Combined Cycle Combustion/Plasma Rocket?

"Keith Willshaw" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message

How did you get from solid chunks of Uranium or Uraninuim Oxide to dust,
High speed impact does that nicely

No, it does not, metals deforms under impact, ceramics break up, Neither
converts much of the mass to lots of dust particles just the right size to
stay inside the lungs.

Second how do you get them to the right size.
See above

That was not an answer and you know it.

As the old bet goes, I take a tablespoon of uranunium and you take a
talbespoon of something common like nicotine and whoever lives the longest
keeps the money
But then nicotine is an alkaloid poison and nobody is launching large
quantities into space

Yes, but you are acting like uranium is some sort of super poison, but if you
took the bet I would be able to walk out alive and you would be dead. So
start treating uranium for what it really is a radioactive heavy metal toxic
subtance that must be handle with care and sealed away the best way possible.

But it is not a super posion where the little's leak will wipe half the
country and it is death to even see it. The fact is tons of uranium has been
released into the air already and we are still here. A reactor failure is
not going to wipe us out.

Considering the problems of intergrating a 'hot' reactor, it seems very
unlikely even without any cites.
In other words your guessing.

And you are doing elsewise? I don't think so.

Efficent is not the first order of bussiness, and the plan is to use
reactors so that we do have short trips. For early designs one
way only, or only one return trip may be all we want out of a unit.
Trouble is these reactors put out LESS power than triple
junction solar arrays.

Not in the outer solar system they don't.

Explain again why we should pay more and accept a higher risk
for lower power - I dont see it.

You are the one claiming higher risks. So far everyone injuried by falling
space hardware has been hit by none nuclear parts
Nuclear power gives us more speed and operates further from the sun than
solar panels.

If it had ever been done for anything more complex
than the Soviet Bouk you might have a point but
thus far it hasnt.
You do realize that is the oppisite of what you said earlier in this
messages about pre-testing reactors?
I'm conceding the POSSIBILTY the Soviets MIGHT
have done this and pointing out that even IF they
dis its largely irrelevant to high power designs.

Thanks for being flexible. But why do you say it is irrelevant?

Cassini doesnt use a reactor, its powered by 3 RTG's
As if ultra-green can tell or will acknowledge the diffirence.
I do however, and far from being an ultra green I'm
an engineer who is PRO Nuclear power and has worked
on both civil and military reactor systems.

No, sorry, sorry, sorry for the bad writting. I did not mean you were one,
sorry if it read that way. I meant the ultra-greens will protest no matter
what type of nuclear power source you are using. Really, if you were one we
could not even get this far in talking about using nukes in space Again
sorry if it read that way.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp
--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp