Reply To: Investment risk

[Joeviocoe]

vansig wrote:

Above about Mach 5-10 you’ll need internal mass to throw out the back as the temperatures will well exceed the limits of the materials we have today.

Starlite was a possibility, but unfortunately Maurice Ward died last year and as far as is public, he took the recipe with him.

As you state more speed/energy can result in reduced mass, but there is a limit, in the sense that, above a certain temperature you’re effectively throwing a hugely powerful ion beam out the back of the engine. This would (at least) create the same political issues as with flying a Fission reactor, if not more.

Actually,
my understanding is that Ward’s family holds the Starlite recipe, but that industry isn’t really that interested in dealing.
Starlite is an ablative heat shield, and adequate ablative heat shields already exist.

Apart from the NIMBY attitudes about anything “nucular”, the ion beam will have about as much environmental impact as a lightning strike. presently lightning is seen as good for the planet, as it replenishes the ozone layer and makes nitrates, which are good for growing plants.

What would be the impact of 200+ lightning strikes per second?