> Which word didn't you understand? I understood all of it, I just think you're wrong. And unless you ever address what anyone is saying, all I can do is keep

> Which word didn't you understand? I understood all of it, I just think you're wrong. And unless you ever address what anyone is saying, all I can do is keep on thinking you're wrong. Nobody - nobody here, nobody on TFA - said anything about sustaining a reaction. It is a one-off explosion much like a weapon. An explosion like that is hard to use for generating electricity, just like a bomb, but great for pushing things around. Why isn't this feasible? Please explain. Why can we detonate a hydrogen fusion bomb, which generates a lot of energy (but no electricity), but we cannot initiate a tiny short term burst with a carefully designed fuel pellet? I'm not saying they have everything figured out. I'm just saying I wouldn't be so skeptical to think it would be some amazing breakthrough if they do it. If this rocket works, we still don't have usable fusion electricity. That problem still needs to be solved. But it is not the same problem. > Yes, they are the same thing. They both require break-even No, electrical generation means you need to need to somehow use your energy to heat up something and turn a turbine, or something like that. Which means you need some kind of ongoing stable and contained reaction. There are so many difficulties with that, it really WOULD be a big deal if they solved that problem. Just making a small explosion? Not as far fetched. > I know this subject, you do not. And don't try to argument-from-authority me. You're a random account on the internet just like me. As far as I know you're some crackpot pseudoscience crazy. Not that I believe that, but I don't know better.