[ExI] New nuclear rocket engine design

Dan TheBookMan danust2012 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 26 20:21:11 UTC 2020

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 5:08 PM John Clark via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> For this type of rocket engine to have any chance of being adopted
> a new name for it it will have to be found that doesn't have the words
> "nuclear" or "atomic" in it, those words tend to shut down the logic
> centers of the human brain and crank up the fear centers to eleven.
> That's why "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging" was changed to
> just "Magnetic Resonance Imaging". Shakespeare was wrong, a rose
> by any other name would NOT smell as sweet, so "Transchemical
> Impulse Engine" might be a good euphemism, it even has an acceptable
> acronym and a vague tie in to both Star Wars and Star Trek. But I'm just
> an amateur, a good advertising guy could probably think of a better name.

The problem is any euphemism might easily be uncovered here. Add to
this, euphemism can quickly become dysphemisms... To be sure, there
might be a lag time in there where it can be at least thought about
before it gets tarred. This is why I suggest constructing on orbit.
You build most of it sans the nuclear 'fuel' and that gets launched
last and with overboard safety to reassure people. The building on
orbit too, means all the non-nuclear stuff is done first and then
there's a sunk investment one can argue would be waste without the
nuclear fuel. (By the fuel here, I mean the heating element, of
course, that powers it -- not stuff that goes out the nozzle, which is
just propellant.)

How about 'Strong Force Propulsion Engine'?


  Sample my Kindle books via:

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list