raxo2222

Members
  • Content count

    966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

166 Excellent

1 Follower

About raxo2222

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

3338 profile views
  1. How long supernova surroundings are fried by all sorts of radiation? Lets say there is some sort of probe orbiting star at 100 AU, that became supernova. How much time will pass before radiation levels fall to what it was before supernova?
  2. hmmm QSR seems like it has 100% matter energy conversion as if gamma rays didn't escape at all - in fact it is around 104% efficient as I calculated. How energetic are photons are in muon catalyzer reactor and shortest wavelength photons, that are used for beam energy transfer for comparison? What about charge buildup in spaceship when running particularly big positron reactor?
  3. You can research first nuclear and microwave stuff simultaneously if you wanted to. Stationary nuclear powered laser beam nearby launch site is valid strategy too.
  4. Maybe his rule is "no nuclear powered launches"
  5. No, positrons produce 20x more energy, than their rest mass-energy, see my previous post.
  6. Positron antimatter reactor has suspiciously high mass energy conversion - 500 GW of energy from consumption of 1g positrons per hour. You can get 9*104 GJ from 1 g of matter at 100% efficient conversion. That is 1 g/s of 100% matter energy conversion would yield 90 000 GW of power. 1 g/hour yields maximum of 25 GW. Is QSR getting extra GW of power from gravitational field of black hole? It produces ~26 GW of power at 1g/hour consumption. As for positron antimatter reactor it produces 20x too much energy per 1g/hour consumption. Suggestion would be: increase positron consumption slightly over 20 times to match 100% mass energy conversion efficiency. I set QSR and Positron reactors, so their respective consumption is on almost same level.
  7. Not to mention antimatter fuel, xray "laser" beams and RKV/Warp Drive ramming into planets *cough* Interstellar Extended mod *cough*
  8. Lets see who can get more power on pure Hydrogen..... Muon Catalyzed Fusion Reactor or QSR reactor. QSR is so energetic, that only Wrapped Microwave Thermal Receiver is big enough to be comfortably used as radiator. Lets normalize Hydrogen usage to 1g/hour: Muon Catalyzer reactor: 60 MW QSR: 25960 MW QSR can get 433x more power from same amount of Hydrogen. This means if pure p-p muon catalyzed fusion powered by solar wind can function at 1 AU, then QSR would be fine at 21 AU! That is Uranus orbit distance! I guess aliens don't need Dyson spheres, as they can fuel their QSRs with solar wind. Lets see how antimatter reactors fare in mass -> energy conversion. Positron Antimatter Reactor consumes electron and all it produces is high energy photons. 500 GW produced, if consumption was 1g of positron per hour. Antiproton Antimatter Reactor - this one produces whole mess of particles. 16.3 GW produced for 0.5g of protons + 0.5g of antiprotons per hour consumed. QSR produces 26 GW if consumption was 1g/hour.
  9. Lets see if any of bugs below in spoiler were fixed... All static bugs are still here (first 5), lag spikes with magnetis scoop happens only if I rightclick or move it. Bug 6 on list was fixed. Edit: It wasn't fixed for EM drive, Magneto Plasma Dynamic Thruster, Atilla, and electric RCS. Using no max temperature and free electricity cheats Bug 7. still is present, and now magnetic scoop is overheating when active..... There is nice test craft, eitther use KRASH for simulation, or hyperedit it when pauzed to orbit. Upscale magnetic scoop and blanker receivers to trigger FAR bug. What is with locsometging buggy name of one part and litervolume resource that is present on some tanks? https://imgur.com/a/QqVjS There is bug in IFS/patchmanager by the way. Error location is in screenshot in this spoiler. There is bug with titanum radiators: their max temperature is limited by atmosphere...
  10. There are still multiple bugs (using latest beta version): 1. Blanket receivers cause extreme lag with FAR present when upscaled and deployed to largest sizes - I had to restart computer as FAR ate all my RAM and gave hard time to my poor old hard drive. 2. There are lag spikes caused by FAR when magnetic scoop is present in VAB/SPH even without scaling - it has to do with voxelization. 3. There is scale description mismatch for TORY Ramjet - its size says is 5m part, while it fits nicely with 2.5m part. When downscaled to 1.25m part it fits 0.625m part. 4. There is bug with Interstellar Thermal Mechanic Helper and Magnetized Target Fusion Reactor and Plasma Jet Internal Magnetic Fusion Reactor: Thermal Helper shows 1000x less power(Total Heat Production) than actual power rating of reactor. 5. Infinite Propellant cheat doesn't work for ISRU (would be useful for testing) 6. Power requested depends on propellant efficiency for electrical engines (using infinite electricity, no max temp and infinite propellant to remove these factors) 7. Solar/Interstellar material gathering rate doesn't change if I turn ionization in magnetic scoop on/off.
  11. It seems like 2.5m stellarator is perfect fit for same diameter positron producer
  12. There is Antimatter Initiated reactor, that uses tiny amount of uranium and antimatter and Deuterium/He3 fusion fuels. Can it use different fusion modes and positrons? You can make positrons anywhere, while there is no dedicated antimatter producer. Will be CNO fusion cycle fueled with hydrogen from solar wind be ultimate solution for beam network? That is self fueling beam network. It looks like interstellar wind flux is higher than solar wind flux at Earth orbit.
  13. And you said somewhere that CNO fusion cycle is much more energetic than p-p fusion, will be it good enough to offset Tri-Alpha high maintenance energy? Where this mode of fusion will be available? It has both cold and hot version. Why p-p mode produces Helium3 instead of Deutrium? https://imgur.com/a/h64kh There is reactor control window showing, that in both fusion modes it produces He3, where p-D produces much more he3 per second than p-p mode.
  14. What about Tri-Alpha reaction fusion mode? Its chain is He4 + He4 -> Be8 and Be8 + He4 -> C12 Resulting carbon could be used for both cold and hot CNO cycle. If Tri-Alpha fusion requirements are same or similiar as cold or hot CNO cycle, then effectively you could use hydrogen and helium as fusion fuel - Tri-Alpha would act as CNO cycle breeder, that produces catalyst and uses its He4 product.
  15. Well in my spaceship all incoming solar wind particles are stored in solar wind collector, then refrigerator separates particles and then they are pumped to fusion reactors/engines. Or magnetic field already slows down incoming particles and not just directs them at collector?