Combat Ready Home on Wheels

[RockJock]

What does your group use for "combat RVs"? By that I mean your group's home away from home in Rifts?

The Behemoth Explorer is on one large end, the Iron Maiden conversion is on the small, but what else have you used? The WR cargo vehicles from Europe?

[flatline]

We were never very picky. Vehicles had a way of being destroyed or left behind with alarming regularity, so we never got attached to them. If the GM wanted to have a party vehicle, we used whatever the GM provided.

Historically, I think the Big Boss ATV or the Mountaineer were the most common party vehicles simply because they were in the base book. Neither is particularly "combat ready". Storage was typically augmented by adding a Dimensional Envelope to the trunk.

Hovercycles and jet/grav packs were popular individual vehicles.

[Alrik Vas]

The group I'm GMing for once used something very much like this.

They gave it a nuke generator, which they used to charge e-clips. It was amphibious and they had GAW give it the once over on armor, etc.

They had a NG-202 put on a top mount, using DU rounds, mostly just for self-defense. Later they got an Iron Maiden, then an NE hover IFV. Most of it was destroyed...though the RV is still out there if they can make it back to where they left it.

[Jorick]

My dream vehicle would be the Naruni NE-ATRV3 Pathfinder (Naruni Wave 2 pg. 6). Basically a smaller Behemoth in terms of possible facilities, but more than enough room for a normal party, and it flies up to 80 ft, at 200 mph. Only 12 million credits. Gotta avoid Coalition territory, but the price is ridiculously cheap. Thank you Naruni.

[flatline]

My dream vehicle would be the Naruni NE-ATRV3 Pathfinder (Naruni Wave 2 pg. 6). Basically a smaller Behemoth in terms of possible facilities, but more than enough room for a normal party, and it flies up to 80 ft, at 200 mph. Only 12 million credits. Gotta avoid Coalition territory, but the price is ridiculously cheap. Thank you Naruni.

Is raising $12M pretty easy to do in your campaigns?

[Alrik Vas]

It isn't in yours? You treat the CS like loot piñatas.

Though, depending on the employer, the job, and negotiations, 12m might not be unrealistic.

[flatline]

It isn't in yours?

It depended on the GM and the type of campaign we were playing, but typically, yes, $12M would have been attainable in our games given enough time. However, I was under the impression that most people's games were a little more stingy with funds than we were.

You treat the CS like loot piñatas.

Yes, yes, some of the time. If we came to North America as part of a high powered campaign, then sure, but most of our high powered campaigns were in other settings so we didn't get to beat on the CS as much as we would have liked.

[spatulaodoom]

There's no shortage of options depending on your budget and needs. These are just off the top of my head.

In the main book the humble mountaineer has sleeping arrangements for five without touching the cargo area or passenger space, and the extravagant Behemoth can handle an entire platoon or two in style (if not much subtlety).

NG2 has several options, from the Badger (combat heavy but light on the comforts), Wolftrack (high comforts, good armor, but no weapons), Cargonaut with an APT (relatively cheap), or Salamander hover train (for those with large pocket books and equally large space requirements). There's another four treaded tank one, but I don't remember it's name off the top of my head (EDIT: It's the unimaginatively named Pathmaker).

NG1 has a couple of robots that could fit the bill; the Ogre, the little chief (Oikose or something like that), and the Bulldog. These all tend to be a bit on the expensive side and not super great as an RV or as a combat robot. And of course there's the NG-Ex9 Super Explorer, for those who felt that the original Behemoth wasn't excessive enough.

World book 5 Triax and the NGR has a large and a medium sized APC/Traveling cargo hauler that would be good for a team's super-rv. The Wilderness Crusader might work as a small (say 2 person) RV if you took out the other 5 seats and combined it with the cargo area to make a little sleeper area.

Canada has the Snow Lion, which by the description would be absolutely great as an RV with a good mix of space, off road capability, armor, and weapons for a reasonable price. This one would be my first choice. A bit slow compared to say a hovercraft though.

[Jorick]

My dream vehicle would be the Naruni NE-ATRV3 Pathfinder (Naruni Wave 2 pg. 6). Basically a smaller Behemoth in terms of possible facilities, but more than enough room for a normal party, and it flies up to 80 ft, at 200 mph. Only 12 million credits. Gotta avoid Coalition territory, but the price is ridiculously cheap. Thank you Naruni.

Is raising $12M pretty easy to do in your campaigns?

No. Def need to work for it. But, comparatively, for what you get, $12 mil is very cheap. It's a crazy deal. See NG vehicles, etc.

[RockJock]

We usually go with the Hover cycle/Robot Horses and tent route, but the question came up when I was looking at the rules for building a small merc unit again. A platoon sized small company with extensive weapons gets vehicles/robots. This is a little over kill, so I figured a traveling vehicle might take that slot over a true combat unit.

[spatulaodoom]

So I had a glance at my books and remembered why I thought the Snow Lion was so great.
Price.
600,000 for the base model. The nuclear model with full weapons and living quarters for eight is a paltry (relatively) 2.68 million.
It's reasonably sturdy (320 main body MD for the nuclear version), has a modest weapons loadout (including a missile launcher that can fire a volley of 6 short range missiles with reloads), can handle some pretty rough terrain, and has a few perks like being able to seal up for 14 days environmental plus extra radiation protection and a couple of sensor options beyond the standard. You can even add a trailer for an extra 100 tons of hauling if you don't mind moving at a crawl.
It's a bit slow at 60mph top speed, and it's really nothing too special in armor and weapons (although the launcher is nice it can be expensive to fire), but for the price you get pretty dang bang for your buck.

[Fell]

We were never very picky. Vehicles had a way of being destroyed or left behind with alarming regularity, so we never got attached to them. If the GM wanted to have a party vehicle, we used whatever the GM provided.

Historically, I think the Big Boss ATV or the Mountaineer were the most common party vehicles simply because they were in the base book. Neither is particularly "combat ready". Storage was typically augmented by adding a Dimensional Envelope to the trunk.

Hovercycles and jet/grav packs were popular individual vehicles.

You said pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Also last week we started some new characters in your game, one of them asked to be a Glitter Boy. (Side note this is the first time in over 20 years where I had a GB in a game). The other players were all, "Don't do it! We always lose our vehicles"! lol

We will see, after the first night he still has it

[kaid]

What does your group use for "combat RVs"? By that I mean your group's home away from home in Rifts?

The Behemoth Explorer is on one large end, the Iron Maiden conversion is on the small, but what else have you used? The WR cargo vehicles from Europe?

I am a big fan of some of the new NG1 designs. The bulldog is a great small group transport. Sleeping quarters for 4-8 people depending how friendly they are small cooking area/sanitary facility/drinking water storage and recycling capability. Its also reasonably competent in a fight pretty darn durable and has powerful arm for making camp and improvised fortifications as well as salvage operations.

The okemos explorer is lighter and less expensive good for 2-4 people but again decent quarters for them.

The NG scorpion has a sleeping bunk area for a full squad of people. Less comfy than the above two but sleeps more and has facilities for them to use in safety as well.

They also have a lot of nice trucks/trailers in NG2 that are great party busses as well.

[flatline]

Out of curiosity, what are the vehicles that can hold at least 4 passengers (counting the driver) and cost less than, say, $100,000 credits?

[kaid]

I would have to check the books but at that price range you are likely looking at some of the NG2 designs that are basic off road capable trucks with a simple living quarters trailer which would still be way nicer than shacking out in the wilderness. Probably in that price range you are looking at electric/battery/solid ox/solar type power source.

[dragonfett]

Out of curiosity, what are the vehicles that can hold at least 4 passengers (counting the driver) and cost less than, say, $100,000 credits?

Just from the RUE, both the Big Boss and Mountaineer.

[spatulaodoom]

Out of curiosity, what are the vehicles that can hold at least 4 passengers (counting the driver) and cost less than, say, $100,000 credits?

Just about anything GAWS creates (Mercenaries and I think more in Mercenary ops), at least in the smaller size. MDC converted cars, trucks, and light military vehicles (can't remember how much the MDC converted Bradley is, but I think it might be under 100,000).

Northern Gun 2 has some. The Cargonaut and something that's like an extended Big Boss (Road King).an ambulance like thing. The Cargonaut even comes as a hover, wheeled, or tracked vehicle. There's also a hummer-esque truck (Road Buster I think?), that's somewhere near 100k, and is pretty boss. EDIT: Wrong, the road buster and emt vehicle are both over 100k.

[RockJock]

The issue with that price range is going to be fuel.

[flatline]

The issue with that price range is going to be fuel.

Get one with an electric motor charge your batteries on whatever the most convenient power source is.

RMB had TW conversions for electric generators. Some GMs might still use those rules.

[kaid]

Electric or diesel probably would both be the fuels of choice on the more economic vehicles. Vegetable oil can be pretty easily be turned into diesel so probably some reasonable levels of availability any where farming happens. There are also rules for recharging batteries of robot vehicles/power armor off the power plants of other robot vehicles/power armor so I assume a normal truck would have much less draw than either power armor or robot vehicles so the times for recharging would be the same at worst or likely much less. So if your group has a power armor pilot or robot vehicle pilot probably can tap their suit for a charge if solar is impractical due to weather conditions.

[guardiandashi]

I had a char that pretty much had the "ultimate" party house, but its a serious case of overkill for almost any campaign.. short of a full on mechanoid invasion one, and then its more or less a speed bump.

note its a from a char who is a serious Djumper so one night she might be on rifts, tomorrow she might be in robotech, or macross, another night in a galaxy far far away, and another night having drinks with quark.

anyway her ship was a modified (and upgraded seriously) Imperial II star destroyer, one mod was to seriously reduce the crew through automation, and droids (full crew is ~1000 vs the ~36,000 of the stock version, although it still has the same personel capacity, its just more are pilots and passengers. it also has transportors, replicators and a rather eclectic array of weapons including a range of "missile launchers" like photon torpedos (the full range mentioned in various resources) SLAMS (missiles that use an artificial singularity as both propulsion and warhead) and a variety of other designs.

[flatline]

Electric or diesel probably would both be the fuels of choice on the more economic vehicles. Vegetable oil can be pretty easily be turned into diesel so probably some reasonable levels of availability any where farming happens. There are also rules for recharging batteries of robot vehicles/power armor off the power plants of other robot vehicles/power armor so I assume a normal truck would have much less draw than either power armor or robot vehicles so the times for recharging would be the same at worst or likely much less. So if your group has a power armor pilot or robot vehicle pilot probably can tap their suit for a charge if solar is impractical due to weather conditions.

We always assumed that electric vehicles ran off e-clips (or something equivalent), so Sub-Particle Acceleration was used to charge the clips that the vehicle was running off of. GM had to rule how many e-clips a particular vehicle used. For instance, as I recall, a Grav pack or jet pack got the listed range off of 2 e-clips.

[spatulaodoom]

The issue with that price range is going to be fuel.

Well yea. Just about anything with a nuclear engine starts at a million bucks. For a while there electric ran at about the same price/operational range as liquid fuel, but they've been doing away with that in more recent books with electric engines that cost more and have a longer operational range than fuel.

It's totally possible as some have suggested to charge an electric vehicle off a robot or power armor with a nuclear engine. You just have to install a hookup in the robot. I think one of the Mercenaries books has info on that modification.
If you're doing that constantly, like say charging the vehicle overnight and using the robot/power armor during the day, it'd be reasonable to say you'll cut back the life of the nuclear engine some (considering it heavy use). Then again knocking 4 years off a 20 year engine probably isn't that big of a deal.

[Shark_Force]

depending on group, a TW engine can fix those concerns as well.

[kaid]

The issue with that price range is going to be fuel.

Well yea. Just about anything with a nuclear engine starts at a million bucks. For a while there electric ran at about the same price/operational range as liquid fuel, but they've been doing away with that in more recent books with electric engines that cost more and have a longer operational range than fuel.

It's totally possible as some have suggested to charge an electric vehicle off a robot or power armor with a nuclear engine. You just have to install a hookup in the robot. I think one of the Mercenaries books has info on that modification.
If you're doing that constantly, like say charging the vehicle overnight and using the robot/power armor during the day, it'd be reasonable to say you'll cut back the life of the nuclear engine some (considering it heavy use). Then again knocking 4 years off a 20 year engine probably isn't that big of a deal.

There are I believe some good guidlines on this in one of the two NG books as well. Overall any nuke that can power a combat power armor/robot vehicle should have little issue charging a normal electric ground vehicles battery as they are going to be orders of magnitude less energy intensive than normal combat operations.

[spatulaodoom]

I didn't say they'd have an issue doing so, I'm saying that that constant use is going to reduce the life of the nuclear engine. You're eating up it's hours of operation. Sure letting your honda civic idle isn't as hard on the engine as redlining it in neutral, but it's still adding wear and tear to it. Same basic premise.

That said I'd probably take into account what you're charging and what with. Hooking your Chipwell Assault Suit or Power Spy up to a big high drain vehicle, like a 25 ton GAWS converted bradley fighting vehicle is going to take a lot longer to charge and be a lot harder on the engine than charging a motorcycle off of a Hunter Mobile Gun.

[Nightmask]

I didn't say they'd have an issue doing so, I'm saying that that constant use is going to reduce the life of the nuclear engine. You're eating up it's hours of operation. Sure letting your honda civic idle isn't as hard on the engine as redlining it in neutral, but it's still adding wear and tear to it. Same basic premise.

That said I'd probably take into account what you're charging and what with. Hooking your Chipwell Assault Suit or Power Spy up to a big high drain vehicle, like a 25 ton GAWS converted bradley fighting vehicle is going to take a lot longer to charge and be a lot harder on the engine than charging a motorcycle off of a Hunter Mobile Gun.

Except you aren't really, the nuclear core is always generating and outputting power that goes to waste over its lifespan because nothing's using it. What you're doing is simply taking that wasted power and using it to keep your vehicles and/or e-clips charged instead. There isn't any real added burden onto the power core in that kind of situation.

[spatulaodoom]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

[boxee]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

You are aware that MDC parts are not really going to wear out?

[flatline]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

You are aware that MDC parts are not really going to wear out?

That's a strange assumption to make. Why would you assume that?

[Killer Cyborg]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

You are aware that MDC parts are not really going to wear out?

That's a strange assumption to make. Why would you assume that?

In theory, wear and tear is SDC damage.

[boxee]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

You are aware that MDC parts are not really going to wear out?

That's a strange assumption to make. Why would you assume that?

In theory, wear and tear is SDC damage.

Yes this is what I mean thank you Killer Cyborg.

[Shark_Force]

at the very least, i've never noticed things get suddenly vaporised from wear and tear, though i suppose my experience with wear and tear is comparatively tiny relative to the amount of wear and tear that occurs in the world. i suppose it is possible that somewhere, somebody's break pads just instantly disintegrated in a massive fireball that killed a few nearby people who weren't wearing bomb-proof suits. i have my doubts though.

[Nox Equites]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

You are aware that MDC parts are not really going to wear out?

That's a strange assumption to make. Why would you assume that?

In theory, wear and tear is SDC damage.

Except SDC sand causes vehicles to fail in original Africa book.

[Nightmask]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

Are you aware that not all nuclear power sources have moving parts? A nuclear power plant yes because they use the heat to convert a liquid into steam to drive turbines but there are also nuclear power sources that use direct heat-to-electricity thermocouples and given nothing suggests that power armors are somehow running a miniature nuclear steam power plant and instead they refer to the nuclear power source a something removable and even recoverable as part of salvage (such as in the Tolkeen books for the Skelebot power sources) then power armors and vehicles are using the more compact heat-to-electricity design rather than the unlikely to make so small steam turbine version.

[spatulaodoom]

True, RTG's have no moving parts. Hat's off to you sir, I didn't know they were a thing.
However, I think you're reaching.
A lot.

A cursory investigation shows the following.
They have a hideous weight to watt ratio when compared to traditional reactors (they're measured in Watts!). You'd need hundreds of kilograms of RTG to power more than a handful of lightbulbs. It's far more plausible that you could scale down a normal reactor by a factor of fifty or so than increasing the output of a RTG by a couple of hundred or a couple thousand to get some real kilowatt hours out of it.
Even the material sciences of the setting (specifically the mega-damage materials everyone keeps bringing up, which increase material strength while reducing weight and mass) favor miniaturization of reactors.

They have no ability to be throttled, which means that the RTG must be rated for the maximum design power usage of the thing it's powering. When you're not at maximum power usage you have to find some way of getting rid of that excess energy. Not much of a problem in space where you can just divert to a radiator, but outside of a vacuum it can be rough. You can get around/reduce that problem with secondary power generation, capacitors or other power storage systems, and by necessity additional cooling systems over and beyond normal operational usage levels. In fact, because of their steady decay you have to rate them above the maximum usage early in their life.

If they are talking about RTG's then the bit about "x years assuming normal use" is completely pointless, since, barring damage to the generator itself, it's not going to vary due to usage.

Most importantly there's this. Can you honestly say with a straight face that when someone talks about a nuclear generator, nuclear power source, or anything to that effect, that a normal person would think of a RTG? No, they're going to assume they're talking about the good old Simpsons-esque nuclear reactor where you create a sustained chain reaction, or maybe what you find in some military subs/ships. Nobody in their right mind is going to think you're talking about a RTG unless you specifically say radioisotope thermoelectric generator (and probably explained what that is).

In the end it's not specified what type of generator is used beyond “Nuclear,” so you're free to pretend it is what you like it to be, right up to dilithium crystal based space wizardry. Given that heavy usage can reduce their usable life (although that notation is admittedly inconsistent), I choose to assume it's a super-advanced variant of the good ole atomic pile.

In theory, wear and tear is SDC damage.

Why would you say that?

[Nightmask]

True, RTG's have no moving parts. Hat's off to you sir, I didn't know they were a thing.
However, I think you're reaching.
A lot.

A cursory investigation shows the following.
They have a hideous weight to watt ratio when compared to traditional reactors (they're measured in Watts!). You'd need hundreds of kilograms of RTG to power more than a handful of lightbulbs. It's far more plausible that you could scale down a normal reactor by a factor of fifty or so than increasing the output of a RTG by a couple of hundred or a couple thousand to get some real kilowatt hours out of it.
Even the material sciences of the setting (specifically the mega-damage materials everyone keeps bringing up, which increase material strength while reducing weight and mass) favor miniaturization of reactors.

They have no ability to be throttled, which means that the RTG must be rated for the maximum design power usage of the thing it's powering. When you're not at maximum power usage you have to find some way of getting rid of that excess energy. Not much of a problem in space where you can just divert to a radiator, but outside of a vacuum it can be rough. You can get around/reduce that problem with secondary power generation, capacitors or other power storage systems, and by necessity additional cooling systems over and beyond normal operational usage levels. In fact, because of their steady decay you have to rate them above the maximum usage early in their life.

If they are talking about RTG's then the bit about "x years assuming normal use" is completely pointless, since, barring damage to the generator itself, it's not going to vary due to usage.

Most importantly there's this. Can you honestly say with a straight face that when someone talks about a nuclear generator, nuclear power source, or anything to that effect, that a normal person would think of a RTG? No, they're going to assume they're talking about the good old Simpsons-esque nuclear reactor where you create a sustained chain reaction, or maybe what you find in some military subs/ships. Nobody in their right mind is going to think you're talking about a RTG unless you specifically say radioisotope thermoelectric generator (and probably explained what that is).

In the end it's not specified what type of generator is used beyond “Nuclear,” so you're free to pretend it is what you like it to be, right up to dilithium crystal based space wizardry. Given that heavy usage can reduce their usable life (although that notation is admittedly inconsistent), I choose to assume it's a super-advanced variant of the good ole atomic pile.?

Sorry but we're talking here with gamer geeks and people who in particular play at least one sci-fi setting with compact nuclear power sources so the normal people here do indeed in general have reason to know of the RTG concept and aren't going to be thinking that they actually build miniature nuclear power plants into power armor or vehicles and the idea that they actually build nuclear power plants a la the Simpsons is hard to imagine that YOU say that with a straight face considering the design specifications required to do that would be at least as difficult if not more so than the compact, no-moving-parts, RTG.

You also seem a bit confused when it comes to getting rid of waste heat, because it's way harder to get rid of heat in space than it is on a planet with an atmosphere. Space being a vacuum is actually a nearly perfect insulator as there's no atmosphere to bleed off heat as the atoms strike the radiator and carry off some of the heat, whereas your average power armor running around on a planet's going to have no problems getting rid of that waste heat into the environment (although they're going to be really obvious on thermal sensors). Then again you're also missing the point that it's Rifts, an RPG, it's not even remotely done to exacting scientific standards so it's not an issue that they have tech advanced enough that they can create compact RTG that can power vehicles and power armor without much difficulty.

[Alrik Vas]

So...an RTG is basically just a nuclear battery, from what I'm reading. It gives top power at the beginning of it's life, and slowly bleeds away. They're also incredibly inefficient. If they have them inside power armor, I'd guess they "somehow" made them incredibly efficient, and also have power systems that store excess, allowing the power from the RTG to be reusable somehow..."somehow."

Or you could have a mini-steam-nuke, which makes about as much sense as "somehow" anyway.

[flatline]

This is the primary reason I have house rules that say that a nuclear reactor can't be smaller than 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter. I assume that part of that is a closed loop heat exchanger and turbine for generating electric power.

And yes, anything with a reactor in it is going to have a serious IR signature unless they're doing something clever like dumping waste heat underground or something (not an option available to vehicles).

Edit: also, the turbine makes some noise, too, but mostly above regular human hearing range. Dog boys and other creatures with heightened sense of hearing can probably hear it a long way off. In my setting, dog boys don't like being near nuclear reactor powered vehicles for this reason.

[glitterboy2098]

NASA is actually working on the mini-steam nukes. as well as the Sterling-nuke, and other options. they want more power for the bigger Plasma drives on probes and possible manned missions.

and we already have mini-turbines and generators. the difficulty has just been getting the reactor light enough for spacecraft use (a materials issue with strength and radiation shielding. two things MDC is a major improvement with)

as for the whole "can be removed".. most compact nuclear reactor designs IRL have moved to the "pod" concept where the entire assembly (reactor core, shielding, main cooling, in some cases generator, etc) is all contained in a single removable module, that just has to be hooked up to the power grid. so it would make sense that the entire powerplant in a robot or PA in rifts has a similar "all in one armored shell" design, that just needs the powerlines and maybe an extra radiator hooked to it for use.

this would mesh well with how the nuclear powerpacks for weapons like MG style railguns are also said to be useable to replace PA and robot powerplants. they'd basically be the same module design, just used differently.

[spatulaodoom]

Sorry but we're talking here with gamer geeks and people who in particular play at least one sci-fi setting with compact nuclear power sources so the normal people here do indeed in general have reason to know of the RTG concept and aren't going to be thinking that they actually build miniature nuclear power plants into power armor or vehicles and the idea that they actually build nuclear power plants a la the Simpsons is hard to imagine that YOU say that with a straight face considering the design specifications required to do that would be at least as difficult if not more so than the compact, no-moving-parts, RTG.

Nope. The first thing someone's going to think of when you say nuclear generator is a reactor.

You also seem a bit confused when it comes to getting rid of waste heat, because it's way harder to get rid of heat in space than it is on a planet with an atmosphere. Space being a vacuum is actually a nearly perfect insulator as there's no atmosphere to bleed off heat as the atoms strike the radiator and carry off some of the heat, whereas your average power armor running around on a planet's going to have no problems getting rid of that waste heat into the environment (although they're going to be really obvious on thermal sensors).

Not confused at all. A vacuum being a perfect insulator is a common misconception. It is not.
Were that true RTG's would never be used in space, as they would cook whatever they're powering (uses heat to generate electricity + horrible efficiency), and yet their main application is space based.
Astronauts would cook inside their space suits/ships entirely due to the buildup of their own chemical reaction based body heat. Yet that doesn't happen obviously.
And the sun would provide no heat to the Earth, yet you can feel it on your face or on a sun warmed rock.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html
It's simple, the heat transfer isn't via molecular agitation (diffusion and convection), which the vacuum of space is almost perfectly insulated against, but radiation, specifically IR, which all warm bodies give off. Your radiator in space is a literal radiator. Heat in space really isn't any more of a problem than it is on earth.

Then again you're also missing the point that it's Rifts, an RPG, it's not even remotely done to exacting scientific standards so it's not an issue that they have tech advanced enough that they can create compact RTG that can power vehicles and power armor without much difficulty.

You did read the bit about space wizardry right?

Anyway I think we've derailed the thread long enough. I'ma call it here (for me at least).

EDIT: Someone should start a new thread on the subject. It's interesting to discuss.

[guardiandashi]

Sorry but we're talking here with gamer geeks and people who in particular play at least one sci-fi setting with compact nuclear power sources so the normal people here do indeed in general have reason to know of the RTG concept and aren't going to be thinking that they actually build miniature nuclear power plants into power armor or vehicles and the idea that they actually build nuclear power plants a la the Simpsons is hard to imagine that YOU say that with a straight face considering the design specifications required to do that would be at least as difficult if not more so than the compact, no-moving-parts, RTG.

Nope. The first thing someone's going to think of when you say nuclear generator is a reactor.

You also seem a bit confused when it comes to getting rid of waste heat, because it's way harder to get rid of heat in space than it is on a planet with an atmosphere. Space being a vacuum is actually a nearly perfect insulator as there's no atmosphere to bleed off heat as the atoms strike the radiator and carry off some of the heat, whereas your average power armor running around on a planet's going to have no problems getting rid of that waste heat into the environment (although they're going to be really obvious on thermal sensors).

Not confused at all. A vacuum being a perfect insulator is a common misconception. It is not.
Were that true RTG's would never be used in space, as they would cook whatever they're powering (uses heat to generate electricity + horrible efficiency), and yet their main application is space based.
Astronauts would cook inside their space suits/ships entirely due to the buildup of their own chemical reaction based body heat. Yet that doesn't happen obviously.
And the sun would provide no heat to the Earth, yet you can feel it on your face or on a sun warmed rock.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html
It's simple, the heat transfer isn't via molecular agitation (diffusion and convection), which the vacuum of space is almost perfectly insulated against, but radiation, specifically IR, which all warm bodies give off. Your radiator in space is a literal radiator. Heat in space really isn't any more of a problem than it is on earth.

Then again you're also missing the point that it's Rifts, an RPG, it's not even remotely done to exacting scientific standards so it's not an issue that they have tech advanced enough that they can create compact RTG that can power vehicles and power armor without much difficulty.

You did read the bit about space wizardry right?

Anyway I think we've derailed the thread long enough. I'ma call it here (for me at least).

actually.... flatline is more correct than you are about dissipating waste heat than you are.

in space heat dissipation is ~99.9% radiation which is frankly pretty inefficient all things considered.

in an atmosphere you have access to the exact same radiation dissipation efficiency. PLUS you get to use Conduction, AND convection to dissipate additional heat to the environment.
which depending on the thermal coeficiant (essentially the capability of the material to absorb heat) can effectively be orders of magnitude higher than the radiation dissipation rate.

[flatline]

Astronauts would cook inside their space suits/ships entirely due to the buildup of their own chemical reaction based body heat. Yet that doesn't happen obviously.

Bad example. If it weren't for the active cooling system in a space suit, the astronaut WOULD cook themselves with their own body heat. According to Wikipedia, the space suit can remove heat from the interior at a rate of 586 watts (imagine burning your hand on a 100w light bulb to get a frame of reference for comparison).

There's lot of misconceptions about a vacuum being a good insulator. It is, don't get me wrong, but usually it's vacuum combined with a silvered (or other similarly reflective material) surface to eliminate as much radiation as possible. The vacuum eliminates conductive heat and the silvered surface dramatically reduces the emitted radiation from that surface. The space suit isn't very reflective, so it will emit more radiation than otherwise, but it's not enough, so an active cooling system is required to make up the difference.

[Nightmask]

Sorry but we're talking here with gamer geeks and people who in particular play at least one sci-fi setting with compact nuclear power sources so the normal people here do indeed in general have reason to know of the RTG concept and aren't going to be thinking that they actually build miniature nuclear power plants into power armor or vehicles and the idea that they actually build nuclear power plants a la the Simpsons is hard to imagine that YOU say that with a straight face considering the design specifications required to do that would be at least as difficult if not more so than the compact, no-moving-parts, RTG.

Nope. The first thing someone's going to think of when you say nuclear generator is a reactor.

Sorry but just because that's what you think doesn't mean that's what everyone else thinks.

You also seem a bit confused when it comes to getting rid of waste heat, because it's way harder to get rid of heat in space than it is on a planet with an atmosphere. Space being a vacuum is actually a nearly perfect insulator as there's no atmosphere to bleed off heat as the atoms strike the radiator and carry off some of the heat, whereas your average power armor running around on a planet's going to have no problems getting rid of that waste heat into the environment (although they're going to be really obvious on thermal sensors).

Not confused at all. A vacuum being a perfect insulator is a common misconception. It is not.
Were that true RTG's would never be used in space, as they would cook whatever they're powering (uses heat to generate electricity + horrible efficiency), and yet their main application is space based.
Astronauts would cook inside their space suits/ships entirely due to the buildup of their own chemical reaction based body heat. Yet that doesn't happen obviously.
And the sun would provide no heat to the Earth, yet you can feel it on your face or on a sun warmed rock.
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_ht.html
It's simple, the heat transfer isn't via molecular agitation (diffusion and convection), which the vacuum of space is almost perfectly insulated against, but radiation, specifically IR, which all warm bodies give off. Your radiator in space is a literal radiator. Heat in space really isn't any more of a problem than it is on earth.

I said nearly perfect, I know it's not perfect and clearly you don't understand RTG or you'd know the things are heavily insulated and that waste heat that does get out is actually helpful in keeping the space probe warm because they do radiate some heat into space and those electronics actually don't like being reduced to near absolute zero over time. But you need to go back and reread the material on heat in space because heat in space is a MUCH bigger problem than it is on Earth.

Then again you're also missing the point that it's Rifts, an RPG, it's not even remotely done to exacting scientific standards so it's not an issue that they have tech advanced enough that they can create compact RTG that can power vehicles and power armor without much difficulty.

You did read the bit about space wizardry right?

Anyway I think we've derailed the thread long enough. I'ma call it here (for me at least).

EDIT: Someone should start a new thread on the subject. It's interesting to discuss.

Agreed.

[kaid]

Are you aware that nuclear reactors have moving parts? Parts that move in order to turn that reaction heat into electricity?
Enter a shutdown state and they don't move (mainly because you've taken the fuel rods out of the working liquid, meaning no turbine activity). Less wear and tear on the engine's moving parts means that it lasts longer.

Either way, we're going off topic.

You are aware that MDC parts are not really going to wear out?

That's a strange assumption to make. Why would you assume that?

In theory, wear and tear is SDC damage.

Also I would expect most of the power plants used in robot vehicles/armor are more nuclear batteries than actual generators/power plants. The upside to these is they can be made much much smaller and don't require some medium to heat to create steam to draw power. They also would be much easier to harden again similar to what is used on some space probes even today.

IF the nuke plants are like this than no there are no moving parts and the power generated is simply a side effect of the radioactive decay out put is pretty much constant and any not used is simply wasted.

[Devjannz]

I have a TI Robot character that has a Mark V APC (minus the Rail Gun and Missiles) as his mobile home/base. It also contains an automated repair bay in case his body ever needs repair.

[Dog_O_War]

Somehow, in one way or another, myself and my group have ended up with a modified Mark-V APC consistently.

Sometimes it's been given to us, sometimes we steal one, sometimes we bought one on the Black Market.

Either way, we end up with one. Not that it stays whole for a long period of time. For example, I had one once that a dozen or so vampires turned into a siv, and I had just got it out of the shop hours before (was in there because an ancient dragon twisted the chasis).

Besides that, it's typically a Mountaineer with personal transports in-tow (hoverbike, PA).