Just like it sounds. The ability to install a second (or third, if you've got that many slots) reactor, and select which devices and functions run off each one.
For example, say I have a Nova-25 reactor installed, running a tritium propulsion upgrade, a Class III shield, and a Dual Turbolaser cannon. This will add up to something highly likely to overload in battle.
So, I want to be able to pop in a 10MW reactor in another device slot, and use it to run my drives and life support. This would also have a seperate fuel tank.
There are a whole bunch of different combinations that could be interesting, especially if you could just disa'B'le auxiliary reactors, shutting off their fuel usage as well.
I would suggest, if this were implemented, that the first reactor not take up a device slot. Maybe make it really, really expensive to change out that first reactor?
As a corrolary to this, I'd like to see some weapons that have their 'own' reactor. I put that in quotes because it would likely be accomplished by using He3 or another fuel type as a charge for the weapon. These would have minimal or no draw on the ship's reactor. Possibly some of them could be 'U'seable, disposable weapons that can't be refueled.
Auxiliary Reactors
Very cool idea. Another possibility would be to have a "ReactorSlots" attribute as opposed to reactors taking up device slots. For example, the freighter has 4 reactor slots and so can install 4 drives, but the Wolfen only has 2.
Fun idea *says sorry Fossa* but really ludicrous. Feasible only if you stop using electricity and find another way to power up your stuff.
--Edit-- Electricity runs on a grid, it is always running, if the grid is a plastic container and the water is electricity you could picture it. *wonders if this might help*
Think of a plastic box filled with water, all of it has to stay in cos anything outside the box may not touch the water, it has to be somewhere at all times no matter what forces are applied upon it. The forces make currents and the water moves in such a way that the impulses are absorbed.
--Edit-- Electricity runs on a grid, it is always running, if the grid is a plastic container and the water is electricity you could picture it. *wonders if this might help*
Think of a plastic box filled with water, all of it has to stay in cos anything outside the box may not touch the water, it has to be somewhere at all times no matter what forces are applied upon it. The forces make currents and the water moves in such a way that the impulses are absorbed.
Last edited by Frits on Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Uhh....what?Frits wrote:Fun idea *says sorry Fossa* but really ludicrous. Feasible only if you stop using electricity and find another way to power up your stuff.
Think of a plastic box filled with water, all of it has to stay in cos anything outside the box may not touch the water, it has to be somewhere at all times no matter what forces are applied upon it. The forces make currents and the water moves in such a way that the impulses are absorbed.
Anyways, in the 23rd century I am highly doubtful that electricity will still be used. Energy will probably be fired at stuff that needs it - that way, you can get wireless, non-battery requiring stuff
-
Fossaman
- Militia Captain
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Traveling to the galactic core
Uh...what now? That made no sense whatsoever, Frits. Explain to me why running different devices off of different power sources is ludicrous. Also, explain why having a little tiny reactor just for life support and basic drives would be ludicrous. If you're implying that adding another reactor to a power grid won't make a difference, fine. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting adding seperate power grids with their own reactors.
Yugi, people run on electricity, for goodness sake.
And beaming power inside a spaceship would be wasteful.
Yugi, people run on electricity, for goodness sake.
And beaming power inside a spaceship would be wasteful.X-ray laser! Pew, pew pew!
> = = = = ۞
> = = = = ۞
I wasn't going to say anything, but I have no idea what you just said, Frits 
. I can't see why having more than one generator would be impossible or even difficult. Back up power? Separate power grids? This would be cool with an Invincible Class shield. It can go down whenever it wants, because you've got it on its own power grid 
.
. I can't see why having more than one generator would be impossible or even difficult. Back up power? Separate power grids? This would be cool with an Invincible Class shield. It can go down whenever it wants, because you've got it on its own power grid .-
goat not sheep
- Militia Captain
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 8:36 pm
- Location: ...
- Contact:
Well, we can finally use that iocrym devices now, if that happens. But... all the fuel it would take! I don't think it's nessicary.
>.<
Hello everyone. I'm back for a bit.
I was under the impression that the starship reactors were big things that took up a lot of space and were hard to restart once shut down.
I say this because I remember (although I could be wrong) a conversation about auto ship destruction when you run out of fuel. The argument I remember was that if you were in the depths of space, and the reactor ran out of fuel, you wouldn't have a source of energy powerful enough to reinitiate a fusion reaction
I do like the idea of secondary power sources, but I'd be in the "battery" or maybe "solar panel" group. A large power source like a battery would be perfect for an item slot, and you could even "u"se it as an item, say, if your shields go down, as a one time shield restore (in the same way superconducting coils instantly boost shield strength). Now I'm starting to brain storm.
I was under the impression that the starship reactors were big things that took up a lot of space and were hard to restart once shut down.
I say this because I remember (although I could be wrong) a conversation about auto ship destruction when you run out of fuel. The argument I remember was that if you were in the depths of space, and the reactor ran out of fuel, you wouldn't have a source of energy powerful enough to reinitiate a fusion reaction
I do like the idea of secondary power sources, but I'd be in the "battery" or maybe "solar panel" group. A large power source like a battery would be perfect for an item slot, and you could even "u"se it as an item, say, if your shields go down, as a one time shield restore (in the same way superconducting coils instantly boost shield strength). Now I'm starting to brain storm.
-
Fossaman
- Militia Captain
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Traveling to the galactic core
If you've got two reactors, you can use one of them to jumpstart the other, right? This could lead to some fun situations, too. Your big reactor shuts down, and your little one doesn't have the juice to start it again? Doh. Gotta find a drydock or shipyard. That would be a lovely cyberattack, reactor shutdown.
Capacitors and batteries are certainly fun ideas, too though. I'd like to see those almost as much.
Random thought, maybe secondary reactors would require you rig a capacitor to them? You'd turn the capacitor on with your primary reactor, charge it up, then FWOOSH! Fusion!
EDIT: Oh yeah, there's now a short span of time between running out of fuel and death, now, so that you can have a chance to refuel.
Capacitors and batteries are certainly fun ideas, too though. I'd like to see those almost as much.
Random thought, maybe secondary reactors would require you rig a capacitor to them? You'd turn the capacitor on with your primary reactor, charge it up, then FWOOSH! Fusion!
EDIT: Oh yeah, there's now a short span of time between running out of fuel and death, now, so that you can have a chance to refuel.
X-ray laser! Pew, pew pew!
> = = = = ۞
> = = = = ۞
I'll give it one more try... there is your pc which consumes power, other people near you also use power and there is a powerstation. The power is used to light your monitor, for the chips inside it, the pc produces heat etcetera. That heat in fact is unwanted, it's a kind of powerleak.
A powerstation generates power using a large force, ie the heat produced by burning tons of coal or the power of moving water which in turn is being moved by gravity. Our starships use fusionreactors. The power of fusion is a set amount like the power of gravity is (on earth where the powerstation is built gravity is the same). So once the fusionreactor is fired up the power comes available and needs to be used, it needs to go somewhere or else it would explode, creating a lot of heat and light in the process (power must go somewhere!). That's the reason all the equipment is interconnected via the grid, your house is connected to that of your neighbours. This way, also the powerstations are interconnected.
In a starship you have no obvious powerleak available, you cannot distribute heat cos you're in space, there's no air, no solids or liquids, nothing. A star also is a single entity, a lot of reactions take place thus creating heat and light. How hot do you think your starship is?
A powerstation generates power using a large force, ie the heat produced by burning tons of coal or the power of moving water which in turn is being moved by gravity. Our starships use fusionreactors. The power of fusion is a set amount like the power of gravity is (on earth where the powerstation is built gravity is the same). So once the fusionreactor is fired up the power comes available and needs to be used, it needs to go somewhere or else it would explode, creating a lot of heat and light in the process (power must go somewhere!). That's the reason all the equipment is interconnected via the grid, your house is connected to that of your neighbours. This way, also the powerstations are interconnected.
In a starship you have no obvious powerleak available, you cannot distribute heat cos you're in space, there's no air, no solids or liquids, nothing. A star also is a single entity, a lot of reactions take place thus creating heat and light. How hot do you think your starship is?
-
Fossaman
- Militia Captain
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Traveling to the galactic core
Frits, based on that you couldn't even have the one reactor if you weren't using all of it's power all the time. If it's a flaw with one reactor, it's a flaw with two, and there's no use crying about it.
Now, modernday fusion reactors are touchy, useless things that can't produce more power than was used to start them up. I'm guessing that in the transcendence universe, they're finely tuned, with adjustable containment fields to maintain the reaction at any level of usage.
Fusion is not a fixed number, like the speed of light. It's atoms crashing together and deciding to be all buddy-buddy. If you have more or less atoms doing this, you'll get more or less power being produced. This is reflected by the variable fuel usage when you're firing a weapon or not, for example.
Now, assuming there's still some extra heat, what can you do with it? I'd dump it out using the reaction matter for thrust. If it's going to be traveling at blistering speeds anyway, why not make it hot to start with? Weapons systems are also a good place to dump waste heat. Now, I'm sure there are a few laws of thermodynamics that make this tricky/nigh impossible, but I have one last point.
It's a game. It's fun. Get over it.
We're already zooming around in starships at accelerations that would jelly your brain before you can say 'Isaac Newton!' What does a little more unrealism hurt? Fun /= realism.
Now, modernday fusion reactors are touchy, useless things that can't produce more power than was used to start them up. I'm guessing that in the transcendence universe, they're finely tuned, with adjustable containment fields to maintain the reaction at any level of usage.
Fusion is not a fixed number, like the speed of light. It's atoms crashing together and deciding to be all buddy-buddy. If you have more or less atoms doing this, you'll get more or less power being produced. This is reflected by the variable fuel usage when you're firing a weapon or not, for example.
Now, assuming there's still some extra heat, what can you do with it? I'd dump it out using the reaction matter for thrust. If it's going to be traveling at blistering speeds anyway, why not make it hot to start with? Weapons systems are also a good place to dump waste heat. Now, I'm sure there are a few laws of thermodynamics that make this tricky/nigh impossible, but I have one last point.
It's a game. It's fun. Get over it.
We're already zooming around in starships at accelerations that would jelly your brain before you can say 'Isaac Newton!' What does a little more unrealism hurt? Fun /= realism.
X-ray laser! Pew, pew pew!
> = = = = ۞
> = = = = ۞
You're right but so am i. It's plane physics, if i can't explain it you can find it somewhere else. That's what i was thinking when i went to sleep, a ship with a fusionreactor needs a powersink. Or the reaction should somehow yield less power. If you can invent that you will be famous, maybe rich!
First:
Thanks for the correction about starship fuel, Fossa. I completely forgot.
Second: Reactor size
I now do like the idea of a couple reactors. Originally, I thought "If an engine is going to throw tons of metal at speeds measured in terms of 'c' it will probably be a damned big reactor. When I envision an inter solarsystem craft, I imagine a ship built around its reactor, just as a star system is built around its reactor. This is just a personal thought of mine that influenced my impression of the multiple reactor idea.
Third: Power Dumping in space
I believe that once a civilization has the power to travel between stars and contain fusion reactions, they'll have the understanding to enable quick heat dissipation.
Heat is only energy, and if you can figure out how to switch energy between its various forms, (scientists are working on this in real life with promising experiments) you could turn excessive heat into radiation (waves, not particles), light (still part of the electromagnetic spectrum), or umm... yeah.. just turn heat into electromagnetic radiation and dump it out the back of the ship.
The commonwealth already has this ability (fusion reactor heat into x-ray cannon electromagnetic radiation). I'd say something about pulsars emitting radiation like this, but I'd hate to be astronomy-fu'ed by George here.
Another possibility would be dumping excess energy through a magnetic form. It could lead to great weapons like repulsers.... or something actually in the graviton damange category!
Maybe that's how the inertialess drive works. It consumes so much energy because it's converting the reactor output into a magnetic/gravity form of propulsion.
Final thoughts:
Dual reactors would be good
A graviton weapon would be good
Staying up all night theorizing on sci-fi technology would be bad.
Thanks for the correction about starship fuel, Fossa. I completely forgot.
Second: Reactor size
I now do like the idea of a couple reactors. Originally, I thought "If an engine is going to throw tons of metal at speeds measured in terms of 'c' it will probably be a damned big reactor. When I envision an inter solarsystem craft, I imagine a ship built around its reactor, just as a star system is built around its reactor. This is just a personal thought of mine that influenced my impression of the multiple reactor idea.
Third: Power Dumping in space
I believe that once a civilization has the power to travel between stars and contain fusion reactions, they'll have the understanding to enable quick heat dissipation.
Heat is only energy, and if you can figure out how to switch energy between its various forms, (scientists are working on this in real life with promising experiments) you could turn excessive heat into radiation (waves, not particles), light (still part of the electromagnetic spectrum), or umm... yeah.. just turn heat into electromagnetic radiation and dump it out the back of the ship.
The commonwealth already has this ability (fusion reactor heat into x-ray cannon electromagnetic radiation). I'd say something about pulsars emitting radiation like this, but I'd hate to be astronomy-fu'ed by George here.
Another possibility would be dumping excess energy through a magnetic form. It could lead to great weapons like repulsers.... or something actually in the graviton damange category!
Maybe that's how the inertialess drive works. It consumes so much energy because it's converting the reactor output into a magnetic/gravity form of propulsion.
Final thoughts:
Dual reactors would be good
A graviton weapon would be good
Staying up all night theorizing on sci-fi technology would be bad.