Zixinus wrote:You know what pisses me off? Emotional appeal. If you say "think of the children" then you are appealing to emotion, not reason.
Wash your mouth out with soap and water. And your keyboard too while you're at it.
And you know what annoys me? Idiots who can't recognize a logical argument when they see one. It doesn't matter what you or I think. Without significant political changes no nuclear engine will never be allowed to fly in western airspace. That's blunt reality I'm afraid.
We can design RTGs to survive re-entry and hard fall. We can design a fusion core to not release any radioactive material.
Try looking up the history of aircraft accidents before saying things like this. Or do the math for the blunt body reentry system you're proposing, and the mechanical considerations of it flying sideways at hypersonic speeds. That's what destroyed Challenger. As a guess, weight would be prohibitive.
We are talking about involounterly transmutated material, reactor components, that most likely will fairly quickly transmutate into stable materials.
That does not tally with what I've read elsewhere. Do you have evidence for this statement?
Furthermore, the ramjet idea does work,
But not as advertised.
Dude, HE'S A frick NUCLEAR ENGINEER AND PHYSICIST, not an artist.
One) Please don't use words like 'dude' in a technical discussion
Two) Don't shout
Three) Pick up a dictionary and look up the concept 'joke'. If you feel up to it, afterwards you can look up the concept 'education'. You may find the latter useful.
And for all practical purposes, there will be no neutrons.
Right. Because everyone knows a 10MW neutron flux never hurt anyone.
The paper, it discusses sample missions, which contain allowances for everything but shielding. Though if you want to show how you can shoehorn shield and useful payload into the 70MT he allows, I'd be interested.