>
'UNFAIR': Mamdani's city-run grocer plan SLAPPED with lawsuit
Trump Says If Iran Had a Nuclear Weapon, He Would Have Politely Called the Supreme Leader...
Tucker Carlson: We are on the brink of a world war that ends with the use of nuclear weapons
Who is trying to destroy the United States and the world?
Freezable titanium plate keeps your cooler chilled way longer than ice packs
Review: Affordable thermal device is made for discovering life outdoors
AI Whistleblower Tells Tucker How AI Could Kill All Humans by 2040
You Hate Flock? Well There's More...
Will Spiking Diesel Prices Drive Autonomous Trucking?
Chinese Concept Video Imagines the Future of Warfare
OPTIMUS CONFIRMED: 15,000 Bots This Year -- Tesla to $3,000
What is Going On With Robotaxi and Cybercab? Here Are All the Answers
Floating data center would provide water and electricity to 32,000 homes
OpenAI Cuts Off Elon's Cursor, Humanity's First Star Probe, and Trump's Nuclear Mars Shi

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.