4 ms·

It is not even supposed to be used to generate electrical power. Citing from the site itself: "Virtually all of the radiant, neutron and particle energy from t

It is not even supposed to be used to generate electrical power. Citing from the site itself: "Virtually all of the radiant, neutron and particle energy from the plasma is absorbed by the encapsulating, metal blanket thereby isolating the spacecraft from the fusion process and eliminating the need for large radiator mass" No radiators implicitly mean no electricity generation, because it creates waste heat that has to be utilised. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocket Proposed concept is a direct drive, and it actually claims they fixed the problem with neutrons (they are caught by the compressing metal) As for breakeven conditions they merely state that the power that the fusion generates must be at least equal to power used to start/sustain it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_energy_gain_factor Theoretical limits of efficiency of heat engine is around 70-80% (roughly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency and you have to use those to convert heat generated in controlled fusion into electricity. To actually achieve net power generation in a power plant, you have to generate a lot more heat that electricity, while for propulsion you merely care about actual raw (so to speak) power. Ion thrusters have their own issues, while their ISP is considerably better than chemical rockets, maximum thrust is abysmal, but it is hard to argue about that due to the lack of data on FDR. However, with ion thrusters there are other issues (for example:wear, charge imbalance)

lutusp 14y ago
> As for breakeven conditions they merely state that the power that the fusion generates must be at least equal to power used to start/sustain it. Yes, but (apart from stars and weapons) this has never been achieved anywhere, ever. This is a big issue, bigger than most people realize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power Quote: "As of July 2010, the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power) ... Fusion powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and plasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production was still believed to be unlikely before 2050." My point is if this project creates a net gain > 1, it will address a lot more than the problem of getting to Mars.

lutusp 14y ago

> As for breakeven conditions they merely state that the power that the fusion generates must be at least equal to power used to start/sustain it. Yes, but (apart from stars and weapons) this has never been achieved anywhere, ever. This is a big issue, bigger than most people realize. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power Quote: "As of July 2010, the largest experiment by means of magnetic confinement has been the Joint European Torus (JET). In 1997, JET produced a peak of 16.1 megawatts (21,600 hp) of fusion power (65% of input power) ... Fusion powered electricity generation was initially believed to be readily achievable, as fission power had been. However, the extreme requirements for continuous reactions and plasma containment led to projections being extended by several decades. In 2010, more than 60 years after the first attempts, commercial power production was still believed to be unlikely before 2050." My point is if this project creates a net gain > 1, it will address a lot more than the problem of getting to Mars.