>
The Difference Between Us and Them
The Pentagon Has An Air Power Addiction
Trump's War on Iran Obstructs His Other Goals
America's 'Pilot Rescue' Happened 10km From Iran's Hidden Nuclear Weapons Stash
DARPA O-Circuit program wants drones that can smell danger...
Practical Smell-O-Vision could soon be coming to a VR headset near you
ICYMI - RAI introduces its new prototype "Roadrunner," a 33 lb bipedal wheeled robot.
Pulsar Fusion Ignites Plasma in Nuclear Rocket Test
Details of the NASA Moonbase Plans Include a Fifteen Ton Lunar Rover
THIS is the Biggest Thing Since CGI
BACK TO THE MOON: Crewed Lunar Mission Artemis II Confirmed for Wednesday...
The Secret Spy Tech Inside Every Credit Card
Red light therapy boosts retinal health in early macular degeneration

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.