Re: Heavy Lift Design for Mining/Cargo Propulsion


"American" <samuelransom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:33e9a8e6-fc25-4ad4-825d-f8ea965324a5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 20, 7:49 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 20, 4:24 pm, American <samuelran...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 7:30 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Yes, I can see the complexity there, which is why I'm not us-
> ing "turbopumps" in the design. There's no "jet" being produced
> for "thrust" here - just a magnetohydrodynamic injector for each
> pellet blasted into the thrust dome.

[snip]

You are truly clueless. The magnetohydrodynamic injector is a pump
that injects the propellant, in this case the pellet you describe, and
the thrust dome as you call it is indeed the jet. If the jet is well
collimated your rocket is fairly efficient, if the jet is not well
collimated, it is less efficient.

| It's useless to argue semantics. Is there a magnetohydrodynamic
| injector that is patented as a pump? (Probably not, because
| I've already "invented" one!) The "jet" is more like controlled

<snip>

"You are truly clueless." I don't see how that advances this
(to me) serious discussion. It brings to mind the hot little
disputes that arise among small children, and it's off topic.

Mookie's numbers say we've got a problem here about practical
aspects of riding on a string of nuclear explosions. This is
one of those things you use technology to find a solution. The
easy solution, of course, is to space the explosions more far
apart in time until hardware buildable with (almost) existing
technology can cope with the nukes exploding nearby.

The interesting question to me here, is, what is the system that
fires those little nukes, what is its design, how much power does
it want, is there an existing proof of principle from which one
reasonably would commit some billions of dollars to build it? ??

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Apr 21]


.