Whats the next step after commercial fusion reactors?Can/will antimatter ever be superior to fusion as a practical electricity source?

What risks are there when you clear your cookies instead of logging off?

Why is c4 bad when playing the London against a King's Indian?

What do we gain with higher order logics?

Word for a small burst of laughter that can't be held back

Do manufacturers try make their components as close to ideal ones as possible?

Pros and cons of writing a book review?

Company did not petition for visa in a timely manner. Is asking me to work from overseas, but wants me to take a paycut

Dynamically loading CSS files based on URL or URI in PHP

What's the correct term describing the action of sending a brand-new ship out into its first seafaring trip?

Why is Colorado so different politically from nearby states?

Is it legal in the UK for politicians to lie to the public for political gain?

What's the logic behind the the organization of Hamburg's bus transport into "rings"?

Is it possible for people to live in the eye of a permanent hypercane?

Incremental Ranges!

Smooth switching between 12v batteries, with toggle switch

How do I calculate APR from monthly instalments?

Does the growth of home value benefit from compound interest?

When writing an error prompt, should we end the sentence with a exclamation mark or a dot?

Importance sampling estimation of power function

How bad would a partial hash leak be, realistically?

On the Twin Paradox Again

Can a magnetic field of an object be stronger than its gravity?

Identification quotas - TIKZ LaTeX

What happens to foam insulation board after you pour concrete slab?



Whats the next step after commercial fusion reactors?


Can/will antimatter ever be superior to fusion as a practical electricity source?













3












$begingroup$


I'm trying to write some science fiction where they've had nuclear fusion working for quite sometime, interplanetary travel is no problem, and they're debating making the next step to a radical new, more efficient energy solution to run their space stations. What would that solution be? Antimatter reactors?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Nobody knows what is likely to be next - the advantage of science fiction is you could possibly be right. However, if you say things are not possible then you are likely to be wrong... Someone said once that no-one would need more than 256K of ram...
    $endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Next big thing would be getting rid of all the nuclear waste (contrary to popular believe, fusion produces quite a big, due to neutron capture of the steel hull of the reactor).
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The steel in the reactor isn't really that big, and waste disposal for a decommissioned spaceship reactor could just be dumping the thing in some useless orbit. The real trouble with the neutrons is you have to carry additional radiation shielding if your reactor makes them.
    $endgroup$
    – EL_DON
    5 hours ago















3












$begingroup$


I'm trying to write some science fiction where they've had nuclear fusion working for quite sometime, interplanetary travel is no problem, and they're debating making the next step to a radical new, more efficient energy solution to run their space stations. What would that solution be? Antimatter reactors?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Nobody knows what is likely to be next - the advantage of science fiction is you could possibly be right. However, if you say things are not possible then you are likely to be wrong... Someone said once that no-one would need more than 256K of ram...
    $endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Next big thing would be getting rid of all the nuclear waste (contrary to popular believe, fusion produces quite a big, due to neutron capture of the steel hull of the reactor).
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The steel in the reactor isn't really that big, and waste disposal for a decommissioned spaceship reactor could just be dumping the thing in some useless orbit. The real trouble with the neutrons is you have to carry additional radiation shielding if your reactor makes them.
    $endgroup$
    – EL_DON
    5 hours ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$


I'm trying to write some science fiction where they've had nuclear fusion working for quite sometime, interplanetary travel is no problem, and they're debating making the next step to a radical new, more efficient energy solution to run their space stations. What would that solution be? Antimatter reactors?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




I'm trying to write some science fiction where they've had nuclear fusion working for quite sometime, interplanetary travel is no problem, and they're debating making the next step to a radical new, more efficient energy solution to run their space stations. What would that solution be? Antimatter reactors?







energy nuclear-physics fusion nuclear-engineering






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Qmechanic

109k122081281




109k122081281






New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 8 hours ago









ForeverNoobieForeverNoobie

183




183




New contributor



ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




ForeverNoobie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • $begingroup$
    Nobody knows what is likely to be next - the advantage of science fiction is you could possibly be right. However, if you say things are not possible then you are likely to be wrong... Someone said once that no-one would need more than 256K of ram...
    $endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Next big thing would be getting rid of all the nuclear waste (contrary to popular believe, fusion produces quite a big, due to neutron capture of the steel hull of the reactor).
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The steel in the reactor isn't really that big, and waste disposal for a decommissioned spaceship reactor could just be dumping the thing in some useless orbit. The real trouble with the neutrons is you have to carry additional radiation shielding if your reactor makes them.
    $endgroup$
    – EL_DON
    5 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Nobody knows what is likely to be next - the advantage of science fiction is you could possibly be right. However, if you say things are not possible then you are likely to be wrong... Someone said once that no-one would need more than 256K of ram...
    $endgroup$
    – Solar Mike
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Next big thing would be getting rid of all the nuclear waste (contrary to popular believe, fusion produces quite a big, due to neutron capture of the steel hull of the reactor).
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The steel in the reactor isn't really that big, and waste disposal for a decommissioned spaceship reactor could just be dumping the thing in some useless orbit. The real trouble with the neutrons is you have to carry additional radiation shielding if your reactor makes them.
    $endgroup$
    – EL_DON
    5 hours ago















$begingroup$
Nobody knows what is likely to be next - the advantage of science fiction is you could possibly be right. However, if you say things are not possible then you are likely to be wrong... Someone said once that no-one would need more than 256K of ram...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Nobody knows what is likely to be next - the advantage of science fiction is you could possibly be right. However, if you say things are not possible then you are likely to be wrong... Someone said once that no-one would need more than 256K of ram...
$endgroup$
– Solar Mike
8 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Next big thing would be getting rid of all the nuclear waste (contrary to popular believe, fusion produces quite a big, due to neutron capture of the steel hull of the reactor).
$endgroup$
– lalala
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Next big thing would be getting rid of all the nuclear waste (contrary to popular believe, fusion produces quite a big, due to neutron capture of the steel hull of the reactor).
$endgroup$
– lalala
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
The steel in the reactor isn't really that big, and waste disposal for a decommissioned spaceship reactor could just be dumping the thing in some useless orbit. The real trouble with the neutrons is you have to carry additional radiation shielding if your reactor makes them.
$endgroup$
– EL_DON
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
The steel in the reactor isn't really that big, and waste disposal for a decommissioned spaceship reactor could just be dumping the thing in some useless orbit. The real trouble with the neutrons is you have to carry additional radiation shielding if your reactor makes them.
$endgroup$
– EL_DON
5 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

The answer is still fusion, but with different fuels. The easiest fusion reaction to do, and the one current research focuses on, is deuterium + tritium. But tritium has a 12.5 year half life and doesn't occur naturally. It has to be transmuted from lithium inside the power plant, right next to the reactor. This is a huge added complexity. The D+T fuel also emits high energy neutrons, which irradiate the surrounding materials and require shielding. You could pick a harder fusion reaction like hydrogen plus boron. Then the reactor itself has to be way higher tech, but things like fuel and shielding get a lot easier. There's also helium3 + deuterium to look into.



If you want to get really stupidly exotic, try to steal rotational energy from a rapidly spinning black hole, which is like the one thing you can take from it.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Fusion isn't likely to be a very efficient way to harvest electrical energy in the physics sense (efficiency = energy harvested per energy consumed) even today. It is so popular an idea because it is a promise of a cheap and limitless energy production, not an efficient production.



    If what you are after is efficiency, hydropower plants are already close to 90% efficiency today, much better than fusion is hoped to be. If you can make the station so big that you have lots of water, gravity and water cycle powered by Sun in it, then you can put a hydroelectric power plant there.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      6 hours ago











    • $begingroup$
      That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      5 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
      $endgroup$
      – EL_DON
      5 hours ago


















    0












    $begingroup$

    Forget about antimatter as a fuel; the problems of producing it in quantity & storing it safely are insuperable. I suppose in science fiction anything is possible,but in the real world,much of science fiction fantasy is impossible & always will be. I'm afraid interstellar space travel falls under that heading too. As for energy to run the space station,all space stations are likely to be in the inner solar system,so what's wrong with solar energy? To have a fusion reactor on board a space station is likely to be very tricky,so why not have it on Mars or somewhere similar & beam the energy up to the space station by laser? On the other hand a nuclear fuelled (radio isotope) generator is quite feasible,& for safety reasons could be some distance away & connected to the station by cable.Then there is the question of avoiding space maladies like muscle & bone wastage,so why not insist that all astronauts go for a run on a treadmill every day & use the power generated? Or if you had a classical,wheel shaped space station,the running track could circle the perimeter & if all astronauts were made to run in the same direction,the space station would rotate in the opposite direction. This would create artificial gravity which would make life more normal for everyone.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      ForeverNoobie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483695%2fwhats-the-next-step-after-commercial-fusion-reactors%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1












      $begingroup$

      The answer is still fusion, but with different fuels. The easiest fusion reaction to do, and the one current research focuses on, is deuterium + tritium. But tritium has a 12.5 year half life and doesn't occur naturally. It has to be transmuted from lithium inside the power plant, right next to the reactor. This is a huge added complexity. The D+T fuel also emits high energy neutrons, which irradiate the surrounding materials and require shielding. You could pick a harder fusion reaction like hydrogen plus boron. Then the reactor itself has to be way higher tech, but things like fuel and shielding get a lot easier. There's also helium3 + deuterium to look into.



      If you want to get really stupidly exotic, try to steal rotational energy from a rapidly spinning black hole, which is like the one thing you can take from it.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        1












        $begingroup$

        The answer is still fusion, but with different fuels. The easiest fusion reaction to do, and the one current research focuses on, is deuterium + tritium. But tritium has a 12.5 year half life and doesn't occur naturally. It has to be transmuted from lithium inside the power plant, right next to the reactor. This is a huge added complexity. The D+T fuel also emits high energy neutrons, which irradiate the surrounding materials and require shielding. You could pick a harder fusion reaction like hydrogen plus boron. Then the reactor itself has to be way higher tech, but things like fuel and shielding get a lot easier. There's also helium3 + deuterium to look into.



        If you want to get really stupidly exotic, try to steal rotational energy from a rapidly spinning black hole, which is like the one thing you can take from it.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          The answer is still fusion, but with different fuels. The easiest fusion reaction to do, and the one current research focuses on, is deuterium + tritium. But tritium has a 12.5 year half life and doesn't occur naturally. It has to be transmuted from lithium inside the power plant, right next to the reactor. This is a huge added complexity. The D+T fuel also emits high energy neutrons, which irradiate the surrounding materials and require shielding. You could pick a harder fusion reaction like hydrogen plus boron. Then the reactor itself has to be way higher tech, but things like fuel and shielding get a lot easier. There's also helium3 + deuterium to look into.



          If you want to get really stupidly exotic, try to steal rotational energy from a rapidly spinning black hole, which is like the one thing you can take from it.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The answer is still fusion, but with different fuels. The easiest fusion reaction to do, and the one current research focuses on, is deuterium + tritium. But tritium has a 12.5 year half life and doesn't occur naturally. It has to be transmuted from lithium inside the power plant, right next to the reactor. This is a huge added complexity. The D+T fuel also emits high energy neutrons, which irradiate the surrounding materials and require shielding. You could pick a harder fusion reaction like hydrogen plus boron. Then the reactor itself has to be way higher tech, but things like fuel and shielding get a lot easier. There's also helium3 + deuterium to look into.



          If you want to get really stupidly exotic, try to steal rotational energy from a rapidly spinning black hole, which is like the one thing you can take from it.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 6 hours ago









          EL_DONEL_DON

          2,4232827




          2,4232827





















              1












              $begingroup$

              Fusion isn't likely to be a very efficient way to harvest electrical energy in the physics sense (efficiency = energy harvested per energy consumed) even today. It is so popular an idea because it is a promise of a cheap and limitless energy production, not an efficient production.



              If what you are after is efficiency, hydropower plants are already close to 90% efficiency today, much better than fusion is hoped to be. If you can make the station so big that you have lots of water, gravity and water cycle powered by Sun in it, then you can put a hydroelectric power plant there.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                6 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
                $endgroup$
                – Ján Lalinský
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago















              1












              $begingroup$

              Fusion isn't likely to be a very efficient way to harvest electrical energy in the physics sense (efficiency = energy harvested per energy consumed) even today. It is so popular an idea because it is a promise of a cheap and limitless energy production, not an efficient production.



              If what you are after is efficiency, hydropower plants are already close to 90% efficiency today, much better than fusion is hoped to be. If you can make the station so big that you have lots of water, gravity and water cycle powered by Sun in it, then you can put a hydroelectric power plant there.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                6 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
                $endgroup$
                – Ján Lalinský
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago













              1












              1








              1





              $begingroup$

              Fusion isn't likely to be a very efficient way to harvest electrical energy in the physics sense (efficiency = energy harvested per energy consumed) even today. It is so popular an idea because it is a promise of a cheap and limitless energy production, not an efficient production.



              If what you are after is efficiency, hydropower plants are already close to 90% efficiency today, much better than fusion is hoped to be. If you can make the station so big that you have lots of water, gravity and water cycle powered by Sun in it, then you can put a hydroelectric power plant there.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Fusion isn't likely to be a very efficient way to harvest electrical energy in the physics sense (efficiency = energy harvested per energy consumed) even today. It is so popular an idea because it is a promise of a cheap and limitless energy production, not an efficient production.



              If what you are after is efficiency, hydropower plants are already close to 90% efficiency today, much better than fusion is hoped to be. If you can make the station so big that you have lots of water, gravity and water cycle powered by Sun in it, then you can put a hydroelectric power plant there.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered 6 hours ago









              Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský

              17.1k1543




              17.1k1543











              • $begingroup$
                You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                6 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
                $endgroup$
                – Ján Lalinský
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago
















              • $begingroup$
                You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                6 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
                $endgroup$
                – Ján Lalinský
                6 hours ago











              • $begingroup$
                That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
                $endgroup$
                – EL_DON
                5 hours ago















              $begingroup$
              You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
              $endgroup$
              – EL_DON
              6 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              You could just capture the solar energy used to drive the water cycle directly instead of wasting power on all that.
              $endgroup$
              – EL_DON
              6 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
              $endgroup$
              – Ján Lalinský
              6 hours ago





              $begingroup$
              Direct conversion of solar energy into electric energy is not very efficient. Capturing part of it that gets stored into potential energy of water is.
              $endgroup$
              – Ján Lalinský
              6 hours ago













              $begingroup$
              That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
              $endgroup$
              – EL_DON
              5 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              That's a small part, though. I think this solution will be far less efficient than direct capture if you normalize to the same total as used for direct solar.
              $endgroup$
              – EL_DON
              5 hours ago












              $begingroup$
              This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
              $endgroup$
              – EL_DON
              5 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              This solution also suffers from lower power density. You could make a more compact nuclear solution or a thin photovoltaic array. An artificial water cycle machine would be enormous. This would only be practical if you were making some sort of garden art project with low population density.
              $endgroup$
              – EL_DON
              5 hours ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              Forget about antimatter as a fuel; the problems of producing it in quantity & storing it safely are insuperable. I suppose in science fiction anything is possible,but in the real world,much of science fiction fantasy is impossible & always will be. I'm afraid interstellar space travel falls under that heading too. As for energy to run the space station,all space stations are likely to be in the inner solar system,so what's wrong with solar energy? To have a fusion reactor on board a space station is likely to be very tricky,so why not have it on Mars or somewhere similar & beam the energy up to the space station by laser? On the other hand a nuclear fuelled (radio isotope) generator is quite feasible,& for safety reasons could be some distance away & connected to the station by cable.Then there is the question of avoiding space maladies like muscle & bone wastage,so why not insist that all astronauts go for a run on a treadmill every day & use the power generated? Or if you had a classical,wheel shaped space station,the running track could circle the perimeter & if all astronauts were made to run in the same direction,the space station would rotate in the opposite direction. This would create artificial gravity which would make life more normal for everyone.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                Forget about antimatter as a fuel; the problems of producing it in quantity & storing it safely are insuperable. I suppose in science fiction anything is possible,but in the real world,much of science fiction fantasy is impossible & always will be. I'm afraid interstellar space travel falls under that heading too. As for energy to run the space station,all space stations are likely to be in the inner solar system,so what's wrong with solar energy? To have a fusion reactor on board a space station is likely to be very tricky,so why not have it on Mars or somewhere similar & beam the energy up to the space station by laser? On the other hand a nuclear fuelled (radio isotope) generator is quite feasible,& for safety reasons could be some distance away & connected to the station by cable.Then there is the question of avoiding space maladies like muscle & bone wastage,so why not insist that all astronauts go for a run on a treadmill every day & use the power generated? Or if you had a classical,wheel shaped space station,the running track could circle the perimeter & if all astronauts were made to run in the same direction,the space station would rotate in the opposite direction. This would create artificial gravity which would make life more normal for everyone.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Forget about antimatter as a fuel; the problems of producing it in quantity & storing it safely are insuperable. I suppose in science fiction anything is possible,but in the real world,much of science fiction fantasy is impossible & always will be. I'm afraid interstellar space travel falls under that heading too. As for energy to run the space station,all space stations are likely to be in the inner solar system,so what's wrong with solar energy? To have a fusion reactor on board a space station is likely to be very tricky,so why not have it on Mars or somewhere similar & beam the energy up to the space station by laser? On the other hand a nuclear fuelled (radio isotope) generator is quite feasible,& for safety reasons could be some distance away & connected to the station by cable.Then there is the question of avoiding space maladies like muscle & bone wastage,so why not insist that all astronauts go for a run on a treadmill every day & use the power generated? Or if you had a classical,wheel shaped space station,the running track could circle the perimeter & if all astronauts were made to run in the same direction,the space station would rotate in the opposite direction. This would create artificial gravity which would make life more normal for everyone.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Forget about antimatter as a fuel; the problems of producing it in quantity & storing it safely are insuperable. I suppose in science fiction anything is possible,but in the real world,much of science fiction fantasy is impossible & always will be. I'm afraid interstellar space travel falls under that heading too. As for energy to run the space station,all space stations are likely to be in the inner solar system,so what's wrong with solar energy? To have a fusion reactor on board a space station is likely to be very tricky,so why not have it on Mars or somewhere similar & beam the energy up to the space station by laser? On the other hand a nuclear fuelled (radio isotope) generator is quite feasible,& for safety reasons could be some distance away & connected to the station by cable.Then there is the question of avoiding space maladies like muscle & bone wastage,so why not insist that all astronauts go for a run on a treadmill every day & use the power generated? Or if you had a classical,wheel shaped space station,the running track could circle the perimeter & if all astronauts were made to run in the same direction,the space station would rotate in the opposite direction. This would create artificial gravity which would make life more normal for everyone.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 6 hours ago









                  Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby

                  874




                  874




















                      ForeverNoobie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      ForeverNoobie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      ForeverNoobie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      ForeverNoobie is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f483695%2fwhats-the-next-step-after-commercial-fusion-reactors%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                      Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                      François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480