Cheif Operations Director

@Shpaget what is the best IDE for c++?

There @steve_v excuse the awful sketch

How? @steve_v the arcs are the magnetic fields. If you did this you could slow down the fuel particles while not completely stoping them then it can go into the vaccum back into the condenser. Since the condenser does not need as much energy now it has a new gain. If I figure this right

Is it against the rules to post to a discord server where I can share a diagram? I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

Im not forgetting it. The magnet has a north and southern field. If you use lets say the southern field from the fuel and the de-accelerator then put the magnets on the back end of the craft the magnet pushs the fuel forward a bit and the magnet pushes toward the side. If you have 4 magnets then it propels the craft equally in the pitch and yaw axis. They cancel each other out. yes I know I admit I was being an idiot on the first one and most likely am on this one as well none the less Im not sure what your point is.

I intend to enjoy it. I always likes gyros.

exactly. If those magnets are pushing away from eachother and they are at a 90 angle the magnetic fuel would get slowed and the magents would get push toward the side of the craft or the tail.

put the magnets at an angle, or just forget the accelerate part so it is at a 90 angle from the exhaust. Ok? So put those magnets in a postion where it will help with de-acclerating the fuel.

What?

Ok fair enough, I am being an idiot. However just an idea what if the fuel was magnetic and you used magents to slow it down in one directing and pull it in another. then you may have a net positive thrust? Im still using the nuclear reactor btw

Ok, You put the rocket engine in the center of the craft (no this is not a rocket pendulum) then you fire the engine propelling you forward. THEN you recapture the expelled air and put it into a condenser at the end of the rocket. Then pump it forward back into the reactor. to be expelled again. If have large enough condensers you can do it and get a net positive thrust. Since all of the gas/liquid is recycles you could integrate it with the rest of the vehicle for heating and cooling nessicary parts of it. Once the engine is running to throttle down you turn off the reactor. Since the craft is built around this design you can fly your science probe on full thrust for YEARS.

You re-capture the air and then recycle it. This allows you to covert heat into mechanical force. exactly why waste the propellant?

Sure but you can have thrust for 30 years straight. I mean imagine if voyager was accelerating for 30 years straight Also nuclear submarines do it

It would create thrust then you use the exhaust fumes back into the engine re-heating it you would not use any fuel other than the nuclear reactor. I mean if you can harness the nuclear reactor to create thrust then you are in business. I should clarify by harness I mean do not use extra fuel via explusion. Rather just use the nuclear reactor.

What if they just "sucked" the air back in after expelling it. still expels the air for thrust right?

[Moderator's note: Much of the content here, including this OP, was split off from another thread where it was off-topic. That thread is about the recent Rosatom rocket engine failure. This thread is about Cheif Operation Director's idea for a perpetual-momentum machine that violates the laws of physics.] Yes but it is inefficient and you are still restricted by fuel. If the ruskies could find a way to harness the air and create propulsion without actual expelling the gas they have a winning system,

Right, but how exactly are they going to harness such heat in an engine. I mean they COULD use the reactor to heat up a single gas and then expel that gas out of a nozzle, cutting combustion out of the process entirely.

Comrade, in glorius soviet union, no mistakes are made!

would not be the first time they went full kerbal *they being the russians

elaborate, sorry I do not know a ton about nuclear tech.

Hmm. Could be a partnership. Or Rosatom wants to power a turbine with a nuclear rocket engine...

Weight to thrust, yea not worth it. The thing for me is that is says the isotopes decays quickly. RTGs do not do that. Frankly neither do nuclear reactors.

That is ridiculous I think they have a better chance in the LES

No idea unfortunately.

Im willing to bet that this is fission based yes me too. Because those isotopes would NOT decay in a short period of time.