I want to point out that ISP is a rating of how efficient an engine is and a HIGHER number is more efficient, not less. So it is 1/3 as efficient as Space X's Raptor. Your numbers seem wrong and they entirely undermine the point you are trying to make.
Yeah, I checked their wikipedia and you meant to say 10,000 seconds for the ISP. Not 105 seconds. That would be worse performance than any rocket, ever.
@@filonin2it actually says 105s directly on their website… they’re missing a couple zeroes on it, maybe a typo? Lol “The Direct Fusion Drive is a revolutionary steady state fusion propulsion concept, based on a compact fusion reactor. It will provide power of the order of units of MW, providing both thrust of the order of 10−101N with specific impulses between 103− 105s and auxiliary power to the space system.”
Well I mean we don't rly have nuclear thermal engines yet, just prototypes. Would love to see nuclear fission or Fusion rockets in space though. Truly think it's the future of space travel
TLDR: Higher Isp = higher exhaust velocity = higher efficiency. Isp is not in seconds because it measures how fast an engine is. It's in seconds because It's inversely proportional to the speed of fuel consumption. A higher Isp means slower fuel consumption, not a slower engine. However, it is directly proportional to exhaust velocity, which in turn gives you the engine's thrust capability.
LLNL's fusion is exactly a microscale H-bomb with lasers for first stage (instead of A-bomb). With proper power source for lasers (read, another reactor) you could build a 1950s-style nuclear pulse engine out of it. That's, probably, all.
I cant express how giddy it makes me that there's any advancements in fusion. I'm not hopeful that it will become viable in my lifetime as an energy source but I hope my generation can lay out the path for the future to use it to it's fullest capacity.
Even that LLNL "break even" isn't really accurate. It didn't create more energy than the gross of what the entire process took, only what the laser injected. If you factor in the energy required for all the ancillary requirements, like magnetic containment, things like induction and heat losses, it was something like 20-fold short. So, we're still a loooooong way away from viable fusion.
Fission is fine for near future nuclear spacecraft. It will last decades without a refueling and the propellant will run out far sooner anyways. Even with numerous propellant refills the reactor will keep going for a reasonable length of time suitable for space station use, not just a single trip to Mars and back.
1G acceleration would be ideal. Then there would be no difference in "gravity" onboard the spaceship. Half way to destination and the ship breaks with 1G.
Once fusion reactors are perfected, human travel to other planets will become more realistic. 100 years from now humans will look at current rocket technologies with liquid propellants, like we would look at a wind sail for an ocean ship.
ISP is exhaust velocity in meters per second divided by Earth's gravity acceleration... Which you can round up to 10. At 110 to 300 km per second exhaust speeds from their site, that is 110 to 300 thousand meters per second. Divided by 10... About 10 to 30 thousand ISP
The OLM and the booster don't sit on the concrete pad. They sit on the load bearing pilings buried deep in the ground. And all those NEW underground piles for added support were poured over a month ago, so they're already at 85-90% of design strength. Relax. ;-)
Ya this clown doesn’t know what he is talking about. The same one said he doubted when Elon said things be back up and running in a few months. He is an idiot!
Sorry, but an Isp of 105 seconds must be an error for the proposed engine.The pulsarfusion site quotes an exhaust velocity of 110 to 350 km/s which corresponds to an Isp of about 11 000 to 35 000 seconds.
The problem is that fusion works...but you need energy for input and you get less as an output....but that is not a problem in a rocket...is only a problem when you build a nuclear plant
Fusion is already possible here on Earth has been for a great number of years, what's not yet possible is getting more power out than is used to start the 'reaction'.
Raising velocity in order to reduce the time required to reach e.g. Mars sounds wonderful! However, once you reach your destination, you will also need to reduce your velocity in order to land. Does this mean nothing more than that it will actually take twice as long to reach your destination?
Russia has been working on the project of a nuclear tug "Zeus" for many years - a spacecraft with a nuclear reactor. Its first version is to fly on ion thrusters, very large ones. They are ready and tested. And the next version of the tug can be equipped with rotary magneto-plasma engines. In general, it is very similar to what you are talking about in this video. Russia has been working on this technology for several years. The first flight of the tug is scheduled for 2030. First he will go to Venus, drop one probe there. Then a gravitational maneuver and flight to Jupiter, more precisely, to its moons. In the future, I would like to see a collaboration between Russia and the United States (because when will all this enmity end?). Future, more powerful versions of the nuclear tug could work in conjunction with Starship. Starship can put a large payload into orbit. And Zeus can deliver it to the Moon or Mars. Not very fast, but very very cheap.
Is my understanding correct, it's more of a space ship with a nuclear reactor on it, to power ion engines? So technically wouldn't be a nuclear rocket but an ion rocket powered by nuclear reactor? Genuinely asking and curious
@@CountryLifestyle2023 Well, it won't be a rocket, the nuclear tug will be launched into orbit by the Angara-A5 heavy launch vehicle. You can search for "nuclear tug Zeus" and see what it looks like. But in general, yes, it will not have a nuclear engine, only a nuclear reactor with an electric generator that will power either ion or magneto-plasma engines, which are much more efficient than classic ion ones. And it was the idea of these magnetoplasma engines, apparently, that was taken by this British startup. Because earlier Roskosmos has already stated that it is working on this technology. Well, let's see who does better =)
@Alexandr_Lee So more of a transport vehicle in space, can't take off but once in space can move things around. Any development with nuclear via fission, Fusion or other variations in space is rly important and look forward to seeing them. Magneto plasma engines are not a new idea or new thing. The idea has been around since 1970s, in the USA, and multiple companies are trying to achieve it atm. So the British didn't steal the idea from Russia. It was already a concept since before Russia existed lol 😆 I would put my money on SpaceX, I know they are not doing the same thing, but by 2030 they could be sending first human missions to Mars... lol
@@CountryLifestyle2023 Sorry, I'm writing through an online translator. Apparently, I didn't express myself correctly. I meant that the British are in this race because the Russians are already doing it. And if we are doing this, then apparently it is already technically possible =)
@Alexandr_Lee All good, I assume things get lost in translation. I just mean, UK isn't doing it because Russia is. USA started it before Russia did, but no one assumes Russia is doing it to copy USA. It's just the next phase in space travel that companies and nations are developing. Something that has been in the making for decades but only possible now. I think it's likely a Roskosmo "propaganda" moment, saying that UK is copying them. 🤔 just my opinion, I could be wrong. I did look up the Nuclear space Tug and it looks very interesting. Can't wait to see it in action.
Proposal: propulsion system that can, to a calculated distance between Mars and Earth, that can maintain an acceleration rate of 1G; At the aforementioned point, turn around and decelerate at a rate of 1G... reducing/minimizing the human physiological impact on extended zero-G environment.
You don't know what you are talking about. It's a shitty engine. You were fooled by the 39 days to Mars headlines. You would need 200 MW of power for that 200 MW generated by an ultra light weight reactor that is science fiction. The fusion reactor they talk about in this video wouldn't be capable of generating that amount of power and if you did get several of those together, it would weigh so much it wouldn't get to Mars in 6 months, much less 39 days.
Pretty amazing. I think this is the next level of space exploration. Chemical rockets are just not efficient enough except for low orbit missions. Chemical propellants take months or years to reach our desired destination and that's just within the solar system. Nuclear fusion propulsion is going to possibly allow us to travel as fast as 1,000,000 kmh (500,000 mph). We could get to Mars in 3 days.
umm, I think they said the "magic" is fusion. The magnetic field could be made by the same electrical generation system used for power the life support, etc. For example, the Waste heat from the drive could magically power a rankine or closed brayton cycle turbo-generator. last i checked, most fusion reactors use super-conducting magnets and only need power for the cryo-coolers.
nuclear fusion rocket is like putting the cart before the horse. Get a fusion powerplant online first, then you can begin research fusion rockets. Everything is pointless until then.
Fusion! That is for the far future when fusion is actually delivered and affordable. Thermal nuclear-using fission is deliverable in the near future and is far cheaper. Go for something that works rather than provides constant funding streams. And fusion does that in spades. 70 plus years and it is still "just around the corner".
In 2033 Fusion will be rdy in 20 years ! All jokes aside, it might be easier to do these types of Fusion rocket reactors than the traditional types of Fusion reactors we are building on Earth. Power generating vs thrust is very different
Fusion propulsion is a lot easier than fusion energy since you don't actually need to hit and sustain ignition. It's just a way to convert electricity and propellant to thrust
Hi there you have said lot's of idea together for Mars manned mission but that didn't include how re-entry mission will accomplish,how astronaut's breath ,how breath,how communicate 😮😊😢😮 I think ai and robotics can help to solve that.
The team at Livermore worked with inertial confinement based fusion, while something like the ITER is a magnetic confinement based reactor. You say how the Pulsar team is working off of Livermore research. Does that mean the underlying principle of the Pulsar rocket is inertial confinement and those coils in the rocket are just meant to help with directing the flow? Trying to make sure I have this understanding right.
Get started now because fusion propulsion will be absolutely paramount to interstellar travel, ion engines will take 100’s of years to reach the nearest star it’s simply not viable. If we can’t get a fusion or nuclear engine working we will likely never leave the solar system for the next 300-500 years.
If I was going to compete in the space race I would name my start up “Just Use Some Thorium Fission Until Competitors Kill-themselves”, or JUST FUCK for short.
Going from earth to mars in 12 days may cause a few time dilation issues. Now with a Alcubierre drive we won't need to worry about that. If course the most energy efficient version that I know of uses 3 solar masses. However this is tiny compared to the original dozen observable universes.
The biggest issue is these engines are not built/tested off world. Also our ships are still to small. ET vessels are 1/4mile or more in size. What we see withing atmosphere are lighter lander type craft.
not sure how they think they will be able to deflect space debris / rocks floating in space with that speed, you need more technologies to protect the ship first
Great video and into ! The NASA designed "24-Hour Lunar Shuttle" (LEO to LLO) has the engine to take US from the deep gravity well of LEO to Mars ! The Mars rocket can refuel with Oxygen at Mars orbit for the return to Earth. The VASIMR engine is the best engine til fusion power plants are developed ! Also the Fusion Rocket Engines will be powered by He3 recovered from the Lunar Regolith ! ! ! Talk to you on yhe moon soon, tjl T. Lipinski
@@LisaAnn777 Well we are always 30 years from getting fusion you know. As long as I remember and I'm old believe me we are always been 30 years away...:)
Oh yeah, Fusion works. It’s just ‘barely’ breaking even though. Currently for ground-based Fusion power testing, you only get the amount of power out of it that you’re using to run it. Obviously, that’s not going to work for entire cities. So the work continues. Thankfully though, this engine is using the Plasma for the thrust and the power output for the ships electrical systems. Very economical.
Concrete makes 75% design strength in 3 days, 2-3 weeks for 100% (depending on the mix design). This is verified by compression tests on 6” x12” destructive test cylinders mad by a third party materials testing lab
I wouldn't want to live next to the huge magnetic field that would be required to contain the plasma. Also, wouldn't the gas that is used as the propulsion get used up?
Simmilar designs have been on the table for decades. My understanding is that the US and most other developed countries have not built it because of treaty obligations that forbid the use of nuclear materials for rocket propulsion.
It's 105 ISP? That's really bad but yet they say it uses little fuel I think you mistaken the actual ISP I know as a sci fi nerd their are DFDs have much more ISP than that in the hundreds to thousands
Check out our Excitement Guaranteed Starship Merch here: shop.theteslaspace.com/
The Space Race, Which Country/Territory & Nationality/Denonym Are You?
"Deluge" is supposed to be pronounced DELL'yüj, not duhLÜJ'.
I want to point out that ISP is a rating of how efficient an engine is and a HIGHER number is more efficient, not less. So it is 1/3 as efficient as Space X's Raptor. Your numbers seem wrong and they entirely undermine the point you are trying to make.
Yeah, I checked their wikipedia and you meant to say 10,000 seconds for the ISP. Not 105 seconds. That would be worse performance than any rocket, ever.
yeah kinda shows how this guy doesn't really know much. i wish there were less unknowledgeable elon fanboys on yt
Yeah, he makes nice videos, but he often makes ridiculous mistakes like this
Sadly, proofreading and checking your work started going out the window about 5 minutes after the internet showed up.
@@filonin2it actually says 105s directly on their website… they’re missing a couple zeroes on it, maybe a typo? Lol
“The Direct Fusion Drive is a revolutionary steady state fusion propulsion concept, based on a compact fusion reactor. It will provide power of the order of units of MW, providing both thrust of the order of 10−101N with specific impulses between 103− 105s and auxiliary power to the space system.”
105 seconds? that would be much lower isp. existing nuclear thermal engines are in the ballpark of 1000 seconds
I assume he meant 105,000 seconds otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.
should be around 11,000 seconds
Well I mean we don't rly have nuclear thermal engines yet, just prototypes. Would love to see nuclear fission or Fusion rockets in space though.
Truly think it's the future of space travel
There was a typo on their website and it's meant to be 10^5 seconds
@@magnetospinMeant to say 10^5 so 100,000
TLDR: Higher Isp = higher exhaust velocity = higher efficiency.
Isp is not in seconds because it measures how fast an engine is. It's in seconds because It's inversely proportional to the speed of fuel consumption. A higher Isp means slower fuel consumption, not a slower engine.
However, it is directly proportional to exhaust velocity, which in turn gives you the engine's thrust capability.
1 kg of thrust from 1kg of fuel for x amount of time (sec).
Also this would have to be used only in space.
LLNL's fusion is exactly a microscale H-bomb with lasers for first stage (instead of A-bomb). With proper power source for lasers (read, another reactor) you could build a 1950s-style nuclear pulse engine out of it. That's, probably, all.
Ahem, you should doublecheck that ISP number for the DFD.
Higher Isp is more efficient. 105 sec is REALLY poor performance. This type of engine should have an Isp in the thousands of seconds.
☝🤓
I cant express how giddy it makes me that there's any advancements in fusion. I'm not hopeful that it will become viable in my lifetime as an energy source but I hope my generation can lay out the path for the future to use it to it's fullest capacity.
Are you in your 20's?
@@ctuna2011 almost 21
@@dollin9515you will live to see it
You mean advancements in fusion, right?
@dollin9515 Fusion is very different from fission.
Even that LLNL "break even" isn't really accurate. It didn't create more energy than the gross of what the entire process took, only what the laser injected. If you factor in the energy required for all the ancillary requirements, like magnetic containment, things like induction and heat losses, it was something like 20-fold short. So, we're still a loooooong way away from viable fusion.
We don't need to make more energy than in for use in a spaceship
Fission is fine for near future nuclear spacecraft. It will last decades without a refueling and the propellant will run out far sooner anyways. Even with numerous propellant refills the reactor will keep going for a reasonable length of time suitable for space station use, not just a single trip to Mars and back.
You said 105 ISP for a fusion think again you may have wanted to say 105K as theoretical ISP of fusion engine is 135,000 seconds
1G acceleration would be ideal. Then there would be no difference in "gravity" onboard the spaceship. Half way to destination and the ship breaks with 1G.
How long would it take at that acceleration?
@@LisaAnn777 2 days to Mars, 16 days to Neptun. Acceleration 1G to half way, and 1G deceleration the rest of the distance
Just like in The Expanse!
@folk. 2 days with Mars at closest approach. 3.5 days at normal opposition
ISP is a measure of performance - higher is better. So 105 seconds is terrible - is this right? It says this on the Pulsar web site too...
Once fusion reactors are perfected, human travel to other planets will become more realistic. 100 years from now humans will look at current rocket technologies with liquid propellants, like we would look at a wind sail for an ocean ship.
Ar you sure those ISP numbers are right?
That's what I said. 105 seconds ISP would be worse than any rocket, ever. He doesn't seem to realize bigger numbers are more efficient with ISP.
@filonin2 yea, I think he got them the wrong way around? Also, the Angry astronaut Chanel did video on this not long ago, too. Slightly more in-depth.
ISP is exhaust velocity in meters per second divided by Earth's gravity acceleration... Which you can round up to 10.
At 110 to 300 km per second exhaust speeds from their site, that is 110 to 300 thousand meters per second. Divided by 10...
About 10 to 30 thousand ISP
The OLM and the booster don't sit on the concrete pad. They sit on the load bearing pilings buried deep in the ground. And all those NEW underground piles for added support were poured over a month ago, so they're already at 85-90% of design strength. Relax. ;-)
Ya this clown doesn’t know what he is talking about. The same one said he doubted when Elon said things be back up and running in a few months. He is an idiot!
I am sure the two are not even connected. The expansion would be catastrophic.
Please check your ISP specs.
Sorry, but an Isp of 105 seconds must be an error for the proposed engine.The pulsarfusion site quotes an exhaust velocity of 110 to 350 km/s which corresponds to an Isp of about 11 000 to 35 000 seconds.
Just another 30 years for Fusion to work.😂😂😂😂😂😂
The problem is that fusion works...but you need energy for input and you get less as an output....but that is not a problem in a rocket...is only a problem when you build a nuclear plant
fusion works, just not net positive. Works fine for a rocket.
This joke is old, give it a rest
Fusion is already possible here on Earth has been for a great number of years, what's not yet possible is getting more power out than is used to start the 'reaction'.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Another in a series of my favorite videos you have produced. 😊
Raising velocity in order to reduce the time required to reach e.g. Mars sounds wonderful! However, once you reach your destination, you will also need to reduce your velocity in order to land. Does this mean nothing more than that it will actually take twice as long to reach your destination?
Russia has been working on the project of a nuclear tug "Zeus" for many years - a spacecraft with a nuclear reactor. Its first version is to fly on ion thrusters, very large ones. They are ready and tested. And the next version of the tug can be equipped with rotary magneto-plasma engines. In general, it is very similar to what you are talking about in this video. Russia has been working on this technology for several years. The first flight of the tug is scheduled for 2030. First he will go to Venus, drop one probe there. Then a gravitational maneuver and flight to Jupiter, more precisely, to its moons.
In the future, I would like to see a collaboration between Russia and the United States (because when will all this enmity end?). Future, more powerful versions of the nuclear tug could work in conjunction with Starship. Starship can put a large payload into orbit. And Zeus can deliver it to the Moon or Mars. Not very fast, but very very cheap.
Is my understanding correct, it's more of a space ship with a nuclear reactor on it, to power ion engines? So technically wouldn't be a nuclear rocket but an ion rocket powered by nuclear reactor?
Genuinely asking and curious
@@CountryLifestyle2023 Well, it won't be a rocket, the nuclear tug will be launched into orbit by the Angara-A5 heavy launch vehicle. You can search for "nuclear tug Zeus" and see what it looks like. But in general, yes, it will not have a nuclear engine, only a nuclear reactor with an electric generator that will power either ion or magneto-plasma engines, which are much more efficient than classic ion ones. And it was the idea of these magnetoplasma engines, apparently, that was taken by this British startup. Because earlier Roskosmos has already stated that it is working on this technology. Well, let's see who does better =)
@Alexandr_Lee So more of a transport vehicle in space, can't take off but once in space can move things around.
Any development with nuclear via fission, Fusion or other variations in space is rly important and look forward to seeing them.
Magneto plasma engines are not a new idea or new thing. The idea has been around since 1970s, in the USA, and multiple companies are trying to achieve it atm. So the British didn't steal the idea from Russia. It was already a concept since before Russia existed lol 😆
I would put my money on SpaceX, I know they are not doing the same thing, but by 2030 they could be sending first human missions to Mars... lol
@@CountryLifestyle2023 Sorry, I'm writing through an online translator. Apparently, I didn't express myself correctly. I meant that the British are in this race because the Russians are already doing it. And if we are doing this, then apparently it is already technically possible =)
@Alexandr_Lee All good, I assume things get lost in translation.
I just mean, UK isn't doing it because Russia is. USA started it before Russia did, but no one assumes Russia is doing it to copy USA.
It's just the next phase in space travel that companies and nations are developing. Something that has been in the making for decades but only possible now.
I think it's likely a Roskosmo "propaganda" moment, saying that UK is copying them. 🤔 just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I did look up the Nuclear space Tug and it looks very interesting. Can't wait to see it in action.
Proposal: propulsion system that can, to a calculated distance between Mars and Earth, that can maintain an acceleration rate of 1G; At the aforementioned point, turn around and decelerate at a rate of 1G... reducing/minimizing the human physiological impact on extended zero-G environment.
They are almost ready to start testing! Exciting times!
Fantastic presentation 😊Bang On.😊
'No, it's pretty horrible, actually
We're not even close to Fusion technology.
Ad Astra - The VASIMR® Engine; already certified by NASA. Next step: Put it up there!
yup
You don't know what you are talking about.
It's a shitty engine. You were fooled by the 39 days to Mars headlines.
You would need 200 MW of power for that
200 MW generated by an ultra light weight reactor that is science fiction.
The fusion reactor they talk about in this video wouldn't be capable of generating that amount of power and if you did get several of those together, it would weigh so much it wouldn't get to Mars in 6 months, much less 39 days.
I hope more people in our life time could visit outher planets,lots of wealth and land in Space.
Lots is a serious understatement. There is inifinite resources out there in space.
Nuclear fusion?! Bro, I ate a bad pizza last night and the nuclear fusion diarrea assblast was beyond imagination!!!!
yeah but how do you get the ipo in the nuklese of the 510 of the retasment to be 50% of draw on ligadtry ?
We have beed chasing the fusion carrot on a stick for 50+ years. It is likely that it will take another 50+ years to get it practical and economic.
LONGER. Fusion is 25 years away and always will be.
This fusion thing will never happen. It's a jobs and career funding program...sort of like the cure for cancer...
How much does the Booster weigh, and does it weigh more when it is pressurized to stop the domes crumpling?
If the USA didn't spend its treasure on imperial wars, we could be on Titan by now.
the amount of things that could go wrong with that including shielding for the crew are astronomical
Well its about time somebody figured out a reliable sustainable propulsion unit im sure space x would like a batch of these inits😮😅😅😅
Excellent video. Marvelously done.
we are living in some exciting times for sure
Pretty amazing. I think this is the next level of space exploration. Chemical rockets are just not efficient enough except for low orbit missions. Chemical propellants take months or years to reach our desired destination and that's just within the solar system. Nuclear fusion propulsion is going to possibly allow us to travel as fast as 1,000,000 kmh (500,000 mph). We could get to Mars in 3 days.
So how long do it take to slow down,or stop when you get to your destination.does it take years aerobraking.
I seem to have missed where they magically have the energy required to create the magnetic field and plasma.
umm, I think they said the "magic" is fusion. The magnetic field could be made by the same electrical generation system used for power the life support, etc.
For example, the Waste heat from the drive could magically power a rankine or closed brayton cycle turbo-generator.
last i checked, most fusion reactors use super-conducting magnets and only need power for the cryo-coolers.
Simple ... Another fusion reactor 😂🤣😂🤣
I'm seeing a few different ones mentioned in videos. NTP and NEP engines, FFRE, this one.
Are they all the same? Or just different flavors of coke?
At last, a science feature narrated by a human, not an AI voice. Thank you for that and for great content.
will be ready in 30 years 30 years from now with a possible delay or two or more of 30,60 or 90 years.
On fusion drive - a little confusion over fusion reactors for power generation AND for a fusion drive.
I thought it was serious till I heard fussion......
The ISP is actually between 10 and 30 THOUSAND seconds
UK based rocket, it will blow up then.
Time for an update. How are they doing?
nuclear fusion rocket is like putting the cart before the horse. Get a fusion powerplant online first, then you can begin research fusion rockets. Everything is pointless until then.
I love the search for new space propulsion, i welcome the British/ e.u friends
Fusion! That is for the far future when fusion is actually delivered and affordable. Thermal nuclear-using fission is deliverable in the near future and is far cheaper. Go for something that works rather than provides constant funding streams. And fusion does that in spades. 70 plus years and it is still "just around the corner".
We should have had this technology in the 80s
4:20 then dont send a rocket! Send the Station!❤😅
This is a nacelle. It means we're going to meet Vulcans soon.
Or Gawd
All you got to do is come out with a proposal system boost controller
This rocket has been coming for 50 years lllol
Rad video!
Quicker easy and clean with great sanitation!
We have to solve the problem of finding artificial gravity before thinking about nuclear fusion propulsion rockets. Thanks
What's wrong with rotating cylinders? It works just as well.
Thrust gravity exists as well
Good luck
Another great video!! Thanks!
Fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be! Videos in 2033 will be talking about how great fusion will be!
In 2033 Fusion will be rdy in 20 years !
All jokes aside, it might be easier to do these types of Fusion rocket reactors than the traditional types of Fusion reactors we are building on Earth. Power generating vs thrust is very different
Fusion propulsion is a lot easier than fusion energy since you don't actually need to hit and sustain ignition. It's just a way to convert electricity and propellant to thrust
@alienblade2005 he was joking around
The common joke is , Fusion will be rdy in 20 years! 20 years later, Fusion will be rdy in 20 years
As with anything fusion, I'll believe it when I see it.
Russia & Belarus Are Very Strict!
You are currently reading this sentence.
Untrue. I am, in fact, currently typing THIS sentence.
This is an example of quantum superpositon. It only exist when someone reads it.
I thought this was a hoax, you know, like UAP/UFO Hearings
Facts
Accurate
11:40 i gots u Essay, 4 realZ!❤😅
Spacex will have Warp Speed before NASA test nuclear 🤣😂
Gonna need warp speed to go anywhere humans can live
Hi there you have said lot's of idea together for Mars manned mission but that didn't include how re-entry mission will accomplish,how astronaut's breath ,how breath,how communicate 😮😊😢😮 I think ai and robotics can help to solve that.
So how will it slow down
likely turning the other direction and burning to lose velocity, like most rockets do
It would turn around and thrust the opposite direction, like all rockets do.
Rocket will spin around and re-ignite engines, like how every rocket has ever done
They hit the brakes duh.
I've been hearing about such things for about the last thirty years and it hasn't happened yet!
BY 2030, HUMANS CAN ENJOYLY TRAVEL TO MULTIVERSE, INFINITY, TRANSINFINITY, ALPHAINFINITY & BEYOND THE UNIVERSE BY 2030!
The team at Livermore worked with inertial confinement based fusion, while something like the ITER is a magnetic confinement based reactor. You say how the Pulsar team is working off of Livermore research. Does that mean the underlying principle of the Pulsar rocket is inertial confinement and those coils in the rocket are just meant to help with directing the flow? Trying to make sure I have this understanding right.
Yes. I wouldn't know which it is from the video either but a strong guess is that this has got to be a magnetic confinement based reactor.
I see this will be out in a few generations
People should make a plane using this to the moon.
I’ll believe it when I see it 😵💫
... and the win goes to laser propelled photon sails, for frugal space flight.
Get started now because fusion propulsion will be absolutely paramount to interstellar travel, ion engines will take 100’s of years to reach the nearest star it’s simply not viable. If we can’t get a fusion or nuclear engine working we will likely never leave the solar system for the next 300-500 years.
If I was going to compete in the space race I would name my start up “Just Use Some Thorium Fission Until Competitors Kill-themselves”, or JUST FUCK for short.
The power of the sun in the palm of my hands.
Going from earth to mars in 12 days may cause a few time dilation issues. Now with a Alcubierre drive we won't need to worry about that. If course the most energy efficient version that I know of uses 3 solar masses. However this is tiny compared to the original dozen observable universes.
Wouldn't it be easier to develop a nerva type propulsion system first?
Think about it real quick, if it was easy, it would have been done 30 years ago.
1,050 Seconds? 105 ISP is worse than 300 ISP
Fingers crossed Pulsar pulls it off. 🙏
The biggest issue is these engines are not built/tested off world. Also our ships are still to small.
ET vessels are 1/4mile or more in size. What we see withing atmosphere are lighter lander type craft.
We haven’t been able to create man made fusion. This may be possible in 30 years. They need to stick with Fission
We need some Da Vinci / Einstein type deal scientists...!
Amazing🎉
not sure how they think they will be able to deflect space debris / rocks floating in space with that speed, you need more technologies to protect the ship first
Good to see more players in the fusion field. But this will talk pretty long - they barly get it work on earth so space will be mutch more difficult.
Great video and into ! The NASA designed "24-Hour Lunar Shuttle" (LEO to LLO) has the engine to take US from the deep gravity well of LEO to Mars ! The Mars rocket can refuel with Oxygen at Mars orbit for the return to Earth. The VASIMR engine is the best engine til fusion power plants are developed ! Also the Fusion Rocket Engines will be powered by He3 recovered from the Lunar Regolith ! ! ! Talk to you on yhe moon soon, tjl T. Lipinski
How did we go from Nuclear Fusion Rocket to SpaceX Starship?! 🤷♂
Space ?
What do you mean? We never had a fusion rocket I thought?
@@LisaAnn777 Well we are always 30 years from getting fusion you know. As long as I remember and I'm old believe me we are always been 30 years away...:)
Didn't realise they had even got fusion to work?
Oh yeah, Fusion works. It’s just ‘barely’ breaking even though. Currently for ground-based Fusion power testing, you only get the amount of power out of it that you’re using to run it. Obviously, that’s not going to work for entire cities. So the work continues. Thankfully though, this engine is using the Plasma for the thrust and the power output for the ships electrical systems. Very economical.
Concrete makes 75% design strength in 3 days, 2-3 weeks for 100% (depending on the mix design). This is verified by compression tests on 6” x12” destructive test cylinders mad by a third party materials testing lab
I wouldn't want to live next to the huge magnetic field that would be required to contain the plasma.
Also, wouldn't the gas that is used as the propulsion get used up?
5:46 Ever heard of a vacuum chamber?
Yeah I want to see it in operation in a vacuum chamber or in orbit before I believe it.
Simmilar designs have been on the table for decades. My understanding is that the US and most other developed countries have not built it because of treaty obligations that forbid the use of nuclear materials for rocket propulsion.
There no nuclear materials in this design.
Fusion? Really? I don't believe it.
$20 says Pulsar's fusion engine never flies.
Rocketstar has the same technology and will get to use there engine first before pulsar even gets a contract to put it in a ship.
It's 105 ISP? That's really bad but yet they say it uses little fuel I think you mistaken the actual ISP I know as a sci fi nerd their are DFDs have much more ISP than that in the hundreds to thousands
Super heavy B9 is confirmed for next flight. it's not about which is most probable. it is B9.
I was going to say “they’ve actually created a successful fusion reactor?”
Ok ! I m ready for soace travel 😅