The Reactor Factor

jedion357's picture
September 19, 2011 - 5:20am
Im of the opinion that all ships should have a reactor on board. Chem rockets are not getting the power from the engines. I'm having difficulty seeing how Ion engines supply a ship with power and the "atomic" drive sure, but if its atomic drive, which make great targets sitting out there away from the hull are shot off or some other catastrophe then what? Most civilian ships can get by with a size A fission reactor but military ships require at least one reactor equal in size to the engines its using just for dedicated power source for weapons and shields
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

AZ_GAMER's picture
September 20, 2011 - 4:12pm

Your power supply may not necessarily have to be your propulsion. Sure you have an atomic reactor to supply power to the ship and its systems but the propulsion is provided by an ion drive system. (For example). I don't believe that your propulsion system and power plant have to be the same thing. The game rules are only concerned with what makes the ship go and how far it can go, how much fuel is needed, how fast it gets there, and how often it must be maintained. The rules say nothing about what you use to keep the lights on, though it is fair to assume that your propulsion could also be your power plant.

Inigo Montoya's picture
Inigo Montoya
October 24, 2011 - 11:46am
I just assumed that the heat energy by product from propulsion was utilized to generate electricity in a closed system dynamo type thingie. (sorry, missed my skill check there.) However a dedicated reactor (or power plant) would be wiser and maybe have the closed system siphoning heat energy from propulsion as a back up.