RocketStar, a US based startup, has successfully demonstrated an electric propulsion unit for spacecraft that uses nuclear fusion-enhanced pulsed plasma. During ground tests the process did create ionizing radiation and improved the base propulsion unit’s thrust by 50%. FireStar Drive markedly improves performance, utilizing high-speed protons from ionized water vapor. When protons interact with boron nuclei, it triggers fusion, producing high-energy carbon that decays into alpha particles, thereby boosting thrust.
Above – This is an artist’s rendition of our FireStar Fusion Drive on a see-through 1U cubesat for dramatic effect.
Wes Faler, the founder of Miles Space, created the enhanced drive concept. Rocketstar then acquired his company and made him CTO of Rocketstar.
The plan is to test the FireStar Drive include further ground testing this year with an in-space demonstration scheduled for February 2025 as a hosted payload on space robotics firm Rogue Space System’s Barry-2 spacecraft.
This is another example of where lowcost rideshares into orbit are enhancing orbital testing of new space technology.
The fusion discovery was first made during an SBIR Phase 1 for AFWERX.
The company’s the FireStar Drive uses a water-fueled pulsed plasma thruster that uses a form of aneutronic nuclear fusion to boost its performance.
The propulsion system’s base thruster generates high speed protons through the ionization of water vapor. When these protons collide with the nucleus of a boron atom, the atom undergoes fusion, transforming into a high-energy form of carbon that rapidly decays into three alpha particles.
By introducing boron into the thruster’s exhaust, the FireStar Drive enables this fusion process. Similar to the way an afterburner enhances thrust in a jet engine by introducing fuel into the exhaust, the fusion occurring in the thruster’s exhaust significantly improves its performance.
The fusion process was first devised during a R&D program for the US Air Force’s AFWERX (Air Force Work Project) initiative, where boronated water was introduced into the pulsed plasma thruster’s exhaust plume. This created alpha particles and gamma rays, clear indications of nuclear fusion.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
I like the idea of “boosted” ion drive propulsion: maybe (and likely) that fusion in and of itself isn’t going to work out anytime soon as an energy source by itself. OK. But if it can be harnessed to simply and reliably “multiply the output” of an ion drive without investing more energy than is returned, well then that’s a win.
I think however that letting researchers assert the veneer of “nuclear respectability” by claiming a-neutronic fusion as the boost is ill-founded. If you’re going to use fusion, then use the easiest and most potent fusion you can, right out the gate. ESPECIALLY for space. No irradiation byproducts to seriously worry about.
But whatever.
The proton-boron fusion reaction has the advantage of delivering 4 helions (alpha particles) almost instantly. 8 MeV to kinetic energy. They’re all charged, which again is good for ion engines. They happily “push away” (or are drawn through) a high positive voltage gradient. The ‘push away’ concept is golden: it utilizes static voltage that isn’t “consumed” by the reflection of the fast-moving helions. Yet, force is generated.
The “however”, is that it is 1000× less likely to occur under any circumstances than tritium-deuterium fusion.
So… I might even be surprised that a 50% improvement has been realized so far.
IN ANY CASE, millinewtons in a microsatellite is a good start.
What’s really needed though are newtons “in the same order of magnitude neighborhood” as the satellite being thrusted.
Millinewtons in the context of many-ton spacecraft (and their fusable reaction mass — water!) isn’t great scaling. Better would be “handful” of newtons. Like over 10 and nothing needed above 100. This scaling (0.2% to 2% of mass — in newtons) holds for most interplanetary missions.
⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅
The electric equivalent of adding zip fuel again (even boronated for that matter…)
Isotopically pure boron-11 at that.
And what’s the effective fusion rate per mole dumped into the exhaust?
Is this 50% better thrust/power than the best commercially available space ion engine? Curious to know, you are venturing on cool yet hot ground.
So instead of, let’s say, 150mN it is capable of 225mN of thrust? Electric propulsion is not the future of the space travel.
To take this beyond a (honestly, very interesting) science experiment, one has to ask what are the demonstrable propulsion advantages. Is specific impulse or velocity improved? I want to go faster, quicker. Does it do that in a way we can afford?
In space you actually just wanna go faster period. For getting into orbit sure, there’s costs associated with hanging around longer than needed. Interplanetary? Nah. Acceleration over weeks or months is ideal.
I wouldn´t say it’s the IDEAL.
Maybe it’s the ideal in the current technological short term conditions.
Why would acceleration over weeks or months be better than a 20 thousand ISP, 50 kN thrust engine?
I should know better but thinking about this makes me slightly giddy.
It’s just such a fun concept 🙂
When ever someone says nuclear “fusion”, one must ask questions. “Plasma” energy technology is very interesting. For ex: plasma energy propulsion need not be “nuclear powered” to produce tremendous velocities for a space craft. Radio frequency energy has the potential to both produce huge thrust, and velocity (inertia and speed). Nuclear thermal can deal w/overcoming mass at the short term, to move “it” faster, soonest. But then? You have a problem.
Since using a nuclear thermal rocket w/in Earths atmosphere is a really bad idea. (It is…) what are your options? Nuclear thermal stuff makes sense off world, away from any atmosphere. Nuclear powered particle propulsion systems make a whole lot more sense. They don’t have the “specific impulse” (or the amount of physical thrust to counter Earths gravity, to “get off” Earth) But once “off” oh can they be so very, very, fast… Look at it this way:
There are two ways to get to Mars. Very slow, or very fast. Very slow results in radiation damage and (we have just recently learned), immune system damage due to lack of gravity. We can “deal” w/that by providing artificial gravity and radiation protection to our astronauts. (Oh, right, and for my next trick, I’ll invent warp drive.) Oh we can go much faster. The later option, is more logical. Radio-plasma and nuclear thermal can get us to Mars in 39-70+ days. (My guess is that’s a lot cheaper then building a spacecraft that rotates to generate gravity. Just a thought…) And isn’t it all about the money?
By the way, why not go back to the moon, and use nearby asteroids for all their resources? We’ve been to the moon, we know how to get there, and discovered it’s got water! Oh please, lets go back, and have so much fun…