Jump to content

If you were a crew chief in the Macross universe.......


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MechTech said:

Ejection seats are another example of equipment that has to be made safe for crews. In Afghanistan we had a guy sit in an abandoned Soviet fighter. He discovered the ejection seat still worked - while sitting in it. That was one reason they didn't allow us to go through the Soviet boneyard. - MT

Accidents like that are the reason behind the well-traveled engineer's aphorism "the safety regs are written in blood".

Every one of those seemingly obvious safety rules in any field or work site exists because it wasn't obvious to some idiot and they got hurt or killed.

 

2 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

 Hmm...I wonder how long it has before the propellant runs out? That would utterly suck being in a dogfight and you lost maneuvering over that? They probably keep it topped up between battles though.

Not very... that's why Arad cautions Hayate to keep a sharp eye on his propellant levels when he's about to set out on his first space sortie early in Macross Delta.

One way space-optimized VFs tried to mitigate this was with the vernier ring that General Galaxy pioneered on the VF-14 and which later made its way onto the VF-17, VF-171, and VF-19 space types, which diverts main engine exhaust into a sort of sectored-off thrust-vectoring thrust reverser.

 

2 hours ago, pengbuzz said:

As for the hot version: I almost want to draw a cartoon of two techs using a live vernier thruster to roast hot dogs :P

Pretty sure that only has one setting: well done.

 

2 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Don't smoke while working.

Smoking is generally inadvisable these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Accidents like that are the reason behind the well-traveled engineer's aphorism "the safety regs are written in blood".

Every one of those seemingly obvious safety rules in any field or work site exists because it wasn't obvious to some idiot and they got hurt or killed.

Idiots tend to be some of the least observant people (they also tend to have the least common sense and sense of self-preservation too).

  

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Not very... that's why Arad cautions Hayate to keep a sharp eye on his propellant levels when he's about to set out on his first space sortie early in Macross Delta.

One way space-optimized VFs tried to mitigate this was with the vernier ring that General Galaxy pioneered on the VF-14 and which later made its way onto the VF-17, VF-171, and VF-19 space types, which diverts main engine exhaust into a sort of sectored-off thrust-vectoring thrust reverser.

Interesting. That would mean "hot dogging" would be more frowned upon in space, where each move would come at a premium.

It does make me wonder though,  if it were possible to use an energy version  that only required power from the main reactor powering an emitter that would take the place of a vernier?

  

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Pretty sure that only has one setting: well done.

TOASTEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

  

2 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Smoking is generally inadvisable these days.

 

 Smoking in Macross is usually what one side does, and usually in a crater.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Accidents like that are the reason behind the well-traveled engineer's aphorism "the safety regs are written in blood".

Every one of those seemingly obvious safety rules in any field or work site exists because it wasn't obvious to some idiot and they got hurt or killed.

More broadly speaking, every piece of human knowledge invariably came about because someone got hurt or killed in the process.

E.g.: apple seeds are poisonous because people died from them.  Or so called "common knowledge" like fire causes burns—we know that because someone, well, you get the point. ;)

In fact, it's probably only recently that we have entered an age were knowledge can be acquired without people being harmed or injured in the process!

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

It does make me wonder though,  if it were possible to use an energy version  that only required power from the main reactor powering an emitter that would take the place of a vernier?

What does it emit?

 

It is possible. We've demonstrated that light and radio emissions produce thrust. But not really effective, as they generate only the tiniest amounts of thrust even at dangerously-high power levels(Steering by Death Blossom).

Pulling exotic matter out of fold space could prove effective, but also expensive. And more than a little dangerous. (Steering by Project Orion)

 

 

There's just no real good substitute for launching a lot of mass out the door at high speed. Not in reality, and as near as I can tell not in Macross either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JB0 said:

What does it emit?

 

It is possible. We've demonstrated that light and radio emissions produce thrust. But not really effective, as they generate only the tiniest amounts of thrust even at dangerously-high power levels(Steering by Death Blossom).

Pulling exotic matter out of fold space could prove effective, but also expensive. And more than a little dangerous. (Steering by Project Orion)

 

 

There's just no real good substitute for launching a lot of mass out the door at high speed. Not in reality, and as near as I can tell not in Macross either.

So if the reactants for the main engines are going into the thermonuclear reactor and are converted to nuclear energy, then what's coming out the other end?  I know in atmosphere it's most likely heating air much like a regular jet engine, but unlike a rocket in space (unless I'm missing something here), isn't it just throwing the reaction of the reactor?

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

So if the reactants for the main engines are going into the thermonuclear reactor and are converted to nuclear energy, then what's coming out the other end?

The used reactants. Fuse two atoms of hydrogen, you get an atom of helium. 

Fusion does not destroy matter, though it does change it radically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

So if the reactants for the main engines are going into the thermonuclear reactor and are converted to nuclear energy, then what's coming out the other end?  I know in atmosphere it's most likely heating air much like a regular jet engine, but unlike a rocket in space (unless I'm missing something here), isn't it just throwing the reaction of the reactor?

This is a disconnect of understanding what the product of fusion reactions actually is. Nuclear fusion doesn't turn matter into energy, at least not fully. In fact it mostly just transforms matter while releasing a good chunk of energy as radiation (mostly heat but some other types too depending on the inputs). For hydrogen fusion the result is mostly helium, heat, and a lot of stray neutrons.*

So in atmosphere that heat is used in inlet air and mixed with reaction products, in space, they ramp up the fusion cycle and it's all reaction products which burns through the fuel at a tremendous rate. 

Fwiw there is a means to fully convert matter to energy, pair-annihilation. This is when an atom and it's opposite charge anti-particles interact and destroy each other. Thus is what the more advanced reaction weapons do. Antimatter is really hard to make though so it's best saved for specific use cases.

 

*(actually this is oversimplified, I'm really describing deuterium and tritium fusion which are both hydrogen isotopes, straight hydrogen fusion does happen in stars as part of a cycle though, so two hydrogen atoms fused actually causes deuterium but it's incredibly hard to do that alone)

Edited by Master Dex
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, pengbuzz said:

So if the reactants for the main engines are going into the thermonuclear reactor and are converted to nuclear energy, then what's coming out the other end?  I know in atmosphere it's most likely heating air much like a regular jet engine, but unlike a rocket in space (unless I'm missing something here), isn't it just throwing the reaction of the reactor?

So... first things first, "nuclear energy" isn't a separate and distinct form of energy.  The term refers to the heat and particle radiation produced by the fission or fusion of atomic nuclei.

Only a small amount (~0.645%) of the fuel's mass is converted into kinetic energy as alpha particles and so on.  The rest of the fuel mass is converted into heavier elemental nuclei like helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., though in the plasma state at a VERY high temperature due to the massive amount of kinetic energy released.  The heat from that plasma is the energy harnessed by the VF's thermoelectric generators to produce electricity to power its systems.

In an atmosphere, trace amounts of that extremely hot plasma are used to flash-heat the air passing through the engine in lieu of burning jet fuel in order to produce thrust.

In space, the plasma produced in the reactor is used as propellant to generate thrust.  The VF's fuel consumption increases exponentially in space in order to have the reactors create enough plasma to produce the required amount of thrust.  This exponential increase in fuel consumption is the reason for things like FAST Packs, which contain rocket motors to take more of the burden of acceleration off the main engines and additional fuel tanks to extend the maximum operating time of the engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the verniers might be as simple as the Harriers-ducted exhaust: (pg.19).

https://documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AV-8AHarrier.pdf

The F-35B doesn't have all the same nozzles, but still has two that provide 10% of the vertical thrust and some roll control. - MT

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MechTech said:

I always thought the verniers might be as simple as the Harriers-ducted exhaust: (pg.19).

https://documents.techno-science.ca/documents/CASM-Aircrafthistories-AV-8AHarrier.pdf

There are some that are similar, though they're almost exclusively a fixture of VF models and variants that are optimized for service in space and are mounted farther back around the engine nozzle to take best advantage of the peak turbine pressure south of the thrust production stage.

Mostly they come in the form of the "vernier ring" feature that was first seen on the VF-14 and carried over onto the VF-17, VF-11MAXL, VF-19, and VF-171.  That is essentially a thrust reverser on steroids, a 360 degree collar of verniers around the engine nozzle that draw engine exhaust for propellant.  Then there are more traditional examples like the VF-19A/B/C/D type's LHE-10B verniers which are designed like other high-thrust verniers but which similarly divert engine exhaust for propellant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This probably should be in the short questions therad, but aside from the usual "massive energy needs," why haven't we seen the ues of gravity type propulsion? Is it just that flames shooting out the rear just visually cooler?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DewPoint said:

This probably should be in the short questions therad, but aside from the usual "massive energy needs," why haven't we seen the ues of gravity type propulsion? Is it just that flames shooting out the rear just visually cooler?

Size, I would assume... the Vajra's bio-gravitational field propellers are almost 2/3 as long as a VF in fighter mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Master Dex said:

This is a disconnect of understanding what the product of fusion reactions actually is. Nuclear fusion doesn't turn matter into energy, at least not fully. In fact it mostly just transforms matter while releasing a good chunk of energy as radiation (mostly heat but some other types too depending on the inputs). For hydrogen fusion the result is mostly helium, heat, and a lot of stray neutrons.*

So in atmosphere that heat is used in inlet air and mixed with reaction products, in space, they ramp up the fusion cycle and it's all reaction products which burns through the fuel at a tremendous rate. 

Fwiw there is a means to fully convert matter to energy, pair-annihilation. This is when an atom and it's opposite charge anti-particles interact and destroy each other. Thus is what the more advanced reaction weapons do. Antimatter is really hard to make though so it's best saved for specific use cases.

 

*(actually this is oversimplified, I'm really describing deuterium and tritium fusion which are both hydrogen isotopes, straight hydrogen fusion does happen in stars as part of a cycle though, so two hydrogen atoms fused actually causes deuterium but it's incredibly hard to do that alone)

 

7 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

So... first things first, "nuclear energy" isn't a separate and distinct form of energy.  The term refers to the heat and particle radiation produced by the fission or fusion of atomic nuclei.

Only a small amount (~0.645%) of the fuel's mass is converted into kinetic energy as alpha particles and so on.  The rest of the fuel mass is converted into heavier elemental nuclei like helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., though in the plasma state at a VERY high temperature due to the massive amount of kinetic energy released.  The heat from that plasma is the energy harnessed by the VF's thermoelectric generators to produce electricity to power its systems.

In an atmosphere, trace amounts of that extremely hot plasma are used to flash-heat the air passing through the engine in lieu of burning jet fuel in order to produce thrust.

In space, the plasma produced in the reactor is used as propellant to generate thrust.  The VF's fuel consumption increases exponentially in space in order to have the reactors create enough plasma to produce the required amount of thrust.  This exponential increase in fuel consumption is the reason for things like FAST Packs, which contain rocket motors to take more of the burden of acceleration off the main engines and additional fuel tanks to extend the maximum operating time of the engines.

 

Thanks for the clarification; now, would that be possible in micro-fashion for a vernier thruster then (drawing off the main reactant supply, in this instance)?

4 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

 Then there are more traditional examples like the VF-19A/B/C/D type's LHE-10B verniers which are designed like other high-thrust verniers but which similarly divert engine exhaust for propellant.


And... that answers my question. Much thanks (and tacos).

Edited by pengbuzz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...