Pulsar Fusion

Mynocks and space barnacles on your Enzmann? Tholin encrustations?

Call Fithp pressure washing…one convenient locations…we’ll burn those bugs right off.

Valid on all worlds save LV-426.
 
Last edited:
I am *really* getting more and more annoyed, sick, and tired of these over-hyped huckster schemes preying on scientific illiteracy. That "pulsar" pic sure does look like good old chemical combustion exhaust. I call utter BS.
 
Last edited:
"Pulsar is a clean space propulsion systems and services company delivering intelligent propulsion now and creating the future through fusion applications."

Saw this as the first thing when looking up this company. Lots of buzzwords and current-year tier phraseology. At first hearing it sounds like a very novel and exotic method of propulsion and the kinds of nuclear fusion rockets I've read of are very large and would require massive amounts of energy to work.
 
TMA1 said:
"Pulsar is a clean space propulsion systems and services company delivering intelligent propulsion now and creating the future through fusion applications."

Saw this as the first thing when looking up this company. Lots of buzzwords and current-year tier phraseology. At first hearing it sounds like a very novel and exotic method of propulsion and the kinds of nuclear fusion rockets I've read of are very large and would require massive amounts of energy to work.
Click to expand...
Their written description on site lines up with a nuclear fusion thermal rocket. Which, yes, requires a massive amount of energy to work in the form of that nuclear fusion reactor.
 
TMA1 said:
"Pulsar is a clean space propulsion systems and services company delivering intelligent propulsion now and creating the future through fusion applications."

Saw this as the first thing when looking up this company. Lots of buzzwords and current-year tier phraseology. At first hearing it sounds like a very novel and exotic method of propulsion and the kinds of nuclear fusion rockets I've read of are very large and would require massive amounts of energy to work.
Click to expand...
The very first thing I would ask for is an independently validated, vetted, verified and confirmed TRL of this scheme. My personal guess would be a score of 0 on an official NASA scale of 1 through 9...
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
The very first thing I would ask for is an independently validated, vetted, verified and confirmed TRL of this scheme. My personal guess would be a score of 0 on an official NASA scale of 1 through 9...
Click to expand...
Nah, TRL of most fusion tech is about 5. This one is a little lower, due to the sheer size and resulting miniaturization needed before they can get it into space.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Nah, TRL of most fusion tech is about 5. This one is a little lower, due to the sheer size and resulting miniaturization needed before they can get it into space.
Click to expand...
Hello Scott, first off, please provide and quote any *credible* readily accessible online sources for your claim of a fusion TRL of 5, especially for an aerospace system. Second, the assertion of "sheer size and resulting miniaturization needed" as an impediment seems weird and contradictory, since larger typically is *better* in terms of efficiency for aerospace propulsion systems. Third, their demonstrator setup looks like completely hokey/ignorant investor bait to me (notice there is only a still picture and not even a few seconds of video, hence the 0 rating, but since I'm just a simple rocket scientist {I actually published a paper [Acta Astronautica 54 (2004) 713 – 721] that showed that the so-called Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is only the simplest case of propulsive equations that define the relation of vehicle acceleration depending on the propulsion specific impulse and changes thereof, which in the particular case I examined was decreasing linearly with the speed of flight as an approximation of air-breathing propulsion systems}, so what do I know?), especially when it comes to distinguishing *actual* fusion exhausts from chemical ones with respect to turbulence and flame colour. I've personally witnessed plasma and ramjet flames *way* more energy dense/intense than the one shown for an alleged fusion one. Note also that the formulation in the article that the "UK aerospace company Pulsar Fusion has started constructing the largest practical nuclear fusion rocket engine ever built" immediately begs the question what was the first (presumably smaller?) practical nuclear fusion rocket engine ever built before that utterly brilliant newcomer outfit burst on the scene?
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
That "pulsar" pic sure does look like good old chemical combustion exhaust,
Click to expand...
The same image appears here:
https://www.labnews.co.uk/article/2...ket-engine-designed-for-interplanetary-travelThis text from the website appears to relate to the image:
The ‘green’ (non-toxic) hybrid rocket engine combusts nitrous oxide (N2O) oxidiser and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) fuel and oxygen. It is a new model that enables the company to manufacture these compact rocket engines at record lead times, with an enhanced safety factor as due to the design, these engines have relatively benign failure modes in comparison with conventional liquid propulsion engines.
Click to expand...
Wiki describes it as 'hybrid polyethylene/nitrous oxide launch rocket engine'.
The 'nuclear fusion rocket engine' is a separate development.
A 'spherical tokamak' is another of Pulsar Fusion's products.

Whether fusion rocket test runs will happen, wait and see.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Hello Scott, first off, please provide and quote any *credible* readily accessible online sources for your claim of a fusion TRL of 5, especially for an aerospace system. Second, the assertion of "sheer size and resulting miniaturization needed" as an impediment seems weird and contradictory, since larger typically is *better* in terms of efficiency for aerospace propulsion systems. Third, their demonstrator setup looks like completely hokey/ignorant investor bait to me (notice there is only a still picture and not even a few seconds of video, hence the 0 rating, but since I'm just a simple rocket scientist {I actually published a paper [Acta Astronautica 54 (2004) 713 – 721] that showed that the so-called Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is only the simplest case of propulsive equations that define the relation of vehicle acceleration depending on the propulsion specific impulse and changes thereof, which in the particular case I examined was decreasing linearly with the speed of flight as an approximation of air-breathing propulsion systems}, so what do I know?), especially when it comes to distinguishing *actual* fusion exhausts from chemical ones with respect to turbulence and flame colour. I've personally witnessed plasma and ramjet flames *way* more energy dense/intense than the one shown for an alleged fusion one. Note also that the formulation in the article that the "UK aerospace company Pulsar Fusion has started constructing the largest practical nuclear fusion rocket engine ever built" immediately begs the question what was the first (presumably smaller?) practical nuclear fusion rocket engine ever built before that utterly brilliant newcomer outfit burst on the scene?
Click to expand...
My bad, TRL 4 is "demonstrated in a lab", not 5.

National Ignition Facility is a large laboratory example of one Fusion setup. Polywells and tokamaks are also demonstrated but are still short of break-even by my memory, also demonstrated in lab settings (TRL4) as opposed to industrial settings (TRL5).

The reason it needs to be miniaturized is to get the rocket into space. Their test engine, reactor, and all supporting equipment needs to weigh less than 150 tonnes and take up less than 1000m^3 to fit in a SpaceX Starship. Less than 63 tonnes to fit into a Falcon Heavy.

Their rocket would be demonstrating TRL5 if/when it fires in space.
 
Scott Kenny said:
My bad, TRL 4 is "demonstrated in a lab", not 5.

National Ignition Facility is a large laboratory example of one Fusion setup. Polywells and tokamaks are also demonstrated but are still short of break-even by my memory, also demonstrated in lab settings (TRL4) as opposed to industrial settings (TRL5).

The reason it needs to be miniaturized is to get the rocket into space. Their test engine, reactor, and all supporting equipment needs to weigh less than 150 tonnes and take up less than 1000m^3 to fit in a SpaceX Starship. Less than 63 tonnes to fit into a Falcon Heavy.

Their rocket would be demonstrating TRL5 if/when it fires in space.
Click to expand...
All I can say is that I will not trust/rely on *any* company press releases. I've seen way too many hypes like this come and implode/vanish in my 6+ decades on this planet.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
All I can say is that I will not trust/rely on *any* company press releases. I've seen way too many hypes like this come and implode/vanish in my 6+ decades on this planet.
Click to expand...
Generally agreed, but their press release is not claiming any performance above and beyond what a nuclear thermal rocket would be capable of, according to the rocket equations at Atomic Rockets.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Generally agreed, but their press release is not claiming any performance above and beyond what a nuclear thermal rocket would be capable of, according to the rocket equations at Atomic Rockets.
Click to expand...
I completely concur, but I want to see independent objective confirmation of their claims on any website link that ends in .gov.
 
"...In some places it says 103-105s"

Perhaps they mean 10^3 ~~ 10^5 ??

IIRC, Phys.Org went through a sad phase where their sub-editing routinely lost the essential exponent up-tick.
Took a remarkably long time to fix...
 
Archibald said:
That's amazing and completely blew my mind. Now, if only thermonuclear fusion could be made to work before the usual "twenty years in the future"...
Click to expand...
To be fair, we'v got working thermonuclear fusion.

I'm just not sure about the feasebility of a Orion drive with thermonuke pulse units.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom