Project Orion: A discussion of Science and Science Fiction

[jimmymcgoochie]

Coming at this from probably the wrong direction, but- instead of yeeting nukes out the back of your spacecraft and using a dinky little pusher plate to take the hits, just stick a huge parachute in front of your spacecraft and yeet the nukes forwards instead; the chute catches more energy from each nuke, provides a smoother acceleration curve as there’s a lot of cables etc. between chute and spacecraft to act as shock absorbers plus the whole assembly is designed to reel in and out with each blast, and doesn’t need to be as heavy as a pusher plate or be coated with ablator to not melt from the nuclear explosions.

And thus we have Medusa.

[kerbiloid]

2 minutes ago, jimmymcgoochie said:

And thus we have Medusa.

Why call her so?

Spoiler

 

[jimmymcgoochie]

4 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Why call her so?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Somehow I don’t think NASA et al would ever launch a spacecraft with a “Mary Poppins drive”, it just doesn’t have the gravitas of [insert Greco-Roman mythological being here] that they use for everything else. Also it was already called Medusa since the 50s/60s so too late to change it now 

[KSK]

Medusa always struck me as being even crazier than Orion. I’m also assuming that forward facing windows aren’t going to be a big feature of any Medusa craft.

”Please do not stare at the nuclear detonations with other eye.”

[magnemoe]

On 10/19/2021 at 8:25 AM, mikegarrison said:

Nuclear bonds are simply vastly more energy-dense than chemical bonds. Project Orion was not proposed because exploding bombs behind your ship is a great way to provide thrust. It was proposed because nuclear power is necessary to get anywhere beyond maybe Mars or Venus. A "non-nuclear Orion" misses the ENTIRE point.

Besides, fuel/air bombs work because the bomb only supplies the fuel. The oxygen is already there. That is not the situation in space.

This, fuel air bombs are powerful because they use the oxygen in the air.  Mixing it is the hard part, I kind of expect fuel air bombs to be weaker at high attitude or in rain. 
Think some uses powder rather than an liquid who would get more problems in rain. Anyway trying to mix this at supersonic velocity and accelerating will be more challenging than other engine designs. 
No
 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

So what about my idea?  

When we set off a bomb, we say it 'explodes' but what we are really seeing is very rapid combustion.  Take the same stuff in the bomb and give it a single / preferred direction and you've either got a penetrating warhead or a rocket...

...so could we pelletize some fissionable material, shoot it through and crush it in a magnetic field and capture the resulting micro-nuclear explosions in a rocket bell for propulsion (eliminating the need for a pusher-plate)?

AFAIK the smallest warhead built produced energy analogous to 10 tons of TNT - is that still too much to get a nuclear rocket that works analogous to a solid fuel rocket?

 

Fusion Power Advances in Magnetic Crushing Test (nbcnews.com)

 

 

(I guess what I'm asking is ' whether physics prevents the nuclear candle idea'  -- i.e. if we're stuck with just bombs and reactors)

 

[kerbiloid]

14 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

...so could we pelletize some fissionable material, shoot it through and crush it in a magnetic field and capture the resulting micro-nuclear explosions in a rocket bell for propulsion (eliminating the need for a pusher-plate)?

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/PulsedFission-Fusion_Propulsion_Concept/#:~:text=The pulsed fission fusion propulsion,compress a fission-fusion target.&text=The fission energy boosts the,which boost the fission process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Mag_Orion

 

[KSK]

37 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

So what about my idea?  

When we set off a bomb, we say it 'explodes' but what we are really seeing is very rapid combustion.  Take the same stuff in the bomb and give it a single / preferred direction and you've either got a penetrating warhead or a rocket...

...so could we pelletize some fissionable material, shoot it through and crush it in a magnetic field and capture the resulting micro-nuclear explosions in a rocket bell for propulsion (eliminating the need for a pusher-plate)?

AFAIK the smallest warhead built produced energy analogous to 10 tons of TNT - is that still too much to get a nuclear rocket that works analogous to a solid fuel rocket?

Fusion Power Advances in Magnetic Crushing Test (nbcnews.com)

(I guess what I'm asking is ' whether physics prevents the nuclear candle idea'  -- i.e. if we're stuck with just bombs and reactors)

That sounds a lot like Mini-Mag Orion if I'm reading you right. Wikipedia article here, Atomic Rockets article on this page.

A significant challenge with it appears to be the hellaciously  high magnetic field required. The design shown on the Atomic Rockets page uses a separate nuclear reactor which powers up a whacking great bank of capacitors, which are discharged through Mylar ribbons to the fuel pellet. 

And yeah - Mylar is normally an insulator but 70 mega-amps laughs at such petty distinctions and makes Doc Brown turn green with envy.

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by KSK

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

See - I just knew someone smarter than I would have thought about it!  Thanks @kerbiloidand @KSK for the links! 

[AHHans]

13 hours ago, KSK said:

That sounds a lot like Mini-Mag Orion if I'm reading you right. Wikipedia article here, Atomic Rockets article on this page.

You forgot: Forum thread here, and actual paper here. (SCNR! )

13 hours ago, KSK said:

And yeah - Mylar is normally an insulator but 70 mega-amps laughs at such petty distinctions and makes Doc Brown turn green with envy.

I don't want to re-read the paper, but I got the impression that the mylar was expected to be coated with a conductor, e.g. gold or aluminum. That way you have a nice, low resistance path for the initial current to travel and the vaporize the coated mylar, to form the plasma for the 70 MA to travel trough.

[KSK]

46 minutes ago, AHHans said:

You forgot: Forum thread here, and actual paper here. (SCNR! )

I don't want to re-read the paper, but I got the impression that the mylar was expected to be coated with a conductor, e.g. gold or aluminum. That way you have a nice, low resistance path for the initial current to travel and the vaporize the coated mylar, to form the plasma for the 70 MA to travel trough.

That would make sense to me.

Having just re-read the Atomic Rocket's page, it mentions two Mylar discs (uncoated as far as I can tell and not ribbons as per my earlier post. ) with an air gap between them, each having an aluminium ring around their rim, which acts as a temporary electrode and electrical contact with the permanent electrodes on the magnetic nozzle. 

Each pulse unit consists of the aluminium rings, Mylar discs and fuel pellet in the middle. The whole thing is vaporised in the explosion and the reason why Mylar is used is to keep exhaust products as light as possible, hence exhaust velocity as high as possible.

This is all from a secondary source though   - I'm sure that the actual papers go into a lot more detail and probably consider other designs like coated Mylar as well.

[Spacescifi]

I am designing a scifi vessel for fiction, yet it's propulsion will be based on realistic/theoretical means.

The spaceship is a project orion lying on it's belly at launch.

Dual axis launch nozzles at both ends are capable of VTOL, at least until the vessel ascends high enough that it can flip over and detonate a thermobaric bomb.

As it ascends higher into the atmosphere where thermobaric bombs do not work well, the spaceship switches over to basketball sized pure fusion bombs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon

Questions: Is the design practical? Just assume that bombs exist already (even though they do not) The vessel is intended to be a true manned SSTO.

Part of the challenge I presume will be finding room for the VTOL engines on the end that has a pusher plate on the rear. But I do not see why such is impossible

Crew I presume would do egress from the middle of ship when landed on it's belly, since the ends would have space taken up by rocket VTOL engines.

 

What do you think? I also presume a pure fusion bomb orion to orbit... will use bombs designed to minimize fallout, which means no uranium or plutonium is is used for the bombs.

Yet to minimize neutron activation the vessel needs to ascend high enough that the blast won't cause neutron activation of the ground. That is why thermobaric bombs would be used initially in the ascent upward.

So... is the design practical or did I overlook anything?

 

Ironicaly this kind of vessel is better off as an SSTO, simply because if you staged it you risk damaging or destroying a resusable first stage rocket when you flip and light off a bomb. You would also risk neutron activation of the first stage from the pure fusion detonation. Meaning the first stage returns ... radioactive. Which is bad

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Spacescifi

[sevenperforce]

It will soon be expressed by everyone else here, but for the record -- no, none of this would work in any way, shape, or form.

You cannot use thermobaric explosives with a pusher plate. They will not work.

There is no reason to go through the additional mass penalty of strengthening your vehicle to allow for dual-axis thrust. If you have VTOL-capable engines, just make the whole thing a tailsitter. The crew can use a ladder.

If your society has the tech to produce basketball-sized pure fusion bombs, they have the tech to produce a pure-fusion engine that needs no pusher plate at all.

[Spacescifi]

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

It will soon be expressed by everyone else here, but for the record -- no, none of this would work in any way, shape, or form.

You cannot use thermobaric explosives with a pusher plate. They will not work.

There is no reason to go through the additional mass penalty of strengthening your vehicle to allow for dual-axis thrust. If you have VTOL-capable engines, just make the whole thing a tailsitter. The crew can use a ladder.

If your society has the tech to produce basketball-sized pure fusion bombs, they have the tech to produce a pure-fusion engine that needs no pusher plate at all.

 

Why not? The thermobaric bomb would only be used partway through the atmosphere. Not the whole way.

The bomb would designed hopefully to be a shaped blast toward the pusher plate.

 

And if this cannot work, surely there are other non-nucleaer bombs that could work... both real and theoretical (mh bombs).

If there are no good IRL substitute bombs for nukes on the initial ascent then I will have to go with theoretical MH bombs instead, which could do the job given how much energy they yield and could be made into a shaped blast

The belly lander design was because an orion cannot land on a pusher plate safely nor with the most stability.

And trying to use rockets around a pusher plate and adding landing gear around that too would be what a tail sitter would need.

A belly lander makes egress a lot easier, and the mass would be similar, only rearranged, as a tailsitter orion needs landing rockets just as belly lander does.

 

The main difference is placement.

 

 

Yes and no regarding the fusion rocket:

 

Yes: Obviously they have a way of producing and storing enough antimatter safely enough to trigger a fusion reaction with the fuel. Likely a neutral non-reacting material is what is containing the AM securely.

No: That does not mean they have engines made of materials that can survive the performance heat of fusion SSTO. A pusher plate avoids this by external pulse propulsion.

 

It is quite notable that only theoretical design I know of that can do SSTO on Earth is Zubrin's NSWR.

 

And even that does so by making the reaction occur outside the engine.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Spacescifi

[sevenperforce]

31 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Why not? The thermobaric bomb would only be used partway through the atmosphere. Not the whole way.

The bomb would designed hopefully to be a shaped blast toward the pusher plate.

Thermobaric bombs are two-stage weapons which use a small primary explosion to mix fuel (usually some kind of liquid hydrocarbon) with air to use as both oxidizer and remass. They will not work if the atmosphere is moving relative to the weapon when it is detonated. Therefore they cannot be used for a pusher-plate design.

And thermobaric bombs by their design cannot produced a shaped blast. Not that it matters. 

If you wish to use the air as oxidizer and reaction mass, then do this:

1. Stretch your pusher plate out into a cone, and extend the hole in the middle to create a tube that opens at the front of the ship.
2. Place a propeller inside the tube to pull air in from the front of the ship.
3. Remove the liquid hydrocarbon fuel from your thermobaric weapon and store it in tanks with pipes that allow it to drip into the tube just downstream of the propeller.
4. Shrink the primary from one of your thermobaric weapons into an igniter.

Congratulations, you have invented a turbojet engine.

31 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

And if this cannot work, surely there are other non-nucleaer bombs that could work... both real and theoretical (mh bombs).

If there are no good IRL substitute bombs for nukes on the initial ascent then I will have to go with theoretical MH bombs instead, which could do the job given how much energy they yield and could be made into a shaped blast

What is an MH bomb?

Any society with technology to harness greater destructive force than a thermonuclear weapon (such as pure fusion bombs, antimatter bombs, and the like) will have the technology to put it into an ordinary engine. Pusher-plate designs are extremely inefficient and horrible at literally everything. The only reason to use them is if your society is incapable of harnessing supercritical nuclear reactions without blowing things up.

31 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

The belly lander design was because an orion cannot land on a pusher plate safely nor with the most stability.

That makes no sense. If your vehicle is attached by springs to a giant flat metal plate, then congratulations -- you have the most safe and stable and effective landing gear possible.

Just use your VTOL rockets for Vertical Take Off and Landing.

[Shpaget]

44 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Why not?

Aside from the pure fusion bomb, which the wiki article clearly states has been tried by DOD, and even with considerable investment of both time and money has been found to be elusive, every single part of your proposal has been repeatedly explained to you why it is not practical or possible.

[Spacescifi]

29 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Thermobaric bombs are two-stage weapons which use a small primary explosion to mix fuel (usually some kind of liquid hydrocarbon) with air to use as both oxidizer and remass. They will not work if the atmosphere is moving relative to the weapon when it is detonated. Therefore they cannot be used for a pusher-plate design.

And thermobaric bombs by their design cannot produced a shaped blast. Not that it matters. 

If you wish to use the air as oxidizer and reaction mass, then do this:

1. Stretch your pusher plate out into a cone, and extend the hole in the middle to create a tube that opens at the front of the ship.
2. Place a propeller inside the tube to pull air in from the front of the ship.
3. Remove the liquid hydrocarbon fuel from your thermobaric weapon and store it in tanks with pipes that allow it to drip into the tube just downstream of the propeller.
4. Shrink the primary from one of your thermobaric weapons into an igniter.

Congratulations, you have invented a turbojet engine.

What is an MH bomb?

Any society with technology to harness greater destructive force than a thermonuclear weapon (such as pure fusion bombs, antimatter bombs, and the like) will have the technology to put it into an ordinary engine. Pusher-plate designs are extremely inefficient and horrible at literally everything. The only reason to use them is if your society is incapable of harnessing supercritical nuclear reactions without blowing things up.

That makes no sense. If your vehicle is attached by springs to a giant flat metal plate, then congratulations -- you have the most safe and stable and effective landing gear possible.

Just use your VTOL rockets for Vertical Take Off and Landing.

An MH bomb is a metallic hydrogen bomb... yes I know you sneer at MH, but I guess if pure fusion bombs are allowed so is MH.

VTOL rocket exhaust will likely get all over pistons during launch. Might do damage sooner or later. And I reckon rockets would have to be retracted inside the vessel when the bombs go off otherwise the blast wave will probably damage their nozzles. Rockets have no shock absorbers unlike the plate, and to work they must extend outside the plate perimeter. I just do not see rockets not being damaged in an atmosphere unless they are retracted before the bombs go off.

Ultimately using ladders with VTOL is something you do if you cannot afford to make loading/unloading easier with belly lander.

Which I presume is quite possible with OP technologies.

 

And additional problem with a tailsitter is the sheer longer time it takes to load up cargo. Especially if it is doing ISRU anywhere.

Since a belly lander is closer to the ground, it can do ISRU refueling of it's own rocket engines a lot easier than a VTOL pusher plate, which would need significant modifications from the original design to be able to do VTOL on it's own while fully reusable.

 

With a VTOL pusher plate you literally have pistons and a pusher plate between your ships fuel tanks and the ground (which could be your fuel source if on an icy moon).

Belly lander does not have that as a concern.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Spacescifi

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Didn't we already go through the limits of the thermobaric once before? 

[sevenperforce]

6 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Didn't we already go through the limits of the thermobaric once before? 

I believe more than once.

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

What is an MH bomb?

Any society with technology to harness greater destructive force than a thermonuclear weapon . . . will have the technology to put it into an ordinary engine.

An MH bomb is a metallic hydrogen bomb...

Read the emphasized portion of what you quoted. A society which can produce a metallic hydrogen bomb will also be able to produce a metallic hydrogen engine. Or, at the very least, a metallic hydrogen pulsejet, which will do just as well.

The only reason to ever pursue a pusher-plate pulse propulsion design is if you have access to a large energy source (like nuclear weapons) but are incapable of harnessing it other than in large explosions.  

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

VTOL rocket exhaust will likely get all over pistons during launch.

The pistons can handle proximity to a detonating nuke. They'll be fine.

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

I reckon rockets would have to be retracted inside the vessel when the bombs go off

This would (or wouldn't) be the case whether it's a tailsitter or a dual-thrust-axis vehicle.

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Ultimately using ladders with VTOL is something you do if you cannot afford to make loading/unloading easier with belly lander.

And additional problem with a tailsitter is the sheer longer time it takes to load up cargo.

If you don't want ladders than put a bloody crane on it with an elevator.

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Since a belly lander is closer to the ground, it can do ISRU refueling of it's own rocket engines a lot easier than a VTOL pusher plate, which would need significant modifications from the original design to be able to do VTOL on it's own while fully reusable.

Dude, if you want a dual-thrust-axis vehicle for whatever reason, fine. Just do it. Rule of cool, whatever. But don't try to add new parameters just to scientifically justify something that isn't scientifically justifiable.

Write your fiction however you want it.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The only reason to ever pursue a pusher-plate pulse propulsion design is if you have access to a large energy source (like nuclear weapons) but are incapable of harnessing it other than in large explosions

This. 

I just don't understand the fascination with Orion.  Even when I first discovered it was possible through reading Niven and Pournell's Footfall in 1985 - I just never found it appealing. 

Even in the novel it was an act of desperation strategy rather than a cool, smart way of doing space. 

[Spacescifi]

25 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I believe more than once.

Read the emphasized portion of what you quoted. A society which can produce a metallic hydrogen bomb will also be able to produce a metallic hydrogen engine. Or, at the very least, a metallic hydrogen pulsejet, which will do just as well.

The only reason to ever pursue a pusher-plate pulse propulsion design is if you have access to a large energy source (like nuclear weapons) but are incapable of harnessing it other than in large explosions.  

The pistons can handle proximity to a detonating nuke. They'll be fine.

This would (or wouldn't) be the case whether it's a tailsitter or a dual-thrust-axis vehicle.

If you don't want ladders than put a bloody crane on it with an elevator.

Dude, if you want a dual-thrust-axis vehicle for whatever reason, fine. Just do it. Rule of cool, whatever. But don't try to add new parameters just to scientifically justify something that isn't scientifically justifiable.

Write your fiction however you want it.

 

MH engines have to not use their full potential in theoretical designs because the engine would not survive the heat

Thus the MH is watered down with another propellant mixed with it.

 

That said, I am not very familar with how pulse jets work, but I presume a pulse blast big enough to launch an orion would need a nozzle larger than all modern nozzles we have.

 

When you have a lot of heat as exhaust, whether plate or nozzle, it will be big it or at least thick it seems. That's not something that can be avoided I do not think.

 

Another option is to do a Zubrin-esque MH rocket.

 

In other words detonate MH pellets in pulses in the nozzle during ejection.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Spacescifi

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

13 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

 

MH engines have to not use their full potential in theoretical designs because the engine would not survive the heat

Thus the MH is watered down with another propellant mixed with it.

 

That said, I am not very familar with how pulse jets work, but I presume a pulse blast big enough to launch an orion would need a nozzle larger than all modern nozzles we have.

 

When you have a lot of heat as exhaust, whether plate or nozzle, it will be big it or at least thick it seems. That's not something that can be avoided I do not think.

 

Another option is to do a Zubrin-esque MH rocket.

 

In other words detonate MH pellets in pulses in the nozzle during ejection.

Don't you think that once you have the materials science ability to manufacture metallic hydrogen, you would need also have the additional knowledge to use it?

From what I can see, you are unnecessarily gimping the ability of your future space farers. 

Like you require them to use today's materials science with tomorrow's super sauce.  Not sure that's fair. 

[Spacescifi]

12 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Don't you think that once you have the materials science ability to manufacture metallic hydrogen, you would need also have the additional knowledge to use it?

From what I can see, you are unnecessarily gimping the ability of your future space farers. 

Like you require them to use today's materials science with tomorrow's super sauce.  Not sure that's fair. 

 

You have a point but I dunno.

 

I imagine even with a super material like any handwavium flavor such as duralium, duranium, or dura-steel that you could only use the engine for so long before you needed to to stop and let it cool off.

 

The implications would be huge though:

1. Radiator fins would be made of the same metal, so engine heat could be transferred to them when engines are cut off to cool in space.

2. The hull would be made of the same stuff... actually you may as use your entire outer hull as as a radiator now... forget the fins.

3. Reentry would no longer be as much of a concern since your hull can tank MH engine heat without melting.

4. Lasers would be even less practical for space combat... since they would require them to be greater power hogs than they already are to even do any damage at all.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

21 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

I imagine even with a super material like any handwavium flavor such as duralium, duranium, or dura-steel that you could only use the engine for so long before you needed to to stop and let it cool off.

Probably true - but look at current theoretical alloys for inspiration: Theoretical prediction of high melting temperature for a Mo–Ru–Ta–W HCP multiprincipal element alloy | npj Computational Materials (nature.com)

An alloy that retains its memory at high temp | EurekAlert!

[sevenperforce]

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

MH engines have to not use their full potential in theoretical designs because the engine would not survive the heat

Thus the MH is watered down with another propellant mixed with it.

No, that is not true.

No orbital-class engine can "survive the heat" of active combustion, even with low-energy chemical combustion like kerolox or hypergols. That's why all orbital-class liquid-fueled engines are regeneratively cooled.

A metallic hydrogen engine would require auxiliary propellant, not to "water it down", but to provide remass. The release of energy does not provide impulse without a means of transferring momentum. The same is true for pulsed-charge Orion designs; they require reaction mass in the form of powdered tungsten. A metallic hydrogen Orion would require the same, but there would be no reason to make a metallic hydrogen bomb Orion, both because (a) metallic hydrogen is not nearly as energetic as a thermonuclear warhead, and (b) if you have access to metallic hydrogen, you simply use it in an ordinary engine with a liquid remass like anhydrous ammonia.

The pusher-plate design has nothing to do with surviving heat. It has to do with an inability to control nuclear explosions.

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

That said, I am not very familar with how pulse jets work, but I presume a pulse blast big enough to launch an orion would need a nozzle larger than all modern nozzles we have.

That is nothing at all like what a pulse jet is. A pulse jet is simply a jet engine which uses pulsed combustion rather than continuous combustion. It was first used in combat in World War II with the V-1 flying bomb and it has never been used since because turbojets are more efficient.

All of this worrying over launching "an orion" and nozzle size is stuff and nonsense. The nozzle can be as big or as small as you want it to be. 

45 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

When you have a lot of heat as exhaust, whether plate or nozzle, it will be big it or at least thick it seems. That's not something that can be avoided I do not think.

No, that is not true. The heat is carried away by the escaping propellant, and any heat that is transferred to the nozzle is carried back into the propellant via regenerative cooling.

Making a nozzle thicker won't keep it from melting. Making it thicker will, in fact, make the heat management problem worse.

21 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

I imagine even with a super material like any handwavium flavor such as duralium, duranium, or dura-steel that you could only use the engine for so long before you needed to to stop and let it cool off.

Nope, you do not need to do that.

You simply use regenerative cooling, like every modern liquid-fueled orbital-class rocket engine in existence today.

A rocket engine operates in a steady-state mode with a constant chamber temperature. If you have a super-material with a melting point higher than the temperature of combustion, then it doesn't matter how long you operate it for; it won't melt and you won't need to stop and let it cool off. However, you will still need regenerative cooling somewhere in the cycle or the rocket engine will transfer that heat to other parts of your ship and melt them, too.

There is no limit to the heat management capabilities of regenerative cooling, and there is no reason to think that future technology with the capacity to build SSTOs would somehow forget what regenerative cooling is.

21 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Reentry would no longer be as much of a concern since your hull can tank MH engine heat without melting.

If you want to broil everyone in the ship, sure.