>
Epstein Client List BOMBSHELL, Musk's 'America Party' & Tucker's Iran Interview | PB
The Hidden Cost of Union Power: Rich Contracts and Layoffs Down the Road
Do They Deserve It? Mexico Is Collapsing As The US Deports Illegals Back Home
Copper Soars To Record High As Trump Unleashes 50% Tariff
Insulator Becomes Conducting Semiconductor And Could Make Superelastic Silicone Solar Panels
Slate Truck's Under $20,000 Price Tag Just Became A Political Casualty
Wisdom Teeth Contain Unique Stem Cell That Can Form Cartilage, Neurons, and Heart Tissue
Hay fever breakthrough: 'Molecular shield' blocks allergy trigger at the site
AI Getting Better at Medical Diagnosis
Tesla Starting Integration of XAI Grok With Cars in Week or So
Bifacial Solar Panels: Everything You NEED to Know Before You Buy
INVASION of the TOXIC FOOD DYES:
Let's Test a Mr Robot Attack on the New Thunderbird for Mobile
Facial Recognition - Another Expanding Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Technology
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.