What would YOU want powering YOUR rocket?

[KASASpace]

What would you want powering your rocket?

Solar sails, ion drives, NERVAs, chemical engines, *fusion*? Lasers?

Or, better yet, *antimatter*?

Put asterisk(*) if tech hasn't been invented.

Please put a reason why you would choose that drive.

My choice:

Chemical engines.

The technology has been proven and we humans have a lot of experience dealing with them.

[TheDarkStar]

NERVAs (No asterisk because they had working tests of engines on the ground, but were cancelled because bureaucracy). Why would I want them? They have higher thrust and I_sp than any chemical engines we have today, and are suitable for interplanetary missions.

[Top8]

Some sort of gas core nuclear rocket for thrusters, a LFTR for power and perferably a microwave sail so that transit times aren't so long http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3016.pdf

Talking future tech that would probably work out? swap out some sort of *fusion torch* for the gas core nuclear thruster. I would still keep the LFTR for power, probably a few of them in a redundnat network around the ship since you don't want to feel the cold of space.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Top8

[jwenting]

bureaucrats. They provide an infinite amount of hot air. Pack enough of them together in a small space and they should provide enough that you can power a rocket with them.

[Nick7892]

Good ol rocket engines.

[kBob]

I would use magic, that's a science right? Or am I thinking of astrology?

My rockets er space ships will be powered by anti-matter, it's way cooler than the other stuff, and once we find a nice reliable source of it well small quantities produce big power so they will drive my ship to edges of the known universe and back.

Another option is a dark matter+dark energy mixamatic engine, just the size of walnut and it will give you a life times worth of delta v, someone needs to invent it first however.

Otherwise I'll take the slow route and go with solar sails, what's the hurry right?

[Scotius]

Warp drive. Or fusion torch.

[palioxis1248]

Magnetic-monopole catalysed proton decay.

It basically allows you to throw anything into the reactor and get 70% of the might of E = mc^2 shooting out the exhaust.

Plus it leaves out the finicky business of fuel confinement too.

[minerman30]

FTL negative energy warp drive*. They can go faster than light because they effectively break the laws of physics by bending space-time.

Edited February 17, 2014 by minerman30

[FanaticalFighter]

Alcubierre drive.* If I get my hands on one, I'm going EVERYWHERE.

[Javster]

NERVAs (No asterisk because they had working tests of engines on the ground, but were cancelled because bureaucracy). Why would I want them? They have higher thrust and I_sp than any chemical engines we have today, and are suitable for interplanetary missions.

Then why do the ones in KSP have so little thrust?

[Ralathon]

Where am I going?

If I'm operating completely blindly I'd go for fusion. It has the ISP of an ion drive, the thrust of a chemical rocket and the added benefit that fuel is plentiful and easy to gather. But if my mission involves something like an interstellar trip I'm going to need antimatter to avoid dying to boredom.

Furthermore, for something like a simple "make 3 orbits around earth and come back down" I'll just stick with chemical rockets. You don't need a jet fighter to get to the shop down the street.

I really need a mission before I can decide on the ideal fuel.

[Ralathon]

Then why do the ones in KSP have so little thrust?

Because KSP is a game and games need to have some semblance of balance. Money isn't implemented yet so the only way to keep other engines viable is to give the LV-N a poor TWR.

It is already the engine of choice for everyone and their mom. If they where made realistic they would have much higher thrust and generate electricity to boot. You could just delete all other engines, since the LV-N would always be superior.

[Moar Boosters]

I wonder if it'd be possible to get into orbit using diet coke and mentos.

[andrewas]

See this:https://what-if.xkcd.com/24/

And then consider that the ISP of coke/mentos is pitiful in comparison to those engines.

[sal_vager]

Rockets rely on heat right? So what about a thermite rocket?

[Mr_Brain]

A giant cannon, Jules Verne style.

[Ralathon]

Rockets rely on heat right? So what about a thermite rocket?

Yea that works pretty good. NASA is doing

into a (frozen)water and aluminium thermite mixture for more eco friendly boosters.

It isn't much better than conventional fuels though. For optimal Isp you need high temperatures and low exhaust masses (The lighter the particles the faster they move, that's why NERVAs are most efficient with hydrogen). Since the reaction products of thermite reactions are rather heavy the ISP isn't that good.

[Exosphere]

Well, if I could have any rocket propulsion system that is even theoretically possible, I'd say an Alcubierre drive*, with a matter/antimatter annihilation propulsion system* to deal with the velocity change I'd have to make at the end of each "warp."

Now, if I had to restrict my design to only what could be built today or in the near future, I'd say a nuclear salt water rocket with 90% UTB... although the practicality of a NSWR is debatable, especially one using weapons-grade uranium.

[M83]

Baseballs. Had to study a packet last year on space exploration and its way of explaining the mathematical forces of Newton's Third Law was by giving the example of baseball-propelled rocket.

To be serious though, probably just a good nuclear rocket. If I had my own spacecraft I'd just fly around our own solar system.

[ecat]

bureaucrats. They provide an infinite amount of hot air. Pack enough of them together in a small space and they should provide enough that you can power a rocket with them.

Heh.

I was going for the promises of politicians: An infinitely renewable resource produced out of nothing therefore weighing nothing and requiring no storage, powerful enough to destroy entire countries yet cheap enough to be effectively worthless.

[KASASpace]

Because KSP is a game and games need to have some semblance of balance. Money isn't implemented yet so the only way to keep other engines viable is to give the LV-N a poor TWR.

It is already the engine of choice for everyone and their mom. If they where made realistic they would have much higher thrust and generate electricity to boot. You could just delete all other engines, since the LV-N would always be superior.

Actually, the IRL NERVA has a TWR of just over 1. Like 75,000 lb of thrust while weighing 74,999 Lbs. The good ones that is. Maybe the Kiwi reactor. They did make a bunch of them.

[Guest]

Kerolox first stage and a nuclear second stage. Can't really go wrong with that, and you don't need boosters like with most hydrolox rockets. NERVA did have a poor TWR, but it's Isp is amazing. Alternatively, a LANTR with a big fuel tank for a nuclear SSTO.

[Dispatcher]

The Improbability Drive.

[SargeRho]

Nuclear Lightbulb engines.