The Nuclear Fusion Rocket Is Coming!

The Nuclear Fusion Rocket Engine Is Coming!
Last Video: The Real Reason SpaceX Is Developing A New Space Suit
• The Real Reason SpaceX...
►The Space Race Merch Store Is Live! Shop our first release while quantities last: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Check out our Excitement Guaranteed Starship Merch here: shop.theteslaspace.com/

[@user-sx2cv9wh8h]

The Space Race, Which Country/Territory & Nationality/Denonym Are You?

[@ncdave4life]

"Deluge" is supposed to be pronounced DELL'yüj, not duhLÜJ'.

[@filonin2]

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.

[@filonin2]

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.

[@lanata64]

yeah kinda shows how this guy doesn't really know much. i wish there were less unknowledgeable elon fanboys on yt

[@JoshKaufmanstuff]

Yeah, he makes nice videos, but he often makes ridiculous mistakes like this

[@lordgarion514]

Sadly, proofreading and checking your work started going out the window about 5 minutes after the internet showed up.

[@millinoid2151]

@@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.”

[@anarchofuturist3976]

105 seconds? that would be much lower isp. existing nuclear thermal engines are in the ballpark of 1000 seconds

[@magnetospin]

I assume he meant 105,000 seconds otherwise it wouldn't make any sense.

[@grandeelfa]

should be around 11,000 seconds

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

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

[@alienblade2005]

There was a typo on their website and it's meant to be 10^5 seconds

[@alienblade2005]

​@@magnetospinMeant to say 10^5 so 100,000

[@geraldimhof2875]

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.

[@bozhijak]

1 kg of thrust from 1kg of fuel for x amount of time (sec).

[@bozhijak]

Also this would have to be used only in space.

[@dollin9515]

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.

[@ctuna2011]

Are you in your 20's?

[@dollin9515]

@@ctuna2011 almost 21

[@harvirdhindsa3244]

@@dollin9515you will live to see it

[@protorhinocerator142]

You mean advancements in fusion, right?

[@Imagine_Beyond]

@dollin9515 Fusion is very different from fission.

[@fakeaccount401]

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.

[@g.f.martianshipyards9328]

Ahem, you should doublecheck that ISP number for the DFD.

[@whacked00]

Higher Isp is more efficient. 105 sec is REALLY poor performance. This type of engine should have an Isp in the thousands of seconds.

[@dr.testing3482]

☝🤓

[@DavidJancan]

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

[@johnhopkins6260]

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.

[@lodewijkwolff]

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?

[@floydbertagnolli944]

Another in a series of my favorite videos you have produced. 😊

[@s3cunit]

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.

[@kristinehansen.]

We don't need to make more energy than in for use in a spaceship

[@stupidburp]

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.

[@aleksanderkuncwicz7277]

I hope more people in our life time could visit outher planets,lots of wealth and land in Space.

[@folk.]

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.

[@LisaAnn777]

How long would it take at that acceleration?

[@folk.]

​@@LisaAnn777 2 days to Mars, 16 days to Neptun. Acceleration 1G to half way, and 1G deceleration the rest of the distance

[@button4boy]

Just like in The Expanse!

[@swiftmatic]

​@folk. 2 days with Mars at closest approach. 3.5 days at normal opposition

[@stuartnetherclift7566]

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...

[@scottpugmire5449]

Please check your ISP specs.

[@timrobinson513]

Ar you sure those ISP numbers are right?

[@filonin2]

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.

[@timrobinson513]

@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.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

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

[@firewalkerjon]

At last, a science feature narrated by a human, not an AI voice. Thank you for that and for great content.

[@richardscott5529]

Fantastic presentation 😊Bang On.😊

[@songhan1586]

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.

[@billthecat7536]

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. ;-)

[@sydrivers8311]

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!

[@ralphsmith7696]

I am sure the two are not even connected. The expansion would be catastrophic.

[@RussTillling]

How much does the Booster weigh, and does it weigh more when it is pressurized to stop the domes crumpling?

[@levyroth]

This is a nacelle. It means we're going to meet Vulcans soon.

[@frontech3271]

Or Gawd

[@user-vh7cr8tp5f]

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

[@harvirdhindsa3244]

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.

[@petermartyn7873]

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.

[@richardbailey3343]

Well its about time somebody figured out a reliable sustainable propulsion unit im sure space x would like a batch of these inits😮😅😅😅

[@lgonzalez1154]

They are almost ready to start testing! Exciting times!

[@1winlock]

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.

[@pakviroti3616]

LONGER. Fusion is 25 years away and always will be.

[@davidlang4442]

This fusion thing will never happen. It's a jobs and career funding program...sort of like the cure for cancer...

[@TayyabHussain-xk6gn]

Amazing🎉

[@Quinn37]

Gonna need warp speed to go anywhere humans can live

[@luthermcgee3767]

Excellent video. Marvelously done.

[@KariemMajeed-qr4cb]

All you got to do is come out with a proposal system boost controller

[@mathiaslist6705]

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.

[@Juan-ll6sf]

We have to solve the problem of finding artificial gravity before thinking about nuclear fusion propulsion rockets. Thanks

[@vidyaishaya4839]

What's wrong with rotating cylinders? It works just as well.

[@charlesjohnston1506]

Another great video!! Thanks!

[@australianpenguins6266]

we are living in some exciting times for sure

[@RoninX33]

I see this will be out in a few generations

[@215father]

So how long do it take to slow down,or stop when you get to your destination.does it take years aerobraking.

[@Alexandr_Lee]

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.

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

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

[@Alexandr_Lee]

@@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 =)

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@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

[@Alexandr_Lee]

@@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 =)

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@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.

[@chadleach6009]

will be ready in 30 years 30 years from now with a possible delay or two or more of 30,60 or 90 years.

[@aleksanderkuncwicz7277]

People should make a plane using this to the moon.

[@jesselomas8626]

On fusion drive - a little confusion over fusion reactors for power generation AND for a fusion drive.

[@Azzty45]

Good luck

[@mattymaple1976]

I though it only took 30 seconds to Mars. Thanks Jared Leto

[@protorhinocerator142]

As with anything fusion, I'll believe it when I see it.

[@user-sx2cv9wh8h]

Russia & Belarus Are Very Strict!

[@charleshartig3247]

Ad Astra - The VASIMR® Engine; already certified by NASA. Next step: Put it up there!

[@spacesterzone]

yup

[@rogeriopenna9014]

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.

[@SpockBorg5]

Wouldn't it be easier to develop a nerva type propulsion system first?

[@ToshisanMotonaka]

Think about it real quick, if it was easy, it would have been done 30 years ago.

[@rogeriopenna9014]

The ISP is actually between 10 and 30 THOUSAND seconds

[@HeroicTurkey]

The power of the sun in the palm of my hands.

[@FrancoisGregory]

I seem to have missed where they magically have the energy required to create the magnetic field and plasma.

[@arthurmario5996]

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.

[@davidbrisbane7206]

Simple ... Another fusion reactor 😂🤣😂🤣

[@Mortacxo]

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

[@wombatillo]

Yeah I want to see it in operation in a vacuum chamber or in orbit before I believe it.

[@deemcclanahan]

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?

[@rowshambow]

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?

[@MickGough1957]

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".

[@marinoceccotti9155]

Any engine based on the reaction principle is a dead end. It may be useful in-system, and not too far anyway from Earth. But for interstellar travel, any engine based on the reaction principle is a dead end. And fusion is still 30 years away. Always has been.

[@maximusprime9441]

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.

[@TimothyLipinski]

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

[@ngamashaka4894]

I thought it was serious till I heard fussion......

[@raedwulf61]

If the USA didn't spend its treasure on imperial wars, we could be on Titan by now.

[@jasons44]

I love the search for new space propulsion, i welcome the British/ e.u friends

[@JosephDent-qd9ih]

Quicker easy and clean with great sanitation!

[@rocquecaceres9221]

Let’s make it work before we start planning a trip to the Hoth system people!!!!….. 50 to 100 years I’d say!!!

[@AbleLawrence]

Specific impulse of 105 is clearly worse than 380 There is something wrong there

[@marcel1152]

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.

[@jtit2025]

This rocket has been coming for 50 years lllol

[@web_physics]

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.

[@nightlightabcd]

I've been hearing about such things for about the last thirty years and it hasn't happened yet!

[@WildmanTrading]

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.

[@ApteraEV2024]

4:20 then dont send a rocket! Send the Station!❤😅

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

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.

[@NicholasNerios]

Fingers crossed Pulsar pulls it off. 🙏

[@Lewis-dq2xb]

need to try and catch booster yet

[@Marc816]

The aliens who come to Earth over interstellar distances do that at speeds far, far, far faster than light. I so wish they'd dish us about how they do that!!!!!

[@Moist_yet_Crispy]

Rad video!

[@ApteraEV2024]

11:40 i gots u Essay, 4 realZ!❤😅

[@Spacefan867]

1,050 Seconds? 105 ISP is worse than 300 ISP

[@stephen6866]

Ok ! I m ready for soace travel 😅

[@vec306]

Just another 30 years for Fusion to work.😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@javierderivero9299]

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

[@xermionthesecond4396]

fusion works, just not net positive. Works fine for a rocket.

[@n.g.s1mple29]

This joke is old, give it a rest

[@_starfiend]

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'.

[@jmcclain8237]

I'm not sure what your point is.

[@thomasdillon7761]

Just like the impulse engines from Star Trek. Roddenberry was right again.

[@athan7199]

several hundred millions n degrees....what metal can withstand these temperatures?

[@peterscarfe3145]

All this tec were in a big rush to use without mutch testing because different counties are in a race to do it could lead to disaster

[@pebble24]

Super heavy B9 is confirmed for next flight. it's not about which is most probable. it is B9.

[@jameswilson4732]

We should have had this technology in the 80s

[@Jeff-C-Dallas-Texas]

We haven’t been able to create man made fusion. This may be possible in 30 years. They need to stick with Fission

[@titolino73]

We need some Da Vinci / Einstein type deal scientists...!

[@andrewreynolds912]

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

[@jameswarren423]

I’ll believe it when I see it 😵‍💫

[@jamesmatheson9624]

We.can only travel at 16000mph in space If we go any faster our cells designate.

[@philiphudgens4726]

I'm not volunteering for the maiden voyage! Maybe the fifth or sixth.

[@australiagreg3179]

todays rockets are mostly stainless steel tin cans. With a nuclear bomb underneath. Hope they arnt testing them where I live.

[@dave.bosarge840]

Need to unveil reverse engineered but it would piss off the world.

[@svarodzic]

How did we go from Nuclear Fusion Rocket to SpaceX Starship?! 🤷‍♂

[@ngamashaka4894]

Space ?

[@LisaAnn777]

What do you mean? We never had a fusion rocket I thought?

[@ngamashaka4894]

@@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...:)

[@nightlightabcd]

Fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be! Videos in 2033 will be talking about how great fusion will be!

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

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

[@alienblade2005]

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

[@CountryLifestyle2023]

@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

[@tontonbeber4555]

Maybe for 2050 or 2060 ?

[@milekragulj325]

This is pure SF. Straigt from Marvel.

[@australien6611]

Didn't realise they had even got fusion to work?

[@Lyonsbane75]

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.

[@Cant_find_good_Handle]

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.

[@housecarl1114]

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.

[@DavidKnowles0]

There no nuclear materials in this design.

[@craigsinnott296]

Spacex will have Warp Speed before NASA test nuclear 🤣😂