Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: May 06, 2021, 03:14:41 PM »I think nuclearslurpee's list is great, except for the addition of the radioisotope tier, as these produce such pitiful power amounts that they just really make no sense for large vessels. Instead, I would omit that, and insert one of the following;
They don't have to be pitiful, especially with TNE science, which is why I suggested RTGs as they're a very simple but very low-power design which makes sense as an entry level to a whole new kind of science.
Even thinking conventionally, however, it is not too unthinkable to have an array of smaller RTGs as a single "reactor": for example, the MMRTG used by Curiosity puts out 120 We from a cylindrical volume of 0.212 m^3 (which a large overestimate due to the fins which are not needed for an Aurora-style reactor) which comes out to a power density of 8 kW/ton (where 1 ton = 14.085 m^3, the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen) or 400 kW per HS. By contrast, the Westinghouse AP1000 PWR puts out 1117 MWe with a containment vessel volume of 102,595 m^3 (which neglects the actual power generation loop!) for a power density of 153 kW/ton. This is about 20x the power density of the RTG, but here we are neglecting (1) the power generation components of the PWR and (2) the efficiency gains we can make for a RTG by, e.g., using a coolant loop instead of thermocouples and removing the massive fins.
Basically I don't see any reason why RTGs cannot be scaled up in Aurora to produce comparable power to a PWR or higher-tech reactor. The major reason we don't do this in real life is the mass of nuclear fuel required, which can be abstracted away by Aurora as sorium is not explicitly a fissionable material (it may be a coolant, exhaust gas, etc.).
Quote
Between Pebble Bed and Gaseous Fission -> Molten Salt Reactor + Open-Cycle Nuclear Engine OR Nuclear Liquid-Core (or Molten-Core) Engine
OR
Between Gaseous Fission Reactor and Magnetic Mirror Fusion Reactor -> Dusty Plasma Reactor + Fission Fragment Engine
I'm not opposed to MSRs, they're generally not preferred for propulsion applications for some very good reasons but we have TNE science so we can handwave whatever we want. That said what I've tried to do with the engine techs I've listed is model the more common (proposed) nuclear propulsion technologies, which is in keeping with the spirit of the existing techs (up to AM of course). I'm not sure MSRs really add much to that and otherwise are a bit niche (if very cool) reactor type.
Dusty plasma reactor I can't get behind though. For power production dusty plasmas are abysmal and as this is a power reactor tech which leads into a propulsion drive tech so this is not a negligible consideration. Frankly I do not buy what Clark and Sheldon are selling. For propulsion it could probably work fine, I just can't think of any reliable power reactor design that would make sense to drive it.
Quote
I would also consider if 'Mirror-Cell Fusion Reactor' might not be a better option than 'Magnetic Mirror Fusion Reactor'
I've not ever heard this term used. "Magnetic mirror" is to the best of my knowledge a fairly standard term.