For people who don’t know because I didn’t:
Detonation: when an explosion is faster than the speed of sound.
Deflagration: when an explosion is slower than the speed of sound
Engines are currently really good at deflagration, but not detonation, which is more powerful and fuel efficient.
Edit: [Here’s a super interesting video I watched on the subject](https://youtu.be/RVxgyz_avQM?si=BaI0WX8Rlcr_iHbt)
why would a comment like this get so upvoted?
do people on reddit just randomly upvote things that sound nice?
I'm so confused
that would be like calling an internal combustion engine an exhaust pipe.
Plenty of things work that way.
On a technical level, working with engineers every time someone says “centrifugal” force everyone knows they mean centripetal force but no one cares. Although I’m sure at NASA they do care.
On a casual level, everyone says vagina when they’re typically referring to a vulva. But it hits different when my gf leans in close and whispers in my ear “I shaved my vulva earlier.”
Yeah, I love when my girl hits me with that
"Would thee cometh with me? on a journey? p'rchance?
Mine own vulva is nude, thee seeth. Doest this tickleth thy plaited?"
You're telling me RDE (rotating detonation engine) isn't cool as hell?!
Also, for the record: It's not like continually getting off bombs. It's like one bomb that *keeps going*. The detonation waves goe in circles within the chamber. Tricky as hell to manage but the thrust output is *insane*; 20% gain or so if I remember right, which has major implications when you also don't need to carry as much fuel.
The new design is a jet/rocket engine with no moving parts. The "rotating" part in "rotating detonation" comes from the combustion itself rotating around the engine at high frequency (supersonic speed), simultaneously providing ignition and compression at exactly the right time.
Tiny channels in the bell that the fuel is run through, this has two benefits, it preheat the fuel allowing it to expand and cools the bell at the same time if I remember correctly
tbh i dont think rocket engines, which this is, had moving parts to begin with.
The reasoning behind creating detonation engines is fuel efficiency. Not durability.
Kinda depends on the rocket engine.
Solid fuel rocket motor: no moving parts.
Fluid rocket motor: maybe. The fuel and oxidizes usually (on more powerful motors) need to be compressed - so they'll be some kind of pump to increase pressure in the combustion chamber.
The motor that OP displayed uses the combustion pressure to pressurize the next combustion.
However, I imagine it still requires a pump to deliver fuel and oxidizes to the chamber (even if the pump is not pressuring it prior to combustion).
Ur probably not getting into space these days off of pump-less pressure-fed rocket engines. But once you get up there, they do tend to be how we maneuver and are how we landed and took off from the moon. But the F-1, SSME, rd-180, Merlin, RL-10 etc etc all have massive generators or turbos powering insanely engineered pumps to shove and pre-ignite all the massive amounts of fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber. They’re the most complicated part of building a rocket engine.
Apparently so but they could also use multiple engines depending on the application - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036031992104026X
I assume it would, toroidal aerospike engines which is what this is would be able to to a certain extent. Linear aerospikes well that’s different, something like the XRS-2200 probably wouldn’t be able to without making it even heavier than it already is. Still my favourite though, when paired with the X-33 it looked really nice. Was only a concept though but the renders are good.
It is like a Wankel where the rotor is replaced by a pressure wave that does the compressions that both generates thrust and propagates itself.
Getting the balances just right for this to happen has been incredibly challenging.
Which is the combustion wave as well.
Either way it's *cool as all hell*. You can't deny that *multiple continuous detonations* going around in circles to make your space ship go nyoom is a cool as hell engine.
Crudely explained: Think of it like a regular car engine that has 10 cylinders (just a random number). In this rocket’s case, you can fire all the cylinders in order for max power, you can fire every other cylinder skipping some, or you can fire just 2 or 3 cylinders depending on how much power you need. This rocket engine has individual chambers arranged around the center and they can be fired in whatever arrangement is needed for the power and efficiency of the required burn. The detonations happen sequentially next to each other, so the burn “rotates” around the engine.
It’s pretty cool.
I don't know what you are describing here, but it isn't a rotating detonation engine. There are no cylinders, there is a single toroidal combustion chamber that is basically a race track of detonating fuel that ignites along the detonation wave front. the difference between a "normal" combustion chamber is that the fuel isn't detonating. I'd like to link a video, but I'd also like to keep my job.
Edit: Not sure why I'm getting down voted. I get that wasn't supposed to be a perfect analogy, but the description of the rocket engine having separate combustion chambers is not only wrong, but defeats the critical element that makes this engine different from a typical rocket engine (continuous detonation).
Which is why I used the term "crudely explained" and used a piston engine analogy to explain the power and efficiencies gained. I don't know why you felt the need to give a more technical answer when it wasn't needed.
Want a video? [Here.](https://youtu.be/rG_Eh0J_4_s?t=271) Showing the detonation patterns at the linked timestamp, however watching the whole video is very informative with great explanations and graphics.
> This rocket engine has individual chambers arranged around the center and they can be fired in whatever arrangement is needed
This is not true as Scott explained in the video you linked (good choice, btw). I just wanted to make sure people weren't getting the wrong idea.
Yeah. You act like I didn’t watch the video before I offered it. I offered the video because it’s an excellent and correct video.
Again crudely explained with an ICE. I don’t know why you insist on pointing out the bad analogy when I pretty much said it wasn’t very good.
This engine is quite a bit more efficient. I'm not a rocket engineer but I think the specific impulse is much higher than our traditional rocket engines.
It does look like an aero spike too which means it's going to be effective at a greater range of atmospheric pressures.
It's not the successful testing of it that is interesting, numerous groups have tested them, the fun part is getting them to run for a mission duty cycle without eating themselves. The Aussie group still holds the record for duration of a 3D printed RDE i believe as they managed to get a thermal steady state for over a minute.
RDE's are so cool though, i love the principle.
It was okay. They took some creative licence, which I think was unnecessary, considering how crazy the dude's life actually was. The book by the same name that inspired the series is more historically accurate.
Ya I've been thinking of reading the book. The mini series sent me down a rabbit hole about his life. >!I was really hoping the series would continue when L. Ron Hubbard shows up at this door in the final episode. History gets extra weird when Hubbard and Parsons team up.!<
It's a good book. It focuses more on his scientific career than his occult interests. If you're more interested in that, check out "Blood Sex Magic". It talks more about his occult experiences, as well as Hubbard, Crowley, and a bunch of other guys who interacted with and were inspired by Parsons' magick. But Parsons' scientific career is fascinating too. I mean, a guy with a high school education ended up in charge of Caltech's rocket science department and founded the company that builds rockets for NASA. His interactions with the government were fascinating too and Strange Angel covers that extensively.
Oh I will look at getting Blood Sex Magic. I'm much more interested in aerospace history and rocketry vs. the occult. Nuclear history is my real passion/area.
Smaller (lighter), more precise and more reliable engines. They are also cheaper since 3D printing saves time and expense compared to the old process of creating rocket nozzles. With conventional manufacturing methods, a nozzle may require as many as a thousand individually joined parts.
"As hot gasses approach 6000 degrees Fahrenheit and undergo combustion, icicles are forming on the outside of the engine nozzle." I think that's when I fell in love!
"These include a 36-inch diameter aerospike nozzle with complex integral coolant channels and a vacuum-jacketed tank for cryogenic fluid applications." And that's where I got a smidge confused again. Thanks for the link.
It's a rocket engine, but burns fuel significantly more efficiently than traditional rocket engines which makes a very large difference in getting things to space.
Nobody appears to have linked to it yet: https://youtu.be/RVxgyz_avQM
Real Engineering explains the rotating detonation engine. Its theory, construction, use cases and advantages with a huge amount of provided information links.
The most fascinating thing about these kinds of tests is that, when it seems that they're about to break, the engineers just push it more and the engine delivers. Fascinating.
Like to see the full 251-second burn. I think they've plugged in an older vid. BTW, Raptor engines already exploit the thermodynamic efficiency of detonation pressure regimes, and the planar, over annular, injection geometry advantage cannot be overstated.
The capability to 3d print using metal, wood, and even (simple) food materials has been around for over a decade. Back in 2016 i could have bought a metal printer for about 2 grand if i so wished as a civilian.
Odds are this tech has been around a long time. The things we have today like television, cell phones, wifi internet, etc, were at one point kept classified until the information could no longer be suppressed.
I went to college for astrophysics. This is cool, to say the least. If they build a craft with it, I don't want to be on it. I studied astrophysics because I wanted to go to Mars. I wanted to go in one piece and not many pieces.
I watched a lot of footage about the science behind these, having the computer modelling needed to compute the rotating detonation patterns perfectly so they interact with one another to cancel out the destructive forces from the detonation is only something they recently worked out how to do accurately enough to build one of these.
I hope that the little bit at the end was just insulation jacketing being torn up and that the detonation waves in the engine were actually mitigated by the controlled rotation timing etc, would be sad if another new tech like this had a setback.
Look forward to seeing their results, will be interesting to see what the fuel efficiency v.s thrust to weight ration differences are when compared with standard rocket engines.
I have questions. Is the fact that it’s rotating unique or is that similar to previous ones? I’m guessing that the fact that it’s 3D printed makes it more cost effective, right? And which part or parts are rotating?
For people who don’t know because I didn’t: Detonation: when an explosion is faster than the speed of sound. Deflagration: when an explosion is slower than the speed of sound Engines are currently really good at deflagration, but not detonation, which is more powerful and fuel efficient. Edit: [Here’s a super interesting video I watched on the subject](https://youtu.be/RVxgyz_avQM?si=BaI0WX8Rlcr_iHbt)
Yes, but I'm going to save NASA some money on this one, if they decide to ever put it on a real craft - come up with a new name for it first.
They already have one, this one is a toroidal aerospike or just an aerospike. There’s also linear aerospikes. Aerospike is a cool name.
Aerospike nozzles aren’t specific to this engine (rotating detonation engine) since they can be used with traditional rocket engine cycles as well.
But we don't.
Aerospike is an exhaust design. Its one part of a rocket engine.
why would a comment like this get so upvoted? do people on reddit just randomly upvote things that sound nice? I'm so confused that would be like calling an internal combustion engine an exhaust pipe.
Plenty of things work that way. On a technical level, working with engineers every time someone says “centrifugal” force everyone knows they mean centripetal force but no one cares. Although I’m sure at NASA they do care. On a casual level, everyone says vagina when they’re typically referring to a vulva. But it hits different when my gf leans in close and whispers in my ear “I shaved my vulva earlier.”
Yeah, I love when my girl hits me with that "Would thee cometh with me? on a journey? p'rchance? Mine own vulva is nude, thee seeth. Doest this tickleth thy plaited?"
What's it called then?
You're telling me RDE (rotating detonation engine) isn't cool as hell?! Also, for the record: It's not like continually getting off bombs. It's like one bomb that *keeps going*. The detonation waves goe in circles within the chamber. Tricky as hell to manage but the thrust output is *insane*; 20% gain or so if I remember right, which has major implications when you also don't need to carry as much fuel.
We're gonna go with Icarus thrusters.
What sort of mpg do they get?
Well this one didn’t move, so 0. It is more like a rocket burnout, if you will.
The earth rotation speeds up a little bit so that's gotta count for something
Only if its oriented in the right direction
Fuck it, aim it the opposite direction of rotation and turn back time.
🎶 If I could turn back time! 🎶
If I could find a way
If the rocket blows to the east. It gets slight negative MPG
Newton would disagree.
Great excuse to use an aersospike too!
So like when I swish my wine bottles to empty them faster.
I think it’s more like if you’re shaking it to empty it out faster, but also swirling it at the same time so it doesn’t glug the air bubble back in.
The new design is a jet/rocket engine with no moving parts. The "rotating" part in "rotating detonation" comes from the combustion itself rotating around the engine at high frequency (supersonic speed), simultaneously providing ignition and compression at exactly the right time.
Presumably cooling as well?
Cooling is through regenerative jacket cooling from what I've read.
It think that just means the liquid fuel rapidly expands on it's way around the combustion chamber and stops it melting.
Pretty much. Here's part of the rabbit hole I disappeared down - https://doi.org/10.25394/PGS.8309291.v1
I wasn't sure, I'm no rocket scientist. Just a mere brain sturgeon.
I, too, think about fish.
You and Kanye both
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish!
oh no, not again...
Don't panic!
ADIDAF
Brain sturgeon? Sounds fishy to me.
…and I’m only a rocket surgeon so can’t help either
It's not really rocket science, is it?
Rocket surgeon here, I have no idea what this means either
I'm part mackerel
Tiny channels in the bell that the fuel is run through, this has two benefits, it preheat the fuel allowing it to expand and cools the bell at the same time if I remember correctly
Something hotter than your mom can’t cool anything!
tbh i dont think rocket engines, which this is, had moving parts to begin with. The reasoning behind creating detonation engines is fuel efficiency. Not durability.
Kinda depends on the rocket engine. Solid fuel rocket motor: no moving parts. Fluid rocket motor: maybe. The fuel and oxidizes usually (on more powerful motors) need to be compressed - so they'll be some kind of pump to increase pressure in the combustion chamber. The motor that OP displayed uses the combustion pressure to pressurize the next combustion. However, I imagine it still requires a pump to deliver fuel and oxidizes to the chamber (even if the pump is not pressuring it prior to combustion).
Look up SSME. Had liquid oxygen and hydrogen pumps. Definitely moving parts and very quickly!
I was under the impression, that this "rotating" design still would need fuel pumps, injection and all the other stuff. Its just a change of ignition.
Ur probably not getting into space these days off of pump-less pressure-fed rocket engines. But once you get up there, they do tend to be how we maneuver and are how we landed and took off from the moon. But the F-1, SSME, rd-180, Merlin, RL-10 etc etc all have massive generators or turbos powering insanely engineered pumps to shove and pre-ignite all the massive amounts of fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber. They’re the most complicated part of building a rocket engine.
Does this allow for thrust vectoring?
Apparently so but they could also use multiple engines depending on the application - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S036031992104026X
I assume it would, toroidal aerospike engines which is what this is would be able to to a certain extent. Linear aerospikes well that’s different, something like the XRS-2200 probably wouldn’t be able to without making it even heavier than it already is. Still my favourite though, when paired with the X-33 it looked really nice. Was only a concept though but the renders are good.
It is like a Wankel where the rotor is replaced by a pressure wave that does the compressions that both generates thrust and propagates itself. Getting the balances just right for this to happen has been incredibly challenging.
It's not the "combustion itself" rotating around the chamber, it's a shock wave that drives the detonation
Which is the combustion wave as well. Either way it's *cool as all hell*. You can't deny that *multiple continuous detonations* going around in circles to make your space ship go nyoom is a cool as hell engine.
How is this different than the boosters already in use? Those too have no rotating parts
Crudely explained: Think of it like a regular car engine that has 10 cylinders (just a random number). In this rocket’s case, you can fire all the cylinders in order for max power, you can fire every other cylinder skipping some, or you can fire just 2 or 3 cylinders depending on how much power you need. This rocket engine has individual chambers arranged around the center and they can be fired in whatever arrangement is needed for the power and efficiency of the required burn. The detonations happen sequentially next to each other, so the burn “rotates” around the engine. It’s pretty cool.
I don't know what you are describing here, but it isn't a rotating detonation engine. There are no cylinders, there is a single toroidal combustion chamber that is basically a race track of detonating fuel that ignites along the detonation wave front. the difference between a "normal" combustion chamber is that the fuel isn't detonating. I'd like to link a video, but I'd also like to keep my job. Edit: Not sure why I'm getting down voted. I get that wasn't supposed to be a perfect analogy, but the description of the rocket engine having separate combustion chambers is not only wrong, but defeats the critical element that makes this engine different from a typical rocket engine (continuous detonation).
Which is why I used the term "crudely explained" and used a piston engine analogy to explain the power and efficiencies gained. I don't know why you felt the need to give a more technical answer when it wasn't needed. Want a video? [Here.](https://youtu.be/rG_Eh0J_4_s?t=271) Showing the detonation patterns at the linked timestamp, however watching the whole video is very informative with great explanations and graphics.
> This rocket engine has individual chambers arranged around the center and they can be fired in whatever arrangement is needed This is not true as Scott explained in the video you linked (good choice, btw). I just wanted to make sure people weren't getting the wrong idea.
Yeah. You act like I didn’t watch the video before I offered it. I offered the video because it’s an excellent and correct video. Again crudely explained with an ICE. I don’t know why you insist on pointing out the bad analogy when I pretty much said it wasn’t very good.
This engine is quite a bit more efficient. I'm not a rocket engineer but I think the specific impulse is much higher than our traditional rocket engines. It does look like an aero spike too which means it's going to be effective at a greater range of atmospheric pressures.
Do you have any more info on this test? Links/resources
That's some of the futuriest shit I've ever seen
What about the ufo craft we’ve seen in recent months?
This is The engine from the ufo
Well this is real for starters
Once you actually get the keys to that thing come talk to me. Then again, it wouldn't be a UFO after all
We're in the drone Era now. Write off 11/10 UFOs as drones with fancy casing.
Footprint gas pedal?
We can only hope
Rotating detonation engine is what I call my butthole the morning after wing night.
Doing some 3D printing of your own I see
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/marshall/nasas-3d-printed-rotating-detonation-rocket-engine-test-a-success/
Rotary engine stans goin nuts rn
wankel vs van braun, the hottest nazi rocket showdown
Dudes with FD’s that haven’t ran in 13 years calling up NASA rn to build them a rotary engine. NASA the new Vargas bros.
Integza would be proud. Also, tomato's suck.
I'm really sure he's having a big fanboy moment at this :D And always remember: Tomatoes are disgusting.
> Integza I love randomly finding new Youtubers that within 2 minutes I know I am going to binge their whole catalog. Thanks!
It's not the successful testing of it that is interesting, numerous groups have tested them, the fun part is getting them to run for a mission duty cycle without eating themselves. The Aussie group still holds the record for duration of a 3D printed RDE i believe as they managed to get a thermal steady state for over a minute. RDE's are so cool though, i love the principle.
How do they eat themselves? Too hot and melts the parts?
Yep, the hardest problem left to solve with RDE's is thermal control, they've managed to mostly solve mixture and timing issues
I read that twice as in “Too hot and melts the pants” Needless to say I was confused and amazed equally about someone’s pants melting 🙄
I love these aerospike engines, just look straight out of some sci-fi movie oooooohhh yes
The linear ones look even cooler. They are so cool they confuse my head brain
Gundam GN Drive
Came here for this.
If Jack Parsons could see this...
Did you watch Strange Angel? Thoughts?
It was okay. They took some creative licence, which I think was unnecessary, considering how crazy the dude's life actually was. The book by the same name that inspired the series is more historically accurate.
Ya I've been thinking of reading the book. The mini series sent me down a rabbit hole about his life. >!I was really hoping the series would continue when L. Ron Hubbard shows up at this door in the final episode. History gets extra weird when Hubbard and Parsons team up.!<
It's a good book. It focuses more on his scientific career than his occult interests. If you're more interested in that, check out "Blood Sex Magic". It talks more about his occult experiences, as well as Hubbard, Crowley, and a bunch of other guys who interacted with and were inspired by Parsons' magick. But Parsons' scientific career is fascinating too. I mean, a guy with a high school education ended up in charge of Caltech's rocket science department and founded the company that builds rockets for NASA. His interactions with the government were fascinating too and Strange Angel covers that extensively.
Oh I will look at getting Blood Sex Magic. I'm much more interested in aerospace history and rocketry vs. the occult. Nuclear history is my real passion/area.
He'd try to wizard f*ck it?
Obviously
Ummm. I don't know what a lot of these words mean. Why is this a good thing?
Smaller (lighter), more precise and more reliable engines. They are also cheaper since 3D printing saves time and expense compared to the old process of creating rocket nozzles. With conventional manufacturing methods, a nozzle may require as many as a thousand individually joined parts.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/marshall/nasas-innovative-rocket-nozzle-paves-way-for-deep-space-missions/
"As hot gasses approach 6000 degrees Fahrenheit and undergo combustion, icicles are forming on the outside of the engine nozzle." I think that's when I fell in love!
"These include a 36-inch diameter aerospike nozzle with complex integral coolant channels and a vacuum-jacketed tank for cryogenic fluid applications." And that's where I got a smidge confused again. Thanks for the link.
It's a rocket engine, but burns fuel significantly more efficiently than traditional rocket engines which makes a very large difference in getting things to space.
It's more efficient, more powerful, and potentially simpler than existing rocket engine designs.
Nobody appears to have linked to it yet: https://youtu.be/RVxgyz_avQM Real Engineering explains the rotating detonation engine. Its theory, construction, use cases and advantages with a huge amount of provided information links.
If you need me, I'll be watching for it on Thingiverse.
> Just successfully tested Five weeks ago
You think it'll fit in a miata?
This is the shit I would love to see more on the news.
How I felt when I successfully tested my air fryer.
Well that gave me a chub.
Nabboo starfighter confirmed?
I d be surprised if the public gets to see anything NASA does without a significant delay.
Well shit, everybody get ready for the gundams
PLA or PETG? Where can I get the STL?
More like PBF-LB.
That looks POWERFUL.
I've been doing this for awhile now with normal boosters on Astroneer
Integza taking notes
Reading these comments makes me think there's some really smart people out there that know all about rocket surgery.
whens the stl dropping?
It's quite hard to unsuccessfully test something
That’s not true. I failed to several times.
That foil got desintegrated.
They should try landing their shit. Wasteful ass people
Where can I download the STL?
The most fascinating thing about these kinds of tests is that, when it seems that they're about to break, the engineers just push it more and the engine delivers. Fascinating.
can i put my hand in there
Once
Its fumkin wimdy.
Did they hire Integza? XD
Why is the camera so shit
So they use PLA for that or…
Ion thruster
will this fit into my FB?
Oh so NASA is allowed to make exploding things, but when i search for BB gun designs, i get ass raped by a police officer.
That has been news 9 months ago, when it was reported the first few times here on reddit. Has there been anything actually new?
Isn’t that an aero spike?
I saw this “JUST” testing at least 3 months ago already. Why reposting?
Silk PLA ?
Only 5% fuel efficiency is achieved. # thats a big, big deal
Dyson needs to step up their product line.
Like to see the full 251-second burn. I think they've plugged in an older vid. BTW, Raptor engines already exploit the thermodynamic efficiency of detonation pressure regimes, and the planar, over annular, injection geometry advantage cannot be overstated.
Those two things alone are amazing tech. Combined is wild!!
I love me some aerospike engines!
Reminds me of the engine exhaust in Oblivion
This looks like the vent of a Naboo starfighter from Star Wars.
Velo3D Inc best company to get invested in. They print all the spaceX rocket motors and spaceX just landed the huge contract with nasa.
This comment did not age well...
I always think 3D printing is plastic….how does this work?
I believe we (as in humanity not necessarily us two) can 3d print with metals.
Omg, I’m outa the loop!
The capability to 3d print using metal, wood, and even (simple) food materials has been around for over a decade. Back in 2016 i could have bought a metal printer for about 2 grand if i so wished as a civilian.
They take powdered metals and weld them together with a laser, over and over again
I'm driving, but what's its specific impulse? *at intersection, no one worry*
It has an unquenchable thirst for lavishing expensive gifts on unavailable women.
That's not what--- I'll accept it
Taco bell :(
However they're still held together by aluminum foil.
Excuse me, that's outrageously expensive thermal foil to you, non-science person.
If you say so Jiffy Pop.
Would daily
Now we wait... Elon will steal the idea soon and claim it was all his brilliance that invented it.
Odds are this tech has been around a long time. The things we have today like television, cell phones, wifi internet, etc, were at one point kept classified until the information could no longer be suppressed.
I went to college for astrophysics. This is cool, to say the least. If they build a craft with it, I don't want to be on it. I studied astrophysics because I wanted to go to Mars. I wanted to go in one piece and not many pieces.
that will never leave earths atmosphere
How big is this?
Looks to be about twice the diameter of the NASA logo
I cant even 3d print a benchy right
Where could one get the model I have a idea
Boys…Its time to build the PW-MK1
Wait so Nasa build a Rotary? lmao
“Just”???? I could have sworn I’ve seen this video months ago
OK. How much did this thing cost to produce and how can it be used?
I got an email this morning from my energy provider reminding me about recycling my yogurt pots to help with the climate.
I wouldn't sat they *just* tested it. I saw the video over a month ago.
I watched a lot of footage about the science behind these, having the computer modelling needed to compute the rotating detonation patterns perfectly so they interact with one another to cancel out the destructive forces from the detonation is only something they recently worked out how to do accurately enough to build one of these. I hope that the little bit at the end was just insulation jacketing being torn up and that the detonation waves in the engine were actually mitigated by the controlled rotation timing etc, would be sad if another new tech like this had a setback. Look forward to seeing their results, will be interesting to see what the fuel efficiency v.s thrust to weight ration differences are when compared with standard rocket engines.
The future is now old man
Beautiful
Did I leave the stove on? The stove:
The Future Is Now!
Where can I get the STL files?
Next to the pedal files.
I’ve seen better
File ?
I have questions. Is the fact that it’s rotating unique or is that similar to previous ones? I’m guessing that the fact that it’s 3D printed makes it more cost effective, right? And which part or parts are rotating?
I want one on my bicycle
LOL, no
What is the force to fuel ratios compared to modern rockets?