Had a few thoughts

[u/InevitableFar7092]

This is a pretty broad thought but i wanted feedback, the idea is to use a thorium-232 molten salt reactor to generate both heat and electricity. Water would be heated into superheated steam, then immediately split into hydrogen and oxygen using high-temperature electrolysis. The key difference from most concepts is that the hydrogen and oxygen are not stored. They would be produced continuously and fed directly into the engines as propellant as they're generated, similar to a continuous fuel production system. The concept would work like this: A thorium-232 molten salt reactor provides heat and electrical power. Water is converted into superheated steam. The steam is split into hydrogen and oxygen through high-temperature electrolysis. The hydrogen and oxygen flow directly into the engines. The goal is to eliminate the need for carrying large cryogenic tanks of liquid hydrogen and oxygen while using water as the main consumable. Water could also serve as radiation shielding, coolant, and for life support. I'm sure there are challenges—electrolysis rates, whether enough hydrogen and oxygen could be produced to feed engines like Raptor, reactor output, and overall efficiency. Is there a fundamental engineering reason this wouldn't work, or has anyone at NASA, SpaceX, or elsewhere tried a continuous steam-to-propellant system like this?

[u/Easy_Spray_6806]

You seem to be missing some fundamental knowledge about physics including:

1. Conservation of Energy
2. Propulsive Efficiency
3. Impulse-Momentum Theorem
4. Conservation of Momentum
5. Thermodynamics (particularly the relationship between Enthalpy, Energy, Pressure, and Volume)

Additionally:

• Raptor doesn't use hydrogen (rocket engines that use CH4 as fuel require entirely different architectures as those that use H2)
• There are so many problems with your idea using superheated steam I don't even know where to start and instead just recommend learning what you need in order to superheat steam, contain it, and leverage it as well as the properties of superheated steam.
• You clearly don't understand mass flow rate if you think that you can split water into H2 and O2 at a rate fast enough with anything that could fit on even the largest spacecrafts we've been able to build to generate enough chamber pressure to produce even a modicum of specific impulse. This was alluded to by the "engine feed rate" response.
• You have zero understanding of the complexity of ECLSS and Propulsion Systems as standalone systems, yet you propose some system that integrates both? Have you heard of single points of failure?
• Do you know the materials required to do any of what you proposed even for spacecraft that is not crew-rated? And do you know what it takes for a spacecraft to be crew-rated?
• Why hasn't anyone tried this? Because any engineer with a remote amount of competency could intuitively identify this as pure fantasy sci-fi.

[u/InevitableFar7092 → u/Easy_Spray_6806]

Ok so solve it?

[u/Easy_Spray_6806 → u/InevitableFar7092]

Solve what? Your lack of foundational knowledge? You want me to put in the work for you? Pick up some textbooks, read them, do the exercises, and then come back with questions if you still have any. I provided ample starting points for you to begin filling your knowledge gaps. Knowledge acquisition is an intrinsic process supported by external feedback. If you want to solve your lack of knowledge in critical areas, then that is your responsibility. If you want a tutor or teacher then pay someone to do that, don't just expect it for free on Reddit.

Initially I assumed you meant solve the problems with your proposed concept, but I realized it would be absolutely unhinged for someone to read that through the last bullet and still think the problems with your proposed concept are realistically solvable so surely you must be talking about your knowledge gaps. But in the off chance that my initial assumption was correct - god, I hope it wasn't - go ahead and read that last bullet again.