engineering envelope as more limited then it actually is. I've provided several examples of this, which you refuse to get."
Oh, I get them. I'm just not sure they mean what you think they do. As I pointed out in a response to Phil, they don't eliminate coolant flow, machinery vibration, and (though I didn't mention it earlier) thermal flexing of structure. All of those are problems with a high aiming precision weapon attached.
"No, higher coolant temperatures also reduce the amount of coolant per unit heat, as a unit of coolant stores more heat. The paper I linked to said that higher temperatures meant a more efficient heat rejection system, and I see no reason to doubt that. That isn't to say a 10m2 radiator for operations at 1600K will be the same mass as a 10m2 radiator for operations at 400K, but it will be a lot lighter then a 2560m2 radiator at 400K."
The problem with higher temperatures is that you get higher pressures, which have to be handled by heavier equipment and plumbing. Also, at some point you have to accept denser coolant (and, if you're initially using a Brayton cycle, a shift to the Rankine cycle) in order to support the higher heat flux without operating at unacceptable equipment temperatures. All of your mass savings on radiator area could be eaten up by that dynamic.
In fact we know it would be, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing the mass efficiency tradeoffs between a 9.1% efficient Brayton cycle and a 33% efficient Rankine cycle.
Tony:
The way it was written, it seemed like you thought we should be considering them. Or maybe it's just the continued antagonistic tone of the conversation. Phil and I have straightened that out. I'm sure you and I could to.
Sorry about that.
Oh, I get them. I'm just not sure they mean what you think they do. As I pointed out in a response to Phil, they don't eliminate coolant flow, machinery vibration, and (though I didn't mention it earlier) thermal flexing of structure. All of those are problems with a high aiming precision weapon attached.
I'll admit it's not perfect. But at the same time, I'm far from certain it's impossible to build a useful laserstar of some kind.
The problem with higher temperatures is that you get higher pressures, which have to be handled by heavier equipment and plumbing. Also, at some point you have to accept denser coolant (and, if you're initially using a Brayton cycle, a shift to the Rankine cycle) in order to support the higher heat flux without operating at unacceptable equipment temperatures. All of your mass savings on radiator area could be eaten up by that dynamic.
The key word there being could. We don't know, but I really seriously doubt that we won't see higher mass efficiencies from higher temperatures. To a point, of course, but that point is probably fairly far out. Take a Gen IV reactor, hook it up to a Brayton-cycle turbine, and you might, in 50 years or so, be seriously looking at 1 kW/kg.
What's all this talk about thermocouples? We're trying to power a laserstar for god's sake!
What about using a fission-fragment reactor? Highly efficient and when the particle beam doesn't need to be harvested of all its energy to power the laser it can double as a very high efficiency rocket motor!
Samantha:
What about using a fission-fragment reactor? Highly efficient and when the particle beam doesn't need to be harvested of all its energy to power the laser it can double as a very high efficiency rocket motor!
It's been a long time since I looked at that. The problem, IIRC, is twofold. First, it's still sort of vaporware, and we don't have that much data. Second, the exhaust velocity is so high that it takes forever to accelerate.
Tony:
Where did you get the cycle efficiency numbers? Those look like absolute efficiencies, which includes Carnot efficiency, and nothing I've seen indicates that there is a significant difference in maximum efficiency between the two.
Byron:
"Take a Gen IV reactor, hook it up to a Brayton-cycle turbine, and you might, in 50 years or so, be seriously looking at 1 kW/kg."
Except that we've already picked the low hanging fruit on high pressures and temeperatures with aerospace materials. Nobody's waving a flag and alerting us, "Hey, after all we've learned running rockets in the last fifty years, now we can build really light space reactors!"
And yes, I know rockets aren't reactors. But over the last several decades, the properties of materials likeley to be found in space reactors have been thoroughly tested in rockets, including hot gas handling. (And I don't think anybody can make a serious argument that we don't know the engineering properties of materials for gas turbines, up to some pretty impressive operating temperatures.) Nuclear reactors for space applications (though running considerable hotter than a power reactor) were obviously tested in the NERVA program.
I'm not saying we know it all, but once again we know the size and shape of the trade space to a pretty fine degree.
Byron:
"It's been a long time since I looked at that. The problem, IIRC, is twofold. First, it's still sort of vaporware, and we don't have that much data. Second, the exhaust velocity is so high that it takes forever to accelerate."
Add to that the likely mass of electromagnets that would have to be used to slow down particles traveling at 3-5% c, in a reasonable amount of space.
"Where did you get the cycle efficiency numbers? Those look like absolute efficiencies, which includes Carnot efficiency, and nothing I've seen indicates that there is a significant difference in maximum efficiency between the two."
We're talking about real world machines here, using real world engineering. So thermal efficiency is a valid figure of merit (if not necessarily the only one).
The 9.1% for the Brayton cycle is from your heat pipe cooled reactor, presuming that it's is a direct-drive low-p Brayton cycle engine. That may be too bold, considering that the nature of the coolant is not really discussed and Fig. 2 shows the heat pipe radiator taking "VAPOR IN" and exhausting "LIQUID OUT". It could very well be a low-p Rankine cycle. Or a Brayton cycle with a heat exchnage into a separate coolant loop, rather than direct cooling of the turbine exhaust. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
In any case, if you're optimizing for mass efficiency, you're sacrificing thermal efficiency, all other things being equal. If you want to argue that we haven't really explored "all other things" in terms of heat management, see my immediately preceding reply, where I lay out the reason why I think we really have, from the perspective of engineering materials and very high thermal efficiency systems. I will add here that we should note, WRT those materials and systems, that they only hold together with very high volume, once-through coolant flows. Additionally, their designers simply don't try to control induced vibration below a hundred decibels sound at STP.
The 33% Rankine cycle comes of course from the also previously mentioned naval reactors. This machine is obviously not thermal efficiency optimized, but it shows the direction one goes, in terms of equipment bulk and mass, when one starts down the higher temperature/pressure path.
That said, in an an age of post-industrial technological maturity the overall configuration of capital vehicles might be as stable as it was in the age of sail.
I totally disagree with the concept of "an age of post-industrial technological maturity." I think that technologies will continue to advance from now well into the far future, though cultural changes may produce periods of greater or lesser velocity of advance.
As for surface naval combatants, I think that in the long run they will merge with air, ground and submarine combatants -- many centuries from now, most combatants will be triphibious. The most obvious pre-requisite technology will be high-power-density fusion reactors.
RE: LS cooling/vibrations/cake and eating it too.
What if we figure out a way to lower the total mass of the high pressure and temperature stuff?
That would really improve the problem.
A droplet radiator could do that. You would only need high temp/high pressure stuff at the start of the radiator ... the return side could be low pressure and the middle - no mass at all (other than coolant)
------
Slightly less ideal would be expendable coolant. That would limit the massive high temp/pressure stuff to shorter runs as well.
(SA Phil)
Jordan,
As for surface naval combatants, I think that in the long run they will merge with air, ground and submarine combatants -- many centuries from now, most combatants will be triphibious. The most obvious pre-requisite technology will be high-power-density fusion reactors.
============
I think we could do that with fission as well - but the radiation is a problem. Leading to political problems.
The radiation is a problem for fusion is well.
(SA Phil)
Tony:
Except that we've already picked the low hanging fruit on high pressures and temeperatures with aerospace materials. Nobody's waving a flag and alerting us, "Hey, after all we've learned running rockets in the last fifty years, now we can build really light space reactors!"
And yes, I know rockets aren't reactors. But over the last several decades, the properties of materials likeley to be found in space reactors have been thoroughly tested in rockets, including hot gas handling. (And I don't think anybody can make a serious argument that we don't know the engineering properties of materials for gas turbines, up to some pretty impressive operating temperatures.) Nuclear reactors for space applications (though running considerable hotter than a power reactor) were obviously tested in the NERVA program.
My point was that we can use reactors that have a cool end significantly hotter then a conventional nuclear plant, and that we have very little research on actual high-powered space reactors. Do I foresee massive improvements over what we could do today? No. Do I see significant ones? Probably.
The 33% Rankine cycle comes of course from the also previously mentioned naval reactors. This machine is obviously not thermal efficiency optimized, but it shows the direction one goes, in terms of equipment bulk and mass, when one starts down the higher temperature/pressure path.
Have you even been listening to what I've been saying? In space, you will not use a system that is 33% efficient. Ever. That number assumes that there is a massive free heat sink nearby. If we assume that cooling system mass is proportional to radiator area (which is not strictly true, but is close enough for a ballpark analysis) and that cooling system mass dominates (per the paper I linked to above), then we want to optimize for minimum radiator area. I posted a link to the theorem on that. Taking a 60% efficient system (percentage of carnot efficiency), that gives a cold-end temperature of 77.59% of the hot end. The total efficiency of the system will be 13.45%. So to get 125 MW out (per the example that started all of this), it would take 930 MWt.
Using the link to Atomic Rockets, to have the total efficiency be 30% (carnot efficiency of 50%), the radiator area would be 2.1 times as large as the optimum described above. Even if there is some scaling with temperature, structure alone should outweigh it.
Jordan:
As for surface naval combatants, I think that in the long run they will merge with air, ground and submarine combatants -- many centuries from now, most combatants will be triphibious. The most obvious pre-requisite technology will be high-power-density fusion reactors.
Unlikely in the extreme. Building a machine that works even halfway decently in two environments is very tricky. The best examples are amtracks, which are limited to short ranges and low speeds at sea, and aren't that great on land, either. Seaplanes are another example. Adding in a third environment, and making it competitive with single-environment vehicles is the next best thing to impossible.
The submarine/airplane thing is particularly unlikely. The sub needs a thick pressure hull. The airplane needs minimum weight.
And I know you'll answer with "superior technology". In this case, it doesn't help. A fighter of a quarter the cost will whip your subtankfighter, no matter what.
Byron,
And I know you'll answer with "superior technology". In this case, it doesn't help. A fighter of a quarter the cost will whip your subtankfighter, no matter what.
===============
Unless the combat isn't actually done by the vehicle itself --- such as with high end missiles.
At that point the missile's vehicle of origin is less important than the missile's performance.
the subtankfighter presumably could have better point defense than a small fighter I imagine. Although a "flying fortress" would do better than the subtankfighter.
(SA Phil)
Byron,
My point was that we can use reactors that have a cool end significantly hotter then a conventional nuclear plant, and that we have very little research on actual high-powered space reactors. Do I foresee massive improvements over what we could do today? No. Do I see significant ones? Probably.
==================
I expect more money, effort and time has gone into developing Breakfast cereals in the last 40 years than in developing Nuclear Reactors.
Considering there are several proposals for Gen IV reactors that run quite a bit hotter than our corner nuke plant - I suspect that there is a lot of room for improvement along the lines you are suggesting.
Nuclear Power Reactors got 30 years of true, dedicated development proportionate to their value and potential.
Then bam. Three Mile Island, Stagflation, etc. Then it became effectively back-burner tech.
Battleships got more time and attention. With significantly less value.
Its as if they had stopped commercially developing computers before they came out with the first PC and moved all computer research to proportionally small university projects.
(SA Phil)
Even the NTR only got a few years development. By comparison Chemical Rockets are around the century mark, with a fair part of that time being very extensive development much more than anything the NTR has had.
(SA Phil)
I don't know much about nuclear reactors so I'll stay out of that. But now that we have all accepted the vibrations from a shutter will be a pain and impliedly come to the realisation we have to do something about the vibration from the cooling and the reactor I've got some possible solutions:
1. Put anything that vibrates upfront and tow the laser battery behind.
Borrowing an idea from James Cameron's Avatar. Have the drive train, reactor, radiators and coolant pumps up front and pull the rest of the laserstar along with it? With the sorta mousy thrust the electric drives generate you don't need a strong structure anyway. Put anything that vibrates up front (coolant pumps for both laser and reactor, the reactor itself, crew etc) and when it comes time to fire turn off your electric drive, let the towing cables go slack and fire relatively vibration free.
You'll still have to deal with tonnes of coolant circulating around and wait for the jitters to settle after re-targeting but it'll solve 99%+ of your vibration problems.
Hell the forward drive section could even be a shutter that slowly moves out of the way.
2. Realistically when you look at the power, cooling, vibration and targetting requirements you would be better off having a huge mother phased array radar on the moon or an asteroid and then bounce out the laser with a network of mirrors.
Targetting is much easier because your phased array laser of doom could still be 1+ light second away but the mirror could be far, far closer.
Vibrations are much better. Ditto waste heat and power generation.
Gets around the blinding problem as well.
The mirrors won't be cheap but they will be a lot cheaper than the huge vibration free, spacebound, closed-cycle radiator that is masquerading as a space based laserstar.
3. Re: Byron on Orion drives:
- I'm pretty sure technically they are dodgy even without doing the numbers. But from a political point of view if the public is letting you loft a 1500mw unshielded reactors up into space they probably won't worry too much about a couple of tiny tactical nukes going off in space. Earth launch is dodgy. I'll grant that.
Locki,
2. Realistically when you look at the power, cooling, vibration and targetting requirements you would be better off having a huge mother phased array radar on the moon or an asteroid and then bounce out the laser with a network of mirrors.
=====================
Hmmmm ... then you could make it even BIGGER ...
Muwuahaha.
(SA Phil)
added
Sorry the networked mirror idea was SA Phil's first. I didn't mean to steal his good idea
You could even have the laserstar well behind the main fleet bouncing the laser out with mirror ships much closer to the action. Solves a lot of the vibration/blinding/targetting problems and the technical issues are similar to building the giant Laserstar in the first place. So its a solution consistent with the tech level required.
Clever.
Definitely not my idea first.
I personally saw something similar on Atomic Rockets.
But the way that read .. Atomic Rockets got it somewhere else first also.
Still a good idea. You could make the mirror ships fairly high performance to get them where you need them when the railway train starts hurtling in its orbit round the mountain.
(SA Phil)
Samantha said:"What about using a fission-fragment reactor? Highly efficient and when the particle beam doesn't need to be harvested of all its energy to power the laser it can double as a very high efficiency rocket motor!"
There is a concept called a 'reactor-pumped laser' and if I remember correctly, it gets around 80% effiency- in theory.
Byron said:"It's been a long time since I looked at that. The problem, IIRC, is twofold. First, it's still sort of vaporware, and we don't have that much data. Second, the exhaust velocity is so high that it takes forever to accelerate."
That last sentence makes no sense; are you trying to say that the ISP is high and the thrust low? I would think that the performance of the fission-fragment engine was somewhat higher than a regular ion engine; certainly no less.
Ferrell
BTW, the other day I thought about the impact that a SCoD would have; several people mentioned that 100kps closing speed would be a realistic number; I figured that a SCoD would mass anywhere between 22 grams and 3 grams at impact; having done the math in my head, I'm not sure about the results; feel free to correct me, but the numbers I came up with ranged from a few hundered kilograms of TNT yield to a few tons yield. I have revised my thinking about SCoD's; you need to hit or out manuvore every one, to avoid serious (if not mission kill level) damage. Of course, if the bus or torpedo that they were launched from slams into you, you're just plain dead.
Ferrell
Wow, this is shortly going to bypass the Surface Combat thread as the all time number of posts! Good work everyone ;)
Since there has been so much activity, most of my comments are a bit time expired, so bear with me here:
1. High efficiency non-Carnot systems have different limitations, but overall, they still win out because the total mass to be carried is much less. A MHD system has large magnets, but in exchange you don't have to carry the turbine, heat exchangers, condensers etc,. That and the smaller radiator make it a huge win for a spacecraft, where the mass budget will be tight for almost any PMF system. If an MHD system can get close to the 66% conversion efficiency that is possible in theory, then you have an astounding jump in spacecraft performance.
2. Fission fragment rockets could be considered an intermediate step between nuclear electric and presumptive fusion drives in terms of performance. The calculated exhaust velocity is on the order of 1% the speed of light, and you can add an "afterburner" by injecting remass into the exhaust stream for lower ISP/higher thrust. The calculated thrust using the beam alone is in the tens to hundreds of pounds, a huge improvement over the thrust of electric drives, measured in millinewtons. Once again you have a much reduced mass budget as well, leveraging the performance potential.
3. Separating the laser generator from the mirror is an idea that dates back to the Strategic Defense Initiative; the buzzword them was "Fighting Mirror". In theory fighting mirrors solve a lot of problems, but we are still talking about a sophisticated remote control spacecraft, which needs to be steered and targeted, and possibly some sort of cooling system to protect the mirror from the incoming RBOD. A constellation of fighting mirrors does make the problem of laser defense more interesting; the laser generator can choose different mirrors almost at random so you won't know which angle the beam is coming from. If you are running an Xaser as your RBOD, fighting mirrors are out.
4. Large laser batteries may be based on the ground for many of the reasons Tony points out, but the primary purpose of such an installation will be as a launcher for laser thermal rockets. Fighting mirrors in orbit will provide the wide arcs of fire needed to make it a militarily useful device. On the Moon, there is the interesting possibility of tethering the mirror at the L1 and L2 points using "Pearson elevators", which can b e made from existing materials like Kevlar. The elevator can serve as a sort of wave guide or aiming marker so the laser can hit the mirror, adjusting the mirror (or more likely mirror farm) sends the beam to the target. A high UV laser on the ground could sweep cis Lunar space usig this system.
You can envision a whole network of Lasers making your PMF space industry work.
High temp nuclear reactors create a hydrogen economy.
Earth Based Lasers are used to launch Laser thermal Payloads to orbit.
Orbital Laser Relay Mirrors are used to send Laser Thermal Craft Outbound.
Lunar based Lasers are used to decelerate inbound craft or to push outbound craft.
Mars based Lasers are used in a similar manner.
The majority of all spacecraft could be Laser Thermal Rockets -- considerably simplifying spacecraft power needs/mass budgets. They can just be propellant/a decent RTG/ and a Hab. With chem fuel attitude thrusters.
On the defense side all of these lasers could as Thucydides suggests be used as a defensive network -- functionally the same as Laser-Star but with some mobility reduction.
Of course with the simplified propulsion scheme you could just launch missile busses using the same system. Sending massive clouds of KKVs to saturate the defense grid.
Now, not only don't you need people in drone space craft - you have very few true "space craft" in the war at all.
Just Missile Busses and Laser Relay Craft "fighting mirrors"
(SA Phil)
Hmmmm ... then you could make it even BIGGER ...
Muwuahaha.
(SA Phil)
=======
A huge-ass series of 30-60m wide phased array lasers mounted on the moon?
- check
Primary purpose for civilian laser thermal launches?
- check
Economic viability?
- Excellent. Its the only way we are going to get into orbit efficiently without a space elevator anyway
A whole networked series of mirrors both mobile and stationary that can bounce out the laser? - check!
Able to combine my 100 x 60m terrestial phased array launcher lasers into one super giant ass 6000m ultra death ray of doom?
- NOW WE'RE COOKING WITH GAS PEOPLE!!!
Even I'm not going to make an attack run on that spiderweb of networked super lasers with a couple of shuttered KKV corvettes. It'd be like a toddler running towards you with their hands over their eyes presuming the rifleman can't see them.
Damn. Something like that is not only plausible in the PMF it virtually makes the defence impregnable.
And its a nice conversion of required civilian-miltiary technologies needed to get into space in the first place.
Nice work. I like it people.
Ferrell:
That last sentence makes no sense; are you trying to say that the ISP is high and the thrust low? I would think that the performance of the fission-fragment engine was somewhat higher than a regular ion engine; certainly no less.
That is exactly what I meant. The ISP is way above optimal for any missions inside the orbit of Pluto. Afterburning (as mentioned by Thucydides) could work, but there is too little data available to make a judgement as to practicality. We have reactors, we have electric thrusters. We don't have (AFAIK) a working fission-fragment rocket.
Thucydides:
Fission fragment rockets could be considered an intermediate step between nuclear electric and presumptive fusion drives in terms of performance. The calculated exhaust velocity is on the order of 1% the speed of light, and you can add an "afterburner" by injecting remass into the exhaust stream for lower ISP/higher thrust. The calculated thrust using the beam alone is in the tens to hundreds of pounds, a huge improvement over the thrust of electric drives, measured in millinewtons. Once again you have a much reduced mass budget as well, leveraging the performance potential.
The thrust of modern, small-scale electric drives is in milinewtons. The thrust of large concentric-channel hall thrusters in the PMF will probably be on the order of kilonewtons. Sadly, I've been unable to find hard numbers on scaling, but there look to be some fairly impressive economies of scale involved in the design.
Byron: The whole point of why I mentioned the fission-fragment rocket is that it can serve double duty as a reactor to power the laser. In fact, the way I see it the motor's main mission would be to provide electricity to the weapon systems. Go ahead, mount other motors if you need higher thrust. The fission-fragment rocket is a freebie.
Byron:
"My point was that we can use reactors that have a cool end significantly hotter then a conventional nuclear plant, and that we have very little research on actual high-powered space reactors. Do I foresee massive improvements over what we could do today? No. Do I see significant ones? Probably."
I'm not sure I understand where you think you're going with this. You have to have a hot end significantly hotter than the cool end, or you can't get any work out. If you increase the temperature of the hot end, you get higher pressures and heavier machinery.
Naval power plants went through that development cycle in the first half of the 20th Century. Having the ocean as a heat sink, all they had to do was pump more cooling water per minute (which of course took bigger, heavier pumps, feeding bigger, heavier heat exchangers). The nature of the working medium heater -- coal, oil, fission, whatever -- was totally outside of that dynamic.
We know heat engines about as well as we're going to know them. Space isn't going to change that one little bit. All it can really do is force us to mass-optimize, which is going to mean low thermal efficiency.
"Have you even been listening to what I've been saying? In space, you will not use a system that is 33% efficient. Ever. That number assumes that there is a massive free heat sink nearby..."
Gad zooks! That was my whole point to begin with. If we're going to run very hot heat engines in space, the cooling systems are going to be prohibitively massive. That why my initial observation was framed as sort of a challenge -- if you want that kind of efficiency, just you try to do it, without massive machinery, huge radiators, and hundreds of tons of coolant.
Sheesh...it took all of this argument to establish that we're saying the same thing, just approcahing it from different perspectives.
Thats what got me thinking about droplet radiators. If you could have one long enough, or even stages .. you could create a really good delta between the cold side and the hot side.
And even though the hot side would have a lot of mass per area- its length would be small since it would eject the hot fluid into space. Allowing that total mass to be small.
I dont expect that would be very vibration friendly - unless you could pulse it and fire your laser like a world war 1 machine gun. (dubious on that one)
But it might help alot on the propulsion 1kg/kw side.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil: I'm pretty sure it would have to be stages. Droplet radiators are limited to their maximum temperature by the boiling point of their coolant and to their minimum temperature by the freezing point of their coolant.
Interesting - is that the boiling point influenced by pressure though?
Or is the boiling point a problem since the droplet would need to still be liquid as soon as it is sent into space?
If that is the case you would want a coolant that has a really wide distribution between boiling and freezing points
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I dont expect that would be very vibration friendly - unless you could pulse it and fire your laser like a world war 1 machine gun. (dubious on that one)"
Well...one of the fundamental principles of machine gunnery is that you have to manage heat in some way. With air cooled guns it's a combination of less-than-cyclic rate of fire (usually 100-200 rpm, when the gun can technically shoot anywhere from 550-1,200 rpm) and changing barrels. Though if you're going at 200 rpm, even changing barrels is only going to fully work through the heating up of the spare barrel. The first barrel just won't cool off all the way in two minutes (you're supposed to change barrels every 400 rounds).
With water cooled guns, they had to carry around the water jacket and the water in it, plus a can in which to condense boiled off steam, and usually some makeup water as well (because not all of the steam stayed in the can). But it was worth it through the Korean War, at least, because water cooled guns could sustain fire for many minutes, sometimes a significant fraction of an hour.
If this is beginning to sound like more Heat Engines 101, well, at the fundamental level, a machine gun is a heat engine that tosses projectiles down range, rather than turning an output shaft. Water cooled guns were Cadillacs, while air cooled guns are VW bugs. The obvious comparisons in weight, power output, and cooling method are all fully intentional.
So, you're onto something as far as shooting intermittently and at a lower rate than technically possible, order to stay within your mechanical limitations. Us old timey machine gun bubbas know that one like we know our mothers' ummm...endowments.
SA Phil:
"Interesting - is that the boiling point influenced by pressure though?
Or is the boiling point a problem since the droplet would need to still be liquid as soon as it is sent into space?
If that is the case you would want a coolant that has a really wide distribution between boiling and freezing points "
From what little I've read on Atomic ROckets, you have to stay below the boiling point of the coolant in a vacuum, otherwise you, well, boil off your coolant. You also have to use a coolant that has a very low vapor pressure at high temperatures, so it just doesn't evaporate on you in use.
Tony,
Well...one of the fundamental principles of machine gunnery is that you have to manage heat in some way.
========
I should have mentioned I meant machine gun on a biplane. Bascially shots timed to only occur during certain events.
Esentially have some sort of pressure reservior, turn off your pumps, fire the laser, turn on the pumps, etc.
Maybe you have a complex sinewave as your vibrational background, and fire during the lowpoint.
The tuning fork thing is still striking me and a big problem.
(SA Phil)
Or the inverse of the biplane machine gun anyway.
(SA Phil)
Tony,
So, you're onto something as far as shooting intermittently and at a lower rate than technically possible, order to stay within your mechanical limitations.
------
I am pretty sure that one is definitely going to happen - luckily the computer can mandate that.
"Fire!"
"Please wait ..."
(SA Phil)
The other problem with machine guns is its not just the barrel that is heating up. The body of the weapon can get quite hot as well, screwing up mechanical tolerences and (most feared of all) causing a "cook off" where the round prematurely fires due to the heat.
Laser weapons may not have cook offs, but even solid state or FEL lasers will certainly need to manage heat stress to ensure the optical trains don't come out of alignment. Rotating fire between offboard fighting mirrors is the analogue to changing the barrel, but heavy duty laser weapons will be "water cooled" machine guns. Even invoking a magitech heatsink simply changes the scale of the problem.
RE: droplet radiator.
What about a radiator that starts as a vapor cooling tube made from say IR quartz.
Small pipe ejects coolant into long large diameter tube open on one end to space, it expands and cools, becoming liquid by the time the tube ends... makes its unconfined space journey .. and is collected as liquid on the other side and pumped back to the reactor.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"I should have mentioned I meant machine gun on a biplane. Bascially shots timed to only occur during certain events.
Esentially have some sort of pressure reservior, turn off your pumps, fire the laser, turn on the pumps, etc."
Ohhh...you mean synchronization. I don't see why not. I wonder if it might not defeat it's own purpose, given the transient stresses of starting and stopping pumps, plus the startup and rundown times on rotating machinery. Even with electromagnetic pumps and charged coolants, you'd have time to charge on the magnets and flow surges to worry about.
Not so far-fetched at all. On the US M1 tank, the sight is stabilized, but the gun just kind of follows what the sight is doing, with a lag. The fire control system waits for the gun to bear before pulling the trigger. I could see doing essentially the same thing with a gun (of whatever type) in space.
I am pretty sure that one is definitely going to happen - luckily the computer can mandate that.
"Fire!"
"Please wait ..."
(SA Phil)
Makes taking down a KKV swarm a pain though. Especially if we have all accepted much shorter fractional light second ranges instead of light second ranges.
Also a terrible weapon to keep a bunch of KKV "shuttered" blinding corvettes suppressed. *duck for cover*
Realistically a Laserstar is more of an analogue to the artillary piece Big Bertha - a huge suppression siege weapon. Useful, but the decisive weapon is something else (tanks in WWII and in PMF KKV vehicles/buses).
Off board mirrors and to a lesser extent terrestial based phased array radars changes everything though. We should probably run with that.
Sorry that was a typo. I meant phased array laser not radar. I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the concept.
I did think of an additional problem something like solid state electronics (laser) introduces. They are inherently temperature sensitive and only work in a very narrow temperature band. Most of our computers will pack it up if they get colder than -10C or warmer than +50C.
Space is a pretty hostile environment even for electronics. Our exploration probes are heated to keep them operational.
So to add to the operational woes of a space based phased array radar you have to both keep it warmed to about room temperature and radiate away the excess heat quickly before the diodes overheat.
Of course if you have huge coolant systems capable of virtually instantanesouly taking away 400mw of heat the additional heat load of a puny blinding laser is hardly going to worry you. So I guess a weaponised phased array lasers is by definition inherently proofed against blinding by its giant cooling system.
All things considered if you are going to design the world’s largest nuclear blast furnace that puts out a bit of laser energy as a byproduct you might as well stick it on the moon/asteroid/planet.
Welcome to another new commenter!
Realistically a Laserstar is more of an analogue to the artillary piece Big Bertha - a huge suppression siege weapon. Useful, but the decisive weapon is something else (tanks in WWII and in PMF KKV vehicles/buses).
I've never claimed that laserstars would be the 'decisive' weapon. (Which becomes a tricky concept anyway, if closely examined.)
But Locki made an honest and refreshing admission upthread. I don't remember keywords to find it now, but in essence it acknowledged that the real problem with laserstars is not that they may not work, but that if they do work they are boring weapons.
For story purposes that is plenty enough reason to do away with them, since the devils in the details could easily make them non-viable anyway.
But real life in the plausible midfuture is under no obligation to entertain us with interesting space battles. And I suspect that kinetic weapons (etc.), deployed in space beyond a few thousand km from a planet, also end up being pretty boring.
Human drama, I suspect, will be found more in the realm of patrol activity, whatever forms that takes. There is a reason why the protagonists of the wooden ships & iron men genre usually command frigates, not ships of the line. As Samantha noted, this also extends to covert activities that are not strictly 'military.'
But the closer you move toward 'total war,' the more you are deploying mass and energy to destroy mass and energy, along with whatever people happen to be in the target zone. The latter will not die in particularly adventurous ways.
On the whole discussion of electric power reactors in space, and their cooling systems, I'm gonna grump that there were/are not many reference points to work with.
Someone (Byron?) linked a study, but of course no one has actually built any close approximation to a nuke electric space plant.
The closest operational analogy, naval reactors, is none too close, because they get rid of their heat an entirely different way. And the mass of naval reactors is not readily available information.
(Here is one place where space reactors save mass: they only need a shadow shield, not all-round shielding. But this also means that nuclear spacecraft cannot come within hundreds of km of each other when their drives are operating.)
Also, note that for a limited-mobility laser star or battle station, the mass/power constraints are less than for nuke electric drives. The 1 kw/kg figure I use is for spacecraft able to use steep orbits.
Rick said...
But the closer you move toward 'total war,' the more you are deploying mass and energy to destroy mass and energy, along with whatever people happen to be in the target zone. The latter will not die in particularly adventurous ways.
Even with todays' puny weapons (in comparison)total war is both unimaginable AND worse, boring.
There's a reason Tom Clancy always stops short of all out war in his rarara USA 4-EVAR novels. It'd be a dreary novel.
Even an all out conventional only conflict would "realistically" have little drama. Projections for the cold war had NATO running out of munitions inside a week. The RAF was expected to have lost all of their combat aircraft inside 10 days.
Its horrific. And its boring.
A full scale nuclear war is of course something a magnitude more boring.
I think in real life if some of the awesome weaponary touted around here (gigawatt unshielded nuclear reactors, KKVs with 100kps closing speeds) is used against my nation I would retaliate with tactical nukes or worse.
All of this high energy space weaponary is assymetrical in a similar fashion to biological or chemical warfare and is just inviting a nuclear response.
Rick,
(Here is one place where space reactors save mass: they only need a shadow shield, not all-round shielding. But this also means that nuclear spacecraft cannot come within hundreds of km of each other when their drives are operating.)
--------------
I wonder how often a nuclear ship would shut its drive down?
France's newest nuke sub is designed with its entire lifetime (30 years) of fuel built into the reactor.
Its quite possible nuke electric craft would keep their reactors always at some level of production
(SA Phil)
Locki,
Most of our computers will pack it up if they get colder than -10C or warmer than +50C.
==============
Most electronic semiconductor devices can function at 150C. Its just that when the box they live in is at 50C they usually are over 150C (as the heat sources in question)
I think -40C is workable - its a requirement for anything "mil spec" and all modern automotive companies use this number as the minimum "Cold Start" temp.
(SA Phil)
Rick,
On the whole discussion of electric power reactors in space, and their cooling systems, I'm gonna grump that there were/are not many reference points to work with.
Someone (Byron?) linked a study, but of course no one has actually built any close approximation to a nuke electric space plant.
-----------------
I did a search on these - and found this to be a problem as well. Most nuclear reactor in spaaace! designs seem to be a whole different scale than our 100MW+ reactor for high-end nuke electric propulsion.
They seem to be more in the 50-100 KW range, which although pretty awesome compared to say the fuel cells and RTG for Apollo - aren't really PMF space-worthy.
Still I dont think Tony's assumptions that we use the best materials for reactors and heat engines at present is necessarily true. We use materials that meet our current design requirements.
With a much bigger budget per MW and tighter mass constraints we could use higher temp/lighter materials.
And Materials Science marches on .. there are potentials for development of additional super-alloys to improve temperature/strength and lightweight properties.
That and the artificial construction of quartz and diamond will make big changes from the 1960's reactors we are using today.
(SA Phil)
Locki,
Makes taking down a KKV swarm a pain though. Especially if we have all accepted much shorter fractional light second ranges instead of light second ranges.
-----------
I guess it all goes back to the plausibility of one Laser armed ship knocking out thousands of KKVs.
Even if it could knock out 100 though it would be incredible compared to normal missile defense, which in modern times seems to be "duck and hope the last second Gatling gun gets it"
(SA Phil)
RE: Nuclear/electricity/heat engine/Laser power
Possibly the Laser-Star could use the following system for power generation.
*Nuclear reactor- gas cooled
*High temp gas spins up compulsator/Flyheel Energy Stroage device to high rpm.
*gas with far less energy is sent towards radiator/droplet system.
This would remove the capacitor/capacitor cooling problem. And it would combine the electricity generation and capacitor mass. Because the FES has much lower magnetic resistance by design it would reduce that source of vibrations.
And since it would be a big spinning mass, you could potentially design it to improve stability instead of decrease it. (use as a Gyroscope)
(SA Phil)
Most electronic semiconductor devices can function at 150C. Its just that when the box they live in is at 50C they usually are over 150C (as the heat sources in question)
I think -40C is workable - its a requirement for anything "mil spec" and all modern automotive companies use this number as the minimum "Cold Start" temp.
(SA Phil)
I had no idea semi-conductors were good over such a huge temperature range. Oops.
If vibrations are such a huge problem is solar power really so totally out of the question to power up a laserstar? They can charge up the capacitors. If you have to a wait such a long time between shots for the vibrations to settle anyway it may work.
I guess you could boost the power of the solar cells by firing a UV laser at the panels from the moon or somewhere.
I figured you're going to need a couple of square kilometers of radiator panels to radiate away the 80% waste heat of the laser anyway. Is there any reason you can't use that surface area for both solar panels and waste heat radiators?
You can't combine your radiators and solar panels unfortunately.
The Photo-Voltaic effect is a semi-conductor effect and the power produced goes down with temperature. At the temperatures they are talking about the panels wouldn't do much.
Still - I think you could make an extremely low mass solar panel system to charge capacitor banks to be used for the Laser-Star and the Electric drive.
Probably not at 1 kg/kw - although you might be able to come closer if it were just for the drive system.
Using a thin film semiconductor layer on a transparent polymer film substrate (to avoid excessive heating from the sun from light the panel wasn't using) you could maybe achieve 10% area efficiency using mature versions of today's tech. The whole thing would have the consistency of cellophane.
An example of a partially transparent system; thin film on film ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gIHMJaujMs
For 100 MW at 10% eff. in earth's orbit you would need about 0.7 square kilometers of panels. (100,000,000W/1500 W m^2*0.1*1.0×10-6)
The big advantage here I suppose is you would have less cooling problems, since you wouldn't need to cool the power source.
(SA Phil)
Since you have many levels in Laser Mastery in this setting though you could likely amp up the entire design.
Instead of using "standard" type solar panels - use panels you have customized for a higher energy wavelength like blue light or UV. Then hit the PV array with a diffuse Laser mounted on the moon.
At that point somebody skilled at dream-time math could probably step in and prove crazy insane power conversion efficiencies. (And it would probably actually work)
With that system you wouldn't even need capacitors -- just put the Gigawatts of electrical power as a constant source.
You would want to aim that panel edge on to the sun though - to keep it cool.
Heh a Solar Panel you intentionally keep pointed away from Solar Light -- awesome.
(SA Phil)
Come to think of it - it would work even better for places where Solar Panels don't really "work" -- to power your Laser-Star that defends the moons of Saturn for example.
(SA Phil)
Samantha:
SA Phil: I'm pretty sure it would have to be stages. Droplet radiators are limited to their maximum temperature by the boiling point of their coolant and to their minimum temperature by the freezing point of their coolant.
There was a reference in the paper I found about dust particle radiators. I believe with proper design it might be possible to build a hybrid, which would also get the advantage of the heat of fusion.
Makes taking down a KKV swarm a pain though. Especially if we have all accepted much shorter fractional light second ranges instead of light second ranges.
One thing that we've largely missed is that the laserstar is more effective at shorter ranges because you don't have to wait for as much of the vibration to settle. The larger divergence angle is canceled out by the shorter range.
Rick:
(Here is one place where space reactors save mass: they only need a shadow shield, not all-round shielding. But this also means that nuclear spacecraft cannot come within hundreds of km of each other when their drives are operating.)
Two things:
1. They have used a shadow shield. NR-1 was too small for normal shielding.
2. I doubt the danger zone will be that large. There's a world of difference between tens of meters and tens, much less hundreds, of kilometers. The standard radiation shielding should take care of the rest. And fleet vessels may well have light all-around shielding for just this reason. Maybe only a factor of two to four, but it would decrease the danger zone a lot.
Phil:
I did a search on these - and found this to be a problem as well. Most nuclear reactor in spaaace! designs seem to be a whole different scale than our 100MW+ reactor for high-end nuke electric propulsion.
The study (which I linked to in post 601) is explicitly about a 100 MW thermal reactor.
You can't combine your radiators and solar panels unfortunately.
The solar panel serves as its own radiator. You'd need more for things like life support and maybe the drive, but the power plant will dominate conventional designs.
There's a reason Tom Clancy always stops short of all out war in his rarara USA 4-EVAR novels. It'd be a dreary novel.
Red Storm Rising actually progresses to all-out conventional war.
For any of these "must avert disaster or life as we know it is over!" novels, I always want to see what happens after, just to get something new. The two WWIII alternate history books by that British general did feature two cities getting nuked before the Soviet government was taken out in a coup. Warday shows what happens when WWIII isn't total. There have been a couple other novels in that light. The Last Ship is about the last surviving American cruiser, fortunately running a nuke plant.
Human concerns aside, I think the biggest reason why they avoid crossing the line is because you genre shift. It ceases to be what it once was. You can have peace turn to a low-level war but all-out war resolves in short order, one way or another.
Even if it could knock out 100 though it would be incredible compared to normal missile defense, which in modern times seems to be "duck and hope the last second Gatling gun gets it"
--------------
If we did have an all-out conventional war, I seriously wonder if it might not devolve to stalemate on the high seas. It seems like either side could sink ships faster than they could be built, military or civilian.
Byron,
The study (which I linked to in post 601) is explicitly about a 100 MW thermal reactor.
------------
Yes, but you had found that one. Heh.
Still it was about 1/10th what we would be looking at, I belieive.
(SA Phil)
Phil:
Yes, but you had found that one. Heh.
Still it was about 1/10th what we would be looking at, I belieive.
Yes, but that would still make it by far the best baseline we have. .1 is way closer then .0001 or what have you.
Jollyreaper;
For any of these "must avert disaster or life as we know it is over!" novels, I always want to see what happens after, just to get something new. The two WWIII alternate history books by that British general did feature two cities getting nuked before the Soviet government was taken out in a coup. Warday shows what happens when WWIII isn't total. There have been a couple other novels in that light. The Last Ship is about the last surviving American cruiser, fortunately running a nuke plant.
Another example of this is Stuart Slade's The Big One. In this case, Britain leaves the war in 1940, and the war is a stalemate in Russia in 1947. The the B-36s come...
Then the US has a policy of using nukes as a first resort.
jollyreaper said...
If we did have an all-out conventional war, I seriously wonder if it might not devolve to stalemate on the high seas. It seems like either side could sink ships faster than they could be built, military or civilian.
If there is a future all out conventional war there will be only two types of ships on the seas.
Submarines and targets.
Even our crappy, half broken down RAN Rankin went straight through the screen of a CBG and got photos of all 4 sides of the CVN before slipping out again.
Even today we haven't realised there is a new capital ship in the playground. Similar to the Battleship passing the baton on to the carrier itself.
Yes there's plenty of roles only a carrier can perform. But if your job is to control the sealanes the submarine rules supreme.
Someone mentioned about 400 posts ago a capital ship is not necessarily the baddest ship in the fleet. It is a big scary symbol of national prestige. So I guess the Laserstar might be built one day.
Jollyreaper,
If there is a future all out conventional war there will be only two types of ships on the seas.
==========
Wouldnt even have to be conventional - Nuclear missile armed submarines are pretty scary as well, and could keep going after the ICBM exchange.
(SA Phil)
Thucydides:
"The other problem with machine guns is its not just the barrel that is heating up. The body of the weapon can get quite hot as well, screwing up mechanical tolerences and (most feared of all) causing a "cook off" where the round prematurely fires due to the heat."
Not really. The chamber is part of the barrel assembly and gets changed with the barrel. Also, air cooled guns fire from an open bolt, meaning the round isn't fed until the trigger is pulled, and it is fired as soon as the action locks up. The rest of the gun doesn't really get all that hot.
SA Phil:
"Still I dont think Tony's assumptions that we use the best materials for reactors and heat engines at present is necessarily true. We use materials that meet our current design requirements.
With a much bigger budget per MW and tighter mass constraints we could use higher temp/lighter materials."
Actually, we already use metals like Inconel (a family of nickel-chromium alloys) in nuclear power reactors. To give you an idea of how Inconel rates as a hot environment material, early Space Shuttle designs used it in the thermal protection system. It was only when the Shuttle started growing they had to shift to the ceramic tiles and RCC leading edges.
"And Materials Science marches on .. there are potentials for development of additional super-alloys to improve temperature/strength and lightweight properties."
Maybe so. But I wouldn't expect more than marginal improvements in the PMF.
Also, light-strong metals tend not to do too good in heat. Titanium, for example, starts to lose strength above 800 F.
"That and the artificial construction of quartz and diamond will make big changes from the 1960's reactors we are using today."
Hard gemstones, even the hardest, have the same mechanical problems that hard metals do -- they're brittle over gross dimensions.
"...compulsator/Flyheel Energy Stroage device...
This would remove the capacitor/capacitor cooling problem...."
I don't think you could discharge a flywheel fast enough, unless it was a really large, massive flywheel. I think I'd stick with capacitors.
Hard gemstones, even the hardest, have the same mechanical problems that hard metals do -- they're brittle over gross dimensions.
Hyperdiamond (or aggregated diamond nanorod) is slightly harder than diamond, but also seems to be far less brittle.
There are probably others non-brittle hyper-strong materials to be discovered.
Tony,
I don't think you could discharge a flywheel fast enough, unless it was a really large, massive flywheel. I think I'd stick with capacitors.
========
There really are two problems though. One is powering the drive and one the Laser. They require power at different rates.
You could potentially use a massive flywheel as the compromise if it lets you try to address both problems.
Especially if it were vibrationally "quieter" than the pumps used in the turbine power system.
(SA Phil)
Tony,
Hard gemstones, even the hardest, have the same mechanical problems that hard metals do -- they're brittle over gross dimensions.
---------
Not necessarily an insurmountable problem if the required application method (spaced bracing, whatever) saves you mass over a solid piece of a less capable material.
(SA Phil)
Also, air cooled guns fire from an open bolt, meaning the round isn't fed until the trigger is pulled, and it is fired as soon as the action locks up.
That's simply incorrect. It depends entirely on the gun's design. Two examples of closed bolt, air cooled machine guns are the American Browning M2 .50 caliber and the Soviet RPK.
~~
I'm skeptical about solar panels for use in a laser star. I suppose if the panels were being fed by giant mirror satellites or by a laser battery from the surface of an atmosphered planet it could make sense. But, a laser from a moon doesn't because if you're going to do that it makes much more sense to simply construct the main laser battery on the moon.
Not related to the thread, but there's a nice collection of rocketpunk art at Dark Roasted Blend: http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2012/06/rare-wonderful-1950s-space-art.html
Check out all the pages in the series.
Eth:
"Hyperdiamond (or aggregated diamond nanorod) is slightly harder than diamond, but also seems to be far less brittle.
There are probably others non-brittle hyper-strong materials to be discovered."
Considering the production process, I doubt such materials will ever be available for gros physical structures.
SA Phil:
"Not necessarily an insurmountable problem if the required application method [for artificial diamond](spaced bracing, whatever) saves you mass over a solid piece of a less capable material."
See above.
"There really are two problems though. One is powering the drive and one the Laser. They require power at different rates.
You could potentially use a massive flywheel as the compromise if it lets you try to address both problems.
Especially if it were vibrationally "quieter" than the pumps used in the turbine power system."
I was thinking primarily of powering the laser, which is why you would really want a vibration-minimized power supply. Flywheels can store a lot of energy, but even with electromagnetic bearings, you would still need to cool the generator the flywheel powered. Also, if you tried to break it too hard with the generator, you would get stress problems in the generator mounts, leading to vibration or worse. I just don't think you could get high enough rates of power takeoff without a really massive system that didn't try to take too much power off the rotating mass, as a percentage over time.
I don't see a flywheel being useful on a laserstar because in order to harvest the stored energy the angular momentum of the flywheel will have to be transferred to the ship's hull. There are only two ways to prevent your ship from turning into a spinning top: thrusters and a counter-rotating flywheel. The problem with both of those is that the level of coordination that system would need to not drift the laser off its target is astronomically high.
It makes the vibrations from a turbine seem trivial in comparison.
... when you consider that instead you could just use a capacitor bank you have to ask the question of why you would bother.
Tony,
Considering the production process, I doubt such materials will ever be available for gros physical structures.
-------
They are talking being able to vapor deposit on a substrate ... that is something that could be fairly large area.
(SA Phil)
Samantha,
I'm skeptical about solar panels for use in a laser star. I suppose if the panels were being fed by giant mirror satellites or by a laser battery from the surface of an atmosphered planet it could make sense. But, a laser from a moon doesn't because if you're going to do that it makes much more sense to simply construct the main laser battery on the moon.
======
Well sure - but that wasn't the question asked.
(SA Phil)
Still you could have solar panels that take up less area than the radiator that Rick Mentioned with comprable mass to the nuclear plant+radiator.
It would really limit the Laser-Star though. Since the farther you got from the sun the slower you could shoot, and the slower the ship could accel.
And if it were shadowed it would need to drift until it could work under power again.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"They are talking being able to vapor deposit on a substrate ... that is something that could be fairly large area."
Ummm...how exactly do you vapor deposit diamond and keep it diamond? As soon as you melt it, it becomes carbon gas.
Re: Tony and Chemical vapor Deposition of diamond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond
About halfway down the page.
(SA Phil)
"The advantages of CVD diamond growth include the ability to grow diamond over large areas and on various substrates,"
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_diamond"
Hmmmm...
Still skeptical about extending that to gross dimensions necessary for engineering structures.
Phil:
Still you could have solar panels that take up less area than the radiator that Rick Mentioned with comprable mass to the nuclear plant+radiator.
No, not really. The limiting factor is the intensity of sunlight, which is 1.36 kW/m2 at earth orbit. That is far lower then the power output from a radiator system, which can easily be in the neighborhood of 300 kW/m2. Even assuming perfect efficiency (the current maximum is somewhere around 50%), the solar pannel would have to be much lighter per unit area to win, and structural concerns alone might prohibit that. I know that the stuff inside the ship is heavy, but I doubt it's heavy enough. And the ship would still need auxiliary radiators. The vessel gets electricity free of heat, but it doesn't gain any benefit for the heat produced by machinery.
And if it were shadowed it would need to drift until it could work under power again.
Being shadowed for long periods is unlikely, though it could lead to some interesting tactics, and would definitely limit the use of the laserstar near planets. In that case, fighters make more sense, as the big ships can't be used in low orbit.
Byron said:"And if it were shadowed it would need to drift until it could work under power again.
Being shadowed for long periods is unlikely, though it could lead to some interesting tactics, and would definitely limit the use of the laserstar near planets. In that case, fighters make more sense, as the big ships can't be used in low orbit."
On board an orbital fighting ship that is coming into range of an enemy Laserstar:
Captain Blygh:"Mr. Christensen, unfurl the solar sail!"
Christensen: "Aye, Captain! We'll leave them shadowed good!"
On board the Laserstar:
Captain:" We're losing power! The hell is going on?"
Engineer:"They've be-shadowed us! Their auxilary solar sail has blocked the sun! We'll be helpless for the next three minutes!"
Captain:" Aaahhh!"
Ferrell
Byron,
No, not really. The limiting factor is the intensity of sunlight, which is 1.36 kW/m2 at earth orbit. That is far lower then the power output from a radiator system, which can easily be in the neighborhood of 300 kW/m2
----------
Hmm did I make a mistake on a decimal point somewhere?
Call Efficiency 10% (you wont get 50% with a thin film polymer designed to pass excess light so as balance radiation with warm up)
Using that would be 0.136 kw per meter squared. 100 MW is 100,000 kw.
So 100,000 kw / 0.136 kw (per m^2) = ~740,000 M^2
Convert M^2 to KM^2 0.74 KM^2
Rick mentioned 1 KM^2 I thought?
0.74 < 1.
(SA Phil)
Think of the mass as a 1 km by 1 km sheet of Saran wrap. With occasional wires involved.
The support structure would mass more than the panel.
Would probably be pretty easy to blow up though.
(SA Phil)
Being shadowed for long periods is unlikely, though it could lead to some interesting tactics, and would definitely limit the use of the laserstar near planets. In that case, fighters make more sense, as the big ships can't be used in low orbit."
Ferrel
===========
Yeah I was just thinking a solar powered, remote controlled Laserstar drone is an epic fail of the rule of kewl and is an idea which should be terminated with extreme predjudice.
Still I wouldn’t be surprised if solar is a far more mass efficient way of generating electricity when you are within about 1AU of the sun.
Byron said:
No, not really. The limiting factor is the intensity of sunlight, which is 1.36 kW/m2 at earth orbit. That is far lower then the power output from a radiator system, which can easily be in the neighborhood of 300 kW/m2
=========
So the really interesting thing about the above figure is if I could design a solar panel that weighs only 1kg per square meter with 73.5% efficiencies I am well over the 1kw/kg threshold most people have been tackling on their theoretical nuclear reactors for the last 100 posts.
Considering its effectively zero G with combat thrust measured in tenths ofa g its probably an easier engineering challenge to design a light weight solar panel than a super high efficiency, low weight nuclear reactor. 1kg per m(2) and 75% efficiency doesn’t sound that outlandish.
In earth orbit could solar just be the simple solution to the energy production problems>
What is important in space is mass, surface area is pretty much irrelevant given the puny thrusts we are talking about.
The radiator itself is going to weigh a heap. That radiator may be able to radiate away 250 times as much energy as a solar panel. But I bet that solar panel can potentially weigh a lot less. I mean to radiate away 300,000 joules every second would take (assuming non-pressurised water) 5.7L of water flowing through it every second. To achieve that flow I guess your’ll need at least double that call it 11.4kg. A 1m(2) radiator itself is going to weigh a few kilograms. Call it 15kg per 1m(2). And this is ignoring the giant semi-shielded reactor and pumps as part of the weight equation.
If people are truly talking molecular thickness solar panels with theoretical efficiencies of 80+% you could make a case solar is the most mass efficient way of getting the required energy.
Ahhh,
Phil beat me to the post by a few minutes again.
In brief.
surely its an easier engineering challenge to design a solar panel that weighs 1kg per meter with an efficiency of about 75% than it is to design any of the above theoretical reactors discussed.
Locki,
1kg per m(2) and 75% efficiency doesn’t sound that outlandish.
----
I don't know what it would be made out of though.
Current record efficiencies are just over 40% IIRC.
That and at high efficiencies the panel would also heat up at the same rate (somewhere around 1kw watt per meter squared or more?, which would need to be radiated away - or else the panel would need to be actively cooled.) At 200C the semi conductor would start to fail and the panel would burn up.
(SA Phil)
Locki,
surely its an easier engineering challenge to design a solar panel that weighs 1kg per meter with an efficiency of about 75% than it is to design any of the above theoretical reactors discussed.
==========
Not so much. I can see the thin film on thin polymer film panel existing though, since there are grants in that area already.
Lower efficiency versions are actually already on sale. I think Ascent is CIGS on Kapton - and they are 8% I believe. In space a comparable version would be extremely light weight since most of the package is to keep water out.
http://www.ascentsolar.com/
You wouldn't want to use a panel like that but something along those lines. Different semi-conductor, different polymer, etc.
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2011/15173.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7gIHMJaujMs/0.jpg
Something that looks like above - but a lot thinner and more transparent.
(SA Phil)
Ferrell's story would be one possibility.
Another is you could use a diffused laser to heat up the panel and cause swaths of the semi-conductor to fail.
I really think the solar electric idea is best for Laser-Stars with very little mobility needs --- So they can use heavy actively cooled panels.
Or for solar-electric ships that don't fight anyone. Which would be pretty good, really.
(SA Phil)
On farther thought, a solar laserstar is a really bad idea. The panel can't be armored against lasers, and it has to be pointed perpendicular to the sun. The radiators can generally be presented edge-on, and are less vulnerable to laser fire.
Locki:
So the really interesting thing about the above figure is if I could design a solar panel that weighs only 1kg per square meter with 73.5% efficiencies I am well over the 1kw/kg threshold most people have been tackling on their theoretical nuclear reactors for the last 100 posts.
The problem is that you have to include the engine, and the support structure. Both of those are going to be significant, and there is the vulnerability mentioned above.
Someone somewhere back mentioned the idea that the solar panel could serve double duty as a radiator. Then someone else pointed out that photovoltaic cells loose their efficiency at temperature so you end up locked in a red queen's race you can't win.
Then I had an idea.
What if you built your radiator in a parabolic shape and made one side shiny such that it concentrated light from the sun onto a much smaller solar panel? Bonus points because the actual photovoltaics could be shielded in all directions except the mirror so it would be very difficult to shine a laser directly onto it as it would need to come straight from the direction of the sun.
PS: I am aware that such a radiator would be less efficient than a traditional radiator in that it would radiate into itself on one side but maybe the increased mass required of the radiator is offset by the mass saved in the power supply.
I'm not going to push this idea too hard.
But extrapolating from our current base, Solar energy,at least within 1-2 AU from the sun, enjoys quite a few advantages over a reactor that needs a closed radiator system:
1. For some reason I thought theoretically solar panel efficiency could approach 100%
2. No vibrations for your long range laser shots
3. Far less problems in radiating away waste heat
3. It may be more plausible to get over the magical 1kw/kg threshold with solar panels than it is with nuclear reactors. If it really is possible to design some light-weight flexible solar panel you could potentially get the panel to weigh as little as (?) 50-100gm per meter. This would make it a LOT more efficient than even the most fantastical nuclear reactor we could imagine.
So if you wanted a great original setting for a hard SF novel its equally plausible everything is powered up by huge light weight solar panels that are "unfurled" when needed.
Everything interesting takes place within 2AU of the Sun (say Mars inwards).
The only economic activity is in close proximity (2AU) of the sun because this is the only place where the sunlight is intense enough to power up your solar panels.
Higher energy combat takes places around venus, mecury.
Combat ships also rely are solar-electric drive. They don't even bother carrying a nuclear reactor. They may have a thermoelectric reactor for backup but combat relies on charging up batteries and capacitors. When they approach combat range they fold up their sails and do combat with chemical missiles and more modest lasers.
They may be used to transport the NTR fighters/corvettes closer to combat.
Laserstars could be the ultimate strategic weapon because they can punch a hole through the panels from stupid ranges. But they themselves are solar powered.
If you must have an interstellar empire there's no reason you can't just reverse the "need zero gravity for a hyperspace jump" trope.
Its just as plausible that a jump is only possible from deep within a stars gravity well and you can only jump from high gravity areas to high gravity areas.
Hmm, there were many things.
About SF : I also think self-consistency is the most important thing, otherwise, it is acceptable to me to say extra dimensions allowed FTL thingy /we already have quantum-nonlocality, maybe we'll have a breakthrough to use it for signaling/ or there will be custom made materials, maybe custom tailored particles to take up extensive heat.
Otherwise i think the multiple lasers, chain-gun like lasers will be good for jamming and blindening purpose, but they will be even less able to blow up ships.
Tony : you spoke many things about waste heat treatment etc.
What could you imagine to be the minimal size of a fighter /fast attack and patrol craft, multifunctional boat/?
Otherwise, i wouldnt rely too much on solar power on warships, enemy unfolds a huge magsail to shadow you, or simply keep firing shrapnel, the solar panels gone.
For the purpose of voyage, magsails are good IMHO.
The solar panels would make great sense for the Moon Mounted Laser. It would be relatively easy to get several gigawatts of actively cooled panels that were vibrationally removed from the Laser and mirrors.
It would cost a lot less than a Nuclear Reactor and you wouldn't need any shielding.
Plenty of unused real estate too.
(SA Phil)
The problem with a solar powered Moon based RBOD is that it cannot dodge. You could launch a massive swarm of small ball bearings from anywhere in the solar system and let orbital mechanics resolve the issue.
Without actually seeing a vehicle launch the ball bearings no one will be expecting them. The ball bearings would be difficult to detect and could easily overwhelm any attempt to vaporize them.
After the surprise attack takes out the solar panels, then the fleet can launch. They will still be trying to fix it when you get there.
Ron
Solar electric power is looking more and more attractive for travel out to the orbit of Mars, even the asteroid belt.
Truth to be told, nuke electric is the ultimate steampunk drive. In space, no one can hear you clank. By comparison, solar electric glides along with a hum.
And solar electric laser stars have some advantages. They only need to deal with the waste heat from the laser, not the power source, which accounts for most the total heat management problem.
Yes, the solar wings are huge and vulnerable. But what *isn't* vulnerable to the sort of attack you launch to take out a laser star? And the big wings are by no means the easiest target, because they can take a lot of shredding, and most of the wing surface and cabling will remain.
The best kinetic against them is probably sandblast, but it will take a lot of sand to seriously pit a square kilometer of solar sheeting.
But one other thing to note about solar electric. On the whole it favors small spacecraft rather than big ones. Whereas nuclear propulsion, at any rate involving fission reactors, has a high minimum size to play.
Drift like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
Phil:
The solar panels would make great sense for the Moon Mounted Laser. It would be relatively easy to get several gigawatts of actively cooled panels that were vibrationally removed from the Laser and mirrors.
It would cost a lot less than a Nuclear Reactor and you wouldn't need any shielding.
Plenty of unused real estate too.
No, it's an even worse idea then the solar laserstar. The problem is that solar power only works when the sun is shining. Obvious though that may sound, it's a much larger problem for a surface base which is in shadow half the time then it is for a laserstar which can generally expect to only be shadowed for short periods. Either you have to somehow bring power from halfway across the planet or have really massive energy storage capability. A typical moon will probably have darkness for a week or more at a time.
Also, Ron makes a good point about the vulnerability of solar panels, though I'd go with even smaller particles.
Locki:
Its just as plausible that a jump is only possible from deep within a stars gravity well and you can only jump from high gravity areas to high gravity areas.
AVT uses something similar to this. The jump points are somewhere around the orbit of Mercury.
Well, until you dont depend too much on them, theese big panels are good.
But against shrapnel attacks, they are vulnerable, you need good capacitators, and backup power source.
From SF viewpoint :
The problem with warp jump in high gravity, that you could replace most vehicles to teleport gates.
But i start to like this solar panel thingy. If they will use shrapnel barrages against them, it can also favor small ships, that can retract their panels and dodge with the stored energy.
Maybe one side can be used to collect power, while the other side will be the magsail.
We seem to have been seduced by giganticism (which makes a certain amount of sense given certain starting assumptions), but we all seem to have ignored the energy requirements to move large masses around in space.
Large spaceships will require large powerplants and drives, lots of fuel and remass and the associated engineering plant. These puppies won't be going anywhere fast in the PMF; you can get to Mars in 120 days using a 1mm/s^2 lightsail, but 90 days will be taken climbing out of Earth orbit.
Just as I have speculated that cargo may be sent as independent ISO containers mass driven from the starting point (negating the need for a massive cargo ship), we may see a movement to create the minimum mass of ship capable of doing the job. The extreme would be the ability to deliver a tailored virus to the individual in question, but in military terms, what wold a space faring power want?
IF your victory conditions need you to have physical possession of a colony, asteroid or industrial site, then you don't really want to be deploying gigawatts of energy nearby, or having KKVs closing in on the position at 100 Kps. OTOH if victory conditions are that you want to deny the enemy the use of these facilities, then you are compelled to bring Thor's hammer with you.
Space war will not resemble anything we have seen in the movies, and may not even resemble anything we have been talking about here. All we can say for certain is it will be a theater of operations full of surprises.
TOM:
"Tony : you spoke many things about waste heat treatment etc.
What could you imagine to be the minimal size of a fighter /fast attack and patrol craft, multifunctional boat/?"
Presuming nuclear-thermal propulsion and kinetic guns/missiles, several hundred tons, at least, mostly in propellant. Auxiliary power (ship's service, life support, weapons systems, etc) would be from a small (and I mean minimal) nuclear plant. No weapons cooling is needed because it's all projectiles, solid propellants, and HE/nukes. No propulsion cooling is needed, because the rockets use once-through regenerative cooling. Auxiliary power and life support cooling will require radiators, but not huge ones.
Byron,
Either you have to somehow bring power from halfway across the planet or have really massive energy storage capability.
===========
Or just have more than one Laser-Base.
Especially if its a "civilian Laser most of the time" thing
The thing about the Solar Laser is it will cost much much less than a Nuclear Laser.
Tomorrow, you could buy a gigawatt power station on Earth for $2 million or so, hookups and all.
A Gigawatt nuclear reactor would cost several billion. After the legal fees.
At present the Solar costs are going down.. while the nuclear reactor prices are going up. Although that wont necessarily be true forever.
Its so much cheaper you could have a backup array and backup panels your service techs could roll out after the ball bearing strike.
Also the nice thing is the arrays could be built so they still will function after portions have been damaged.
Try that with a reactor.
(SA Phil)
That should read billion not million for the Solar Station made a decimal point error - the panels would only cost half that, the other half is the electricity handling.
Actually anywhere with no atmosphere they would be much much cheaper since 1/2 the cost of a solar panel is keeping out the environment.
I think I recently read estimates for a modern GW nuke are at 13 billion now.
(SA Phil)
Rick,
The best kinetic against them is probably sandblast, but it will take a lot of sand to seriously pit a square kilometer of solar sheeting.
-------------
Interestingly a common thin film demo is to show how the panel still works with a bullet hole in it.
It would be easy to design the panel so that pierces wouldn't have much of an effect on total performance.
(SA Phil)
Phil:
Or just have more than one Laser-Base.
No, that doesn't solve the whole problem. It leaves it with an enormous blind spot, namely the entire dark half of the body. Put your base at the L2, and you're set. To be able to deny lunar space to the enemy, you need lasers that work all the time. Plus, I'd imagine that the laser costs more then the power supply, so any savings are purely nominal. Also, a nuclear reactor on a body doesn't need radiators, so for a slight cost savings, the system is both more vulnerable and half as effective
Especially if its a "civilian Laser most of the time" thing
In that case, it's likely in orbit, and the criticism I made doesn't apply. I do wonder if it might be possible to build a system in such a way that it can't focus to a fairly small spot, as a precaution against military use.
Interestingly a common thin film demo is to show how the panel still works with a bullet hole in it.
It would be easy to design the panel so that pierces wouldn't have much of an effect on total performance.
That's not what he's suggesting. The mechanism would be similar to my proposal last year to take out mirrors with clouds of sand. The sand doesn't have to penetrate, just damage the outer surface. This gives maximum damage for minimum mass. The panel would still work, but less effectively.
TOM said...
Well, until you dont depend too much on them, theese big panels are good.
But against shrapnel attacks, they are vulnerable, you need good capacitators, and backup power source.
From SF viewpoint :
The problem with warp jump in high gravity, that you could replace most vehicles to teleport gates
==========
I wonder if a radiator is actually so much more damage resistent than a thin film solar panel?
Realisticially to get anywhere near the 1kw/kg threshold the radiators are going to be built as light weight as possible. We often talk about damage resistence on modern warships/aircraft in terms of "passive resistence". eg how many redundant systems and how easy it is to fix rather than in terms of hard armored damage resistence.
Its arguable the solar film panels have much greater passive damage resistence.
The radiator is going to be light weight anyway and filled either with high pressure water or some sort of liquid sodium. A laserstar is going to need square kilometers of the stuff. If you put a hole in any section of that you lose coolant and your whole radiator is potentially stuffed. At best you'll have to shut down an entire section of the radiator till the hole is patched. It will also play havoc with your aim and stabilisation.
In comparison the film solar panels can be built massively parallel so damage to a section only knocks out one cell. In addition its possibly going to be a lot easier to repair in that you could always just unfurl a new solar film over the damaged cell. Solar film cell could be folded out of the way of hostile fire a lot quicker.
I guess the radiators coolant system could be built parallel too but its much easier to build parallel with electronics than with mechanical cooling systems.
I'll pay Byrons point that you can potentially move the radiators edge on so it becomes a much smaller target. But I don't think its such a crushing advantage because
1. It'll be slow as hell to move a couple of square km's of radiator filled with high pressure water
2. Its probably offset by the fact you can fold the solar film away
3. Everyone's on intersecting orbits so it's probably very difficult to point your radiators "dead on" anway.
===
Re: SF warp jumps
- If you need to do away with earthbound "stargates" I guess you could invent some handwavium reason the jump points only appear near a really massive gravity body like the sun instead of the earth. The bigger the gravity body the further you could jump.
For a laser launcher/ ship traffic system in cis lunar space you would probably want to have two bases as a minimum, one on the near side of the moon and the other on the far side. If you mount the mirror farms on the end of Pearson elevators then you have the ability to cover wide arcs of space.
For total coverage you would also need to establish a position at L3 (accepting the fact the position is metastable and would need to be tweaked to stay in position), or really vast stations at the Earth Sun L1 position.
Byron,
That's not what he's suggesting. The mechanism would be similar to my proposal last year to take out mirrors with clouds of sand. The sand doesn't have to penetrate, just damage the outer surface. This gives maximum damage for minimum mass. The panel would still work, but less effectively.
==============
In the Thin film on film panel I am not sure how that would work - The difference between abrading through the film and just poking a hole in it would be pretty small.
A True - "designed for space" panels - which we haven't really ever seen at any scale yet - probably wont have any glass involved.
(SA Phil)
Byron,
In that case, it's likely in orbit, and the criticism I made doesn't apply. I do wonder if it might be possible to build a system in such a way that it can't focus to a fairly small spot, as a precaution against military use.
==============
Are we back to the Vibrator-Star again though I wonder.
(SA Phil)
Locki,
Re: SF warp jumps
- If you need to do away with earthbound "stargates" I guess you could invent some handwavium reason the jump points only appear near a really massive gravity body like the sun instead of the earth. The bigger the gravity body the further you could jump.
================
Pretty much --
When debating the merits of one magitech vs another - its really just personal preference.
Write an outline of the story with a magic button drive -- after you meet all the plot requirements come up with a handwavistic rationale to meet it.
For example don't use a Portal Network if you want to do a story about a space craft avoiding the authorities because presumably the authorities can turn the network off.
(SA Phil)
Locki,
1. It'll be slow as hell to move a couple of square km's of radiator filled with high pressure water
----------
Probably faster than getting some astronauts to suit up and move your Solar Array -- although not necessarily.
You could for instance mount the array on several robotic buggies (think really big flatbed trucks) and then just move them out of the way.
Could do that to the entire moon base actually.
Wouldn't be much more vulnerable than a Orbital Laser-Star would be to a massive SCOD kinetic swarm sent in ballistically from interplanetary distances that lit up their drives at the last second.
(SA Phil)
Pretty much --
When debating the merits of one magitech vs another - its really just personal preference.
Write an outline of the story with a magic button drive -- after you meet all the plot requirements come up with a handwavistic rationale to meet it.
(SA Phil)
=========
oh I've given up on FTL as anything other than pure magic a long, long time ago.
It took me about 6 months to get my head around the causality paradox though.
Speaking of which. Can I direct a question at the physics types on the group?
Mainstream media often portrays wormholes as a way of short cutting through time-space and beating the light speed barrier.
Surely even wormholes breach causality? Or does quantum physics create some sort of special frame of reference for each wormhole?
Locki:
oh I've given up on FTL as anything other than pure magic a long, long time ago.
It took me about 6 months to get my head around the causality paradox though.
Speaking of which. Can I direct a question at the physics types on the group?
Mainstream media often portrays wormholes as a way of short cutting through time-space and beating the light speed barrier.
Surely even wormholes breach causality? Or does quantum physics create some sort of special frame of reference for each wormhole?
What you want is this post.
I'm not sure exactly how effective future solar cells are likely to be. When I get back to school, I may be able to ask around and get some answers, but that's not for another two months.
My current gig is designing and figuring out how to build Solar Modules, not the film side personally- though we do do that.
(SA Phil)
My thinking on FTL in real life is a bit like this - the Universe doesn't need it- it isn't going to have it just to make humans happy.
That said, you can't have a demi-opera without it.
(SA Phil)
TOM said:
Presuming nuclear-thermal propulsion and kinetic guns/missiles, several hundred tons, at least, mostly in propellant. Auxiliary power (ship's service, life support, weapons systems, etc) would be from a small (and I mean minimal) nuclear plant. No weapons cooling is needed because it's all projectiles, solid propellants, and HE/nukes. No propulsion cooling is needed, because the rockets use once-through regenerative cooling. Auxiliary power and life support cooling will require radiators, but not huge ones.
=======
I like it. I always throught the big limiting factor on a military spacecraft would be the vulnerable radiators. My hypothetical settings always have the military vehicles keeping their radiators to a minimum (in contrast to the civilian ships)
Some additional questions about the above proposed warship.
1. What is the efficiency on a coil gun? If you want to keep your vulnerable radiators to a minimum do they put out much waste heat or are you just better off with a chemical cannon (maybe electrothermal chemical cannon)
2. What sort of NTR is favoured around here anyway? Gas core Nuclear Lightbulb? Or just a bog standard solid core LANTR with oxygen for afterburner mode?
The above sounds more like an MBT or a patrol boat analogue rather than a fighter analogue. I like it.
Locki:
"Some additional questions about the above proposed warship.
1. What is the efficiency on a coil gun? If you want to keep your vulnerable radiators to a minimum do they put out much waste heat or are you just better off with a chemical cannon (maybe electrothermal chemical cannon)"
No coil guns. No rail guns. Missiles, rockets, ballistics, chemical energy guns. The whole point is to make a warcraft capable of being effective, but containing the least vulnerabilities -- like large power systems and radiators.
"2. What sort of NTR is favoured around here anyway? Gas core Nuclear Lightbulb? Or just a bog standard solid core LANTR with oxygen for afterburner mode?"
Whatever works. I'm personally skeptical of gas or liquid core fission rockets. I think I'll stick with good ol' solid core.
"The above sounds more like an MBT or a patrol boat analogue rather than a fighter analogue. I like it."
It's a "fighter" in the sense that it does the fighting while the interplanetary carrier ship stays out of shooting range (if possible). Other than that, it needs to have the qualities necessary to accomplish it's mission, not follow some template from the present day or the past that really doesn't apply. Also, we need to understand that even this relatively small ship is only an intermediate (and possibly unnecessary) system, since manning the actual weapon systems seems inadvisable.
Locki:
I wonder if a radiator is actually so much more damage resistent than a thin film solar panel?
Why not use droplet radiators? You could armor the sprayer/collector booms quite easily.
Samantha:
"Why not use droplet radiators? You could armor the sprayer/collector booms quite easily."
On a combat spacecraft, I'm not so sure that would work. If you have to maneuver, you have to secure your radiator and wait for all of the droplets to collect before thrusting or even reorienting.
I think, coilguns can have more efficiency and speed than normal cannons, i would mount them.
I could never accept that FTL violates casuality... just because someone can SEE that person B receives the message before person A sent it... if i use Lorentz transformations to radio waves i can get a delta-t 0, and i can find a viewpoint, where i can see, the radio message arrived the same time it was sent.
About my conception, i can agree, it can be unnecessary on battlecruiser, shore missions, occupation can give enough justification IMHO.
/Well fuel producing and shipping costs can be low enough with magsails, asteroid mines./
About wormholes, that Locki asked.
As far as i know, speed is undefined in General Relativity between different reference frames.
For example if something falls into a black hole, it falls slower than light (locally), but from out viewpoint, its FTL.
That is the working principle of SF warp drives, wormholes.
Hyperspace or jump drives rely on other dimensions, certain theories calculate with extra dimensions to give justification to phenonema like quantum-nonlocality.
No theory with extra dimensions has ever been conclusively proven experimentally.
String Theory is more like multiple String Hypotheses hoping to be proved.
(SA Phil)
TOM:
"I think, coilguns can have more efficiency and speed than normal cannons, i would mount them."
Cannons would be for realtively close-in work and self defense. Missiles and ballistics for everything else.
TOM said:
Cannons would be for realtively close-in work and self defense. Missiles and ballistics for everything else.
You could always add in chemical lasers for point defence and blinding. AFAIK the waste heat is all ejected with the chemicals.
May be useful for less lethal combat where you merely want to fire a warning shot or disable a civilian craft non-lethally
Also for some reason I thought I'd read the chemicals used for chemical lasers are very similar to those used by chemical reactants. Could you dual purpose the "ammo" for the laser as both rocket fuel and laser ammo?
Locki:
"You could always add in chemical lasers for point defence and blinding. AFAIK the waste heat is all ejected with the chemicals."
Not likely all of the heat -- probably not even most of the heat. The pumping energy generator is probably where most of the waste heat comes from. One could use expendable coolant, but that eats into the weapon system portion of your mass budget. Maybe you could justify it if you had a target set that was exceptionally vulnerable to heat attack. But otherwise...
"Also for some reason I thought I'd read the chemicals used for chemical lasers are very similar to those used by chemical reactants. Could you dual purpose the 'ammo' for the laser as both rocket fuel and laser ammo?"
The whole point of using a nuclear-thermal rocket is to be able to heat low molecular weight for maximum efficiency. That means using monatomic hydrogen. Other chemicals in the exhaust stream defeat the purpose.
You could use a NTR that uses LOX for added thrust situationally.
The "main gun" could be a combustion gas gun -- since it also uses LOX and Hydrogen.
the CGG ejects its heat as well, like the NTR.
Unlike the coilgun it can use long projectiles effectively with a short gun length, thus they could have some "guidance" DeltaV if that was important.
(SA Phil)
Of course you could go the Laser Thermal Route for "fighters" in a Laser-Star type of world of course.
I would think you would want that craft to use only missiles since it would really mainly be a heat absorber device (lens/etc) Propellant tanks, radiators and a control system (hab optional)
Of course that craft could also be Hydrogen/Lox combo - including a some small chem rockets for maneuver and propulsion when the Laser power is not available.
(SA Phil)
SA Phil:
"You could use a NTR that uses LOX for added thrust situationally."
While maneuverability, in the sense of being able to change orbits with one burn at perigee or apogee, would probably be critical, you don't need an afterburner. The few tenths of a G of thrust that nuclear-thermal rocket gives you is more than sufficient.
Tony said...
While maneuverability, in the sense of being able to change orbits with one burn at perigee or apogee, would probably be critical, you don't need an afterburner. The few tenths of a G of thrust that nuclear-thermal rocket gives you is more than sufficient.
If you are using hydrogen as a propellent carrying a large quantity of oxygen could be awfuly handy.
Injecting the O2 as a reverse scramjet afterburner could give you 1-3Gs worth of emergency accelleration. In a spacescape where kinetics are king this would play havoc with targetting.
The O2 cuold be handy for your fuel cells especially if this is your only form of electricity too.
Realistically, in a spacescape where kinetics is king, maneuvering and ECM is going to be your primary form of defence - as it is in modern air warfare.
Hitting fast moving target is damn hard. The old rec.arts.military.aviation usenet forums often discussed why even the mighty B-52 doesn't carry any hard defences. It just wasn't worth it or effective. I expect spacecraft to be analagous.
Hitting the afterburners for a few seconds could be awfully handy.
Also wrt NTRs. I presume they can't be throttled back or restarted quickly? They struck me more as a constant on sort of engine which is terrible for unpredictable evasion maneuvers. Could be awfully handy for a miltiary craft to have a heap of O2 and H2 lying around for emergency thrust.
Expanding on that last point. I think we are badly underestimating how hard it is to actually hit a moving target when the closing velocities are so high.
This has been something I’ve been meaning to bring up since tackling the laserstar tracking issues a couple of hundred posts ago.
Given the current state of our seeker and maneuver technologies a current tech KKV would be using all of its delta-V to slow down to ensure a hit.
Hitting a fast moving target is really, really hard. You have to predict where the target will be in a given period of time, launch your KKV and then thread your KKV through that predicted point at the exactly the correct time.
Modern ABMs designed to knock down ballistic missiles in the terminal phase (closing speed about mach 10 or about 3kps) don’t even bother carrying a shaped charge expanding rod warhead because it just increases your chances of missing. The closing speed is so fast the ballisitic missile is likely to fly right through the cloud of shrapnel you just threw at it.
I’ve read of proposals to fit a basket to expand your catching area but when the engineers crunch the numbers they’d rather just have the mass for more maneuvering jets/seekers.
Byron and I went through this before. The ground based terminal interceptors have a miserable accuracy and are about 0 from 7. And that’s with IR early warning, mid course tracking, a huge phased array radar (powered up by the national grid and its own power station no less) and an IR seeker for terminal phase. In comparison an AMRAAM has a (?) 90+% success rate against relatively slow fighters. Apparently an AIM-9X or AMRAAM is useless for self defence and has practically zero chance of shooting down a AAM.
I presume that when closing velocities double the difficulty to hit either increases by 4 fold or even 8 fold (3-dimensional space).
In short its damn hard to knock down a target when closing velocities are high.
Given the high velocities we are likely to be dealing with. Releasing a cloud of unguided sand/ball bearings/rods will probably just increase your chances of a miss. Given the difficulties of scoring a hit you want active guidance for as long possible.
I’d also suggest this might be a limit on the ultimata range of kinecticstars. Given the limitations on the accuracy of the seeker technology (Byron mentioned they are already compensating for 0.01 seconds lag) and the accuracy of the maneuver jets (either chemical or pressurised thrusters) I don’t think we can actually guarantee a hit at the speeds commonly thrown around here.
Well i will return when i reprocessed the material, just a few thoughts :
The size of asteroid 2012 LZ1 was greatly underestimated because of its low albedo, they needed a 300m radio scope to get better value, so that reassures me, tracking a far away target isnt that trivial...
Yes, i also think you have to aim with interceptors, small missiles cant just produce big delta-v, you need to compute the course properly, the better aim, the lesser fuel, more and cheaper projectiles.
Well superstring, superfluid vacuum and things like that are only theories, but they are created to explain the mysterious phenonema i mentioned, and its real.
I dont know whether this can ensure a new major breakthrough, but you can have some justification in a demi-operatic setting at least.
Hmm, i would also like to employ some sort of non so lethal weaponry for capture operations.
I wonder what can be the efficiency of EMP against hardened targets?
If laser can burn through armor, then i guess a strong, continous microwave pulse can disable even protected electronics.
I have an article on my machine, but dont know its exact source, it claims US Air Force actually spending more to EMP than laser weapons.
Also a missile or civil ship dont have that heavy protection.
I also think an afterburner for emergency dodge can be good sometimes.
Post a Comment