Gateworld Virtual Fleet 4.0 - Discussion thread

[thekillman]

i might have accumulated enough creative juice to write my story. It's the Dead Planet story, which i think has a load of potential for a load of things...

It might be a bit standalone tho...

[Gormagon]

I am now working on an ALIENS novel. I like how its progressing so far. I recently acquired AVP for the PC and I love that game. Iv opened up all the missions, I kinda wish it had longer campaigns.

[Gormagon]

So I was wondering, what are anyone's thoughts on lithium hydride reactors VS tritium deuterium reactors for ship power?

Also, does anyone have an idea about what Yautja motherships would use as a power source?

[thekillman]

What are litium hydride reactors?

and the tritium-deuterium reactors are fusion reactors ?

also, what are yautja motherships?

[immhotep]

What are litium hydride reactors?

and the tritium-deuterium reactors are fusion reactors ?

They are conventional designs/materials for human fusion reactors. No issue with them being used.

[thekillman]

They are conventional designs/materials for human fusion reactors. No issue with them being used.

Well i know lithium hydride is being used in breeder reactors, but i just don't understand what he's asking.

Tritium deuterium is superior, but you're gonna need a source of tritium, which is precisely what Lithium Hydride is for.

[Gormagon]

Well I was reading about this reactor that utilized a L/H fusion reactor.

.......a Westingland A-59 fusion reactor with a maximum generating output of 3.6 Terawatts.
Like most military vessels, the Conestogas use a lithium-hydride or 'dry' fusion plant. The basic fuel for the plant is the crystalline powder form of lithium-hydride. The specific gravity of the fuel is 0.82 metric tons per cubic meter, making it extremely space efficient, avoiding the problems of cryogenic storage associated with civilian reactors fueled by heavy hydrogen isotopes such as deuterium and tritium. The LiH plant accepts the powder in very fine form, allowing it to be shipped and pumped as if it were a liquid, and administered into the powerplant as a blown dust. The powder must be stored in double-lined containers to prevent contact with water, otherwise it will dissociate and react violently.

So I was wondering whats up with that?^ Could it be more space efficient then T/D?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogen...dfs/28890o.pdf <Here is an article I have not finished reading yet.

So, my question being, in a universe without exotic elements and currently no access to anything like ZPE or a subspace tab or some such device, would a Lithium hydride fueled reactor be good to use on a space vessel?

[thekillman]

I'm not sure on how it achieves fusion.

The idea behind it is pretty fine. Lithium hydride is used in fusion nukes, by the way. I am not sure what's better for space ship fuel, regarding specific gravity or whatever. Still, Lithium hydride is solid and hydrogen is a gas. Storage and containment leaks are less of a problem with LiH. So i guess it's better for a battleship, i'm just not sure if it's better overall.

[Gormagon]

K thanks, I mostly wanted to make sure it wasent bull, some Scifi writers do not take into account real science and use what sounds cool.

[thekillman]

Well i am not sure how well lithium hydride works as a pure fuel. I think you need to toss it through a breeder reactor first, but i need to read up on it to get a more definitive answer.

EDIT: did some reading up.

1: LiD (D being deuterium) is a commonly used reactor wall material. It's used in nukes too, for producing the tritium needed in a D-T reaction.

2: i consider it unlikely that the material can be used as a direct fuel. I am not sure about hybrid reactors, where after an ignition process, the lithium is added as a fuel and it breeds to the desired elements, or where it is used as an additive (IE, hybrid fuel),

3: If the lithium itself is being used as a fuel and not a breeder material, i am not sure how efefctive this is. D-T is fairly superior to most ofther forms of fuesion. Ie, P-B fusion is 100x less powerful and requires far higher temperatures and better containment systems, it is aneutronic fusion however.

4: fusion is the pinnacle of our energy science, magnetic and plasma science, and many advances are being made each day. It's gonna be a long road, and what we know now is largely based on theory and science. Engineering-wise, it's largely an unwritten book. So many thngs can an d probably will change.

5: the computer i'm on now is crap, and i regularly have to pause to watch the text actually appear on screen. so forgive any language errors, as each error takes well over 10 seconds to fix.

[Gormagon]

4: fusion is the pinnacle of our energy science, magnetic and plasma science, and many advances are being made each day. It's gonna be a long road, and what we know now is largely based on theory and science. Engineering-wise, it's largely an unwritten book. So many thngs can an d probably will change.

Exactly, that is what so hard to write about whats going to be around in the future technology wise. Also the reactors in this universe could be doing exactly what you stated in 2(I find it likely considering 3) but not a lot of specific info in available.

Do you happen to know about other theorized sources of energy that would be as practical as the various forms of nuclear fusion? You may bring up one iv never heard of.

How many different types of fusion are there?

5: the computer i'm on now is crap, and i regularly have to pause to watch the text actually appear on screen. so forgive any language errors, as each error takes well over 10 seconds to fix.

Understandable.

[thekillman]

Exactly, that is what so hard to write about whats going to be around in the future technology wise. Also the reactors in this universe could be doing exactly what you stated in 2(I find it likely considering 3) but not a lot of specific info in available.

Do you happen to know about other theorized sources of energy that would be as practical as the various forms of nuclear fusion? You may bring up one iv never heard of.

How many different types of fusion are there?

In theory you can fuse pretty much any element.
I find this to be helpful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
We are currently developing Tokamak-type reactors, but the truth is, we don't know if they're the best type. They're one of the most researched type, so funding has been focused mostly on what seems most fruitful.

That doesn't mean it's the only one that can work. For example, in the US there's a laser-based fusion project.

It also depends on what kind of power supply you need. Z-pinch devices could very well create a smaller generator than a Tokamak ever can, but would create pulsed power (as far as i read it).

Fusion is definitely the most complex kind of power source we can tap into. Fission is generally much, much simpler and even that is a complex technology.

Anyway, there is a golden rule in Engineering, with only a few exceptions: the simplest solution is usually the best.
the other rule is: always apply the lowest tech to solve a problem.

The thing is: low-tech is usually simpler and has fewer components that can break, and need maintenance. The rule does not apply when certain needs weigh heavier than the complexity. Space engineering is commonly a good example. It's cheaper to make a craft from super-expensive material and have less weight to launch, than to create a craft from cheap materials and have a massive launch weight.

Getting mass into space is expensive, and that's precisely why all those space-age materials were developed.



Still, if we can get resources from asteroids, it'll be a different picture. Iron is pretty common in space, so we could very well find ourselves flying steel ships. Also, if a craft does not need to enter an atmosphere, it removes even more problems.

[thekillman]

I must admit: my love for Stargate is dying.

I try to like it, and i can get fun from watching the occasional episode, but on equally many occasions i think "i've seen this before' or "cringe moment" or "i hate him".

Also, many many discussions have made it so, that i can spot plot errors whenever they occur.

The thing is: it's a show with many flaws. And as my job is going to be engineering, and every day i deal with how realistic building something is, i just can no longer tolerate those flaws.


Take for example naquahdah: it's a contradictory material. It's got a massive energy density and is easy to fission, but also resistant to nukes. It's really strong and tough and hard, yet the Goauld use it for pretty much everything. A Goa'uld mothership should nuclearly detonate when hit by a nuke, as even trace amounts of naquahdah ore in the soil is enough to react to a nuke. yet when it hits naquahdah armor, with a concentration many million times higher than the naquahdah in the soil, nothing happens.

[Princess Awinita]

I must admit: my love for Stargate is dying.

I try to like it, and i can get fun from watching the occasional episode, but on equally many occasions i think "i've seen this before' or "cringe moment" or "i hate him".

Also, many many discussions have made it so, that i can spot plot errors whenever they occur.

The thing is: it's a show with many flaws. And as my job is going to be engineering, and every day i deal with how realistic building something is, i just can no longer tolerate those flaws.


Take for example naquahdah: it's a contradictory material. It's got a massive energy density and is easy to fission, but also resistant to nukes. It's really strong and tough and hard, yet the Goauld use it for pretty much everything. A Goa'uld mothership should nuclearly detonate when hit by a nuke, as even trace amounts of naquahdah ore in the soil is enough to react to a nuke. yet when it hits naquahdah armor, with a concentration many million times higher than the naquahdah in the soil, nothing happens.

I think more in terms of logic in buildings along with realistic needs and spaces. For example, if you have a ship measuring 635 meters long, and 90 meters tall, its a long flat ship. calling it a deep space carrier/attack crusier is just an insult. Its more or less a personal pleasure ship with space ablitiy. Not classed as a space cruiser or attack cruiser, its just wrong. The size of the thing alone screams personal pleasure craft! No, what you want to call a deep space crusier or an attack crusier is something more along the size of at least 1200 meters long, with about 100 or more meters tall, and enough space for goods, personell, weapons, etc. Otherwise, you're really streching the limits of reality with such a small craft.

I do not know how Stargate was able to get away with such wrong starship sizes

[thekillman]

I think more in terms of logic in buildings along with realistic needs and spaces. For example, if you have a ship measuring 635 meters long, and 90 meters tall, its a long flat ship. calling it a deep space carrier/attack crusier is just an insult.

I am not sure where wyou get those sizes from.

However: yes it is my concern too that the most trivial thing in SG is the spaceship size. a 600m-ish ship wins from an 11km one. WTF? a hive's engines would be more powerful than the biggest nuke on the 304. If anything, it has the most horrible size/power ratio of all SG ships. Yes organic tech in real-life will be vastly inferior to metal tech. But this is ridiculous. It's a mystery why they didn't fully switch to Cruisers, as they were vastly superior.


there were many more things, i'll detail them as the week passes but yea, my complaints are getting too strong. I love the base-material of SG, but not how it was worked out.