News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Experts Urge U.S. To Continue Support for Nuclear Fusion ... by pfdietz on Sunday December 16, 2018 @10:58AM (#18693567)
It's quite misleading to talk about 100,000 Isp for fusion. That's because unless the quantity of material you are expelling is at least as large as the fixed mass of your engine and tankage, high Isp actually hurts you. You'd be better off diluting the outgoing mass with inert material and accepting a lower Isp, but higher total impulse delivered by the stage.

How much fuel do fusion reactors burn?

A 1 GW(th) plant will burn about 100 kilograms of fusion fuel per year. ITER, which has a mass of 23,000 tonnes, will produce 400 MW(th). So, going by that, it would take nearly a million years for a reactor like ITER to fuse its own mass in fusion fuel. That's obviously silly. ITER is clearly not optimized for use in space (and burns DT, in which 80% of the energy comes out as neutrons that are useless as plasma exhaust), but any real fusion rocket will be designed to operate with an Isp much lower than 100,000 seconds.

Re:Experts Urge U.S. To Continue Support for Nuclear Fusion ... by njarboe on Sunday December 16, 2018 @02:33PM (#18694710)
Agreed. That is why I said variable up to around 100,000 ISP. For low thrust application having high ISP is great for saving propellant. The key feature for a fusion rocket is that one can have tanks of deuterium as the propellant you can mix into the plasma that is also the fuel.

I think the general public has just completely given up on seeing any kind of new, radical cool tech but with the decline in the anti-tech baby boomer generation a lot of progress of long dreamed projects are starting to happen. SpaceX has lead the way with reusable rockets.

Here is a link to a video from a real company that is actively researching and building fusion rocket prototypes[1].

[1]Fusion drive page: http://www.psatellite.com/tag/dfd/ [2]video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ao5SCedIk

And here is a link to a technical paper if you are interested[3].

[3]https://w3.pppl.gov/ppst/docs/Cohen2017ibis.pdf

Re:Experts Urge U.S. To Continue Support for Nuclear Fusion ... by philwelch on Monday December 17, 2018 @12:02AM (#18696993)
That's a little reassuring in the sense that 100,000 Isp is, by at least an entire order of magnitude, too good to be true.

But, who knows? Energy is such a limiting factor that maybe you could, with enough energy, make a gigantic space-ark in space and fill it with hydrogen and have a massive fusion-powered rocket with 100,000 Isp. Maybe that's how we reach Alpha Centauri.

Re:Experts Urge U.S. To Continue Support for Nuclear Fusion ... by pfdietz on Monday December 17, 2018 @12:12AM (#18697017)
Beamed energy propulsion makes a lot more sense.

One huge problem with any extremely high Isp rocket is heat dissipation. Any heat hitting the vehicle has to be radiated (there is insufficient reaction mass flow for that to cool the engines, as it does in chemical rockets). So it pays to keep the powerplant separate and beam low entropy energy at the vehicle.

Re:Experts Urge U.S. To Continue Support for Nuclear Fusion ... by philwelch on Monday December 17, 2018 @12:48AM (#18697127)
> One huge problem with any extremely high Isp rocket is heat dissipation.

Oh, yeah, shit. I keep forgetting that's the defining difference between science fiction and reality when it comes to space travel.