Lift off on fusion rockets

> I see no reason why fusion rockets would fail to operate in an
> atmosphere.  The ejection velocity is far greater than sonic
> velocities, thus the exhaust will not impinge on the ship itself
> unless something reflects it.

  I was thinking that there might be problems in getting the thing to
ignite in the first place if the ignition chamber or whatever isn't in a
vacuum. You could rig some contraption that 'opens the door' after
ignition trusting to the pressure to keep the air out, but there is
a risk of 'disposable doors' here if the ignition/opening isn't handled
exactly correctly. And if they are gone your engine won't start.

> We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
> but not many people ever really see NORAD.

  Isn't NORAD primarily a detection network?

> Scott 2G Kellogg

- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

Bertil Jonell [email removed] writes:
> Scott Kellogg writes:
> > We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
> > but not many people ever really see NORAD.
> Isn't NORAD primarily a detection network?

That's the part that most people see.  NORAD can call up all sorts of
defenses, though.  The US has an extensive SAM system, as well as
interceptor aircraft.  At different times, it has also had an
Anti-Satellite system (program "WS-437", from 1964-1975), and an
Anti-ballistic missile system (for a whole day, I believe).

Lots of interesting weapon systems were developed for NORAD use,
including the Nike series of SAMs, the Bomarc SAM, the F-106 Delta
Dagger (and it's Genie missile: an unguided AAM with a nuclear
warhead!), and the Safeguard SBM system with its Spartan and Sprint
missiles (Sprint's claim to fame: highest accelleration of any missile
ever built; it had to be, because it was designed to intercept incoming
RVs within the atmosphere).

If it filies over the US, NORAD sees it, and probably has (or at least,
had, until removed by treaty or act of congress) a way of shooting at
it.


[email removed]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future

Bertil Sez:
>   I was thinking that there might be problems in getting the thing to
> ignite in the first place if the ignition chamber or whatever isn't in a
> vacuum. You could rig some contraption that 'opens the door' after
> ignition trusting to the pressure to keep the air out, but there is
> a risk of 'disposable doors' here if the ignition/opening isn't handled
> exactly correctly. And if they are gone your engine won't start.

Anatomy of the fusion rocket:
Well, we're going to have some kind of physical thrust chamber, but the
only real way to handle plasma is with electromagnetic fields.  If one
ionized the air inside the physical chamber, it should be a simple
matter to eject the air out of the physical chamber.  If a vacuum is
necessary at all, all you really need would be a vacuum of ten to the
minus three torr (Not very low pressure at all).  At that pressure,
air loses it's ability to flow and acts as individual molecules bouncing
around.

All the plasma and fusion guns of Traveller would have the same kind of
problems.  If we are to assume that a plasma gun works at all, we must
conclude that this is not really a large problem.

> > We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
> > but not many people ever really see NORAD.
>
>   Isn't NORAD primarily a detection network?

I believe so, however, in conjunction with the many USAF bases around
the country, I'd say it was part of an anti-aircraft network.

Scott 2G Kellogg

> Bertil Sez:
> All the plasma and fusion guns of Traveller would have the same kind of
> problems.  If we are to assume that a plasma gun works at all, we must
> conclude that this is not really a large problem.

  Well, there might be some difference in the size of the chamber, and
between generating pulses and a continous output.

> Scott 2G Kellogg

- -bertil-
- --
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."