RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-15-2015, 05:24 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 409
Default

just to be the odd one here since everyone is going on about either liquid combustible fuel or fusion. what about fission? one would assume that if Bruce could travel through time/dimensions he would have found a way to utilize fission without all the steam punk currently used. even without breaking space/time there have been efforts to do just that as early as the 1950's. and given that a boy scout in a garden shed can build a fission reactor small enough to fit in the trunk of his car one would assume the Morrow Project with far greater resources would be able to produce a lightweight nuclear fission power plant for their vehicles. (Ford managed to in 1958 after all.)
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-16-2015, 10:52 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 649
Default

Fission reactors would be very problematic. The reactions always involve highly energetic neutrons. These would require a great deal of shielding to make safe making a portable, high energy one virtually impossible. Even fusion requires us to be very selective of the reactants to eliminate the problem of high energy neutrons.

Both Russia and the US tried to make fission powered aircraft. The reason they never built one was they could not figure out a way to not have the crew suffer from severe radiation poisoning. The advent of ICBMs made both side abandon the idea.

Last edited by mmartin798; 01-18-2015 at 09:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-22-2015, 07:36 PM
bobcat bobcat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
Fission reactors would be very problematic. The reactions always involve highly energetic neutrons. These would require a great deal of shielding to make safe making a portable, high energy one virtually impossible. Even fusion requires us to be very selective of the reactants to eliminate the problem of high energy neutrons.

Both Russia and the US tried to make fission powered aircraft. The reason they never built one was they could not figure out a way to not have the crew suffer from severe radiation poisoning. The advent of ICBMs made both side abandon the idea.
the shielding problem was solved during the feasibility testing. the problem they ran into with the nuclear just was the engine design caused it to irradiate the flight path due to the direct transfer heating system. also the idea of cooling the reactor with airflow from the engines meant that it would go Chernobyl if it were ever shut down.

granted this was the airforce during a time when MAD was thought to be a smart political move. one would think the Morrow Project would be wise enough to install another method of cooling the reactor that would also avoid the radioactive trail of destruction cause by direct air cooling.
__________________
the best course of action when all is against you is to slow down and think critically about the situation. this way you are not blindly rushing into an ambush and your mind is doing something useful rather than getting you killed.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-22-2015, 10:28 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,481
Default

A gen 4 Portable Fission Reactor (developed for the Navy by Westinghouse at Walt's Mills PA, by the way) fits in the length of a standard semi trailer. I saw one on it's way to the Navy a couple of years ago. Those power plants range in size from 10 to 50 megawatts. My father saw a "first?" generation version at Ft Greely, Alaska in 1962. It came in on a single tractor trailer. They went from burning 50,000 barrels (55gal each) of fuel oil a year, to ZERO barrels (for both power generation and heat). The unit is very portable. The technology has been around for a very long time (developed from shipboard units). The containment structure needed for fuel rod storage and to protect the users from any release of radiation in the event of an accident, would prevent the movement of these devices once they were put into use.

I think that these units would be stored in caches and that those caches would become "focal points" in game. Imagine what would be needed to construct the containment building (unless the planners constructed it underground at the cache site). You would be required to plan your movement based on the availability of this resource for power and stored units would be able to move to new locations as needed. The fuel rods could be an issue. I'm guessing that the planners could have figured out how to put those rods into cryo storage just like the players.

Last edited by swaghauler; 02-22-2015 at 10:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-23-2015, 11:33 AM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 649
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
The fuel rods could be an issue. I'm guessing that the planners could have figured out how to put those rods into cryo storage just like the players.
Storage of the U235 fuel rods would be pretty simple. Just surround them in boron to minimize the energetic neutrons. The half-life of U235 is about 700 million years. Until you start using it as fuel in the reactor, it should stay fresh for 150 years. Though with MP having portable fusion reactors, why would you use fission?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-23-2015, 09:54 PM
history1861's Avatar
history1861 history1861 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3
Default

I liked Steve Jacksons take on Fusion Power for the Project. Attached is a .doc I pulled from another Morrow Project site years ago. It had several articles written by Jackson about the Project. I know it's all technobabble, but it's at least realistic sounding technobabble! He did a good writeup on the computers used in the vehicles and another on the numbers involved in the makeup of Morrow Project teams.
Attached Files
File Type: doc Fusion Power in the Morrow Project EDIT.doc (41.0 KB, 32 views)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-23-2015, 10:47 PM
kato13's Avatar
kato13 kato13 is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicago, Il USA
Posts: 3,572
Send a message via ICQ to kato13
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by history1861 View Post
I liked Steve Jacksons take on Fusion Power for the Project. Attached is a .doc I pulled from another Morrow Project site years ago. It had several articles written by Jackson about the Project. I know it's all technobabble, but it's at least realistic sounding technobabble! He did a good writeup on the computers used in the vehicles and another on the numbers involved in the makeup of Morrow Project teams.

Cool post. Thanks and welcome aboard.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-24-2015, 10:50 AM
history1861's Avatar
history1861 history1861 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3
Default

Thanks, good to be here. I'm looking forward to talking Morrow Project with fellow enthusiasts.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-24-2015, 12:09 PM
mmartin798 mmartin798 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Michigan
Posts: 649
Default

I too like the ideas in Steve Jackson articles (available at The Supply Bunker), though I think his littoral ship is not quite right. I have been working on a design for one and it is comparable in size, but when I run the numbers, carries way more cargo than Jackson lists.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-24-2015, 07:31 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmartin798 View Post
Storage of the U235 fuel rods would be pretty simple. Just surround them in boron to minimize the energetic neutrons. The half-life of U235 is about 700 million years. Until you start using it as fuel in the reactor, it should stay fresh for 150 years. Though with MP having portable fusion reactors, why would you use fission?
Cost and greater availability. I think you would see both in use but fission would make more economic sense for smaller facilities.

It also makes a good believable alternative those in this thread arguing against the existence of cheap fusion reactors. These reactors were actually in existence in the 60's.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-28-2015, 08:49 PM
ArmySGT.'s Avatar
ArmySGT. ArmySGT. is offline
Internet Intellectual
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,412
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler View Post
A gen 4 Portable Fission Reactor (developed for the Navy by Westinghouse at Walt's Mills PA, by the way) fits in the length of a standard semi trailer. I saw one on it's way to the Navy a couple of years ago. Those power plants range in size from 10 to 50 megawatts. My father saw a "first?" generation version at Ft Greely, Alaska in 1962. It came in on a single tractor trailer. They went from burning 50,000 barrels (55gal each) of fuel oil a year, to ZERO barrels (for both power generation and heat). The unit is very portable. The technology has been around for a very long time (developed from shipboard units). The containment structure needed for fuel rod storage and to protect the users from any release of radiation in the event of an accident, would prevent the movement of these devices once they were put into use.

I think that these units would be stored in caches and that those caches would become "focal points" in game. Imagine what would be needed to construct the containment building (unless the planners constructed it underground at the cache site). You would be required to plan your movement based on the availability of this resource for power and stored units would be able to move to new locations as needed. The fuel rods could be an issue. I'm guessing that the planners could have figured out how to put those rods into cryo storage just like the players.
I think the greatest obstacle is sourcing the enriched uranium. Now that is not to say that the Project might not have built and stashed units like this in areas around the country. The intention being to release these to the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Agency under FEMA in the 3-5 year plan.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.