On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:28:22 -0800 (PST), els <els.d...@gmail.com
How closely did you read it?
*He* knows that it's so uncommon that he needs to specify this usage in
"Assuming a solution of 2 atoms of 20% enriched uranium per 100
molecules of water"
"a solution of 2% by number uranium bromide salt solution in water".
Zubrin has also done the math and spells it out in the paper - "In the
mission described, the NSWR used 83.6 tonnes of aqueous propellant (41.8
for each of TSI and EOI), 16.7 tonnes out which is uranium. Of this
uranium, 3.34 tonnes are actually fissile U235."
You said "38% uranium tetrabromide by mass" which is correct in a 2% by
number solution, but vitally ignores the fissile vs inert isotope ratio.
Again, clearly stated in the paper.
He's also aware - unlike you - that a salt solution doesn't "separate
out and collect at the back of propellant tanks". The design wouldn't
work at all without a very even mix of liquid fuel. Any 'runaway'
reaction would at worst burst the plenum chamber, causing the fission
reaction to sputter out immediately.
Your point was "We are talking about enough uranium to trigger a gigaton
level explosion if it goes off", but even with the 2% by count solution
this is still nonsense.
This nuclear fuel fluid doesn't act like normal hypergolic rocket fuel,
there's no way to get an uncontrolled burn. Getting a burn at all is
very, very hard.
.... wow, that was a waste of fifteen minutes. I don't know why I
Cheers - Jaimie
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future"
- Niels Bohr