[Spaceships] Can't find the right propulsion system

[Anthony]

I would avoid HEDM if not needed, seeing as it tends to be explosive. Systems with low delta-V requirements are typically willing to trade performance for safety.

[AlexanderHowl]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I would avoid HEDM if not needed, seeing as it tends to be explosive. Systems with low delta-V requirements are typically willing to trade performance for safety.

Antimatter also tends to explode, and it seems to be ubiquitous in the setting. If you do not want HEDM, you can do chemical rockets for 1g and 0.1 mps.

[Michael Thayne]

I was hesitant to suggest "smaller systems" because the OP mentioned "little work pods", which might imply SM+4. It made me think of the Kobold from Spaceships 6 (an SM+4 design that uses nuclear thermal rockets as I've suggested). But smaller systems is definitely a valid choice for SM+5 designs.

Re: the danger of antimatter, antimatter-catalyzed fuel (as opposed to antimatter boosted) fuel is not listed on p. 62 of Spaceships as a volatile fuel type. This surprised me when it was first pointed out to me, but it's true, and a major reason I suggested antimatter thermal rockets.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Re: the danger of antimatter, antimatter-catalyzed fuel (as opposed to antimatter boosted) fuel is not listed on p. 62 of Spaceships as a volatile fuel type. This surprised me when it was first pointed out to me, but it's true, and a major reason I suggested antimatter thermal rockets.

The volatile systems section is rather generous; rocket fuel and antimatter-catalyzed hydrogen or water should be added to the volatile list, and antimatter-boosted or matter/antimatter should be noted as hilariously explosive (the maximum REF of volatile fuel is roughly 124 * (mps/tank)^2; Nuclear Saltwater will probably go subcritical after destroying the ship, limiting the destruction, but other volatile fuels will probably manage at least a pretty high fraction of that max).

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

I was hesitant to suggest "smaller systems" because the OP mentioned "little work pods", which might imply SM+4. It made me think of the Kobold from Spaceships 6 (an SM+4 design that uses nuclear thermal rockets as I've suggested). But smaller systems is definitely a valid choice for SM+5 designs.

Since many systems are easy enough to extrapolate, I'm perfectly happy to allow smaller modules even on SM+4 vehicles. And there are certainly tiny rockets. Capsules use SM+0 or smaller chemical rockets for attitude control.