In our TC, we're trying to decide on a energy generation method. We have 2 options, and can't decide between the them. So we turn to you. The few. The proud. The EV-saavy. I am going to present my option. P-Psycho is going to reply and give his. Please vote on which you feel is best.
Please try to keep down the extra comments, and please, please don't try to introduce extra options. We've narrowed it down to two options- adding more will only set us back. Thanks y'all.
Background Info for our plug: The year is 2207 AD. Humanity has not expanded outside the solar system. However, space travel, while still incredibly expensive, is in the hands of private, common citizens, not just governments anymore. Most ships are run down, old hulks, held together (sometimes literally) with duct tape. Military ships are like modern military ships- spic and span, meticulously maintained. Most private ship captains have neither the money, nor the time, nor the inclination to do this- they make the same money in an ugly heap as they do in a bright, chromed, freshly painted heap. Ships are prone to breaking down- engines blow up, reactors fizzle, turn jets melt, whatever. All in the name of the game. Propulsion is dominated by a single engine type, Ion Turbines, the decendant of modern Ion Engines like on that space probe (What was it called? Mars Explorer or something).
For more info, please go to (url="http://"http://www.cwssoftware.com")www.cwssoftware.com(/url) and read the Background file. It's an 8 or so page story about our plug's setting.
Now, for option 1: Fusion Reactors
Powered by deuterium, fusion is old school technology by 2207. Most school children can explain the relevant equations, and a reactor can be built from off the shelf parts. All this is important because things tend to break down, and common people need to be able to fix them in space. In game engine terms, the reactor acts as a fuel scoop, and all the rest of the energy-using accessories act as negative fuel scoops. When everything is balanced, the reactor is meeting the energy needs of the ship. When you are using more power than you are producing, the reactor is actually just "running hotter"- it's running in an overloaded condition that uses more fuel, but is actually meeting the energy needs of the ship. When it is underloaded, the reactor is multi-fusioning it's fuel, producing less energy but saving on fuel, extending the operating life.
Here's an older, longer description of how this works:
Almost universally, ships derive their electrical power from micro-fusion reactors. These reactors use superconductive coils to contain the fusion process, which can be started either with a laser or inductively. A heat pump transfers the reactions energy to the electric generator, which works on the (can't remember name of process- but if you heat one side and cool the other, the difference generates electricity) principle. Another heat pump transfers the cold of space from collectors on the ship's cold, dark side. All modern reactors are multi-fusion capable- they can continue to re-fuse their fuel all the way up to iron- after which point the reaction requires an input of energy instead of producing energy. As each successive reaction produces less energy, the gross energy output of the reactor drops, but fuel efficiency is increased by many times. By controlling how many reactions take place before the spent fuel is transfered to the engines as reaction mass, the output of a reactor can be adjusted to supply much greater than usual power demands- but this can end up using fuel at a prodigious rate. A reactor that is under taxed will usually shunt power to superconductive capacitors or simple batteries, and go offline for periods of time, again increasing efficiency of the system. During this time, reaction mass can be procured from the solar wind-all ships with velocity shielding are equipped to do this-and stockpiled, as well as having fuel economy and range recomputed.
If that makes sence to you, good for you. That's all I'll say about option 1. My personal take is that it is rather tough to make fit the game engine, but it is more proper for the setting than option 2, matter/antimatter reactors, which (IMHO) would be, at best, in they're infancy by 2207, and not easily available, or fixable, by non-experts.
Now for the other side of the argument, brought to you by P-Psycho.
------------------
~Charlie
