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

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#51

Post by WalterBright »

bandyaboot wrote: post #44
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.

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.

Looking at the size of the rocket that went to the moon vs the size of the rocket that came back from the moon says it all. It seems completely unrealistic to colonize the solar system from earth.

The only way is to set up industries on the moon to build the ships and equipment necessary to expand through the solar system.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#52

Post by Washuu »

cs702 wrote: post #2

It reads, sounds, and looks really cool . We live in interesting times.

I lived next to the testing range for this engine for the past few years.

It sounds amazing from a far too. The shock diamonds it creates have an audible rumble/rhythm to it.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#53

Post by fbdab103 »

WalterBright wrote: post #50
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Project HARP[0] disagrees. Launched a payload 110 miles (177km) into space using a 120 foot (36m) long cannon. This was in the 1960s.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#54

Post by abudabi123 »

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!

Deep space should be the furthest point reached by probes in likeness to deep ocean depth exploration. Voyager I, II and New Horizon probes should redefine the ”distance.“

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#55

Post by WalterBright »

fbdab103 wrote: post #53
WalterBright wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>2. mass driver, which needs to be in a vacuum Project HARP[0] disagrees. Launched a payload 110 miles (177km) into space using a 120 foot (36m) long cannon. This was in the 1960s. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

It didn't achieve orbit.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#56

Post by PartiallyTyped »

feanaro wrote: post #39
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do people always say this? It's almost like a thought-terminating cliche. Thousands of companies competing with each other were not able to do it earlier, but the NSA always has better everything , by definition.

It’s because they have always been ahead in stuff like crypto and have an endless pocket.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#58

Post by todd8 »

1letterunixname wrote: post #45

The fuel and oxygen injectors use a variant of the Tesla Valve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_valve

Fascinating. I was just a kid in 1964 when I learned about fluidics. My December issue of Scientific American had an article on fluidics featured on the cover and I always wondered why there never seemed to be any applications of the devices described in that article. In particular, the use of fluidic logic gates and latches, etc.

Re: NASA validates revolutionary propulsion design for deep space missions

#59

Post by daveguy »

abudabi123 wrote: post #54
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!

Deep space should be the furthest point reached by probes in likeness to deep ocean depth exploration. Voyager I, II and New Horizon probes should redefine the ”distance.“

I believe they call that interstellar space to distinguish from "deep" space.
Post reply on HN