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

41–50 of 61 posts

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#41

Post by bobthepanda »

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.

I mean, Russia has a fairly large space program, is that surprising?

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#42

Post by akiselev »

robotfelix wrote: post #38

> to deep space destinations, such as the Moon I feel woefully underqualified to call out NASA's PR team, but I don't _think_ the Moon qualifies for most definitions of "deep space". Exciting news all the same, and I can only assume they meant to suggest that RDRE propulsion is useful for destinations that are nearer too!

From the NASA Deep Space Communications Educator guide [1]:

> Deep space begins at approximately 42,000 km (26,098 mi) from Earth

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ps-0343...

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#43

Post by mgsouth »

robotfelix wrote: post #38

> to deep space destinations, such as the Moon I feel woefully underqualified to call out NASA's PR team, but I don't _think_ the Moon qualifies for most definitions of "deep space". Exciting news all the same, and I can only assume they meant to suggest that RDRE propulsion is useful for destinations that are nearer too!

The U.S. government defines deep space as anything beyond low-earth orbit. [1] Others vary. [2] The U.S. "Deep Space Network" was created because communications with low-earth orbit and beyond-LEO had very different requirements [3].

[1] https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space#Regions_near_the_E...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Deep_Space_Network#Deep_s...

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#44

Post by bandyaboot »

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.

It’s a big deal because “the tyranny of the rocket equation” works in reverse too. Just as adding fuel is a compounding problem, reducing fuel is a compounding benefit.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#46

Post by fortyseven »

throwbadubadu wrote: post #37
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.

OH MY.... Came here to say "Wow, this is so much more exciting than the 123th LLM/GPT and the 2746th "this is my experience / use case with AI" (sorry) "but sure, some one will come and claim that: GPT-8 would have designed that alone given the right prompt!!" ... and then need to read this. :(

Keep it in your pants, Sulu.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#47

Post by [deleted] »

robotfelix wrote: post #38

> to deep space destinations, such as the Moon I feel woefully underqualified to call out NASA's PR team, but I don't _think_ the Moon qualifies for most definitions of "deep space". Exciting news all the same, and I can only assume they meant to suggest that RDRE propulsion is useful for destinations that are nearer too!

[deleted]

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#48

Post by fbdab103 »

downvotetruth wrote: post #12

Real Engineering's video today likely causing resurfacing from Jan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVxgyz_avQM

I was greatly annoyed to see the jet color scheme used in nearly all of those visualizations. We have better options!

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#49

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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.

There is never going to be a 100% improvement in 'normal' rockets - you cant gey any more energu out of a chemical reacrion. We are using all the energy that we can get out of the most powerfull fuels that exist.

The only two ways to get 'sci-fi style rocket is either nuclear, or to beam energy to the rocket from outside with giant lasers.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#50

Post by WalterBright »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #49
kossTKR wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is never going to be a 100% improvement in 'normal' rockets - you cant gey any more energu out of a chemical reacrion. We are using all the energy that we can get out of the most powerfull fuels that exist. The only two ways to get 'sci-fi style rocket is either nuclear, or to beam energy to the rocket from outside with giant lasers.

Other ways are:

1. air launch, which boils down to using the O2 in the air rather than carrying it with you

2. mass driver, which needs to be in a vacuum

3. gravity slingshots

But, yeah, we need a fusion drive.

Post reply on HN