What futuristic propulsion method produces the most THRUST?

[Gardamorg]

In terms of sheer power doesn't nuclear pulse produce the most pressure?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

In terms of sheer power doesn't nuclear pulse produce the most pressure?

Probably the nuclear salt water rocket would produce the most thrust. This type of rocket would be a continuous nuclear fission explosion not a pulse.

Nuclear salt-water rocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gardamorg]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Probably the nuclear salt water rocket would produce the most thrust. This type of rocket would be a continuous nuclear fission explosion not a pulse.

Nuclear salt-water rocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thrust would be generated by nuclear fission reactions from the nuclear salts heating the water and being expelled through a nozzle.

What would happen if the particles of the nuclear salts were negatively charged equally to the positively charged water?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

What would happen if the particles of the nuclear salts were negatively charged equally to the positively charged water?

The same thing that would happen if they weren't charged, a continous nuclear explosion.

[Gardamorg]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

The same thing that would happen if they weren't charged, a continous nuclear explosion.

Yes, but a weaker continuous nuclear explosion, since their cancellation would be less than 100% efficient if they weren't positively and negatively charged.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

Yes, but a weaker continuous nuclear explosion, since their cancellation would be less than 100% efficient if they weren't positively and negatively charged.

Gardamorg, are you suggesting that matter and water and antimatter uranium be mixed together to make an explosion?

[Gardamorg]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Gardamorg, are you suggesting that matter and water and antimatter uranium be mixed together to make an explosion?

I thought it was only the charge of the particles that mattered in the reaction, not the atomic number.

If a negatively charged particle meets a positively charged particle they annihilate each other into photons or other forms of energy right?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

I thought it was only the charge of the particles that mattered in the reaction, not the atomic number.

Well yes, that's why i asked, if you were alluding to matter/antimatter reactions it wouldn't matter what each one was made of they would annihilate each other. since you cannot contain antimatter atoms, only ions, you couldn't have a tank of antimatter salts dissolved in matter water or separate tanks of each since anywhere the tanks touched would annihilate. This would be a very bad thing for your space craft. The idea of a continuous nuclear explosion is not the same thing as a matter/antimatter reaction. The nuclear salt water rocket could conceivably be made with current technology. No one knows how to contain neutral atoms of antimatter in anything like the density of liquid water. Also it's incorrect to say the water would be negatively charged and the uranium salts would be positively charged. Atoms of both matter and antimatter are neutrally charged.

[Roadam]

Originally Posted by Gardamorg

What would happen if the particles of the nuclear salts were negatively charged equally to the positively charged water?

Chemical reactions have nothing to do with nuclear reactions.

Well at the end it all comes to how much energy you want to use and how much mass you want to expel. As most energy sources you can put on a rocket are quite limited, if you want alot of thrust you would expel alot of mass at low velocity. If you want to conserve the mass, then you would throw it out at high velocity.

Those different techs are just for conversing different types and energies to usable propulsion.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Roadam

Chemical reactions have nothing to do with nuclear reactions.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the post, we aren't talking about chemical reactions.

Well at the end it all comes to how much energy you want to use and how much mass you want to expel. As most energy sources you can put on a rocket are quite limited, if you want alot of thrust you would expel alot of mass at low velocity. If you want to conserve the mass, then you would throw it out at high velocity.

Those different techs are just for conversing different types and energies to usable propulsion.

It is possible to do both, high speed and high mass, using nuclear reactions via a continuous nuclear explosion from mixing uranium salts with water and allowing them to come to a critical mass you could achieve some really fantastic numbers. anti-matter has even more potential but is much harder to use.