Ah might have helped if I'd watched the video instead of the screenshot. However I don't think that's your only issue in this hypothetical set up
nuclear bombs aren't just fissile material, which is highly efficient (I think Hiroshima converted less than a gram in weight) they need something to hold it, a detonator, a case, timing, all of which is several kilograms of metal. So even finding some optimal sweet spot to surf the blast which might be a kilometre away (and hence several orders of magnitude less power as it expands in a sphere) you're still losing a fair amount of mass as you go, which is a similar problem as rocket fuel. anyway, it's an interesting thought experiment
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Wed 3 Feb 2021, 22:47,
Reply)
It was a bit more than a thought experiment. There was quite a bit of research done.
www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist3.php#boomboom
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Thu 4 Feb 2021, 0:29,
Reply)
ah, blue-sky-filled-with-fallout research
my better idea is that some comets are really motoring, 2l/borislov was going at 175,000 km an hour relative to earth. All you need is a net and a long bungy cord attached to your pimped out space limo, and bob's your uncle
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 4 Feb 2021, 5:15,
Reply)
Christ just admit there's something you don't know and you regret opening your mouth.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Thu 4 Feb 2021, 14:22,
Reply)
actually, reading through the research evil andy's posted, unlike the video it appears its main utility was getting heavy things into orbit, rather than travelling between orbits
for the weight issues I presciently speculated. And why would I regret speculating about some hypothetical science video some member has posted anyway, even if I was wrong? I'd have to have a pretty immature ego to worry about that. Adults are able to discuss these things and speculate about flaws, and thanks to evil andys link, as a result, I'm probably better informed on the shelved research than anyone would want to be.
what is interesting is you and tweedledum seem to spend your time hovering around b3ta in a funk of bitterness hoping I'll make a mistake, like some infantile tesco-value Salieris unable to move on from being intellectually humiliated and obsessed with some form of revenge that never happens due to your increasingly obvious limitations. Nobody else ever joins you two in your outbursts of invective, it's just your petty hatred on display. In contrast, I don't think about you and prufock much at all. Well, no more than some guy with tourettes who yells at me when I'm walking past the bus stop
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 4 Feb 2021, 21:02,
Reply)
You could, I suppose...
...drop a subcritical mass out of the back, with none of that casing bollocks.
And then fire another subcritical mass at it.
In the vacuum of space it shouldn't be too difficult to drop both critical masses such that their orientations remain precisely where you expect, so that the shapes of the complimentary masses will lock together when joined.
(, Thu 4 Feb 2021, 10:50, Reply)
in the research they were quoting a tonne and a half for each bomb, though that was in the 60s
it's not a bad idea, but like a lot of the research it's "assuming we somehow get all this untested technology to work"
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Thu 4 Feb 2021, 22:28,
Reply)