Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Space United Kingdom

UK Startup Ignites Plasma Inside Nuclear Fusion Rocket (euronews.com) 55

Posted by BeauHD from the first-ever dept.
UK startup Pulsar Fusion says it has achieved the first plasma ignition inside a nuclear fusion rocket engine prototype -- a huge step for space travel that could cut missions to Mars "from months-long journeys to just a few weeks," reports Euronews. From the report: Pulsar Fusion revealed the milestone during a live stream at Amazon's MARS Conference, hosted by Jeff Bezos in California this week, with CEO Richard Dinan calling it an "exceptional moment" for the company. The team successfully created plasma - an intensely hot, electrically charged state of matter, often described as the fourth state of matter - using electric and magnetic fields inside its experimental and early prototype "Sunbird fusion exhaust system." [...] The company now plans further testing of its Sunbird system to improve performance. Upcoming upgrades include more powerful superconducting magnets designed to better contain and control plasma.

UK Startup Ignites Plasma Inside Nuclear Fusion Rocket More | Reply

UK Startup Ignites Plasma Inside Nuclear Fusion Rocket

Comments Filter:

  • The fusion delusion strikes again (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28, 2026 @03:02AM (#66065722)

    "Successfully created plasma" is so far from fusion that this isn't a laughable claim, it is just stupid bullshit marketing.

    • You'll be so sorry in 30 years' time when they colonize Mars and strike you from their orbital clandestine platforms.

    • Re:The fusion delusion strikes again (Score:4, Informative)

      by quenda ( 644621 ) on Saturday March 28, 2026 @05:05AM (#66065786)

      If only you could get to Mars by burning investor capital and government grants.

      • To be fair, it won't be possible to get there *without* burning investor capital and government grants.

    • Noticed, that nowhere in the article did it mention the actual fusion creation or even if that was an omission, that the plasma energy created was in excess of the energy required to make the fusion energy... So fusion is a PR/Marketing word inclusion in a plasma rocket experiment?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by XXongo ( 3986865 )

        Noticed, that nowhere in the article did it mention the actual fusion creation

        You got it. They ignited a plasma. They did not ignite a fusion reaction.

        Igniting a plasma isn't hard. I do it every time I turn on a fluorescent light (but not a high temperature plasma).

        It is a start, bravo for them. But it's only a single step on a very very long journey.

    • Incidentally, if anyone else wants to "successfully create plasma", you can buy the necessary gear from Aliexpress [aliexpress.com], with free shipping.

    • You can create a stable plasma with $100 worth of electronics. It's really not that difficult. You could do it as a High School physics lab.

  • I had one of those globes from Radio Shack that would do that.

  • Bussard collectors!

    Bussard... does not sound English.
    • With all the space travel in star trek, haven't they cleaned up the galaxy with their Bussard collectors? Asking for a friend. Weirdo. Loves star trek.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        With all the space travel in star trek, haven't they cleaned up the galaxy with their Bussard collectors?

        No, the anti-tachyon emitters restore the galactic ether. ;-)

    • The practical problem is the fact dense clouds are on the order of milligrams per cubic mile and it’s not just one isotope or element that might be collected it’s the scale of the magnetic field. In the case where the field acts as an external fusion reactor, this does not work because of all the dead mass you would try to heat but also it’s not plausible to craft a ship with that scale of magnetic field not even counting a design also isn’t so fragile the act of traveling alone wil

      • The magnetic field is not really a problem.

        The people who did more math on it, I read around 2010 about some scientests/sf authors, figured the vacuum outside of solar systems symply is not dense enough in hydrogene.

        It might - just slightly - be possible to have a drive based on fusion and hydrogen capture inside of a solar system. Question would be if that is practical or if it would not just make more sense, to have refueling based ice from comets etc.

    • I wish I could find the paper but someone did actually propose a SSTO spacecraft using Bussard's Polywell reactor.

  • Specific impulse (Score:4, Insightful)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday March 28, 2026 @06:35AM (#66065818)
    All rockets basically do is throw mass out the back to move forward with an equal and opposite reaction since we don’t have massless drives like using light for propellant. The problem lies in that the mass has to be loaded on and can’t be collected as it goes so the faster you can eject the mass the more force you can get from each particle and this ratio of mass to thrust is called specific impulse. A high specific impulse means you will be able to travel faster long term, and even short term if the engine also is capable of high thrust. The reason ion drives are so efficient is because the electric fields can accelerate mass to a far higher speed then chemical reactions giving them roughly 10x the specific impulse. If a Fusion Drive could be created, even if you put more energy into it than was used as thrust (powered by a fission reactor or RTG for example), the incredibly high temperatures could exceed ion drives specific impulse while the nuclear power source has an energy density that far exceeds any chemical reaction. So it’s not totally crazy to want a Fusion Drive that’s energy negative.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rossdee ( 243626 )

      "All rockets basically do is throw mass out the back to move forward with an equal and opposite reaction since we don’t have massless drives like using light for propellant."

      Photons have mass. So you can get thrust by shoving light out the back. Of course you can't get to orbit that way, but from Earth orbit to Mars orbit it would work.

      • Well, of course they aren't massless per se, but I think the poster was talking about situations where the ship doesn't carry the reaction mass supply, like solar sail, terrestrial laser powered, etc.

        • Well, of course they aren't massless per se, but I think the poster was talking about situations where the ship doesn't carry the reaction mass supply, like solar sail, terrestrial laser powered, etc.

          We already have demonstrated solar sails and even proposed using a magnetic field with them as a sort of keel to get more energy from the solar wind environment. We also have some basic demonstrations on laser propelled sails. No one has actually used or tested laser sails in space as far as I know due to costs but the physics behind it is solid and well known

          | was referring to self contained light sources which all are so heavy resulting in weak thrust to mass of the ship, we don't even have concepts of

      • Re:Specific impulse (Score:4, Informative)

        by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday March 28, 2026 @09:28AM (#66065976)
        In an abstract sense photons have mass, but it is not the same as rest mass and so the convention is to call it massless. This is an important distinction not because equations can’t be made accurately and precisely but because it’s useful to break down the thinking of energy from mass to be intrinsic to the particle or intrinsic to the larger system as a whole. They have _momentum_ which they transfer by absorption or reflection causing a corresponding momentum change in the particle(s) but the mass is precisely zero for all photon energies.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          Individual photons don't have mass, abstract or ortherwise, they have energy and momentum. Individual fundamental particles of any kind don't really have mass because mass is a property of a system.

          A system of multiple photons can have regular old non-abstract mass if they're configured properly.

          • Individual photons don't have mass, abstract or ortherwise, they have energy and momentum. Individual fundamental particles of any kind don't really have mass because mass is a property of a system.

            A system of multiple photons can have regular old non-abstract mass if they're configured properly.

            Take an insanely energetic photon, well above the gamma ray cutoff, for ease of experimentation, with respect to the test mass and have it travel through space. Place a known test mass just off to the side of the path such that the interaction chance like absorbing or reflecting is nearly zero. Observe the two from a distance arbitrarily far away and start with the test mass at a relative velocity of 0. As the single photon flies past, the test mass is accelerated toward the photon and the photon path is

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              the original formulation of relativity and physics in general did not distinguish between rest mass creating gravitation and light speed particles generating gravitation

              Maybe you have access to some early draft notes of Einstein's, but in his actual papers on relativity mass does not "create gravitation." Energy, momentum and some off-diagonal terms like stress and pressure gravitate. There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor, nor anywhere else in the Einstein Field Equation. Mass is not fundamental

              • in his actual papers on relativity mass does not "create gravitation." Energy, momentum and some off-diagonal terms like stress and pressure gravitate. There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor

                There most certainly is. Density-- mass per unit volume-- is the (0,0) term of the stress-energy tensor.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                  Energy density, yes.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                  People used to say "relativistic mass." We've realized that was a bad idea.

                  • There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor

                    There most certainly is. Density-- mass per unit volume-- is the (0,0) term of the stress-energy tensor.

                    Energy density, yes.

                    Which is also mass density. Multiply by c to keep the units straight. (If you're a physicist, you just set c=1, and the units don't matter.)

                    I guarantee, if you have a mass density of M kg/m3 and you put it in Einstein's field equations, you get gravitation.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                      Which is also mass density.

                      Sort of. The stress-energy tensor for a single isolated photon has rho > 0. Does that mean the OP is correct and photons have mass? You can say yes and go handwavy about "relativistic mass" or "effective mass" or, as the OP did "abstract mass" but it gets very inconsistent. It's energy, which in some (but not all) circumstances is also mass.

                    • E=mc^2 is a special case where the relative velocity of target and observable or two points is zero. You need to introduce an energy term for apparent mass gain from velocity just like you want to create the stress energy tensor in two parts one with light speed momentum particles and one for mass based relativistic particles. It’s not wrong to just not care which is which if you account for it correctly, but separating them into parts depending on if they are intrinsic to themselves at least in par

                    • Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that mass is explicitly part of the source term in Einstein's field equations.

                      The belief that mass is not a source term for gravity is absurd, and also non-physical.

                    • I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. Mass is explicitly part of the source term for Einstein's field equations.

                      If the point you are trying to make is that it is not the only thing in the source term, well, yes of course. The statement I was disagreeing with was "There is no mass term in the stress-energy tensor, nor anywhere else in the Einstein Field Equation." This is absolutely and unambiguously wrong.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                      Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that mass is explicitly part of the source term in Einstein's field equations.

                      I'm not sure why you'd say this.

                      You claim the T00 term is mass density, and seem to be claiming specifically that it is invariant mass density, but that term is greater than zero for a photon. Every reasonable source identifies that term as energy density or *relativistic* mass density. We don't use the concept of relativistic mass anymore because it's inconsistent and confusing.

                      The T00

                    • Your comment has nothing to do with the fact that mass is explicitly part of the source term in Einstein's field equations.

                      I'm not sure why you'd say this.

                      I'm saying this because mass is part of the source term of the Einstein field equations. Are you being deliberately obtuse because you want to extend this meaningless conversation infinitely long despite the lack of any content here?

                      You claim the T00 term is mass density, and seem to be claiming specifically that it is invariant mass density,

                      Huh? No, rho/c is just one term of the tensor. If you want it in some other frame, you can't just take one term out of a tensor, you have to use the full tensor.

                      If you label the T00 term energy density, it's not invariant either. One term out of a tensor is not invariant no matt

                    • Yes, that’s wrong everything goes in. I was trying to emphasize that originally mass and energy were simply less distinct because of how the boundary to the problem was approached. Put simply the energy intrinsic to the particle or system itself wasn’t thought of any differently than particles whose energy is completely relative like photons. The only difference to today is just how the math is arranged.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                      I'm saying this because mass is part of the source term of the Einstein field equations. Are you being deliberately obtuse because you want to extend this meaningless conversation infinitely long despite the lack of any content here?

                      I confess, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't think you're entirely sure either. I do agree that this discussion ahs become pretty meaningless though.

          • Forgot to add above that similar to a contained gas having increased rest mass with increased temperature if you have a 100% reflective box and put even one photon in it the box is said to have increased rest mass while if you release it from the box it is not said to have rest mass. Clearly the photon is unaltered and the difference is the box isolates it from the greater system although this is an arbitrary distinction it clarifies how the problem is framed and that’s why its convention.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

              No, the box is an essential part of the system. In the thought experiment neither the box nor the photon has mass but both possess momentum since the photon can bounce off the walls of the box. The photon and the box, together, form a system that has mass.

              You can see how systems can have mass by rearraning the mass-energy equivalence equation to solve for mass:

              m = sqrt(E^2 - (pc)^2) / c

              The energy and momentum of a fundamental particle are related so you can't manipulate them independently. But if you have m

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dillee1 ( 741792 )

          first concept that to to be make clear, is some measurables are frame dependent concepts:
          e.g. mass/energy, time, momentum , length
          different reference frame will measure a different value. they are all valid from their perspective.

          photon or anything that move at [speed of light] do not have a rest frame, aka u cant comove with it in some platform that its speed is zero relative to u.

          since there is no photon reference frame. rest mass of a photon is UNDEFINED. photon does however have a relativistic mass when

    • Well, the JPL has the Vasimr drive, a plasma engine.
      They are working to "upgrade" it into a fusion drive.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      However regarding the upgrade to fusion they are pretty silent since a decade!!

      Some key researchers founded their own company: Ad AStra.

      The key researcher a female Ph. whose name I forgot, vanished from publications.

      So no idea what is going on there. No idea actually if JPL is still involved.

      Fact is they have a working - pretty nicely working - plasma engine. Since over 2

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      we don’t have massless drives

      Reactionless drives. A massless drive would be an engine that didn't have any mass, I guess. We have lots of drives that don't involve throwing mass out the back, including solar sails, magnetotorquers, electrodynamic tethers, flashlights, etc. Hard drives have a few. Your car has at least one big one and a bunch of others besides, as does your body. None of them are reactionless though.

      Reactionless drives are called that because they violate Newton's third law, which is r

  • So they created a Plasma? I would like to see what their definition of ignition is as well.

    I wonder if they did it using grapes and a microwave? https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com] .

  • I'm getting the distinct impression many of these fusion startups are scams. Term igniting plasma in the context of fusion reactors means you have started fusion. All they did here was create plasma.

    The business model is just an endless rope-a-dope of milestones that lead nowhere. Even Trump has a fusion startup (e.g. TAE)

    • They created fusion.
      At least they claim so.
      It is clear from the article.

      And they are not the only ones. We have plenty of definitely non scam fusion companies that do fusion.

      The question is will it once be commercial viable.

      • They created fusion.
        At least they claim so.
        It is clear from the article.

        The article says nothing about creating fusion. The announcement was first plasma not fusion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      "Creating fusion" isn't hard. Kids do it for science fair projects. Here's [youtube.com] a guy on Youtube making a fusion reactor.

      Making a fusion reactor that produces more electricity than it uses is hard. That's what you're thinking of. Rocket engines famously do not usually produce electricity, and if they do they do it extremely inefficiently, so it's a completely different problem.

Slashdot Top Deals

Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here!

Close