Fusion Fuel Types and Elite: Dangerous

[Armour]

As far as I am aware, the normal-speed engines that our ships contain are all fusion devices that run on hydrogen. However, from the limited amount I have read on the subject, there are other fuels, some of which might be more suitable than Hydrogen. Helium-3 is one. Argon is another.

Is there anyone on here that is more versed in the subject than me (i.e. anyone who has some actual knowledge that wasn't gleaned from a cursory scan of a few Google and Wikipedia results)? Those that could provide more information about the types of fusion fuel that we should be seeing in the Elite: Dangerous galaxy, where it is found and it's rarity/cost compared to something as ubiquitous as Hydrogen? If so, please post.

The reason I ask is that if there are different fuel types with different levels of availability out there, perhaps there is a way to make fuel cost scalable with ship cost in a realistic fashion, rather than the old way where the same element somehow cost more when it was being used to fuel an expensive ship than it did in a cheap one?

 

[Apos]

I assume that no company would be interested in those for their spaceships because neither would be scoopable from stars. (they produce He-4 if I'm not mistaken)

Hydrogen is also much more abundant regardless of your location in general, cheaper to gather, etc. In the end of the day, it might be the future, but it's still run by companies in the most part, so they would choose the most efficient solution.

 

[Armour]

I assume that no company would be interested in those for their spaceships because neither would be scoopable from stars. (they produce He-4 if I'm not mistaken)

Hydrogen is also much more abundant regardless of your location in general, cheaper to gather, etc. In the end of the day, it might be the future, but it's still run by companies in the most part, so they would choose the most efficient solution.

He-3 apparently exists in decent quantities within the atmosphere of our own gas giants, so they might be the kind of place you would expect to find it. If that's the case, it's probably not the rarest thing in the galaxy - just less common than hydrogen. If it were somehow better to use in particular cases (for instance, perhaps in some type of high-performance fusion engines), then it could have a niche in the high-end market in-game - as well as possibly providing a reason to scoop from gas giants when that eventually gets implemented. I don't know enough about the intricacies of which fuel is likely to be best in which situation to even know if that could make sense, but if so, it's worth discovering.

 

[Yabba Addict]

He-3 apparently exists in decent quantities within the atmosphere of our own gas giants, so they might be the kind of place you would expect to find it. If that's the case, it's probably not the rarest thing in the galaxy - just less common than hydrogen. If it were somehow better to use in particular cases (for instance, perhaps in some type of high-performance fusion engines), then it could have a niche in the high-end market in-game - as well as possibly providing a reason to scoop from gas giants when that eventually gets implemented. I don't know enough about the intricacies of which fuel is likely to be best in which situation to even know if that could make sense, but if so, it's worth discovering.

Military Jump Drive anyone?

 

[aRtFuL]

Military Jump Drive anyone?

I don't think military drives are fusion drives, since they are supposed to produce radiative waste materials.

Fusion reactions are supposed to result in stable elements - as if they don't that means they are not atomically balanced and you might still be able to create further reactions.

 

[Armour]

Okay, I did a bit more reading about the trade-off between reactivity and radioactivity. The easier it is to get the reaction going, the higher the quantity of neutron production. This is bad. Hydrogen fusion would throw out lots of neutrons, and the issues surrounding their safe containment make it difficult to see how we could all reasonably have hydrogen fusion engines in our ships without having lower life expectancies than a Gremlin in a microwave oven.

The ideal situation is aneutronic fusion, whereby very few (relatively speaking) neutrons are produced, but that is tricky to do, can result in other forms of EM radiation like X-rays being produced, and requires rarer fuels...

• Helium isotope He-3 that I mentioned earlier, found in our gas giants and therefore likely others.
• Lithium isotopes Li-7, found in reasonable quantities in metal-poor stars, and the far less common Li-6, speculated to be generated in stellar flares (that would be cool to try and scoop).
• Boron, formed by cosmic-ray interactions and not by stars, is harder to find generally, but apparently can be concentrated in water-rich planets as it's commonest mineral compounds are water-soluble.

 

[Apos]

He-3 apparently exists in decent quantities within the atmosphere of our own gas giants, so they might be the kind of place you would expect to find it. If that's the case, it's probably not the rarest thing in the galaxy - just less common than hydrogen. If it were somehow better to use in particular cases (for instance, perhaps in some type of high-performance fusion engines), then it could have a niche in the high-end market in-game - as well as possibly providing a reason to scoop from gas giants when that eventually gets implemented. I don't know enough about the intricacies of which fuel is likely to be best in which situation to even know if that could make sense, but if so, it's worth discovering.

There's still a very big difference in temperature. Scooping doesn't just mean that the element is there ready to be gathered. Higher temperatures means more energy stored in the atoms, which means that hydrogen atoms are going nuts travelling around a star, pretty easy to apply a "net" in front of that stream and gather it.

Meanwhile, gas giants aren't necessarily high in temperatures. Using your example of our systems gas giants, jupiter has a temperature of ~140K to 170 on its best days. Saturn has ~80. That's temperatures below zero, which means that all particles in and close to them are generally very, very dormant. They won't just come pummeling you like hydrogen does around stars.

As a general rule, you don't want to expend a lot of energy in order to gather energy. Most gas giants would require that.

Sure there are gas giants of higher temperatures, but how reliable a method would that be? Reliability also has a major role in the final choice.

I just find it difficult for hydrogen to be preferred in any way. It's much more reliable in almost all areas of interest for power production.

Edit:

Okay, I did a bit more reading about the trade-off between reactivity and radioactivity. The easier it is to get the reaction going, the higher the quantity of neutron production. This is bad. Hydrogen fusion would throw out lots of neutrons, and the issues surrounding their safe containment make it difficult to see how we could all reasonably have hydrogen fusion engines in our ships without having lower life expectancies than a Gremlin in a microwave oven.

Irrelevant. If any company gave a damn about life expectancy, then you would be using jet or rocket fuel in your car, not diesel or petrol. Your replacement of teared parts is also part of their profit.

 

[dunnykin]

I assume that no company would be interested in those for their spaceships because neither would be scoopable from stars. (they produce He-4 if I'm not mistaken)

Hydrogen is also much more abundant regardless of your location in general, cheaper to gather, etc. In the end of the day, it might be the future, but it's still run by companies in the most part, so they would choose the most efficient solution.

Fusion of helium 3 has the benefit of producing protons instead of neutrons. Being charged these can be shielded with em fields instead of bulky shielding. Its also possible to harness the protons to directly generate electricity.

Lighter powerplants would be a big benefit.

 

[Choccy]

I can't believe this is actually a thread but hey ho....

I'm guessing that any radioactive particles produced during engine/drive activity, would be dwarfed by the radioactive particles given off by any star. It just so happens, you can pretty much get within spitting distance of a star in your ship, with no adverse effect on your life span. I'm guessing the same technology that protects you from the star, will thus, protect you from your own engines/drive.

/thread.

 

[Armour]

I was just wondering if there might be a reasonable way to allow multiple fuel types within the game, so that expensive ships or expensive engines require expensive fuel, and cheap ones require cheap fuel but get worn out quicker. For balance's sake. If you don't think it's possible, then that's that - but it seems to me that it might be possible to require "aneutronic" fuel for more reliable and expensive engines, with cheap stuff for everyone else, with the caveat that wear and tear will be higher (but repair costs will likely be less for the cheaper gear anyway, so that's probably okay).

 

[Choccy]

Why would they require more expensive fuel? They're pushing an object in a weightless vacuum. I don't think there is even a great deal more mass, that you could argue if a bigger ship got mass locked by a planet, it'd require a lot more fuel to get away. Not with the kind of engines/drives that are represented in game.

 

[Apos]

I was just wondering if there might be a reasonable way to allow multiple fuel types within the game, so that expensive ships or expensive engines require expensive fuel, and cheap ones require cheap fuel but get worn out quicker. For balance's sake. If you don't think it's possible, then that's that - but it seems to me that it might be possible to require "aneutronic" fuel for more reliable and expensive engines, with cheap stuff for everyone else, with the caveat that wear and tear will be higher (but repair costs will likely be less for the cheaper gear anyway, so that's probably okay).

The most common state of hydrogen is the neutron-less one, so it's not like it would be a luxury of any sort.

 

[Armour]

I can't believe this is actually a thread but hey ho..../thread.

Not quite /thread - the shielding might not be feasible within a ship?

Perhaps it should really be the case that once your external shields are down, the hull and modules begin to take damage simply from radiation exposure. That way, canopy blow-outs would be a serious problem for the pilot quite apart from the oxygen issue, as their flight suit's radiation protection would be very limited and they would need to get to a station for rapid decontamination.

Anyway, if the engines can be worn down from within by the bombardment from their own fusion reaction, it would make sense to use designs and fuels that put out fewer neutrons.

 

[Apos]

Anyway, if the engines can be worn down from within by the bombardment from their own fusion reaction, it would make sense to use designs and fuels that put out fewer neutrons.

Irrelevant. If any company gave a damn about life expectancy, then you would be using jet or rocket fuel in your car, not diesel or petrol. Your replacement of teared parts is also part of their profit.

Not as long as the world is run by corporations, which it still does in the game's lore. In the end of the day, regardless of system politics, they are the one crafting the ships, they call the shots.

 

[Armour]

The most common state of hydrogen is the neutron-less one, so it's not like it would be a luxury of any sort.

But it is apparently a lot harder to fuse Protium-Protium than Deuterium-Tritium.

 

[Choccy]

Ha, so the people that have created a drive that can use a small amount of fuel, that can produce enough energy to warp you 30+LY's (not to mention colonize vast swathes of space, build gargantuan space stations), can't come up with a way to protect the pilot from radioactive particles created by the ship?

 

[Armour]

Ha, so the people that have created a drive that can use a small amount of fuel, that can produce enough energy to warp you 30+LY's (not to mention colonize vast swathes of space, build gargantuan space stations), can't come up with a way to protect the pilot from radioactive particles created by the ship?

Maybe, maybe not- that's not the point of the thread, which was to come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for having different fuel types and costs, so as to balance out things - expensive craft with expensive gear should probably be expensive to run and repair, but be more reliable. Cheap ones with cheap bits in should probably wear out quicker, but be cheaper to run and repair. The engine and fuel types would provide a decent explanation for that balance, and could bring about a new way to make a bit of money (or save money if you are running a flashy boat) by capturing the expensive fuels.

 

[Apos]

But it is apparently a lot harder to fuse Protium-Protium than Deuterium-Tritium.

By current standards, sure. But that's a problem solved as far as the game's world is concerned. It doesn't matter after you exceed the point where a generator does it effortlessly. It's all up to economics after that point.

 

[Armour]

By current standards, sure. But that's a problem solved as far as the game's world is concerned. It doesn't matter after you exceed the point where a generator does it effortlessly. It's all up to economics after that point.

Well, according to the game we can fuse hydrogen, but I haven't seen anything to say it's Protium, rather than Deuterium or Tritium.

 

[Apos]

Well, according to the game we can fuse hydrogen, but I haven't seen anything to say it's Protium, rather than Deuterium or Tritium.

Deuterium gets depleted really fast on stars and you won't find any considerable amount to scoop in order to fuel an engine.

Tritium doesn't occur from fusion,but fission, thus you wouldn't be able to scoop any from stars to begin with.

It can't be much else than protium. The whole scooping feature restricts the possibilities to that.