> Loud laughter is heard in the distance! Really loud!
Mail me if you start getting a stomach ache after all that laughter and
I'll stop provoking it.
> > 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.
>
> Why should it be bad??? Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen by
> looking at pictures of any Saturn launch. The blast punches DOWN!
> Hard! Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
> down.
You mean like nuke punches the atmopshere out of the way without forming
a fireball? The only example of a large fusion reaction in a normal atmosphere
we have is the hbomb and it sure forms a fireball.
You yourself said that the energy output through a scoutships engines
equals 125 Terawatts (30kT per second is 1.254 Joules per seconds aka
watts), and considering that this only uses 25 m3 of hydrogen *per hour*
(2G) it seems to me that the exhaust is short on mass. I don't have the MT
books here so I might be wrong about what liquid H2 weighs, but it looks like
the scout would use 480 grams of H2 per second. What kind of pressure will
this flimsy jet inflict a few km from the ship? More or less than the
air pressure?
(And what part of the exhaust will be in radiation? If the 480g/s is
correct, and if the velocity you stated (20,000km/s) is correct, the
kinetic energy will account for 22 of those 30kT that comes out of the
engines. Will the other 8kT be radiation? Some of it in the form of soft
xrays perhaps?)
> DREAM ON, Bertil! Look at a REAL rocket launch! MUCH lower exhaust
> velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs - they
> form long tongues af flame.
MUCH denser exhaust, MUCH less radiation.
> Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
> willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to the
> situation presented, and learn to live with it.
I am pretty amazed that you lable speculation about how a fusion rocket
might work in different environments as 'chaning the laws of the universe'.
I have not seen a fusion rocket of the yields we are talking about here and
neither have you. Have anyone of us done professional work on this? Like
simulations or small scale experiments for example? No? Does anyone here
know wether a fusion rocket with the thrustlevels in question EVEN WORKS IN
AN ATMOSPHERE?!!
> So what does that mean? Well, landing ships should be RIGHT OUT!
> Allowing a fusion gun that size near ANY city is INSANE! So ships
> should be docking at space stations FAR from a planet (like
> geostationary orbit, for instance. That gives the planetary defenses
> time to scrag anyone who deviates from traffic corridors toward the
> planet). You should LAND in shuttles that have ONLY scramjet/chemical
> rocket drives (getting up and down will be pretty damn tricky. Sort of
> like 2300AD).
Sort of Retcon City. The jump barges would be minor in comparision to
this.
- -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."