正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

🚨 NASA JUST TESTED A THRUSTER POWERFUL ENOUGH FOR HUMAN MISSIONS TO MARS. Engineers have successfully fired a next-generation electric propulsion system that hit a new U.S. record of 120 kilowatts roughly 25 times more powerful than the thrusters currently flying on the Psyche spacecraft. Instead of using xenon...

38,549 次观看 • 1 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

When a spacecraft leaves Earth, it doesn’t just fire its engines and head straight to its destination. In many missions, especially those going beyond low Earth orbit, there’s a more subtle and elegant strategy at play, one that uses gravity itself as part of the navigation system. This is often called a gravity assist, or a slingshot maneuver. But in the case of missions like #Artemis II, what’s being used is a closely related idea known as a free-return trajectory. At first glance, it might sound simple: the spacecraft goes to the Moon, loops around it, and comes back. But the physics behind it is anything but simple. Instead of relying on continuous propulsion, the spacecraft follows a carefully calculated path through the gravitational field of the Earth–Moon system. It is launched with just the right speed and direction so that, as it approaches the Moon, the Moon’s gravity bends its trajectory. The spacecraft is effectively flung around the Moon, redirected onto a path that naturally brings it back toward Earth. No major engine burn is needed for the return. Small trajectory corrections may still be required, but gravity does the heavy lifting. That’s the key. This kind of trajectory is not just efficient, it’s also safe. If something goes wrong with the spacecraft’s engines or onboard systems, gravity itself ensures the return. It’s an inherent backup plan, built into the trajectory from the very beginning. The same fundamental idea appears in gravity assists used across the Solar System. When a spacecraft flies past a planet, it can gain or lose speed by exchanging momentum with that planet. From the spacecraft’s point of view, it’s as if it has been accelerated without using fuel. In reality, it has borrowed a tiny amount of orbital energy from the planet itself. That’s how missions like Voyager reached the outer planets, and how probes continue to explore regions far beyond what their onboard fuel alone would allow. But there’s an important distinction. An interplanetary gravity assist is typically used to change speed and direction, often increasing the spacecraft’s energy. A free-return trajectory, like the one used in Artemis II, is designed for something more specific: a path that naturally loops back to Earth without requiring additional propulsion. It’s less about gaining energy, and more about shaping a trajectory that guarantees a return. To understand why this works, it helps to stop thinking in straight lines. In space, motion follows curves defined by gravity. The spacecraft is constantly falling, first toward Earth, then toward the Moon, and then back toward Earth again. What looks like a loop is really a continuous free fall through a changing gravitational landscape. This way of navigating space reveals something deeper. We tend to think of engines as the drivers of motion, but once a spacecraft is on its way, gravity does most of the work. The art of spaceflight is not just about thrust. It’s about knowing when not to use it. #GoodLuck #Artemis NASA Artemis

Erika 

234,769 次观看 • 3 个月前

More Batteries vs. Submarines Now that the German TKMS and the French Naval Group have massively adopted lithium-ion batteries, following the Japanese lead, this is consolidating as a major trend, just as I had predicted. The next stage will be solid-state batteries, and at that point, we'll essentially be discussing only speed and submerged endurance in comparison to nuclear submarines. Since solid-state batteries are lighter, they will allow for a greater number to be installed, freeing up space for more powerful propulsion systems. Naval Group has already sold a version of the Scorpène to Indonesia capable of remaining submerged for up to 80 days. That's with lithium-ion batteries. Imagine what this could exceed, more than double, with solid-state batteries. In practical terms, a more powerful engine combined with solid-state batteries in the proportions that Naval Group is now using in the Scorpène would provide three times the speed, meaning something like 10–15 knots at constant speed while maintaining around 50 days submerged. This would give a range of 40,000–50,000 km, requiring less than one hour on the surface for a fast recharge. For speeds above 25 knots, simply adding more batteries and a better engine would suffice, as the solid-state system has high power output. All this at 15–20% of the cost of a nuclear submarine. And if the choice is to power the batteries with a micro-reactor, it would cost 25–35% of a conventional nuclear one. Then someone will say: “But a nuclear sub can stay submerged for years.” That makes no difference at all, since even with around 60 days of endurance, the crew still needs to surface to resupply provisions. The big advantages remain: battery-powered subs are superior in silence, and speed can be addressed with larger battery packs.

Patricia Marins

103,224 次观看 • 7 个月前

NEWS: SpaceX has released a statement after today's successful 11th Starship test flight. "Every major objective of the flight test was achieved, providing valuable data as we prepare the next generation of Starship and Super Heavy. The flight test began with Super Heavy igniting all 33 Raptor engines and ascending over the Gulf. The successful first-stage ascent was followed by a hot-staging maneuver, with Starship’s upper stage igniting its six Raptor engines to continue its flight to space. Following stage separation, the Super Heavy booster completed its boostback burn to put it on a course to a pre-planned splashdown zone off the coast of Texas using 12 of the 13 planned engines. Under the same angle of attack tested on the previous flight, the booster descended until successfully igniting all 13 planned engines (including one that did not relight during the boostback burn) for the high-thrust portion of the landing burn. The booster successfully executed a unique landing burn planned for use on the next generation booster. Super Heavy hovered above the water before shutting down its engines and splashing down. After completing a full-duration ascent burn, Starship achieved its planned velocity and trajectory. During flight, Starship successfully deployed eight Starlink simulators and executed the third in-space relight of a Raptor engine, demonstrating a critical capability for future deorbit burns. Starship re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere and was able to gather extensive data on the performance of its heatshield as it was intentionally stressed to test the limits of the vehicle’s capabilities. In the final minutes of flight, Starship performed a dynamic banking maneuver to mimic the trajectory that future missions returning to Starbase will fly. Starship then guided itself using its four flaps to the pre-planned splashdown zone in the Indian Ocean, successfully executing a landing flip, landing burn, and soft splashdown. Focus now turns to the next generation of Starship and Super Heavy, with multiple vehicles currently in active build and preparing for tests. This next iteration will be used for the first Starship orbital flights, operational payload missions, propellant transfer, and more as we iterate to a fully and rapidly reusable vehicle with service to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond."

Sawyer Merritt

273,302 次观看 • 9 个月前

So, my opinion on what the Antarctic (Antarctica) Anomaly is that it's a type of frequency technology. It must be way more powerful than HAARP, as many have claimed it to be, because we would see these anomalies at other HAARP sites, and we don't, not like this. With that said, and I'm very much trying to avoid letting what I want it to be not play a part here, I think it is a technology that is being used either off the coast of Antarctica itself or Bouvet Island. A third possibility is an area just to the northwest of the island that looks odd. It's possible it is a sonar scan from a ship, but why in that remote location? It looks like an antenna set up or rows of something that is out of place. I also believe that the weather events and fires that have taken place in Africa could possibly have been because of this. Each time we saw the anomaly, it was followed by a destructive weather event in Africa. A weird connection to that is we have been told and warned of a very busy 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. This is in part because of the above-average Atlantic ocean temperatures, which is the fuel to Hurricanes. With all this info, it's possible to see how the Anomaly could be a frequency tech that can manipulate or create weather, And or WARM up the Ocean temps to purposely enhance the Hurricane season and Storm growth. Keep in mind that many of our hurricanes and many of the biggest hurricanes have come from the west coast of Africa and form over the Cape Verde islands before heading towards the Caribbean and the United States. This is all of course speculation, and I'm learning many new things every day, so this idea may morph over time as we learn more. In the end, it is very hard to ignore all these findings. #antarctica #anonaly #AntarcticaAnomaly #BouvetIsland

In2ThinAir

442,580 次观看 • 2 年前

Those investing in submarines today may be wasting money. A Virginia-class submarine, powered by an S9G reactor, has a submerged displacement of around 10,000 tons and costs approximately $4–5.8 billion. Its top speed is over 30 knots. Now imagine a much smaller reactor, with power and weight around 15% of the Virginia's, used solely to continuously recharge a solid-state battery bank. Solid-state batteries weigh about half as much as lithium-ion batteries while offering 2-3x more energy capacity. In practice, this means that with the same battery weight, such a sub could achieve roughly 3x the energy gain, In terms of speed, solid-state batteries deliver double or higher discharge rates (potentially 10–20C vs. 5–10C for lithium-ion), ideal for sustained sprints above 30 knots lasting many days and a cruising speed around 25 knots. All this with 15% less overall weight, much quieter operation on batteries alone, and the same endurance as a conventional nuclear sub. And the cost? A micro-reactor would be 15–25% the price of a conventional one, small, modular, low-temperature/low-pressure. This means that when a more modern reactor is needed, you simply swap the module. A micro-reactor paired with solid-state batteries could make a Virginia-class sub $1.2-1.6 billion cheaper, quieter, and leave far more space for weapons, additional batteries, or crew comfort. That's why this system would put all existing submarines at a disadvantage in terms of cost, space, and stealth. Those not adopting micro nuclear reactors can follow what the Germans, Japanese, and French are doing. The Japanese pioneered lithium-ion batteries with diesel chargers, giving their submarines excellent value for money. The Germans chose a fuel cell AIP system to recharge lithium-ion batteries, while the French opted for a similar Japanese-style approach with a battery configuration allowing up to 80 days endurance, making the new Scorpène highly competitive. Starting around 2030, production will shift to solid-state batteries, tripling the capacity of these conventional submarines and enabling silent navigation at around 25 knots for days,making them superior in stealth and speed to many nuclear submarines currently in service. Submarines powered by solid-state batteries, recharged via micro-reactors, fuel cells, or diesel, will be superior: better armed, cheaper, and stealthier than anything we know today.

Patricia Marins

288,841 次观看 • 7 个月前

A few points on the Powering Canada Strong announcement that is important to understand; * Doubling Canada's electricity generation capacity is paramount. I just wish it wouldn't take 20+ years. We don't generate enough electricity to be self-sufficient or participate in future industries. We have no choice. Has to be done. It's something I called for a while and spoke on. * Linking the connectivity of Canada's fragmented grid. This is a must to increase productivity, and remove waste. It's a one step back for two steps forward type of investment. * the connection and expansion of the grid is one of the important things we need to do reach mining areas and develop these sectors and for the growth of smaller communities around. The problem with these whole announcement is that it is all net zero based which means it won't necessarily build the most reliable possible grid for the $ and will other ridiculous costs to be carbon tax trading based on the way. It's completely inefficient from capital planning point. Mark Carney says: It will require the spreading of costs over time using our AAA balance sheet so that ratepayers don't pay all of the costs of investments today. That means the government is planning to borrow MASSIVELY! That cost will appear not only in your electricity bill but also in the value of the CAD and interest costs that is already hitting record every single year. This plan is utilizing legitimate needed action to transform all of Canada's energy need into ideological driven carbon tax trade system and inefficient power generation that all together will cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of billions more than it should.

Kirk Lubimov

24,482 次观看 • 2 个月前

Jet Fuel is a fascinating story. We don’t measure it in litres, we measure it in weight, because fuel expands/contracts with temperature while weight stays constant. Jet fuel’s specific gravity is ~0.8, so 1 litre ≈ 0.8 kg (lighter than water). It’s also worth noting that jet fuel is essentially a highly refined kerosene, far less volatile than gasoline, which makes it safer to handle in large quantities. On a long-haul, fuel can be close to half the aircraft’s total weight at departure. On the A350-1000, that can be ~129 tonnes. At most major international airports, this much fuel doesn’t turn up in a tanker. It’s stored in a depot and delivered through a network of underground hydrant pipes to each stand. The “tanker” you see is really a pump truck connecting the hydrant to the aircraft and metering the exact uplift. When I moved from the A340-600 to the A350-1000, one of the things that struck me most was just how much simpler and smarter the fuel system became and how much less fuel we required for the same journeys. On the A340-600, we needed a rear trim tank in the tail to keep the aircraft in balance during cruise. It worked beautifully, but it added complexity. The A350 doesn’t need that, instead, it uses tiny fractions of flap in cruise, together with the latest wing aerodynamics, to keep perfectly in trim. London → New York comparison (typical figures): - A340-600: ~80–90 tonnes of trip fuel - A350-1000: ~50–60 tonnes of trip fuel That’s roughly 30–40% less fuel, saving ~25–30 tonnes on a single flight, which also means about 80–95 tonnes less CO₂ (rule of thumb: 1 tonne of jet fuel ≈ 3.16 tonnes CO₂) 📸 by ig/captainchris

aircraftmaintenancengineer

509,252 次观看 • 10 个月前

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:

elvis

18,374 次观看 • 2 个月前