Matter antimatter reaction thrusters inside an atmosphere

[Anonymous No.15010910]

Scientifically, what would be the implications of firing thrusters using matter-antimatter reactions to heat a deuterium reaction mass inside a planet's atmosphere, and close to the ground? What would some of the difficulties in using the ship's vast deltav reserves (say it's capable of accelerating to .7c and then slowing back down to a relative stop) and large thrust to weight ration (say in free fall it would be capable of sustaining 1.5g for months on end) to transition from orbit to a static position relative to the ground using continuous thrust, before lowering the ship into the atmosphere? Once the payload has been lowered to the ground and disconnected, how would the climb back up out of the atmosphere and turn into an unpowered orbit be best approached?

[Anonymous No.15010934]

>>15010910

Exterminatus.

[Anonymous No.15010957]

>>15010910
You don't move all you ship to the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.15010993]

>>15010957
Why not?

[Anonymous No.15011004]

>>15010993
Because is retarded. Look at the Apollo mission, you don't need all you're mass in the planet, just the things that needs to go there.
And in military terms any spaceship is a sitting duck in the atmosphere-gravitational well.

[Anonymous No.15011027]

>>15011004
>just the things that needs to go there.
What if the thing that needs to go there weighs tens of thousands of tons and can't be landed using parachutes or chemical rockets

[Anonymous No.15011047]

>>15011027

Then you should build a space elevator.

[Anonymous No.15011055]

>>15011027
If you have such requirement then you probably have a descend glider.
I would dare to say that is far cheaper just drop a 10,000T payload and leave there than move at huge risk the main spaceship, because, in first place, why are you sending 10,000T? Why is worth more lift it again rather than leave?
Taking as example naval, then the payload would be minimal compared to the mass of the spaceship, may be 1%.
So, why move 1,000,000T if only 1% is useful there?
Where it will land? the ground/water is safe and the correct? there's not danger? and Why design a spaceship to
the dual purpose of being able to descend and ascend by its own? You don't do amphibian aircraft carriers.

And take into account the massive atmosphere disturbance of lift off tens thousand or millions of tons.

[Anonymous No.15011080]

>>15011047
What if you don't have access to the ground because it's incredibly hostile and the only way to reach it is by landing massive amounts of troops and military hardware all at once
>>15011055
>because, in first place, why are you sending 10,000T?
See above. Hostile ground, needs to land in force all at once.
>descend glider
You'd need a runway kilometers long wouldn't you? You can't send an advance party to prepare a runway, they get eaten by the hostile wildlife
>massive atmosphere disturbance
Now we're talking. Enough about why it would be stupid to do, more about what it would be like

[Anonymous No.15011107]

>>15011080
> Hostile ground
Then under no circumstance you're landing a spaceship. In the planet it's a sitting duck, in the space can't be ambushed. And the load probably will not come back.

>You'd need a runway kilometers long wouldn't you?
Mainly to reentry and gliding, the landing itself can have variations but surely nothing as complex as vertical landing. Maybe airdropping.

> more about what it would be like
How? like a nuke pretty much. The energy of a 1M tons mass on orbit is +7MT. And to hover you're talking about +5GW if it moves 100T of air/something at 10km/s. That means complete destruction of a place.
Why 100T at 10km/s? because less mass would need more speed, far more power and more destruction. Reducing the mass would decrease the problem, but other than unpowered glide the end result would be catastrophic and probably result in self destruction unless you add a lot of armor.

[Anonymous No.15011112]

>>15011107
>self destruction
self destruction of the ship descending

[Anonymous No.15011334]

>>15011055
Eventually you just treat your main ship as another planet and launch little crafts off of it. Like an Earth that you can occasionally move somewhere more convenient but you don't drive it to work every day.

[Anonymous No.15011337]

>>15011334
I think so, they would cruisers or carriers-like specialized in traveling. Anything else would be better made by auxiliary ships carried by it.

[Anonymous No.15011340]

>>15011337
better done*

[Anonymous No.15011870]

Well, you have been a big disappointment /sci/. Not a single person discussing the maneuver in the OP, just a bunch of tame and timid "well it would be more reasonable to use shuttles between the ship and surface", and as the cherry on top, broken English.

[Anonymous No.15011908]

>>15010910
depends on the impulse rate, you dont want to be sending high d^n(x0)/dx^n in media of even light densities

[Anonymous No.15012127]

>>15010910

>sending multiple trillion dollar starships on kamikaze runs instead of just dropping nukes

[Anonymous No.15012287]

>>15012127
>kamikaze runs
Brainlet. Why wouldn't the ship be capable of climbing back out
>>15011908
You are single handedly redeeming this board

[Anonymous No.15012393]

>>15010910
>21 days until _____ _

[Anonymous No.15014499]

>>15011870
everyone in this thread is a bot, its called dead internet theory, they dont read the OP properly because they can only understand random keywords and they're not good at context

[Anonymous No.15014512]

>>15014499