/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12585881
Why

>>12582882
Alright guys it’s RealisticWarshipAnon here. I’ve been thinking. If a Nuclear Salt Water engine can fly a brachiostome trajectory with a lot of thrust....why even bother with a fusion engine?

>>12579751
Alrigjt bro’s I’ve been designing a realistic interplanetary warship and I think I’m getting somewhere. Using a Pulsed Fission Fusion design like pic related, we can get a vehicle with an isp of 20,000 seconds. I also kept the Vehicle-only mass because it’s a neat thing. So that gives us a 100 metric ton “transporter.” But what about our warship payload? Well this was a bunch of (very rough) calculations but I took the mass of a “dry” C-130H Gunship (37 metric tons) and added the mass of an M1 Abrams tank (70 tons). Now I know that’s very rough but a C-130 has a fuckton of space inside it. It can’t definitely support a crew of at least a dozen for several weeks.

So the M1 Abrams would sit at the front of the C-130 body, in this scenario, and the 100-ton fusion “transporter” sits behind the C-130. The C-130 acts as the habitat and the Abrams is the “weapons room.” Combined, they mass 110 metric tons. However NASA states that a single person needs around 1 ton of consumables per year. 30 crew members on a three year mission thus need 90 tons of cargo, but we can round that up to 100 tons to be safe.

Anyhow that leaves us with 200 tons of payload for the fusion “transporter”, which itself masses 100 tons. The 300 ton “dry” Warship could hold 100 or so tons of Deutritium-Lithium propellant. With an isp of 20,000 seconds, that gives our warship a Delta V if 60 kilometers/second. Assuming a 30 kilometer/second boost and an equal but opposite deceleration at its destination, our warship can travel 1 AU in 2 months, or 5 AU in 10 months. It can travel from Earth to Saturn in a year and a half, or complete a round trip from there and back in three years.

>Atomic Rockets
>http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesignsfusion.php