Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy,uk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Agenda physics in Wikipedia? - nuclear fission efficiency of 0.1%
Followup-To: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 11:41:42 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <4oc3lk-4588.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
References: <v5mqb5$3e7j1$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 20:46:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3a46b6d07e3501b3de88aa69b963302e";
	logging-data="3649258"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/S7AXjvoHrlFlXDfXtPkdF"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.2-20220130 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.0-113-lowlatency (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ITPwP5ka/R4tEePfzoGqMIV4Qjs=
Bytes: 2065

In sci.physics Dave <dwickford@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Reading
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_rocket,
> an onboard nuclear engine doesn't look good,
> despite me thinking it is the best option to
> get a rover to an exoplanet.
> 
> Then I looked into why, and the gamma efficiency
> is given as 0.1% for fission,
> this seem like 100 times too low,
> resulting in a maximum quoted speed of 60km/s.
> 
> There are other options also, like having an
> open gamma ray source. This has the advantage of
> no moving parts, just don't look into the beam.
> 
> Posted to uk.politics.mics, because likely the
> information will be assessed differently,
> and a general don't believe everything you can read
> or take everything at face value.
> 
> I can be corrected, but 0.1% is very very low
> for any generator.

For an in depth look at nuclear rockets of all kinds as well as things
like energy weapons, space war, ship designs, etc.,  both real and
sci fi, see:

https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/torchships.php

Crackpots beware, contains mathematics.