Ladies and Gentlemen,
You all have seen me get up on my soap box from time to time to
complain, but It isn't very often that I've seen someone step up
on one to proclaim victory! :-)
Challenge 61 is out. Just read through it.
There is a pretty good adventure thing by Terry McInnes concerning
a nuclear powered wet navy on TL 6 Aramanx (Powderkeg of the
Towers Cluster)
(Well *I* liked it anyway. Remember who it was who put out so many
Wet Navy designs before there were any rules to do so! And most of
those ships were TL 6 too! :-)
But what is the excitment about? I hear you all wondering. Well,
Fission power. They have finally revised the fission power fuel
requirements. I can't exactly figure out what they did, but I have
been able to get the following approximations from their ship
designs.
The nuclear fission reactor power plant now provides:
Power Output: 0.2MW per Kiloliter of power plant.
Fuel consumption: 0.05Kl of fuel per 360 days.
(Fuel consumption is still way to high, but it is better than it was before)
Weight and cost of the plant I have not calculated.
Fuel consumption of Fission plants has been a pet peeve of mine
for a while. Ever since I calculated that the USS Nautilus would
have consumed 90 percent of it's mass in uranium if it had been built
according to the original MegaTrav specs. :-P
So, this is kinda neat. (But only to the design freaks out there) But
it does bring some interesting things up. Using the above power plant
(TL6) it is JUST barely possible to built a traveller starship that
can be fueled for an entire year. Rather than 30 days as with normal
Fusion power. (The main problem is weight)
So... Fusion is less efficient than Fission? How interesting... :-(
(Sigh)
What is worse is that the above reactor is TL 6. Now imagine what
increases in efficiency there would be in a higher tech fission plant?
Well with the more advanced shielding from superdense materials. Not to
mention nuclear dampers to play with, what is a TL 15 fission plant gonna
look like?
Well, despite this, I consider it a victory. SOMEBODY up there finally
noticed that the fission plants were WAY off. I think Rob Dean once
mentioned to someone that fission plants as stated were rediculous. Maybe
somehow it was that mention that worked it's way into the acticle. Or
maybe someone up there read one of my endless tirades on how nuclear
powered designs were completely impossible with MegaTrav. Or (gasp!)
someone was smart enough to figure it out by themselves!
Nevertheless, it is a small step forward to bringing Trav closer to
reality! YAHOO! :-)
What next I wonder? Will GDW begin making MORE corrections where Trav is
WAY off in terms of reality? Well... Lemme get my list... Lessee...
Thrust to weight ratio?
Where every Type A Free trader has the thrust to weight ratio 3 times that
of an SR-71 and is barely able to reach Mach 1...
Aircraft engine rated thrusts?
Where every engine has five or six times the thrust it should have?
What else?
Scott "2G" Kellogg
One small step for TML,
One giant leap for TDR!