Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 61 posts

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#21

Post by grogenaut »

Lichtso wrote: post #16
grogenaut wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 10% to 35% is a 25% improvement, you're still at 35%... From 70 to 95% is a 25% improvement, but it's a lot more. Going from 98 to 99% is only 1% but also like really a 10x improvment. Rockets are operating at pretty decent efficiency, 25% improvment on an internal combusion engine would be mind blowing and make EVs way less interetsting. There are theoretical maximum efficencies for various types of engines due…

Technically, from 10% of something to 35% of something is a 350% improvement or a 25 percent point improvement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point

yes but people often conflate/confuse that... saying the delta in %'s... not % improvement. I agree with you, I'm attempting to point out how a small % increase is a huge actual improvement. This GP was saying that a 25% improvment in the efficiency of a rocket engine was not much to a layman.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#22

Post by wolverine876 »

drtgh wrote: post #15
messe wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a 25% improvement in ISP/exhaust velocity or another metric?

It seems that 25% paragraph on wikipedia cites a non-technical article[1] from 2018: "Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation combustion is 25% more efficient than the isobaric combustion cycle, which corresponds to constant-pressure combustion, which is implemented in the chambers of of modern liquid propulsion engines." From another article[2] of the same year: "Conservatively speaking, a rotating deton…

> that 25% paragraph on wikipedia cites a non-technical article[1] from 2018

The article you footnoted is also in Cyrillic.

After all this time, it's amazing to see people trust Wikipedia. It's like they don't care if it's true or not; it's entertainment, pretending to know, not knowledge.

A perfect way to spin your wheels forever and go nowhere.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#23

Post by boringuser2 »

What's up with all of these crazy technical developments after a period of relative stagnation?

Aside from it being merely random or selection bias, it's plausible that there's some kind of AI assist beyond what we know happening behind the scenes.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#24

Post by goawaythrwaway »

kossTKR wrote: post #11
mdorazio wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up to 25% improvement compared to conventional rocket engines according to the Wikipedia page. I haven’t found an actual ISP measurement for this NASA engine, though.

25% sounds super disappointing from a laymans perspective and not very "revolutionary" in the grand scheme of time and space. Can't wait until AI will be able to iterate advanced engineering designs in simulation space at incredible speed.

[flagged]

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#25

Post by messe »

wolverine876 wrote: post #22
drtgh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that 25% paragraph on wikipedia cites a non-technical article[1] from 2018: "Theoretical calculations have shown that detonation combustion is 25% more efficient than the isobaric combustion cycle, which corresponds to constant-pressure combustion, which is implemented in the chambers of of modern liquid propulsion engines." From another article[2] of the same year: "Conservatively speaking, a rotating deton…

> that 25% paragraph on wikipedia cites a non-technical article[1] from 2018 The article you footnoted is also in Cyrillic. After all this time, it's amazing to see people trust Wikipedia. It's like they don't care if it's true or not; it's entertainment, pretending to know, not knowledge. A perfect way to spin your wheels forever and go nowhere.

> The article you footnoted is also in Cyrillic.

And your comment is in Latin, going by your terminology. In the age of decent online translators, do you care to elaborate on why that’s a problem?

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#26

Post by redeeman »

boringuser2 wrote: post #23

What's up with all of these crazy technical developments after a period of relative stagnation? Aside from it being merely random or selection bias, it's plausible that there's some kind of AI assist beyond what we know happening behind the scenes.

i dont think thats plausible? we do not have AI

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#27

Post by twic »

boringuser2 wrote: post #23

What's up with all of these crazy technical developments after a period of relative stagnation? Aside from it being merely random or selection bias, it's plausible that there's some kind of AI assist beyond what we know happening behind the scenes.

People have been working on rotating detonation engines, and making steady progress, for years. The idea dates to the '60s, but i think work really picked up about a decade ago.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#28

Post by PartiallyTyped »

boringuser2 wrote: post #23

What's up with all of these crazy technical developments after a period of relative stagnation? Aside from it being merely random or selection bias, it's plausible that there's some kind of AI assist beyond what we know happening behind the scenes.

I said a few days ago that it is very likely 3 letter agencies and other organisations have had GPT4 equivalent models for some time now. It doesn’t seem that unlikely that some branches of the US gov would have much more advanced models.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#29

Post by valine »

boringuser2 wrote: post #23

What's up with all of these crazy technical developments after a period of relative stagnation? Aside from it being merely random or selection bias, it's plausible that there's some kind of AI assist beyond what we know happening behind the scenes.

Maybe ChatGPT is helping cut through bureaucratic tape. I know it’s helped me become much more persuasive in my communication. If your goal is to convince the US government to spend money testing your rotational detonation engine, your odds of success go up if an LLM helps you write the email.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#30

Post by boringuser2 »

redeeman wrote: post #26
boringuser2 wrote: post #23

What's up with all of these crazy technical developments after a period of relative stagnation? Aside from it being merely random or selection bias, it's plausible that there's some kind of AI assist beyond what we know happening behind the scenes.

i dont think thats plausible? we do not have AI

[flagged]
Post reply on HN