[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: Re: starship-design: Pellet track
In a message dated 8/31/97 4:34:24 PM, you wrote:
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>>In a message dated 8/27/97 10:37:05 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:
>>>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>>>>In a message dated 8/23/97 12:37:20 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)
>>>>wrote:
>
>>>>>Actually, a fusion plant only has to compete with fission plants to
>>>>>acheive great profit potential. The initial and running costs for
>>>>>motive fission plants are so great that they're now restricted to
>>>>>aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. The running costs for any
>>>>>practical fusion plant would be much less than fission or conventional,
>>>>>so that just leaves initial cost--including R&D.
>
>>>>Actually the weight of the power plants reduces them to fairly large
craft.
>
>>>Huh? Nuclear power plants have been operated on _aircraft_
>>>(research into a nuclear powered bomber included actual flights
>>>of a conventionally propelled bomber with a nuclear power plant
>>>operated on board). They are light and small enough to potentially
>>>be used on smaller ships, but they are expensive.
>
>>Not a power plant with the power to drive an aircraft or ship. The nuclear
>>airplane research program caried A power plant, but not one that could
power
>>it, much less one that was SHEILDED. Surface area rules are nasty to small
>>nukes.
>
>The one which they carried did operate, and was deemed sufficient to
>perform research on safety issues as well as generally demonstrating
>the technology. More powerful small nuclear power plants have since
>been developed (for instance, research into particle bed reactors
>have led to 300/1 thrust/weight ratio solid core rocket engines).
Note none of the above include sheilding.
>>About the only small nuclear ship was the Savana. She ran well, but the
>>reactors weight cut into her cargo capacity, and long shorman refused to
>>unload her. Some ports refused her entry.
>
>Probably the most important small nuclear powered vessel is the USN's
>NR1, the world's smallest nuclear submarine. Even though it's only
>44.4m long and 336 tons submerged, it is a fully operational nuclear
>powered submarine with a nominal endurance of 210 man-days. This thing
>is actually used by civilian researchers (with USN crew running the
>boat) for things like searching for the wreckage of Brittanica and
>mapping coral reefs. I think it was used to search for TWA 800
>wreckage, but I don't recall specifically.
>
>Seeing as civilians are allowed to use her regularly, I'd say she's
>a safe, seaworthy vessel that isn't spraying its crew members with
>deathly radiation.
She also only has enough power for a 4 knot top speed and has to be towed to
her operational areas.
>>>> Legal restrictions complicated their use so the navy does use them on
all
>>>>large ships.
>
>>>Mostly, however, they are expensive. Otherwise, the USN would find
>>>a way to go all nuclear. Thanks to the late Admiral Rickover, at
>>>least our submarine fleet is all nuclear.
>
>>Life cycle wise nukes aren't as expensive then conventional plants. Not
that
>>thats much of an argument for DOD contracts.
>
>Really? I doubt that. If nukes were less expensive, we would
>already see at least some civilian nuclear cargo ships--even if
>the cost savings were long term. --
Covered that above with the Savana. She sailed fine, but carried less cargo
and had labor problems.
>---The DoD may not be financially
>shrewd, but international corporations tend to be. As a point
>of fact, there have indeed been many civilian proposals for
>nuclear cargo vessels, nuclear ocean liners, and even nuclear
>oil tanker submarine (to, among other things, shuttle underneath
>the Arctic). However, none of these proposals have gotten anywhere.
>Large ocean going ships are very fuel efficient, for the payload mass.
>
>>Subs need the air free nature, and Carriers need to stay clear of ports
(and
>>would burn non-nuke fuel at a tremendous rate).
>
>Huh? Carriers _do_ burn non-nuke fuel at a tremendous rate--the
>majority of carriers in service today are non-nuclear. How do they
>stay clear of ports in wartime? The same way as the rest of her
>fleet, by refueling at sea from tankers.
>
>However, nuclear carriers have an edge in that they have a lot more
>space for aviation fuel and munitions, more free deck space, and
>landing on them is a bit easier. Such a pity they're so expensive.
To my knowlegde all the US big deck carriers went nuclear years ago. What
ones are you refuring to?