Speculations of Nuclear Powered CE MS

The future is now. This is the place for mecha and science.
toysdream
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Wingnut wrote:You'll have to forgive us if we don't take your word for it. That guy is a pro and isn't making this up as he goes.
I think the chart on High Frontier is just borrowed from a Japanese RPG sourcebook. In any case, some of the stuff on that site is sort of made up, so I wouldn't consider it any more reliable than anything else on the Internet without knowing the original source.

It seems to take about three days to travel between Earth and the moon in real life. At one point I compiled a list of travel times from the Apollo moon missions, and they averaged about 80 hours going and 65 hours coming back, probably due to the effects of Earth's gravity well. Perhaps they opted for a faster, more wasteful flight plan rather than using the most energy-efficient orbits.

-- Mark
Phantomexe87
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:11 am
Contact:

toysdream wrote:
Wingnut wrote:You'll have to forgive us if we don't take your word for it. That guy is a pro and isn't making this up as he goes.
I think the chart on High Frontier is just borrowed from a Japanese RPG sourcebook. In any case, some of the stuff on that site is sort of made up, so I wouldn't consider it any more reliable than anything else on the Internet without knowing the original source.

It seems to take about three days to travel between Earth and the moon in real life. At one point I compiled a list of travel times from the Apollo moon missions, and they averaged about 80 hours going and 65 hours coming back, probably due to the effects of Earth's gravity well. Perhaps they opted for a faster, more wasteful flight plan rather than using the most energy-efficient orbits.

-- Mark
I'm not much of a technical person, but the Apollo did it in 3 days on 1960s tech, Destiny is set at least in the 22nd century, wouldn't the time be considerably less? Like how in the 18th century it took 1-2 months to cross the Atlantic Ocean, and in the 20th century, 1-2 weeks.
User avatar
SNT1
Posts: 3690
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:29 am

I'm not much of a technical person, but the Apollo did it in 3 days on 1960s tech, Destiny is set at least in the 22nd century, wouldn't the time be considerably less? Like how in the 18th century it took 1-2 months to cross the Atlantic Ocean, and in the 20th century, 1-2 weeks
well, facts are facts, and according to the CE timeline it took Kira 3 days to get from PLANTs to the Earth.
(>-.-)>-} >>---> \(x.x)/
User avatar
muishkin
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:13 am
Location: Sun-Synchronous Orbit

toysdream wrote:
Wingnut wrote:You'll have to forgive us if we don't take your word for it. That guy is a pro and isn't making this up as he goes.
Perhaps they opted for a faster, more wasteful flight plan rather than using the most energy-efficient orbits.

-- Mark
Yep they did. It's actually only slightly more wastful than the minimum (hohmann) energy tranfer orbit.
toysdream
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

Phantomexe87 wrote:I'm not much of a technical person, but the Apollo did it in 3 days on 1960s tech, Destiny is set at least in the 22nd century, wouldn't the time be considerably less? Like how in the 18th century it took 1-2 months to cross the Atlantic Ocean, and in the 20th century, 1-2 weeks.
Depends on how they're going about it. The Apollo moon missions (and modern space shuttle launches) were performed using chemical rocket engines, which have very strict physical limits to their performance and fuel efficiency. The Universal Century series mainly use nuclear thermal rocket engines, which in theory have several times the fuel efficiency and should make it possible to follow faster (and thus more wasteful) routes around the Earth sphere.

But unless you're in real hurry, the classic 1960s flight plan is still going to be a lot more efficient. Unlike travel across the Earth's surface, which is pretty straightforward, space travel involves a lot of fiddling with orbits and matching velocities. If you launch from Earth at a million miles per hour, you're going to shoot right out of orbit and into the depths of space, so you'll need to expend just as much energy to slow down again and then establish the same speed and direction as the object you're heading for. The high-tech future engines used in Gundam may make this possible, but it's still the sort of thing you'd save for an emergency.

The classic example here is in Gundam 0083, where the Federation pursuit fleet covers the distance from Solomon to the moon in about 16 hours while pursuing the runaway colony, only to use up all its propellant and end up stuck in lunar orbit. Under normal circumstances, they'd spend two or three days on the trip and have plenty of propellant left over.

-- Mark
User avatar
razgriz
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:10 am
Location: San Francisco Colony

thats a great example that you mentioned mark from 0083. i thought it was strange that the EF ships ran on propellant, i was under the impression that they had an oboard nuclear reactor. although i guess i just think that any large starship requires a large nuclear reactor for power generation.
setsuna: I AM A GUNDAM!!!
graham: I AM A FLAG!!!
(setsuna giggling)
graham: NO!! i said FLLLAG!
toysdream
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

razgriz wrote:thats a great example that you mentioned mark from 0083. i thought it was strange that the EF ships ran on propellant, i was under the impression that they had an oboard nuclear reactor. although i guess i just think that any large starship requires a large nuclear reactor for power generation.
A nuclear reactor doesn't push a spaceship all by itself, though. You have to have some kind of mechanism to turn the reactor energy into useful thrust. In Universal Century Gundam they use the reactor to heat the propellant, a system known as a "nuclear thermal rocket". This has several times the fuel efficiency of a chemical rocket, simply because a fusion reactor is a lot hotter than chemical combustion, so the rocket exhaust is moving a lot faster as it comes out of the nozzle. But even though it lasts a lot longer, this still means you have a finite amount of propellant.

This system is used in almost all mobile suits and spacecraft in the Universal Century series. It's seldom made clear what propulsion methods the other shows are using, though, and the Gundam Seed science staff are usually really vague about this when the question is raised in interviews. :-)

-- Mark
User avatar
razgriz
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:10 am
Location: San Francisco Colony

guess they havent mastered the fine art of ion thrust engines yet in the gundam-verse :D
setsuna: I AM A GUNDAM!!!
graham: I AM A FLAG!!!
(setsuna giggling)
graham: NO!! i said FLLLAG!
toysdream
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

razgriz wrote:guess they havent mastered the fine art of ion thrust engines yet in the gundam-verse :D
The problem with ion engines is that they have a very low thrust-to-mass ratio. In other words, you get a very heavy engine with low thrust but great fuel efficiency.

According to Gundam Century, ion and plasma propulsion were used earlier in the Universal Century, and early U.C. warships had both plasma and chemical rockets - the former for cruising, the latter for combat maneuvering. The introduction of nuclear thermal rockets, however, provided a single system which was good enough for both purposes. Again, Gundam Century's section on "Space Warships" discusses this in full detail.

-- Mark
User avatar
razgriz
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:10 am
Location: San Francisco Colony

hmm i wonder how come the other sci-fi franchises get their ships to go so fast in sublight. well most of them have mastered the matter-antimatter fusion reaction to power their vessels. or they have a magic superelement to achieve high speeds and high efficiency e.g. naquadah in stargate, dilithium in star trek, and the mysterious hypermatter in star wars. guess gundam is nowhere near that kind of tech level yet. :)
setsuna: I AM A GUNDAM!!!
graham: I AM A FLAG!!!
(setsuna giggling)
graham: NO!! i said FLLLAG!
toysdream
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:24 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA
Contact:

razgriz wrote:hmm i wonder how come the other sci-fi franchises get their ships to go so fast in sublight. well most of them have mastered the matter-antimatter fusion reaction to power their vessels.
I get the impression that a lot of them simply don't explain it. If there's ever been an explanation for what propels the ships in Firefly or Battlestar Galactica - or, for that matter, what provides the artificial gravity inside their ships, which in the new Galactica still works even when the power goes out! - then I must have missed it. Not that that's really relevant to the topic at hand, but as sci-fi technomagic goes, I think Gundam is pretty reasonable.

-- Mark
User avatar
razgriz
Posts: 1585
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:10 am
Location: San Francisco Colony

yeah thats definitely an interesting observation sir mark. never thought of that, in fact the only time ive seen a gravitic system failure is in star trek 6. drop me a pm and i would hypothesize how i would synthesize artificial gravity and fast efficient sublight propulsion for the sci-fi story im working on
setsuna: I AM A GUNDAM!!!
graham: I AM A FLAG!!!
(setsuna giggling)
graham: NO!! i said FLLLAG!
Post Reply