Taking down the fusion rockets a couple of notches

> From: [email removed]
> Subject: fusion rockets...
>
> After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a
> det-laser is pretty trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a
>small, wimpy drive.  Per second.  Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took off
> from.  Like the TED's palace.  Or pretty much anywhere else that offended you.

  Now this is a problem.

  Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1. And that
the drive has much too short range to be used in space combat unless you
manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from the enemy.

  (So how do they reach orbit? Easy: CD plus *small* maneuver jets)

  Space stations and vaccum worlds will however be vulnerable, but they have
always been vulnerable.

  (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be bad
for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so only the
actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to withstand it. But if
you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type fireball *just aft of the
drives* that will return entirely too much of the thermal radiation to your
ship. Likewise for hosing a space station at 200m)

> 		---Steve Higginbotham

- -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."