I don't know whose posts you've been reading, but you certainly have not been reading mine. Let me repeat myself, for at least the third time: I am talking about using a Vasimr as a plasma generator component inside of an electric rocket which then accelerates that plasma to a higher velocity, thereby increasing the thrust.Nemo wrote:Not precisely, no. Seems you may be applying mechanical physics here. The limit on Vasmir is the strength of the magnetic bottle b-field which is derived from the super conductor used. Granting an infinite power source is insufficient without accommodating the physical limits of superconductors and the mass of the cooling systems needed. These are low thrust to weight drives that deliver delta V over long periods.If you have an engine that doesn't destructively interact with it's exhaust, and has an exhaust velocity limited only by it's power supply and "active length", then it has the potential to take it's exhaust up to ~99% of c.
PLEASE make certain that you understand what I wrote above before you reply to this. The limits of the Vasimr are not directly the limitations of what I'm talking about, because the Vasimr is nothing but an over-glorified spark-plug. I have not been talking about the actual acceleration stage of this engine, except in the most generic of terms.
Your note about superconductors and cooling systems is presumably relevant, but not by way of the Vasimr. It's relevance would be in relation to the other plasma accelerator stages.
Separating Gamma radiation from fallout is not inaccurate, because a defining feature of fallout is that it decays, thereby generating radiation. Alpha and beta might be considered fallout because they are capable of decaying into further forms of radiation (I'm long enough out of school to not remember), but gamma can't.Nemo wrote:Gamma radiation moves at the speed of light. As soon as you measure it, it is goneSaying "radiation falls" seems rather ludicrous to me. Fallout is persistent radiative pollution. Gamma radiation? Once it's gone you just pick up the pieces. Fallout? You can't live there again until it's decayed, and the knowledge that it was ever present pollutes the mind-share of that plot of land for years, or decades, thereafter.
So fallout is bad because its scary. Not because it presents physical bodily harm. "Fallout" is a boogeyman. To illustrate my point again, you separated Gamma radiation and held it as a distinct case from fallout. This is inaccurate. Gamma, as well as beta and alpha, are different modes of decay of the physical material which constructs 'fallout'. Alpha decay is when an unstable element spins off a helium-4 atom. Beta spins out either an electron or a positron and either increases or decreases (respectively) the atomic number without altering atomic mass. Gamma radiation consists of high energy photon emissions. The source of which, for this discussion, is the excited state of the atom resulting from the other two forms of decay. In the end, the only thing that matters is the measurable harm from exposure, which is measured in Sieverts. Uranium Bromide enriched to 20% posses no radiological risk in the worst case scenarios here.
The very fact that gamma rays are photons mean that they cannot decay. The fact that gamma rays cannot decay means that they are not fallout. Hence, gamma rays are not fallout. Neither is infrared, or the radio spectrum, or microwaves, or ultraviolet, or any other "color" of photon.
You and I are so very much not talking about the same thing. You are talking about the initial "containment failure", basically the "boom". I'm talking about the aftereffects, which could be compared to the smoke and debris. We're talking about different time-scales here.Nemo wrote:Talk about over engineering. The radiation effects of enriched Uranium Bromide weve been so focused on for two pages can, as noted, be stopped by a simple piece of paper. In any catastrophic situation the radiation is a non issue, and especially so when compared to the difficulties dealing with the catastrophic fault of a rocket.
In fact, I actually said that a bigger boom was better than sustained radiation. Seriously, I said this, go back and look. I'm not worried about pad workers either, I'm worried about wherever else it might crash. To the best of my knowledge most of the launch pads that might be used for this stuff (at least here in the US) are distant enough from population centers that a containment failure there would be unlikely to have major consequences. Oh, sure, you might have a few personal tragedies, but crack the containment casing of one of these in the vicinity of a city, and you might have a year or three of school-child radiation poisoning. It's just like in war, you're sad when your guys die, but the enemy want's them to survive too, so that you'll be dragged down by caring for them.