>
Kushner, Epstein, Black Budgets & the Banker's Breakaway Civilization | Catherine Fitts
We need a Cyberpandemic and theft of global retirement funds...
"Do you really need a blockchain for that?"
Drone-delivered mines? Or should that be IEDs?
The X-ray room just shrank to the size of a laptop
Dead Simple Apocalypse Power: Build It in an Hour
Gritt and MasTec partner to bring physical AI to solar construction sites
Baby it's cold INSIDE! Scientists create the coldest temperature ever recorded in the lab...
I am IN LOVE with AIRCRETE! Off-Grid, Earth-Covered Dome
Musk's Starlink Is Building An Orbital Bypass As Undersea Cable Sabotage Threats Mount
A robot just built a structure in space for the first time
The Greatest Theft in Human History
3D-Printed Tungsten Survives 74 Fusion Plasma Discharges, Advancing the Engineering...
Dude turns a $23 used smartphone into the 4G brain of an RC aircraft.

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.