Spacescifi

It is my opinion based on the information I have seen so far that pusher plates have greater round trip range than AM thermal rockets. As awesome as antimatter thermal rocketry is, it's weakness is it's reliance on tons of reaction mass. I can give rocket vessel eight hundred tons of LH and 500 kilograms of antimatter to spare. Or I could give pusher plate vessel eight hundred tons of lime size AM bombs. Even if both vessels weigh exactly the same, the pusher plate should outlast the rocket easily for travel range. Since the AM thermal rocket simply lacks the thrust capacity that pusher plate provides. Since you can only safely blow up so much AM inside a rocket, and you can use more for a pusher plate. AM thermal rockets with airbreathing make decent small SSTO's. But a legit interplanetary spaceship? Not so much as far as I can tell. Unless you perhaps have information I have not considered.

Likely I suppose, given that the antimatter bomb units are the size of this: I guess we must make sure no one eats too much LOL.

Say I snapped my fingers and put a fully loaded pusher plate project orion battleship in orbit. How far could it get in the solar system for a manned round trip return to Earth? Mars? Saturn? Jupiter? Objective: Crew must be alive and reasonably healthy when they return. Specs: Although fully kitted for travel, you will have to bring food on board to last the duration of the trip. Personally I would choose veggies and fruits to grow in zero g. Bonus question: Swap the nukes for anti-iron (ferromagnetic antimatter) bombs. Now how far can you get on a round trip in the solar system back to Earth?

The one good thing about tradgedies Is that it unites mankind... even if for a brief period, we see each other as humans, rather than 'aliens' from another country. People are more empathetic and sympathetic... which is not the norm. It also allows time to get caught up on stuff that needs doing, or even to reevualate our goals and plans. I am very concerned that Mexico will be hit HARD. According to reports, they have not been on lockdown despite the plague, so it might end tragically for them.

Indeed... too bad KSP does not mod for that... unless it has been done. The intake design is actually a complex subject. At first I was thinking to just do this: Yet then I read this: This design works fine while traveling at subsonic speed, go supersonic and you flameout, which I presume (I am guessing here) means the rushing air literally blows out the fire of your exhaust and you stall and fall until you go subsonic sgain. If your engine still works at all. Therefore the solution was shock cones, which make the air subsonic even while going supersonic. The reason why fighters look like this nowadays? They like to put radar equipment in the nose. Now realistically, to cut down on drag it would be wise to put a shockcone for the nose of my ship, letting the intake run the ship's length until it reaches the engines at the back. So crew and cargo and what not will be around surround the intake line, which is like the hollow spine of the ship. Afterall I have more places to stick radar than the tiny fighter does.

Indeed. I am thinking of changing my entire approach. Ship shape will be like this. Twin bell shaped nozzles at the rear, capable of thrust vectoring by pivoting up or down, which also allows for pitch and roll in atmosphere only using twin main engines. Also, use air intakes and a ramjet to use when the rocket gets the ship up to speed, so it can fly for free almost flying around. Getting to orbit definitely will require propellant though. I am thinking to forego big ship landings, except where there are runways. Smaller dome shaped drop ships could land cargo piecemeal, a few tons here ans there, repeatedly, getting back to orbit with ease thanks to AM and propellant, using air augmented ramjets for cruising around. Refuel at mothership for refueling. THAT is star trek... with realism mods turned on.

I see... so picking energy yield is the sweep spot. Namely... how hard we throw our propellant. With nukes you can either do a weak throw, or a mighty throw which wipes out everthing. You are saying that with AM containment as good as I described, we could put JUST enough energy into propellant to lift... ANYTHING we want. Provided we have enough propellant mass flow. So that means that overall, the airbreathing navy destroyer scheme will need a propellant injection for lift off, but once up to ramjet speed it may be able to keep flying thanks to mass flow rate. The heavier a vessel gets the more it cannot rely on air alone with AM, unless the ship is mostly all engine intakes, but that is not what a spaceship wants to be anyway. They want cargo.

So I thought of a IRL way to combine the benefits of rocket staging with reusuable NUCLEAR airbreathing rockets. I know it is not politically practical, but physically I think it might be. Concept: Take several nuclear thermal turbojet airbreathing rockets with the bare essentials. It's just a rocket body with an engine, a reactor, and whatever radiation shielding that is needed. No cargo at all. These are booster rockets. I know NTR originally had a poor TWR (thrust to weight ratio), but these bare minimum air breathing NTTR should help with that perhaps? Can a NTTR reusuable airbreathing booster compete with a non-reusuable SRB or a reusuable chemical booster? Could rockets reap any benefits from a normal staged launch, a simultaneous NTTR airbreathing booster launch, and then dropping the SRB'S and having a bunch of NTTR boosters connect to the hull and boost them into suborbital, where the spacecraft rocket takes over and drops the NTTR which fly around and land on Earth?

Yes, I was aware of the low TWR, but that has a lot to do with the extra engine weight, not to mention the pusher plate. The antimatter bombs are virtually the lightest weight stuff on board. The antimatter is anti-iron, which is ferromagnetic, and therefore easily held inside a small bomblet with a magnetic vacuum chamber inside. Airbreathing NTTR can increase TWR with air, and if even that is too slow of an ascent, then add some antimatter into the mix. At some point ship design will meet a sweet spot, optimal weight where we cannot continue to make heavier SSTO's without using disposable staging, making it not an SSTO. One coukd build a super large SSTO but only if it was mostly hollow. I need SSTO's for my scifi, as that is what the ship does, fly and land on planets. Regarding the OP, I really do think that AM enhanced airbreathing NTTR would be hard pressed to VTOL a navy destroyer weighted craft... if at all. A more reachable size weight/payload range is a passenger jet aircraft. Much more than that and the energy required to get the needed TWR will melt engines anyway. Which is why I use project orion to actually reach orbit. AM bomblets just reduces weight by a lot. Bottom line is, using even theoretical IRL future technology, the heaviest practical SSTO we can launch to orbit is the weight of a passenger jet (500 tons). Go much more than that and we are going into staged boosters, less albeit if AM is being used at all. Passenger jets seat 440, but an SSTO with the same weight would have a smaller crew, and could likely run with far less. Indeed, the less crew carried, the more cargo, and the more cargo, the more profit.

UV rays can and do penetrate clothing, the thicker the clothing effects the absortion rate. What I am saying is that one does not need weather extremes to notice a difference.

I do not agree that darker skin is at a fundamental disadvantage to white skin. Rather I think they both have their advantages and disadvantages. It really depends on the circumstances which decide which is advantageous at the time. Want easy sunburns? Want to absorb heat faster? Lighter skin favors this I believe. Don't want easy sunburns? Want to absorb heat slower? Darker skin favors this I think. Granted I may be wrong about the heat absorption thing, but my experience around both lighter and darker folk is why I think as I do. One tends to thrive in the cold, while another tends to thrive in the the heat.

Just making them out to be like our Earth.

Does not have to be sunlight heat. Any radiative heat source, fire included, should heat them up quicker. In general, you blacks do not like the cold. They do not have a large population in Russia for that and other reasons, but the cold IS a huge factor. On the other hand, there are plenty of whites in South Africa, for reasons that go back into antiquity, but overall, I do think lighter skinned folk tolerate cold better. I had a teacher who would wear a polo shirt and keep the door open to the outside on cold days. He said he was not cold at all, while more than one kid complained, but he never shut it. Granted, the teacher was not skinny, so I am sure the extra insulation helped. But beyond that, I have also read that the British did not bother colonizing India on a massive scale BECAUSE of the hot, humid weather. They hated it.

Variety is the spice of life. That includes the races. That said, it is also partially my personal opinion that skin pigment DOES offer advantages that go beyond cosmetics. Darker skin tends to block more UV than paler skin, that is fact. My opinion is also that on a hot day, darker skinned humans take somewhat longer to heat up due to sunlight than paler skinned ones. Why? Paler skinned humans soak up UV easily, now one might think that is all bad... it is'nt. Did you know even fire emits UV? It does, although not a lot. Lighter skin humans I believe heat up from radiation faster than darker skinned ones. The advantage is that heat sources on a cold days offer them warmth faster than darker humans. Thus the reason why overall, darker folk populate really hot less shaded areas, and light skinned humans populate cold areas. Since either one has the advantage depending on the temperature. Just my opinion.

Well... it is ironic how some fear their own kind, yet want scifi aliens to visit. As the phrase goes, 'Better the devil you know than the devil you don't', and it means that it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown. And believe me, all scifi aliens I ever make always have slight differences in behavior that we do not. In other words, some common and accepted human behaviors they would think of as someone being mentally handicapped on their world. And it follows how they would view us as a whole. Versus humans who may have a higher tech advantage, but at least... on some level,can emphasize with us more than aliens who do not fully know what it means to be human.

Wow. It is amusing how scared you are of your own kind. Granted... you have reason to be I suppose. Given that we can do this in less than 10,000 years of development... Without a bunch of diverse languages, technological progress should proceed even faster than our own. As there will be little to no language barriers to retard discoveries of new information. With biologically immortal humans? Wow. Either they wipe each other out or they conquer and inhabit the solar system... in less than 10,000 years of development.

I thought you said Earth 2.0 is useless? So does that mean you prefer scifi humanoids or a million dollars instead?

I am asking you. I would be OK with either scenario, provided I get to set it all up.

Then it is just a world without humans. How? What would you prefer? A bunch of humanoid aliens with higher tech who want to trade with us?

Interesting answer... you would let humanity 2.0 die? I feel sorry for that couple. They would likely spend their days surviving up until they either die of old age or become the meal of a beast. Bonus scenario: Humanity 2.0 is biologically immortal. Meaning after age 25 they cease to age further. They can still have babies (provided nothing is 'fixed') and can still die of disease and be killed. Now how does THAT change your answer?

Sure you can... although unless you put Earth 2.0 in our solar system I don't know how anyone other than you can visit it. You have the abiliy to go there as you please. That said, alowing humanity prime to take over humanity and Earth 2.0 has it's own ethical issues. You are deferring responsibility to companies that care mostly about Earth Prime to take care of Earth 2.0. There will be some definite bias shown.

Consider it possible... to make the couple parents with the genetic ability to jump start the human race. You can dismiss it, but it is far easier to start a race that way than leaving it to chance and waiting billions upon billions of years of hoping multiple parents appear by accident.

Here is a scenario to pick your brains. Say I gave you the opportunity to create Earth 2.0. You can accept or reject my offer. If you reject the offer you get a million dollars US. If you accept... this is how it will be. The planet is like our Earth with our animals. You also get one human couple to start the whole human race off. Conveniently they awaken as 19 year old adults and can speak your language flawlessly with understanding from the moment they wake up. It is also convenient that the couple have the genetic ability to spawn all skin pigment diversity in their descendents that we humans call races. Here is what is not: The couple will only live a human lifespan, meaning they will get old and die eventually. Meaning it will be imperative that they have a lot of children to kickstart humanity 2.0. Sooner than later. Choices: Put them anywhere on their world to start, since it is a clone of our own, only without us. North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, South America... pick one. Communication: You can speak from the sky with a booming voice like you are their maker if you wish, tell them anything you like, however often you like. You cannot do anything miraculous beyond that though. You can even visit them personally, but if you do, you will be just as mortal as they are. Yet you can leave by going asleep.. which takes you back safely to your bed on Earth Prime (ours). Assuming you do not die or are killed before then. Either way you will grow old and die eventually like all do, no matter where you live. Planet location: You can put Earth 2.0 in the goldilocks zone of OUR solar system in a blink. Or put it lightyears away in another one. Your choice. No matter what, you can visit anytime you want, but can only return by falling asleep. Questions: Would you accept the offer to make Earth 2.0? Or would you reject it and it and become a millionaire? Also if you accept, what would you tell the humans and how often would you talk with them? The ethics of this are huge, as are the consequences. Have fun!

My saucer only has 3 engine types. 1. Multiple NTTR aerospike engines with air intakes fans on top for the rim. 2. Pure rocket RCS along the rim. 3. Bomb pusher plate drive on belly. I need the massive thrust capabilities if I am going to launch navy desroyer weight craft into orbit.

Indeed. Probably really long and broad radiators. Would a flat VTOL saucer orion be a viable design? It would have several airbreathing NTTR aerospikes along the rim underbelly for VTOL on Earth, which also have fuel lines connected for moon landings just in case. Think of this as the belly, the plate is the blue circle. Or would the part of the blast hitting the saucer do damage? Actually not if designed properly. Build the whole thing out of heavy steel boiler plate. Ship should be just fine. And DO NOT put windows on the underbelly.