The border between detonation and deflagration still isn’t well-understood or entirely predictable, to this day, even when discussing supposedly well-understood phenomenon like small arms propellants. You spend an hour or two dealing with the things that the typical Quality Assurance Specialist Ammunition Surveillance tech type does, and you’ll soon gain a hell of a lot of humility.

I don’t doubt that the guys working this field can make it work, but I think we’re a long, long way from seeing actual effective engines based on this principal anywhere in the near future. I’d lay odds that they don’t perfect this until well after conventional rocket engines are replaced by something like those nifty “magic” mass drivers, or some other technology we don’t have a clue about.

Conventional rocket engine just runs. These things require extensive management, control, and perfect awareness of what’s going on in the motor. It’s like the difference between what Ford put into a Model T, and what Ford today is putting into a pickup truck. I don’t see this getting fielded during the current technical generation.

Whole thing reminds me of the aerospike engines–Yeah, they work, they’re technically way more sophisticated and efficient, but are they buildable and economic?

The traditional rocket motors may well be the QWERTY keyboards of aerospace technology, and anything trying to supplant them is going to fail simply because they have the established installed base in the technologic ecology.