Space Based Nuclear Reactor

>>8981154
What about heat dissipation?

Doesn't most RTGs look like they are 90% radiator anyways?

>>8981172
The reactor was designed to operate more efficiently when outside of acceleration. It would operate at meltdown. The Neutron poisons kill the reaction before an acceleration causing it to cool with the thermocouple down to a solid.

>>8981154

If you did this because you think space is colder than earth then kys

File: gayfusorsfromouterspace.png (32KB, 573x674px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 573x674px

fusion > fission

>>8981182 I know that space can get hot but in this situation there is no gas to absorb heat from the uranium. also the gas cannot expand and create high pressures in the chamber.>>8981185

>>8981185
We dont have fusion yet, fission and solar are the next best things.

>>8981206
>We dont have fusion yet
we do
there is no further research required on the process itself
we don't have net energy producing fusion yet, because we still didn't figure out how to shield the plasma without dumping tens of megawatts to contain it

>>8981204
>no gas to absorb heat from the uranium
so you fuel melts and destroys your reactor system. brilliant design.
if you want radiative cooling to work you better come up with a design with more surface area than a cube, which means a shitton more neutron reflection, because your geometric buckling is going to fuck you

>>8981213
When I said we dont have fusion, I mean practical fusion. Something that doesnt require a massive power infrastructure or high cost materials to function.

>>8981216
we also don't have practical non-terestrial fission-based power stations

>>8981213
>>8981216
Shouldn't it be easier to to contain plasma in 0G?

>>8981154
You could always make a spinning orion reactor, no cooling needed since you would be mechanically and magnetically storing in the mid space. All you need is a push block on a string attatched to a centerfugue.

>>8981221
not that guy but why would it be? essentially isotropic expansion

>>8981220
This is really more of a RTG with a faster burn time producing more power than a passive RTG.

>>8981227
that's all well and good but this isn't some 5 MeV alpha emitting Pu, you're pushing 200 MeV per fission and with 18 Kg and a neutron source with no active cooling system

>>8981232
well if you kill the reaction and convert the heat with the thermocouple doesnt that fit the requirements of a cooling system?

>>8981154
>There is a neutron gun and a thermocouple to create the reaction and collect the energy.
Just what kind of thermocouple is that? Or are you thinking of an uranium fuelled radio isotope generator which has already been used in space for decades?

>>8981213
>there is no further research required on the process itself
Wow.

>>8981221
Why??

>>8981235
not when you melt the thermocouple, after irradiating the fuck out of it with neutrons

>>8981238
>Why??
You wouldn't need to make something physically levitate against' earth's gravity, just push it away from the containment walls.
I mean that has to be the biggest energy guzzler in the entire containment system.
Am I wrong?

>>8981238
I am thinking of that yes but one with a faster burn time and higher voltage. The design being for farther and longer distance trips which cant rely on solar energy but must generate similar voltages.

>>8981247
No the carbon shafts are there to hold it in place after killing the reaction

>>8981252
this is beyond non sequitur

>>8981247
>You wouldn't need to make something physically levitate against' earth's gravity, just push it away from the containment walls.
>I mean that has to be the biggest energy guzzler in the entire containment system.
what? are you still talking about a magnetic confinement fusion device?
there's really very little mass in terms of the fuel, the plasma pressure is much greater than any type of gravitational interaction

>>8981204

Wrong answer. should have said spacecraft.