I heard that some explosives have a detonation velocity in excess of 9km/s. This is being compared to a figure I think is 2 or 3km/s as being the exhaust velocity of the space shuttle. Is there a reason we're not using high-end explosive to power ships to space? My guess would be that most of those explosives don't need oxygen to react, making them dangerous even when stored in a sealed tank. Detonating a thin stream of explosive liquid/powder in a rocket cone cound do a lightning-fast chain reaction up into the fuel tank and kaboom, shrapnel blasted from New York to Cuba. But if the velocities are faster, wouldn't that mean less mass of fuel is needed? Correct me if I'm wrong on any of the facts, good chance I could be.
__________________
its cold out there...

yeah, project orion, I've heard of it, but the radiation is always a problem. that's why i'm trying to find the next-best thing!
this one guy, Project Orion, in sciforum.com is pretty much bonded to the idea of using an nuke-equiped Orion ship to launch a ship the size of a supertanker OFF THE ANTARCTIC SURFACE and into orbit and beyond. This guy thinks the fallout we could live with, it'll be contained in antarctica, there's no way a nuclear bomb cound incinerate in the atmosphere if the ship burnt up so we could safely recover it, etc. etc. Everyone thinks it's a stupid idea, but I can't help but wonder if we could make nukes that made absolutely no harmful radiation, or at least a powerful explosive with a fraction of the power to launch something smaller.
__________________
its cold out there...

not nessecarily, use proportionally smaller amounts of "hig-explosive" fuel so that the same amount of thrust is generated from this rocket system as is from a modern, say H2-O2 system. If each gram of high-explosive fuel releases more energy than each gram of stoichiometrically mixed H2-O2, than the craft should be lighter. Unless i'm missunderstanding the energy explosives contain... enlighten me, im a noob
__________________
its cold out there...

i don't get it, why would it need to be that large?
__________________
its cold out there...

still not following you. the same ammount of thrust, proportionally, and the same ammount of total ship mass, but a smaller mass of explosive because it would supposedly have higher amounts of energy-per-mass-unit. The rest of the total mass would instead be used for payload. And I'm not talking nuclear ordinance, but conventinal chemical reaction.

Keep in mind this whole time I'm assuming high-yield explosives are more energy dense than an H2/O2 mixture, and that the explosive is not detonated all at once, maybe powderized or liquified and sprayed into an exhaust nozzle (or combustion chamber first) to detonate, with throttle and everything. What's wrong with this idea?
__________________
its cold out there...

sweet, i'll look him up, but if they could do this, why hasn't an agency started toying with the idea?
__________________
its cold out there...

I beleive PDEs are based on pulsejets. If my understanding is corect, they don't use high explosives, but rather use conventional fuels presurised to the point where they detonate rather than just burn.

first used in the V-1 "buzz bomb" in WW-II by Germany. It does use a kerosene variant as fuel and is ignited by a "glow plug" device after being mixed with air after the inlet vanes close giving a controlled explosion at the exhaust tube.

A more current variation is the SCRAM jet engine, which is far more complicated than the simple pulse jet.

Anyone have a reason why high-explosive fuel wouldn't work? I mean why isn't this idea being used?
__________________
its cold out there...

Now that sounds interesting! A Gatling gun---err combustion chamber.
__________________
Wow! Finally, a qualified Administrator of NASA! Michael Griffin has my support!