Fusion in Space: New Plasma Thruster Tested Successfully 

Einstein already has a unit named for him. Ein Stein = 1 mug of beer.

"The concept of riding on shock waves became the founding principle of social media"! (6:40) How very true!

Boron fusion makes more sense for a rocket than for a powerplant. On a powerplant you need to have energy output to be bigger than input. In a plasma thruster you spend energy to throw away propellent anyway, so if some of that propellent fuses, that's free energy right there. Same thing works with regular rocket engines, they can fly by just pumping fuel out very fast without ever igniting, but it is way less efficient than burning all the fuel

"Alien Pan Dealer" lol 😂

I humbly propose an Einstein as a unit of a misattributed quotation. "His history paper has 2.5 Einsteins per page."

Hello Sabine, There is already a unit called Einstein and named after Albert Einstein. One difinition of this unit reflects the number of light quanta, i.e. photons, that are absorbed or emitted, e.g. in chemical or biological processes. One Einstein corresponds to one mole and is therefore nothing other than the numerical value of Avogadro's constant in mol−1, i.e. approximately 1 E = 6.022 ⋅ 10 ^23 photons. An second, conflicting, difinition of this unit is the energy in one mole of photons, i.e. 1 E = 1 mol × L x h x f = 1 mol × 6.02214076×1023 mol^−1 × 6.62607015×10^−34 J s × f = 3.9903127128934321×10^−10 J s × f, where L is the Avogadro constant, h is the Planck constant, and f is the frequency. I first saw this unit in an older patent (US 3749679) on a light-emitting chemical reaction. In this patent it was used to indicate the quatum yield in the form E/mol However, the Einstein is not an SI unit and obsolete.

It's important to remember Orion was abandoned for political reasons, not any technical issues. A model (called the Hot Rod) using chemical explosives successfully flew and now sits in the Air and Space museum.

Speaking of 'Efficiency' in a rocket engine is a tricky thing, the most literal measure would be how much energy that is liberated IN the device becomes kinetic energy in the expelled propellant in the desired direction which is what actually gives you the thrust. In this regard Chemical rocket engines are actually far more efficient as they reach something like 98% efficiency, while conversly Ion engines expend large amounts of energy to first ionize atoms and THEN accelerate them, the ionization step is a pure loss, in addition their are a lot of ions physically coliding with the walls of these devices which both wear away the walls and represent a loss, lastly magnetic nozzles use curving magnetic field lines which can never be fully parrelel, thus a lot of the ejected ions move out in a cone with some of their kinetic energy orthogonal to the desired thrust which is likewise a waste called cosine loss. All in All an electrical ion type thruster will have efficiency down in the 50-60% range. What IS much higher for the Ion engine is its Specific Impulse, the amount of thrust produced per unit of propellet mass expelled, becasuse they throw that material so much faster, basically they maximize A in F=MA. This measure is often called 'Efficiency' of a rocket engine but this is slopy use of language and should be avoided. It is like conflating the energy density of Uranium and Coal with a powerplants Efficiency, A Nuclear powerplay is going to use fewer kg of fuel to make the same MWh of electricity, but the THERMAL efficiency, aka heat to electricity conversion of a nuclear powerplant is typically lower then a coal powerplant (30% vs 50%).

Energy efficiency is usually not an issue in space applications as long as you don't want to fly further away from the Sun than Mars. If you stay withing Mars orbit you have (usually) all the power you need from just a solar panel, often times more than 23 hours of sunlight per day with no weather to get in the way ever. So the only thing that matters is fuel efficiency. If you can get extra 50% efficiency, meaning you get 50% hotter exhaust at the cost of increasing your power consumption by 100%, you go for it, It's worth doing because you're saving fuel by spending electricity. Electricity recharges but fuel does not.

As someone else has mentioned, "energy efficiency" is not the issue for thrusters. Mass, density, storage and specific impulse (ISP) are the more important metrics. For most Hall effect thrusters, they already have good ISP, but thrust is low. A favored thrust propellant is xenon, which trades off lower ISP for better thrust. It's easily storeable, dense, and isn't corrosive. However, xenon is incredibly expensive, which is why Starlink switched to krypton as a propellant. The fusion enhanced thruster mentioned here would be a welcome step forward because it adds extra energy at just the right time and place to get a relatively low mass (high ISP) propellant to exit at a significantly higher velocity, hence higher thrust. There have also been studies looking at fission/fusion hybrids that use the high energy density of fission reactors plus some of their neutrons to drive fusion reactions in propellants. The fusion reactions are not used as an energy source, but they are used to increase thrust and ISP for your propellant mass.

Lol at shockwaves and social media. Also boron isn't boring. Also, efficiency, German.

It's important to note that Orion was abandoned not because it wouldn't work, but because treaties prevented blowing up nuclear bombs in space. It's also worth noting that the most revolutionary possible propulsion would be one that required only energy as an input. Getting energy isn't difficult in space. It's carrying all the mass that you need to chuck out the back that's difficult. There's no currently known way to convert energy into net propulsion, however. It will require something fundamentally new.

We devloped the FEEP-Ion Thruster technology here in Austria - so we have some knowledge about this. We always get questions about fusion in space - and yes it would be nice. But to really harness the power of fusion energy you also need a method to transform this enormous amount of heat into electricity with almost no losses - otherwise you have to get rid of these losses - which is very hard in space as there is no medium for cooling. And if people talk about fusion the usually talk about MW and GW - so with the actual technology I see no way to get rid of this amount of "heat" ... Please be carefull with fusion in space! Another question for any kind of alpha particle related thrusters: How many do you need and how do you guid their thrust in one direction in a cheap and realistic way?

the dry humor hidden in the videos...🤣 social media will never be the same again

Nice explanation, thanks!

As someone who just yesterday through a random RU-vid video, learned the basics of fusion and fusion experimentation on Earth... This is amazing news!

I forget when but.... but I thought of this concept briefly in a fit of tiredness, comparing it to similar concepts using normal hypergolic propellant's. i remember being amazed at the possibility, especially in outter space because of the Shear amount of energy density of nuclear reactions.. im truly amazed that people has actually went with the concept and already gotten something that is even testable WOW!.. this kind of ''Marrying'' of different technologies might just get us out of our issues, truly a prospect to behold..

Thanks for the Video Sabine :) I think non chemical propulsion is a great idea, but I always become a little skeptical when overture is suggested and there are hints of a hidden battery lol

"Alien pan dealer" - absolutely love your comedy, Sabine. 😂

For electric thrusters, energy efficiency is usually not the most pressing issue as these are usually intended to be fed by solar panels, and energy supply considered virtually infinite. The more pressing issues are thrust-to-weight ratio and/or specific impulse. Plasma thrusters seem to target a regime between high TWR chemical and high ISP ion thrusters (which are technically also ejecting plasma but I didnt choose the names). So more thrust is virtuous on its own, since the gap between chemical and plasma is still so large. It would be interesting if they could also increase power-to-weight ratio, as this seems to have reached a ceiling across all technologies.

Brilliant! The best part of this video for me is your idea of measuring ingenuity. 1 Einstein (E) = 1 unit of innovative problem-solving

Love your videos subscribed and watching all of them👍👍

Question: How does this Engine work? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FgTp3f-QopE.htmlsi=FnGXV7iL8Qfbpeeg

3:49 missed an opportunity to call it an alien pan handler..

Wonderful explanation. Don't you need a Newton bobblehead now?

a) the second equation in the video is 250% stronger than the H-B reaction. it's the one that gave the Castle Bravo detonation its bad rep. the neutrons generated should not be a problem due to the axis of reaction, which should be at least 45 degrees away from the spaceship, so all neutrons "should" add to the thrust. b) the H-Li7 reaction is twice as strong as the H-B11 albeit with a lower cross section, so a compromise using lithium borohydride LiBH4, using the Li6 and the H and deuterium isotopes should enhance the yield. c) then again, to rain on the parade, a solar sail gives 7-9 micronewtons per sq. meter, so 1 sq.km. will give 7-9 newtons of thrust, 500 times the power of the ion one and cheaper to build

The einstein (symbol E) is an obsolete unit with two conflicting definitions. It was originally defined as the energy in one mole of photons (6.022E23 photons). Because energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, the unit is frequency dependent. This unit is not part of the International System of Units (SI) and is redundant with the joule. Later, the unit was used differently in studies of photosynthesis to mean one mole of photons, rather than the energy in one mole of photons. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) was formerly often reported in microeinsteins per second per square meter (μE m−2 s−1). This usage is also not part of the SI and when used this way it is redundant with the mole. Since the unit does not have a standard definition and is not part of the SI system, it has long been considered obsolete.

Aneutronic fusion was also "achieved", at small scale, by the "cold fusion" experiments Heavy Metal elements in the catalysts composing the electrolytic cells absorbed protons and released subatomic particles.

Thanks Sabine, you're the best 😊

I like your Einsteinian scale. Makes for a good grounding in reality.

Love the new unit of measurement ❤

Thank you very much for the video.

One must pay close attention to get your very dry humor. I think I love you.

Hello Sabine and thanks for the excellent video! Talking about propulsion, I'm looking forward to hear your take about the exodus drive. If you ask me, it doesn't work but I'd like to know your opinion.

Brilliant suggestion for name of new unit of measurement

Thank you.

Ion drives are interesting because it is like the fuel is partially solar for example that gets added to the acceleration. So it kind of relies on the magnitudes of electrical power vs physical acceleration. Also you have reduced launch mass. Also I think they pulse it because it raises the electrical potential for the particle, which get fired then overall for a longer duration. My understanding it that basically in orbital transfers, you can add thrust as slowly as you want and you get the same result. For direct body escape, you want as much thrust as quickly as possible.

Fascinated lay person here. You mention opposite and equal reactions and that F = MA, but I felt like there wasn't enough time spent on the beautiful simplicity of that equation. Particularly in space travel, where there are basically no other options, you really need 2 things to produce thrust: 1. particles to throw out the back, and 2. energy with which to throw those particles. Once you have those it's just a matter of balancing other variables, for example: how fast is the thrust, how much other resource(s) does it take, how heavy is it, how long can it last, how safe is it, how much does it cost. Chemical rockets are nice in that they provide both necessary items -- burning AND throwing the result out the back are both done in a simple "burn" or "explosion" reaction. Thus, energy source and particles are the same "fuel". Additionally, these reactions happen quite fast, so both the energy and the particles are provided quickly. These rockets' advantage is the large thrust produced, but their disadvantage is relatively low efficiency and thus high weight. These lead to not lasting terribly long and being darned expensive. As you mention, though, they're currently the only way to get enough thrust to actually leave Earth. If you can get your energy another way (say, solar), there are several other methods to produce thrust. This video is about plasma, and ion thrusters are very similar (or a subset?). In comparison to rockets, these throw the individual particles (fuel) much, much faster, spending more of the energy on less of the fuel. This means less fuel required and less weight, and therefore over a longer lifespan. But they lack (with present designs) any way to do this in high amounts quickly -- the number of particles thrown is orders of magnitude smaller for the same space & weight. For non-takeoff flight this isn't an issue, so they're usually better (at least in theory) than rockets, especially if you can use a fuel you can find in space (like water?). To get off the ground better than chemical rockets, we'll need to find a way to throw the particles faster and convert energy more quickly, in a lighter package, while still being somewhat safe (I don't think anyone wants a nuke hitting Cape Canaveral). That's kind of a tall order and is why it's still being used over 50 years since landing on the moon.

I'm glad this research is moving forward, but the hype about it moves ahead so much faster.

I like it. Einstein means "one stone", so one einstein is one one stone, two einsteins is two one stones, three would be three one stones and so on.

6:37 Well THAT caught me off guard.

Hands down the best science communicator alive.

Fascinating indeed... I'm not superstitious, but I'm crossing my fingers. 😊 Thanks, Sabine! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

I have never known anyone so obsessed then Sabine. Her devotion to mentioning the Isles is becoming legendary.

Not mentioned was also the plasma temperature used to support the tests thus far. A fan of VASIMR, I was rooting for some sort of 'afterburner' to enable it as a fusion drive. The plasma production stage using RF (microwave) excitation looks similar. VASIMR developed thus far needs 200 kW power (via in space kilopower nuclear fission generators) to target 5 N of thrust. Mars in 39 days needs 200 MW; so if fusion drives provide a gain of 1000 times over such systems, it'd be worth it.

Sabine, I love your sense of humor 😄

love the swipe at social media

I've used Opera for years in Linux, good stuff!

Boron + H aneutronic fusion: isn’t it the same, as what Dr Lerner has been pursuing for years with his Dense Plasma Focus Fusion device? His approach in using plasma instability/collapse to compress the fusion material is quite unique.

I don't think the goal is to minimize electricity or to be energy efficient, but to minimize fuel loss. Most orbiters have solar panels for electricity production. The problem is it's hard to refuel in outerspace, so you want to get as much thrust as possible for the amount of fuel you have.

Wow. I used to play with water rockets when I was a kid, and now they're actually going to be used in space. :-)

There’s a guy in Popular Mechanics who recons that he’s manage to break the laws of gravity with with his thrust drive today. That’s cute 😅

A 50% increase in thrust SHOULD mean compared to the thrust they got from the same energy in an ordinary plasma thruster. The reason fusion will work in rocket engines long before fusion reactors will make power is that a small % of break-even can produce a large increase in thrust. Generating net power output is way harder. Boron-deuteride fusion fuel has been researched for quite some time, but this idea of scooping up water in a 5 gallon bucket from the swimming pond and tossing boron in that to burn has got to be the most awesome method yet.

Having a small nuclear reactor to power giant high thrust ion engines would be the best option for long efficient space travel, it could also power the life support and spacecraft systems too. It’s also completely doable with modern technology too. Really technology that has existed for at least 30 years.

I do not assume to know much about what Sabine discusses here. But that shockwave vis a vis social media... it made me chuckle!😅

I love the Albert figure in these videos

I'd love to hear a comparison with Prof Ibrahimi's Alfvenic reconnection thruster idea at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. Or some coverage of progress.

Totally digging those Iron Man like animations. I need that as my screensaver / background.

That still looks like fission to me. Since your final product is 3 helium

With the show, 3 body problem and others exploring the possibility of nuclear propulsion in other space, a video on the different modes of outer-space transportation and their pros and cons might be a good topic to cover next( ie nuclear solar sail vs project orion shock-wave )

Have you not heard of Einsteinium?

Shockwave Rider... was that a John Brunner reference?

I think, Sabina that the point is how much trust you get from the MASS, not the energy you throw at it. You have alot of Solar energy available, but just not so much mass.

actually the reason I believe that this might work is that it doesn't have to be Q+, just more efficient than increasing the plasma velocity by 50%.

I think several separate quality metrics are being confused here: energy efficiency, energy consumption and specific impulse. Ion and plasma thrusters by intent use far more energy per unit thrust then chemical rockets. This is because they are designed to have a high exhaust velocity, which means more kinetic energy per unit momentum. This greater energy use per unit momentum change is a net win because the limiting factor is available reaction mass. There is unlimited energy available (eg from solar panels) but only a finite tank of reaction mass available. Fusion boosting is _plausible_ for this application if it results in a higher average exhaust velocity, even if the fusion is a net energy consumer. A fusion reaction that consumes more energy than it produces isn't useful for generating energy, but if it increases exhaust velocity then it is useful for reducing the amount of reaction mass consumed. Jonathan _less_ energy efficient than chemical rockets. The kinet

I have no clue what you said but this sounds pretty revolutionary 😂❤️

So, instead of keeping a tank of water, you have a liquid hydrogen tank and a liquid oxygen (LOX) tank. You run them through a fuel cell to get power and water. The water you feed into the thrusters with an intermediate tank, and the power you use to offset some of the power used by the thruster. High density, good power usage, and fuel.

🟨 Welcome to the Physics Dept. 🟨 Yes . . . . that's a coffee machine. Please don't touch that plasma thru💥 . . . . . . . .

If you did it in a continuous pulse yet rotated the emitter, at a certain rpm, I’m sure you would get a water wheel effect that would propel you some what efficiently

i wonder if 0.1 einstines is a refrence to the 0.1c that you could get from the particles out of a reactor for thrust.

The idea of using Einstein as a unit of innovation is brilliant. I'd give it at least a few hundred miliEinsteins ♥

You miss why electric thrusters are more “efficient.” It is not that they use energy better but rather fuel. They accelerate the fuel leaving the ship to much higher speeds than chemical rockets can so less fuel is required for the same thrust. But there is a limit to how fast electric systems can accelerate. At best they can get the propellant to a few keV of kinetic energy. Fusion produced alphas have MeVs of energy and so produce higher energy thrust. It won’t produce energy but it may provide higher ISP for slightly more power.

I knew it would only be a matter of time , when experimenting with creating fusion energy, they would come up with this

I ove your information

Can you do a video on xenon being a dark matter detector system?

Plasma thrusters are more propellant efficient, not generally more energy efficient. Chemical rockets with optimized nozzles convert about 70% of the chemical energy in the propellant into kinetic energy of the exhaust. Plasma thrusters vary in efficiency, but are generally less energy efficient than a bipropellant rocket. The reason they use less propellant is because they accelerate it to higher velocities; this is less energy efficient, but if you have large amounts of energy from solar or nuclear power you can save propellant mass.

Hi Sabine, das was wir brauchen ist ein Antrieb mit dunkler Materie mit negativer Gravitation Oder Alternati Vorschlag Materie Antimaterie Vernichter sollte echt effektiv sein. Klar wir brauch ordentlich Inovation cu from Germany down town.

Why not Use both types of thrusters

Can you possibly consider making a video related more in-depth to the reaction using boron and water.. also if it's not toxic could it be used to power devices

Hello, thank you for all of your sharing. Could you please let me know, if there is a quantized world, what are between the spaces of the quanta? Is it mycelium-like?

I like that Einstein unit of measurement 😊

3:15 - Working fluid, that is, reaction mass, actually. Energy "lasts" for as long as your solar panels do.

Starting at about 03:46 in this video... Sabine: *_"...which is hard to do with Teflon, unless possibly an alien pan dealer comes your way.'_* 🤭🤭🤭

"a reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive." Larry Niven

"Riding the shockwave became the founding principle of social media" Literally Gold. But i still smell sock-waves. That's not confirmation bias, it actually stinks.

Sabine you gooood!

I think you answered your own question. They are working on a spacecraft engine because they don't have to worry about containment. BTW, rocket scientists make a distinction between fuel and propellant. You don't (generally) push fuel out. That's what propellant is for. You use fuel to power a reaction that increases the activity and efficiency of the propellant. With a Hydrolox system, hydrogen is the fuel, oxygen is the oxidizer, and water is the propellant. Of course, hydrogen is a better propellant than water due to specific heat, so they often run it rich to increase performance, meaning some of the fuel is propellant.

Teflon as in polytetrafluoroethylene aka one of those PFAS aka "forever chemicals" we're worried about?

I would also focus on the dynamics of movement, Tesla's model for water could also be valid against air resistance!

Opera, not to be confused with Oprah. 😛

What are the different stages of plasma and ionic energy and at what point does the energy start to destroy the motor without being contained within a magnetic bottle? When people think of nuclear energy they usually equate it to hazardous fallout and lasting contamination. Since everything is composed of atomic atoms, at what point does clean atomic energy start?

Brilliant, unforgettable movie The Flim-Flam Man

My favorite dream is for us to have drives that allow us to set up stations that can travel and explore the solar system. Imagine a few orbiting numerous planets and dwarf planets. Able to do the science, setup working comnunities. And be able to assist each other.

Now this is the real and actual bladeless fan.

This is pretty cool to hear! Especially these days..

Nobel prize Prof. Rubbia some years ago proposed "Project Americium", a way to exploit a new type of nuclear fission fragments (non fusion) for space propulsion

Some space propulsion does without throwing stuff out of the spacecraft, but rather hits the spacecraft with external stuff that already moves fast in the preferred direction. I believe it’s called “a solar sail” or something.

😂😂😂😂😂😂 you killed me with “alien pan dealer”

Do You have to travel through a wormhole to travel with a wormhole. The space pilled in a certian dirrction would create current flow of acellularated space .

Interesting stuff.