MT G-carrier errata

[McPerth]

Fision=fusion?

No, but fision=typo in my post (now fixed)

If I recall it a'right, it's actually multiplied by a factor of 9. You need an oxygen atom for each hydrogen pair, and the single oxygen atom's 16 times the mass of a hydrogen atom, so you need to add 8 kilo's of oxygen for each kilo of hydrogen aboard. I can design a basic g-carrier on a TL15 fuel cell that runs 2 weeks on 3 tons of hydrogen, but I need to bring aboard 24 tons of O2 if it runs without benefit of atmospheric oxygen for that time. On the other hand, about a ton of O2 will give me about 14 hours of extra-atmospheric flight, so I can do it with a smallish O2 tank as long as I transition from ship to planet or vice versa in that time and top it off when aboard ship or in atmosphere.

You're right in the weight relation among oxigen and hydrogen, but franky I don't know about the volume needs for oxigen (though you're right weight may be the main factor in a grav vehicle). But see that the change from fusion plant to fuel cells lowers the weight in over 6.5 tons, that can be used for the oxygen...

In any case, I guess you'll have to call on base with your G-carrier before those 3 weeks (at least for the crew, as it has no extended opperations), so reducing autonomy would not be a great problem. And the water produced by the fuel cells can be hydrolized and reused if you have the power needed at base (and I guess you'll have, even if the "base" is just a ship).

(Those high-tech fuel cells are rather magical, methinks.)

I don't know a dime about fuel cells, but I'm afraid what should be reviewed is the fusion fuel efficiency in MT (or maybe both, not sure)...

 

[whulorigan]

Fusion Fuel Consumption Rates

Even so, given the quite larger fuel needs for the fusion plant confused::CoW:), I think it's worth it. Even if you must quadruple the fuel needs, you just come to par with the fusion plant.

I don't know a dime about fuel cells, but I'm afraid what should be reviewed is the fusion fuel efficiency in MT (or maybe both, not sure)...

The Fusion-fuel efficiency in MT is way off in terms of realism. To be real-world realistic (approximately), the fusion-fuel consumption rates listed as kL/hr, would be closer to kL/year. (EDIT: Note - this was the change that was implemented in TNE).

As a compromise (based on some "technobabble-fluff" concerning reduced efficiency for such-and-such a reason), fusion-fuel consumption should probably be at least in kL/month.

Alternatives:

1) Change the minimum size of a standard fusion plant to a larger value (excluding them from use in smaller vehicles altogether), or

2) Introduce "Fusion-Plus" Cold Fusion units (like in T4 & T5) as a replacement for small standard-fusion units and give them a higher water-fuel or metal-hydride fuel consumption rate than standard-fusion LHyd units.​

 

[Carlobrand]

...I don't know a dime about fuel cells, but I'm afraid what should be reviewed is the fusion fuel efficiency in MT (or maybe both, not sure)...

I'll worry about that after they explain to me how a TL12 solar panel can generate sixty times more power than the sunlight's providing.

 

[McPerth]

I'll worry about that after they explain to me how a TL12 solar panel can generate sixty times more power than the sunlight's providing.

Probably by the same reason as grav plates can give you more potential energy than the power they require (see this thread) .

 

[Carlobrand]

Probably by the same reason as grav plates can give you more potential energy than the power they require (see this thread) .

Wait ... uhh, carry the ... oh crud! o: