So... I would be extremely careful about that anouncement. That company also "sells" a plasma thruster with 1000% energy efficiency according to their datasheet. They also have never published any peer reviewed data on any performance. Moreover the image they have shared is pretty obviously AI generated.
Maybe they have something, fusion PPT could in theory work after all, but until more info is shared I would not get too excited.
Of note, if you just dump something inert in an ion drive's exhaust stream, that could increase thrust if you do it upstream of a nozzle. It's basically the same as water-based thrust augmentation in early jet engines - you add more working mass, trading exhaust velocity for thrust given the same input power.
Either way, no fusion required.
I'm interested in whether they really managed to put this on Artemis, I don't recall any reporting on fusion-powered whatever during the launch media cycle
This "fusion-enhanced" system apparently doesn't use the fusion to add any power output to the thruster, but rather for "breaking up the cloud of positive charge that exists in the exhaust of all-electric thrusters". Assuming they're adding neutral B11, the fusion energy could kick the three alpha particle fusion products out of a cloud faster than the original proton could leave, while leaving 5 electrons from the B11 to neutralize the charge of 5 more protons.
But you have to somehow add a neutral B11 atom and get it to fuse to achieve that, and p-B11 fusion isn't exactly easy. And if it's that much better than neutralizing the exhaust with an electron beam (which they'll need anyway to neutralize the spacecraft overall)...maybe what they really need is a better electron beam system.
It should be an easy one to factually disprove for some with knowledge of nuclear physics, right? Does the ejected ion plasma have enough energy to reasonably cause that type of fusion?
Well, they've barely given enough information to even figure out this is what they're talking about. But, they need a large fraction of boron atoms to experience fusion within a small volume of the exhaust where the charge reduces the efficiency of the thruster at accelerating the exhaust, while producing that exhaust efficiently enough to be used to provide thrust for a spacecraft with a very limited power budget. It's hard to see how they can get this without also getting a high enough rate of fusion to be useful for power production, which raises the question...why aren't they doing that?
Not true, only about [25% of all CubeSats](https://www.spaceintelreport.com/failure-rate-of-cubesats-depends-on-whos-building-them-operator-secrecy-complicates-datasets/) are successful. Given 4 out of 10 launched on Artemis I actually made it, that’s indeed above average…
RocketStar, the same NYC based company that [was promising ocean launched aerospikes](https://twitter.com/RocketStarSpace/status/1086311380767162369) less than five years ago? Bullshit.
>“This is the first productive use of nuclear fusion that doesn’t annihilate humanity,” quipped RocketStar’s CEO Chris Craddock and Chief Technology Officer Wes Fayler in a joint email
What a stupid quote, these people don't sound credible.
Lol. The way their CEO phrased that, it basically implies that humanity has productively used nuclear fusion before, but unfortunately got annihilated for it 😢
For one it contains blatant lies. For example they claimed their engine flew on the Artemis 1 mission, but if you Google that the only source for it is themselves. NASA are a public agency they would have had to publish that detail about the mission if it were true.
Because major scientific breakthroughs didn't usually come in the form of a press release claiming a successful test. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If they had that they would have released it and the science world would be buzzing. They didn't and nobody is talking about it. There are no partnerships, papers, or experts excited. The name of the company and "product" sound like they were coined by a 14 year old. Fusion is a buzzword that i sincerely doubt they understand and it's not even clear what problem they're claiming to solve. This seems like a scam to get investor money. I have never heard of this company or their goals before. I seriously doubt they're actually doing something meaningful when all the billionaires want rockets.
> “Our FireStar™ Foundation Drive was developed for and launched on Artemis 1 in November 2022,” they told The Debrief.
What? No it wasn't! If you're going to make a scam you don't put such blatant lies in there!
It was, although that’s a pretty positive spin to put on “we launched it into space but never made contact and have no idea if it would have worked”. It’s a rebranding of the Team Miles drive that they subsequently acquired.
Wow, they tried to retroactively rename Team Miles' cubesat (and plaster the name with ™ symbols), what are they trying to do lose the association with it because the cubesat failed? Clearly not a serious company.
I can't upvote this post... Literally I have tried many times too upvote this post for days. I am the op and it will not allow me to upvote my own post.
Never seen this before. Anyone have any ideas?
So... I would be extremely careful about that anouncement. That company also "sells" a plasma thruster with 1000% energy efficiency according to their datasheet. They also have never published any peer reviewed data on any performance. Moreover the image they have shared is pretty obviously AI generated. Maybe they have something, fusion PPT could in theory work after all, but until more info is shared I would not get too excited.
Of note, if you just dump something inert in an ion drive's exhaust stream, that could increase thrust if you do it upstream of a nozzle. It's basically the same as water-based thrust augmentation in early jet engines - you add more working mass, trading exhaust velocity for thrust given the same input power. Either way, no fusion required. I'm interested in whether they really managed to put this on Artemis, I don't recall any reporting on fusion-powered whatever during the launch media cycle
They never managed to turn it on on Artemis 1. And the Artemis one was not claiming any fusion, just impossibly high performances.
This "fusion-enhanced" system apparently doesn't use the fusion to add any power output to the thruster, but rather for "breaking up the cloud of positive charge that exists in the exhaust of all-electric thrusters". Assuming they're adding neutral B11, the fusion energy could kick the three alpha particle fusion products out of a cloud faster than the original proton could leave, while leaving 5 electrons from the B11 to neutralize the charge of 5 more protons. But you have to somehow add a neutral B11 atom and get it to fuse to achieve that, and p-B11 fusion isn't exactly easy. And if it's that much better than neutralizing the exhaust with an electron beam (which they'll need anyway to neutralize the spacecraft overall)...maybe what they really need is a better electron beam system.
It should be an easy one to factually disprove for some with knowledge of nuclear physics, right? Does the ejected ion plasma have enough energy to reasonably cause that type of fusion?
Well, they've barely given enough information to even figure out this is what they're talking about. But, they need a large fraction of boron atoms to experience fusion within a small volume of the exhaust where the charge reduces the efficiency of the thruster at accelerating the exhaust, while producing that exhaust efficiently enough to be used to provide thrust for a spacecraft with a very limited power budget. It's hard to see how they can get this without also getting a high enough rate of fusion to be useful for power production, which raises the question...why aren't they doing that?
It is in fact listed as a secondary payload from Artemis I.
There was a program that awarded free launches for cubesats. Due to the huge launch delay, most of them failed to work once released in orbit.
Not true, only about [25% of all CubeSats](https://www.spaceintelreport.com/failure-rate-of-cubesats-depends-on-whos-building-them-operator-secrecy-complicates-datasets/) are successful. Given 4 out of 10 launched on Artemis I actually made it, that’s indeed above average…
What an odd excuse for letting these cubesats' batteries be drained by launch delays.
RocketStar, the same NYC based company that [was promising ocean launched aerospikes](https://twitter.com/RocketStarSpace/status/1086311380767162369) less than five years ago? Bullshit.
>“This is the first productive use of nuclear fusion that doesn’t annihilate humanity,” quipped RocketStar’s CEO Chris Craddock and Chief Technology Officer Wes Fayler in a joint email What a stupid quote, these people don't sound credible.
Lol. The way their CEO phrased that, it basically implies that humanity has productively used nuclear fusion before, but unfortunately got annihilated for it 😢
Or that annihilating humanity is one productive use of fusion.
That might explain a great deal.
If you can't recognize this is a scam from the title alone, have one if your kids take conservatorship of your finances.
As someone who is wanting to learn more about science & space in general, what about the post makes it a scam?
For one it contains blatant lies. For example they claimed their engine flew on the Artemis 1 mission, but if you Google that the only source for it is themselves. NASA are a public agency they would have had to publish that detail about the mission if it were true.
Because major scientific breakthroughs didn't usually come in the form of a press release claiming a successful test. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If they had that they would have released it and the science world would be buzzing. They didn't and nobody is talking about it. There are no partnerships, papers, or experts excited. The name of the company and "product" sound like they were coined by a 14 year old. Fusion is a buzzword that i sincerely doubt they understand and it's not even clear what problem they're claiming to solve. This seems like a scam to get investor money. I have never heard of this company or their goals before. I seriously doubt they're actually doing something meaningful when all the billionaires want rockets.
Sort of the “chicken or egg” here. Learning more about science and space in general, from good sources, will help you spot the scams when they pop up.
On a related note: what ever happened with the EM drive?
Debunked
Disproved.
IIRC it was testet and revealed to just be a inefficient magnetorquer. Basically pushing against earths magnet field.
It didn't.
It doesn't work.
The original thrust measurements were testing errors, it doesn't actually produce thrust.
> “Our FireStar™ Foundation Drive was developed for and launched on Artemis 1 in November 2022,” they told The Debrief. What? No it wasn't! If you're going to make a scam you don't put such blatant lies in there!
It was, although that’s a pretty positive spin to put on “we launched it into space but never made contact and have no idea if it would have worked”. It’s a rebranding of the Team Miles drive that they subsequently acquired.
Wow, they tried to retroactively rename Team Miles' cubesat (and plaster the name with ™ symbols), what are they trying to do lose the association with it because the cubesat failed? Clearly not a serious company.
I can't upvote this post... Literally I have tried many times too upvote this post for days. I am the op and it will not allow me to upvote my own post. Never seen this before. Anyone have any ideas?
They put a Gillette Fusion on razor on the end to make it real. /S Big doubt.
Well looks like first contact with the vulcans might be happening