I like the idea.

The NSW rocket is, (as far as I know) a great compromise between the ORION and NERVA projects. For all purposes, the NSWR is the equivalent of a torch-ship for early interplanetary societies. High thrust and high specific impulses both allow swift movement through the inner solar system.

Qouth http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html#nswr ,

NSWR: NUCLEAR SALT-WATER ROCKET. This concept by Dr. Zubrin is considered far-fetched by many scientists. The fuel is a 20% solution of Uranium tetrabromide in water. The fuel tanks are thin capillary tubes embedded in a neutron damper (like cadmium) to prevent a chain reaction. The fuel is injected into the reaction chamber to create a critical mass. It is basically a continuously detonating Orion type drive with water as propellant. The controversy is over how to contain such a reaction. Zubrin maintains that skillful injection of the fuel can force the reaction to occur outside the reaction chamber. Other scientists are skeptical. Naturally in such a spacecraft, damage to the fuel tanks can have unfortunate results (say, damage caused by hostile weapons fire). The advantage of NSWR is that this is the only known propulsion system that combines high exhaust velocity with high thrust. The disadvantage is that it combines many of the worst problems of the Orion and Gas Core systems. For starters, using it for take-offs will leave a large crater that will glow blue for several hundred million years, as will everything downwind in the fallout area.

End quoth.

Personally I think that a wee little fighter with a NSWR is a little too much. For ships of destroyer, frigate, or even cruiser class, Zubrin's propulsive brainchild is most suitable. For those short-range little fighters, chemical or small nuclear thermal rockets are best.

I would just add that the pilot would probably want to be far away from the nuclear engine because of the radiated flux of neutrons and gamma-rays emitted by the power source. This is typically why most nuclear powered spacecraft concepts have the reactor on a long boom--far, far away from the crew cabin or instrument package. A small, nuclear powered fighter thus is kind of a misnomer--unless you have some very, very efficient radiation shielding.

You'd be better off with fusion, besides, fighters don't really make that much sense as most people like to think. The main justification for fighters is that they can deliver payloads where aircraft carriers can't and that they can deliver bombs.

But that's a worthless argument in space, where there is no horizon to limit, where rockets can more easily correct their course then in air and you can shoot bombs out of your railgun.

The only reason why you would want high thrust with an engine that no government would allow on the surface, is to make a harder target. But you can accomplish that with afterburners or chemical rockets even. Besides, manuvering to make a harder target for nuclear missiles is a last resort.

The tutorial is very simple and explained to a great level. It doesnt take any effort from our side to grasp it! I guess now I understand what the threshold function was for and how it could be used to make striking line art conversion effects! scottsdale homes for sale