Spacescifi

Lasers could be a good way if one had a compact and uber sources of power. Imagine if you will an uber laser that is linked to the propellant so that when it fires, it dumps it's waste heat into the propellant which is shot out while simutaneously zapping the propellant inside the combustion/detonation chamber. I really am hard pressed to think of other options that can deliver high performance for rocket SSTOs. Great power is needed. If one tried to put playing marble size pellet of metallic hydrogen in the combustion chamber it would probably blow it up since the blast would not be directed. A laser by comparison is directed. So a laser beam of sufficient powsr could do the job. In scifi if you have guys toting visible beam laser pistols that can melt, cut, or blast, then having more power for propuslion would make sense.

Scenario 1: Ten domestic cats, 5 male and 5 female are let loose in a forest 100 kilometers from human civilization. Scenario 2: Nearly the same but dogs... but not just any dog. Behold! The utterly insanely courageous Jack Russel Terrier: I do not have pets so I am less qualified but I will posit an an answer anyway. The cats should survive this... they are half-wild anyway. Somehow I think they will find their way back to human civilization. The Jack Russels probably die though... since I read they cannot be trusted as pets to tolerate each other without killing each other over toys. In the wild they may wise up though given all the prey and predators and tolerate each other more for the sake of survival. What do you think?

I meant shooting the laser into the combustion chamber so the exhaust is pushed out both by the uber laser pulse and combustion at the SAME time. Unless the laser hits the exhaust while still in contact with the nozzle it won't do anything. The faster the exhaust is shot out, the greater the propulsive force on the rocket. So you are right so long the exhaust is touching the nozzle that the laser zaps.... but direction matters, since the laser needs to push the exhaust straight on out, not radially.

So there are two ways to increase thrust. 1. Increase the mass flow... which we do not want to do if you want a heavy SSTO that is not totally a fuel tank. 2 Increase the speed of the exhaust... which requires more energy applied to it. Seems to me that if an 8000 ton scifi SSTO had sufficient power, it would just pulse fire an uber laser into the rocket exhaust stream. So at first you would see a normal rocket plume, but the moment it is shot through with an uber laser it would stretch much longer while granting exceptional thrust before receding back again. This would happen repeatedly till orbit. And if you wonder why I am a fan of pulsed energy it's because it is far more within our reach than continous uber power.

I know magnets are not magic... magnets require power too... and create waste heat too. The reason rocket engines do not melt is because they carry the heat away with the exhaust through the propellant. But even that has it's limits... since if the energy injected into the propellant is so high that the mass flow rate is not enough to reduce the heat to a safe level... bad things happen. Basically, a way to still use absurdly high energy exhaust with traditional combustion rocketry would be to increase the mass flow rate to match the energy being dumped into the flow. Which increases thrust but reduces efficiency a great deal. The NSWR got around this thorny issue I think by having the nuclear reaction take place near or at the nozzle as the exhaust was already leaving, so it allowed it to behave like a torch drive... just an absurdly dangerous one since it did not need to worry about dumping heat as much.

You must be joking. In scifi sufficient power is always assumed. My contention is that even having what we do not have... sufficient power, may not be enough. I am betting the amount of electrons needed to provide sufficient thrust to tye exhaust stream would melt or blow them up.

I understand. The problem comes right back to energy density and it not being enough for plasma to make a difference. Yet the irony is energy density only gets you so far since too much melts your engine... because the fuel conducts excess heat to the walls of the combustion chamber. Let us imagine a fictional engine that just might work... but I am not sure. MHD Fusion Pulse Rocket: So you have a detonation chamber lined with magnets cooled with circulating chilled liquid helium. It is not a vacuum chamber though. The magnets are powerful enough to compress a fusion fuel pellet into fusion, which blast out the rocket as exhaust. The main show stoppers in real life would be energy density. The very energy you need to get off the ground will melt your engine if the ship is too heavy. So IRL I doubt we will ever see heavy scifi rocket SSTOs. Only project orion... since rockets cannot handle tge POWAH!

If the air being sucked into a turbo jet engine was ionized before leaving as exhaust could magnetic technology be used to further increase thrust more than than you would get from chemical combustion alone? And is that the same idea behind a plasma jet or not? I was even thinking that same easy to ionize gases could be injected into the fuel stream as well to increase thrust. I realize plasma is low thrust by nature but if the volume of air being turned into plasma is great enough then that could change.

I was thinking... if one wants to get the maximum thrust with the least amount of fuel then you need to detonate a sufficient yield bomb, preferably a pure fusion bomb of sufficient yield since it is safer than fission trigged nukes. In addition pure fusion bombs do not require the critical mass that nukes do so their energy can be scaled down to only what is necessary. The scenario: You have a rich billionaire who has manufactured pure fusion bombs from low to high yields. You are his engineer. He wants you to design an SSTO that detonates pure fusion bombs inside the throat of the nozzle for thrust. Right away you tell him, "Sir, that may damage the nozzle." "You're the engineer, Find a solution. Maybe I dunno, you could make the nozzle thicker or let it secrete oil for ablation between pulse detonations." "I will see what can be done and get back to you." So what do you think? Can this be done mechanically without any show stoppers? Potential problems that come to mind is shrapnel from the pure fusion bombs damaging the nozzle, but I think this can be mitigated if the bomb jackets are made of combustible materials that will vaporize upon detonation. Thoughts? This is more or less external pulse propulsion using pure fusion bombs and a rocket nozzle. Interestingly enough... this may be a scenario where a large and thick nozzle may be just the right kind for the job. It would have to be actively cooled with pipes of coolant running through it and also oil secreated inside the the throat for ablative cooling. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any way.

So Breaking Bad for Kerbals?

Well... I do not agree that all are villains because of matters out of their control. Your reasoning mirrors that of the Merovingian, but even with everything going against a person they can push against it and do the opposite of what all the social contructs and enviromental restraints would impose and suggest upon them. Neo actually proved it, not even doing what others before him had done despite the pressure of losing it all in the balance.

Explain? I presume you think nature vs nurture makes us all victims so that is the reason for both heroism and villainy? I think the potential for both lies in equal measure for anyone. To be evil just do not resist evil impulses or the urge to do what you feel is wrong. The more one does anything the more it becomes less a mask and more a part of them. I think heroism lies in resisting the impulse to do wrong, as well as obviously doing what you know is the right thing to do. Recognizing we are accountable versus I can do whatever I want attitude. Villains end up being forced to recognize their accountability, but heroes do this willingly.

Sometimes it is really obvious. Other times not so much. Want an example of the not so obvious? War. Two sides fighting... I am sure there are respectable guys on both sides who in their normal life hold the door open for others and pay their bills on time. The only thing that makes them fight each other is their leaders. Want an example where the difference between villainy and heroism is super obvious? The hero more or less tells the villain to care about others and not to drop them to their deaths ("Don't do it Gobby!") The villain, if he wanted to be sarcastic and chew the scenery more he could have replied, "Why? This is all your fault and you know it. You wanted to play hero so play!" I think there are many key differences that separate villains from heroes, so that there is no one size that will fit all villains so to speak. There are immoral villains like the Green Goblin who think they are accountable to no one, which leads them into battle against the hero who naturally will hold them accountable. There are also villains who are just doing their job, because it is their duty and that is all they feel. It's not personal. Any other villain types I may have missed?

Thanks... I am interested in all replies. Hmmm... well... I will level with you. As a kid I was athletic naturally. Even now I retain it, though not to the same degree. In school kids asked me to fight their bullies for them but I never did for two reasons. 1. My religious upbringing forbade it. 2. I had no desire to gain a following or entourage, which is what I feared may happen if I beat up the local big bad. I never wanted popularity for the sake of being popular even though I enjoyed being liked. I really only cared what my immediate friends and associates thought about me. Strangers? Not so much. In a Lord of the Flies scenario, I would work hard to get rescued, and sooner or later get on Jack's bad side. I am no leader per se, as I don't like to lead naturally, but neither am I a follower since I am naturally paranoid. I am no wannabe killer, but if it comes down to me versus a fear mongering murderous tyrant, Jack would have to go. My mercy has limits, and I think all humans can say that if they are honest with themselves.

Yeah... ideally boys and men would be like this song... but apparently that is only wishful thinking on a grand scale. At least individually we can be better. Since you posit that the Lord Of The Fiies Scenario was inevitable, what do you think a smart kid who wanted to mitigate the problems if not possible to avoid them altogether would do if stuck on the island with the boys from the story? What would you do if a boy and stuck with them?

Except the ones from IRL Tonga who did Lord Of The Flies for real.

Experienced? Able? Russia has survived multiple civil wars and invasions and has been around longer than the USA... they know hardship.

In real life something like this happened with boys from Tonga. Went the opposite way and they got along great, even cared for one that got injured. A rare case of real life having a rosy ending as opposed to pure fiction. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/13/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-mano-totau-survivor-story-shipwreck-tonga-boys-ata-island-peter-warner

That may be the Russian view, but it varies based on the culture. Russians... at least culturally, correct me if wrong, tend to be more willing to suffer hardship... I dare say more than us Murricans. I mean.. I have saw on the ISS that even the Russian toilet paper is rougher or thicker (cannot remember which) than the ones Americans use lol.

So am going to watch both movie versions and read the book too.... since I did not as a child snd only heard of it in passing. I find it fascinating. Interestingly in the old black and white original movie version, Jack seems kind of like a jock tough guy kid, who seems to want to help the group out. Yet he can be condescending and jerkish to those he thinks are inferior (the fat kid). Later he will prove to be the instigator of much that goes horribly wrong. I like this book/story because it shows that the greatest danger to us is and always will be... us. Jack ultimately will rule through fear and cruelty, as opposed to logic and compassion where possible, which is what should have occurred but did'nt. Fear and cruelty won. But it does not have to. We all have the choice. Each and everyday. Sure we will all fail from time to time... but I do think an overall positive pattern is better than a negative one.

Too bad. Maybe someone will make a mod later. I find it awesome that IRL allows for more 'cheats' than even a space sim like KSP2 would present.

Wow! I actually posted a semi-plausible SSTO design for once lol! Of course we are not going to talk about WHAT is in the fuel pellets (could be antimatter who knows). I presume ejecting and detonating the pellets before they clear the throat of the nozzle would work for thrust. Since last I checked detonating a high energy ANYTHING is a bad idea for an internal reaction chamber. What is happening instead is throat detonation before the pellet clears the nozzle, and the nozzle must be strong enough to funnel the blast instead of being blown to bits.

Lol... I am presuming the KSP 2 dev team is blissfully unaware of the weaksauce version of Orion that uses pure fusion triggered by high explosives/magnetic fields. Still effective though. https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2022/03/fusion-without-fissiles-superbombs-and.html?m=1 With this you CAN mine ice for fuel and and still process the hydrogen for fusion fuel.

So when thinking of a successful heavy SSTO, I am well aware that it's energy/power needs are high, since that is the price it pays for not relying on dropping used rocket stages. Scenario: A large and thick 2000 ton saucer with blunt edge walls, with a rear protruding 'bumper' just wide enough for a row of three large rocket nozzles. It sits on a short ice runway with a half loop ramp made of ice that points up skyward. The vessel has powerful rear main engines that pulse fire by igniting fuel pellets, which generate enough thrust to allow it to reach orbit simply by pulse firing. The idea is to fire a single pulse at somewhat reduced thrust to fly up the ramp into the sky and then use higher thrust pulses to reach orbit. Why an ice ramp? Easy to replace when damaged, as it will be on every launch no doubt. Also cheap. Benefits: The large saucer has belly engines capable of VTOL, but to spare them using precious and limited liquid propellant until absolutely necessary, that is why I propose the ice ramp. The liquid propellant engines could then be used for landing anywhere without infrastructure or runways. Secondary Question: Could you safely belly land the 2000 ton SSTO saucer without wheels on an ice runway? Like an airplane? I think you could so long the angle of attack was not too steep, only need to glide over and belly flop onto the ice. From there the ship could rotate laterally using thrusters and pulse blast main engines to slow to a stop.

Well... per the OP, the energy used would be 100% converted into hull integrity with zero waste heat (yes I know that breaks conservation of energy but so be it). The heat the crew might die from is from the heat of the nuclear blast being absorbed by the outer hull... which would cause it to flash cook the ship's innards and radiate and conduct heat inside until it cooled. Yet more likely, the crew would die from the sheer g-force of the equivalent of a multi-megaton hammer slamming down on them on the ground. Crew has a much better chance of survival if the ship is hit from behind while flying away in the air, though the heat would still present real problem. So in conclusion... yeah... the tech is of limited if any value against a nuke, but against bullets it would be awesome.