Yeah, I wished he got some real funding for his fusion reactor work. Even the always sceptical Art Carlson gave it a good chance of actually working (he even decided to get back into researching FRCs because of Sloughs work).tomclarke wrote:He claims good chance of good scaling. As does EMC2. Although his fusion is T-D the near wall is completely isolated from the expensive bits of the apparatus, and speed can be scaled so that neutron flux is what you want, spread out over different areas - it is really an ideal topology for fusion, if it works.
I can't see why so little funding except that everyone is convinced it will not work. Probably not, but I can't see chances much different from Polywell? And although aneutronic fusion is more glamorous, that does not mean as engineering solution it is necessarily better, as much-needed replacement for fission reactors.
Of course that does not make this an absolutely save bet, but IMHO, it would be a much better investment than ITER.
My guess is that they are thinking about lunar return missions, where large quantities of bulk materials are returned to earth with a comparably simple spacecraft that is basically constructed from a buch of engines powered by in situ created fuels and the rest of the structure being made from in situ built materials (such as the heatshield described here).Emmet wrote:Regolith Derived Heat Shield" Isn't the heat shield needed for the entry and isn't the regolith coming from the planet's surface which is accesible only after entry?
IIRC, metallic hydrogen has a higher density than normal liquid hydrogen. This helps dealing with one of the biggest disadvantages of LH2- LOX powered LVs: They are structurally much larger than stages using liquid hydrocarbons. It also could require simpler pumps on the engines, because you have to pump less volume. I am not sure about that one though.- What is the point with metallic hydrogen as rocket fuel? Is this a (proposed) chemical propulsion or something more exotic?