Shpaget

Such deflection may be trivial, depending on how much time until impact.

We already have engines with ISP measured in hours. DART mission used NEXT-C ion thruster which has ISP of 4190 s, or 1,16 hours. We've had that for quite some time, and they work in atmosphere just fine. Sprint missile.

Booster disassembled itself just as the engines turned off. There was a bit of a lack of symmetry in regards to which engines were firing at boostback, but the orientation looked roughly ok-ish. I wonder if those things are related

Here's a real world example from personal experience with a 60W fiber laser that can cut through metal. If I want to cut through a 1 mm plate (which is a very deep cut compared to the size of the laser dot, and near the limit of the machine I have) I get better results if I wobble the laser beam; meaning a straight line is actually a spiral (think tiny circular motion combined with linear movement). This makes the kerf (width of cut) significantly wider than the size of the laser dot which makes evacuation of ablated material much more efficient. Otherwise the evaporated / molten and exploding material just deposits back on the previously cut side walls and the cut partially closes again. Wider channel prevents this depositing and recutting since the material can be thrown out.

That doesn't work, for the same reason why you can't pick up yourself off the ground.

When you say no fuel, do you mean no reaction mass? So what does it push against? Ground? You can't get to orbit by only pushing up. You need sideways speed.

Your average tv watching individual doesn't watch rocket launches now; why would they suddenly become interested after becoming a filler between ads for ambulance chasing lawyers, sleeping pills and hemorrhoid creams?

That timeline would have been too optimistic even if they had an actual functioning article. My vote for is Theranos scenario.

You most certainly can not. Your lungs would need to contain one atmosphere of pressure difference. The limit on human physiology is about one tenth of that, something you can test by trying to blow a column of water up a hose and see how high you can make it go. Your target is 10 meters; I'd be surprised if you can manage more than one. And don't call me Shirley.

Water boiling from exposure to vacuum does not make it feel hot. It actualy cools down (which is the source of comically fast freezing in vacuum trope in fiction), but as you noted a lot slower than depicted in the movie. It is possible to freeze water by exposing it to vacuum, but it takes time. Exposure to vacuum leads to a quick loss of consciousness (in about 15 seconds, or the time it takes for the deoxygenated blood in lungs to reach the brain). Death is quick to follow.

You can't expect us to not only keep track of all your previous ideas but to divine which ones you want to apply to new threads without mentioning them. Add to your existing thread that includes the concepts you want to include, so we can play along.

More than two weeks of thumb twiddling on some barren backwater planet (likely with no water), just so you charge up a few hours of propulsion? That's gonna get boring very soon. What is so magical about 1g threshold, that 0,98 g does nothing?

If you want to blatantly break laws of physics and make perpetuum mobile in your fiction possible, go for it. Just keep in mind that everything we currently know about universe says this can't work in reality.

A media briefing on UFOs is about to start

Then there is also Zipline. They do amazing stuff. https://www.flyzipline.com/

So what solution to what problem have you found?

Combustion is necessarily a chemical reaction, so I don't see how electricity play into your proposal. Are you proposing an electrical heater to heat a some inert fluid and achieve thrust that way, without a chemical reaction? Something line NERVA, but electrical? But in that case, there is no combustion. In cars, planes, ships, etc. we use chemical reactions instead of batteries because they are much more energy dense. Nuclear fission is even more dense than energy you can get out of chemical reactions. First time I hear this. Production of X rays is tied to the method of energy release, not magnitude. A simple forest fire releases a tremendous amount of energy, but no X rays. As for DeLorean, it will produce as much X rays as the plot requires.

Fixed wing with internal combustion engine.

Even if these panels had zero mass and volume, there is not nearly enough surface available to get a meaningful power level. It's not a case of close but not quite enough. It's orders of magnitude away from enough. As for exactly how much you would get, multiply the surface area of the drone you have in mind with 50 mW/m^2 and there's your answer.

No, just no. So much wrong here. 50 mW (milliwatt, no / in there) figure is per one meter squared. That's liquid all. Where does this 100-200 megawatt figure come from? I don't see it in the article. Conservative figures are 100-200 W/m^2 of regular solar panel production (watts, not megawatts; again per square meter). Charge a car with this? Yeah, not gonna happen. To charge a Tesla model 3 in 12 hours, you would need to have about 100 000 m^2 of these panels. That's about 100 000 ^2 more than what you have available on a car. Can it power a drone continuously? Of course not. For example, a DJI Mavic (a small drone) has a stated battery capacity of 43,6 Wh and flight time of 27 minutes, meaning that it consumes about 100 W. To power it by these night panels, you would need 2000 m^2 of them. This is a gimmick. The energy these panels allegedly produce during the 12 hours of night, equals to about 20 seconds of production during the day. If you need power during the night, but it is such low demand, just put a tiny rechargeable battery in you device and be done with it.

Formula is v=a*t, so 7,3392 *600 = 4 403,52

Of course you can, given a sufficiently loose definition of "space". If we only look at elements, composition of Earth is nothing special, however, some materials such as organic compounds might be worth shipping from Earth. Even if you can devise a convoluted chain of reactions to get whatever plastic you need from raw elements, it would probably be much much simpler to just use well established processes and get it from oil (as in, use existing factories and just ship it to your space outpost). Industrial processes we use today benefit a lot from having near infinite access to almost free water, be it for cooling or as solvent. Same goes for air and any other chemical that is available with same day shipping.

I wonder that too. I would imagine that during the engine design phase, thermal management would be something to consider. Also, why would the chamber pressure be to high or nozzle too small? Again, those things should be solved during the design phase, unless you are assembling a rocket engine from assorted parts you find at a spaceship scrap yard; parts that were never meant to go together. Do you worry about what would happen if the piston in your car was too small for the cylinder?

Graph on the link shows 50 degrees at surface and a near perfectly linear drop with depth. I'm not sure what to make of the blip above the surface since measuring the temperature of vacuum is a bit moot. The major difference with these measurements and the ones you would find on Earth is just how quickly the temperature drops, but that is something I would easily attribute to loose rocks with lots of vacuum between them, as opposed to air and water you would find in Earth soil, both of which are much better at conducting heat. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have more data available, but I don't consider this to be a ground breaking discovery. Well, other than the actual breaking of the lunar ground.

Why would a stable temperature under the surface be something that is unexpected? I would be much more excited and surprised if it was the other way around.