It's much easier to make a fission reactor than a fission bomb, and much easier to make a fusion bomb than a fusion reaction. They are not even that similar.
You can even dissolve the uranium in the water and use the same substance for both fuel and propellant and so capable of reaching far higher temperatures than those that would cause any engine to melt.
But you want that to happen in space and to control the output of energy.
Otherwise you just have a bomb.
The difference between a bomb and a reactor is just clever engineering.
It's much easier to make a fission reactor than a fission bomb, and much easier to make a fusion bomb than a fusion reaction. They are not even that similar.
1 reply →
Dual use technology, you say?
In the same way that atomic weapons and radioisotope generators both convert mass into energy. It's just a matter of slightly different timescales.
How could we harness this energy and make it usable?
You use it to boil water.
You can even dissolve the uranium in the water and use the same substance for both fuel and propellant and so capable of reaching far higher temperatures than those that would cause any engine to melt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
The real question is if we'll get back hole or antimatter powered steam engines before GTA 6
It's almost a meme at this point
If I knew that, I'd probably have more important things to do than comment it here.
You could pen a carefully-worded a letter of demands and send it to some Billionaire? A bit on the risky side, but - hey, you only live once etc.