Specifically, a nuclear fusion rocket. And no pulse propulsion, because I know doing that will be very hard.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ These are 5 very different questions that you’ve asked, some of which have already been answered. You should try breaking them s question into multiple individual questions. $\endgroup$ – Paul Jan 14 '18 at 14:14
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed! As @Paul recommends, please ask one question at a time. Here, please choose only one question, and try to spend more time explaining what it is you would like to know, such that it can be answered in a straightforward but not huge format. $\endgroup$ – uhoh Jan 14 '18 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Just removed everything that wasn't relevant to the main question. Feel free to expand on that question, and ask new related questions. $\endgroup$ – PearsonArtPhoto Jan 14 '18 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ @PearsonArtPhoto I'm kinda making a record for having my question edited :D. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – harsh99 Jan 14 '18 at 14:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @harsh99: Most of the rocket concepts in the WP article are specialized to fission and have no analog in fusion. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_rocket seems more precise, but it starts off with the bad news that the designs almost all require much more advanced technology than we have, or will soon develop. (I find it odd that you say "NPP will be very hard" when in fact it's technically by far the easiest method, and has only modestly higher political challenges than other fusion propulsion methods.) $\endgroup$ – Nathan Tuggy Jan 14 '18 at 21:35