>
Ivermectin & Cancer: 3 Tumor-Killing Mechanisms No Oncologist Is Talking About
Two Weeks to Flatten the Fuel Curve: Digital IDs, Rationing, Energy Austerity
9 Proven Ways to Boost Your Soil Health
This Forgotten NASA Insulation Trick Cuts AC Costs 70%. They Stopped Teaching It in 1991.
We Build and Test Microwave Blocking Panels - Invisible to Radar
Man Successfully Designs mRNA Vaccine To Treat His Dog's Cancer
Watch: Humanoid robot gets surprisingly good at tennis
Low-cost hypersonic rocket engine takes flight for US Air Force
Your WiFi Can See You. Here's How.
Decentralizing Defense: A $96 Guided Rocket Just Put Precision Warfare into the Hands of the People
Israel's Iron Beam and the laser future of missile defense
Scientists at the Harbin University of Science and Technology have pioneered a sophisticated...
Researchers have developed a breakthrough "molecular jackhammer" technique...
Human trials are underway for a drug that regrows human teeth in just 4 days.

Combustion engines are tried and true, and however angry they might look and sound in a top-fuel dragster or space rocket booster, the combustion process of oxidizing fuel in air is relatively slow and predictable. Detonation, on the other hand, is as chaotic and destructive as it sounds. It's how most bombs work; you take an explosive fuel and hit it with a jolt of energy, and the chemical bonds holding each molecule together break apart, releasing wild amounts of energy in a shockwave that expands at supersonic speed.
NASA, along with many other groups, wants to harness these explosions for a couple of key reasons. Firstly, detonation engines have a considerably higher theoretical level of efficiency than combustion engines, perhaps as much as 25%; they should be able to produce more thrust using less fuel and a smaller rocket. In the engineering and economics of space flight, that means cheaper launches, more billable payload, and greater distances.