If Bomb Explosions Could Be 100% Converted Into Thrust INSIDE a Rocket...

[Spacescifi]

Scifi Scenario: Mankind gets an alien tail sitter rocket SSTO granted to them. The aliens say if mankind can SSTO it to orbit they get to keep it. The SSTO only needs propellant and an energy source to propel the propellant.

SSTO Look: A main vertical rocket body holds payload/crew, a pair of rocket engines are attached to it's side walls. Departure/entry is easy since there is a bottom ramp/door at the bottom of the main ship body.

SSTO Technology: What sets this SSTO apart is it's uber forcefield and radiation reflection technology. It has forcefields so strong that most bombs in mankind's current arsenal (except Tsar bombs or higher yields than that) can be detonated inside it's forecfield reaction chamber and redirected into propellant below for thrust. This is how the main engines work, which are surrounded by less efficient thermo-electric rocket engines on par with solid fueled rockets for both thrust and efficiency. Heat that would normally melt the engine walls is reflected outward with the exhaust because of uber mirrors inside the reaction chamber.

Mass: 500 tons, 50 tons is propellant (water).

Main Question: Do we have any non-nuclear high explosive bombs to send this baby to orbit most efficiently? Or do we just use atom or nuclear bombs after all?

Edited May 5, 2023 by Spacescifi

[Shpaget]

1 hour ago, Spacescifi said:

Do we have any non-nuclear high explosive bombs to send this baby to orbit most efficiently? Or do we just use atom or nuclear bombs after all?

I may be having a deja-vu, but I believe it has been said on a few occasions that chemical propellants such as LH are more energy dense than high explosives.

Given that we can't even remotely send a 500 ton rocket to orbit using only 50 tons of best fuel we have, it should go without saying that we can't do it with an order of a magnitude less energetic fuel either.

Why not ask your friendly neighbourhood alien for their grandma's fuel recipe?

[Spacescifi]

5 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

I may be having a deja-vu, but I believe it has been said on a few occasions that chemical propellants such as LH are more energy dense than high explosives.

Given that we can't even remotely send a 500 ton rocket to orbit using only 50 tons of best fuel we have, it should go without saying that we can't do it with an order of a magnitude less energetic fuel either.

Why not ask your friendly neighbourhood alien for their grandma's fuel recipe?

How do you account for solud fueled rockets having higher thrust than chemical rockets then?

And if nothing non-nuclear will work I guess atomic or nuclear bombs will have to do.

[Shpaget]

SRBs are chemical rockets.

Their high thrust comes from a whole lot of fuel burning very fast. That is not the same thing as energy density, or efficiency (ISP).

[Spacescifi]

38 minutes ago, Shpaget said:

SRBs are chemical rockets.

Their high thrust comes from a whole lot of fuel burning very fast. That is not the same thing as energy density, or efficiency (ISP).

I see. So nukes it is.