A company has received regulatory approval to start supplying California with space-based solar power in 2016:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... power.html
It'll be interesting to see if this pans out.
Oh, and thanks to everyone who shared their insights about what the polywell can do for naval operations in that other thread over in the news section - I hadn't realized that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers were that much faster than diesel powered ships. Nuclear (fission or fusion) destroyers and frigates make a lot more sense to me now.
Space Based Solar Power Closer to Reality?
-
CaptainBeowulf
- Posts: 498
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am
I served aboard the only nuclear powered US frigate. The USS Bainbridge.
The problem with nuke power for the smaller ships is that it is not cost effective. And that is mainly due to the cost of training personnel. Another big deal is the cost and size of a steam plant.
The problem with nuke power for the smaller ships is that it is not cost effective. And that is mainly due to the cost of training personnel. Another big deal is the cost and size of a steam plant.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Space Based Solar Power Closer to Reality?
A nuclear powered aircraft carrier is no faster than a conventionally powered aircraft carrier. It just has MUCH better endurance. What makes an aircraft carrier faster than the conventional ships around them is its size. Well designed long ships with equivalent power to weight ratio are faster than well designed short ones.CaptainBeowulf wrote:Oh, and thanks to everyone who shared their insights about what the polywell can do for naval operations in that other thread over in the news section - I hadn't realized that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers were that much faster than diesel powered ships.
Actually, as I understand it a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier carries just as much petroleum fuel as a conventionally-powered aircraft carrier. Its just that what it carries is for its planes and maybe for a few escorts. So what that means is it can do far more fighting and far less wasting fuel on mere transportation.
A destroyer at flank speed is supposed to need several refuelings just to cross the Atlantic. We can't get them there fast with any confidence once things get mean unless we preposition tankers, which are slow and vulnerable.
I would say nuclear-powered aircraft carriers may not have more top speed, but they can maintain that speed more or less indefinitely, and are not hampered by a slow fuel supply. And the other thing that slows them down is they are intended to run in a carrier task force, so if their escorts are slowed by fuel problems, the task force overall can be no faster.
A destroyer at flank speed is supposed to need several refuelings just to cross the Atlantic. We can't get them there fast with any confidence once things get mean unless we preposition tankers, which are slow and vulnerable.
I would say nuclear-powered aircraft carriers may not have more top speed, but they can maintain that speed more or less indefinitely, and are not hampered by a slow fuel supply. And the other thing that slows them down is they are intended to run in a carrier task force, so if their escorts are slowed by fuel problems, the task force overall can be no faster.
Mmm... With Nemitz carriers making up almost the entire carrier fleet now, I suspect their fission nuclear plants, with refueling will last decades more. From a tatical perspective it might make more sense to target a new cruser or heavy distroyer as the innitial ships to receive a sucessful Polywell power plant to escort the carriers. They would possibly have plenty of excess power to supply their new rail guns and lasers, all while leasurly crusing at 33 knots.Tom Ligon wrote:....I would say nuclear-powered aircraft carriers may not have more top speed, but they can maintain that speed more or less indefinitely, and are not hampered by a slow fuel supply. And the other thing that slows them down is they are intended to run in a carrier task force, so if their escorts are slowed by fuel problems, the task force overall can be no faster.
Then again, I think there is a next generation carrier on the drawing boards in which the problems and volumes required for the steam catapults, arrester wires, etc. will be replaced with electrical systems.
Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.
Dan, that next generation carrier is already being built:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._ ... ft_carrier
Meant to be finished by 2015...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._ ... ft_carrier
Meant to be finished by 2015...
Better top speed AND faster acceleration: you run the reactor a little hot to build up some energy reserves in the hot water and then open the steam valve at the maximum allowed (not emergency) rate.Tom Ligon wrote:Actually, as I understand it a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier carries just as much petroleum fuel as a conventionally-powered aircraft carrier. Its just that what it carries is for its planes and maybe for a few escorts. So what that means is it can do far more fighting and far less wasting fuel on mere transportation.
A destroyer at flank speed is supposed to need several refuelings just to cross the Atlantic. We can't get them there fast with any confidence once things get mean unless we preposition tankers, which are slow and vulnerable.
I would say nuclear-powered aircraft carriers may not have more top speed, but they can maintain that speed more or less indefinitely, and are not hampered by a slow fuel supply. And the other thing that slows them down is they are intended to run in a carrier task force, so if their escorts are slowed by fuel problems, the task force overall can be no faster.
It is not just for amusement. The faster you get up to launch speed the sooner you can launch offense and defense.
The Japanese demonstrated at Midway that having aircraft on deck during a fight might not be the very best tactics.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Re: Space Based Solar Power Closer to Reality?
hmm....KitemanSA wrote:A nuclear powered aircraft carrier is no faster than a conventionally powered aircraft carrier.
....not sure where you get that information.
I do not believe a conventionally powered 90,000 ton aircraft carrier would ever carry enough gas turbine power to keep up with a Nimitz class. It's difficult to get a sense of scale, but if it were a 40'er going as fast as it does, then you'd swear it was a speed boat - I assure you. If you ever see one actually going to full bore whilst you're on a gas-turbine frigate trying to keep up - well, it is just awe inspiring.
Manoeuvering and stopping performance is also important (and improved).
Re: Space Based Solar Power Closer to Reality?
Try wikipedia.chrismb wrote:hmm....KitemanSA wrote:A nuclear powered aircraft carrier is no faster than a conventionally powered aircraft carrier.
....not sure where you get that information.
USS John F Kennedy CV67 (Conventional) Speed: 34knots.
USS Nimitz CVN 68 (Nuclear) Speed: 30+ knots.
Basically the same.
Easily. In fact, gas turbines are so power dense they would probably take up only part of the current engine room / reactor space. But they wouldn't go very far. Nukes are HEAVY. Of couse so is the fuel for non-nukes!chrismb wrote:I do not believe a conventionally powered 90,000 ton aircraft carrier would ever carry enough gas turbine power to keep up with a Nimitz class.
Yup. Those frigates/destroyers/cruisers need that high power, low weight LM2500 to make up for the fact that they are only half as long. The FFG7 class has ~10shp per tonne displacement. The Nimitz has only ~2.6. With the same power to weight ratio, the carrier would leave them in the dust... (ok, spray).chrismb wrote:It's difficult to get a sense of scale, but if it were a 40'er going as fast as it does, then you'd swear it was a speed boat - I assure you. If you ever see one actually going to full bore whilst you're on a gas-turbine frigate trying to keep up - well, it is just awe inspiring.
Is large (1,000,000 lb). Is ocean-going. Is Ekranoplan!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan
"A ground effect vehicle (GEV) is one that attains level flight near the surface of the Earth, made possible by a cushion of high-pressure air created by the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface known as ground effect. Also known as a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) vehicle, flarecraft, sea skimmer, ekranoplan, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE), a GEV can be seen as a transition between a hovercraft and an aircraft. The International Maritime Organization, (IMO), has classified the GEV as a ship.[1] A GEV differs from an aircraft in that it cannot operate without ground effect, so its operating height is limited relative to its wingspan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekranoplan
"A ground effect vehicle (GEV) is one that attains level flight near the surface of the Earth, made possible by a cushion of high-pressure air created by the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface known as ground effect. Also known as a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG) vehicle, flarecraft, sea skimmer, ekranoplan, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE), a GEV can be seen as a transition between a hovercraft and an aircraft. The International Maritime Organization, (IMO), has classified the GEV as a ship.[1] A GEV differs from an aircraft in that it cannot operate without ground effect, so its operating height is limited relative to its wingspan."
