Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🚨 NASA just tested an experimental engine that could dramatically cut travel time to Mars. This isn’t a normal rocket. It’s a nuclear-powered ion engine capable of producing plasma hotter than 2,800°C while firing electromagnetic lithium exhaust through space. NASA says the new thruster is already 25 TIMES more...

108,441 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfĂźgbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

The Sabotaging Practice of Over Supply and Sameness in the NFT Space. The current zeitgeist of the NFT space is that the same artists are doing the same kind of work five times a year, with project after project leaving a trail of disappointment and discontent among collectors and all of us watching in disbelief as huge resources are extracted from the space over work that feels like it could be left as an "artist study." I understand that you can do what you want with your money as collectors, but we are killing the whole space with this incestuous practice. No artist is that prolific to be able to do 5 collections of 100+ pieces each every year and actually deliver innovation and some kind of creative evolution. Of course, they can pretend play that the work has something new, but there is no precedent nor proof that that has ever happened in the speed that it happens in the NFT space. Again, people are free to through away their resources on whatever they want but with this way of doing things, we more and more are going to start seeing the consequences. Oh! There are consequences? Yes. Maybe unintended, but there are. Let's see. Let's start with the loss of belief in the NFT space as somewhere where emerging artists can come and find support for their experiments. Why even bother to bring experiments, innovation, and new ways to think of art on the blockchain if the same people have all the collectors hypnotized with their magical flutes? Why even try to come to a space where taking risks and challenging the status quo (the mission of art!!!) is overlooked? This makes the NFT space a social club and not a space for art. I guess it is fine, but IMO it is a recipe for disaster. New collectors stay away because the art will slowly but surely become stale and un-challenging. Why even bother to come and see what is happening here if you can't, as a collector, see new weird and up-and-coming artists? The amount of noise emitted by the same artists doing the same art over and over, drowns out any new voices. Again. A recipe for disaster. The NFT space is becoming a space of disappointment and doubt. We think that collections going to zero one after the other, over and over, is not damaging? I feel we are kidding ourselves. Disappointment piles up, and again, the people who will hurt are the emerging artists, the new blood, the ones who are willing to risk the most and, in return, put fire in this cold space of sameness. I love this space—don't get me wrong—it has changed my life, and I believe it has a ton of potential, but things need to change for it to become a beacon of light in art. But we need to support new voices. We need to support new ideas. The challenge is huge. I hope to contribute all I can to this change. I hope more and more see how exciting it is to go out and try to discover what else is out there and move this space forward. But again, I understand the leaps of faith needed, but if there is a space that is based on that, it's the NFT space...so there is hope. We will see. 📺by Boldtron

alejandro cartagena

98,261 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

OPINION: ELON AND THE DAWN OF THE WARP AGE While the rest of the world is busy arguing about the present, Elon has been playing a multi-century game of chess. Most people remember his 2013 conference talk for the Hyperloop reveal, but the real bombshell was his take on the Alcubierre Drive. Proposed by theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994, the Alcubierre Drive is a speculative metric that allows a spacecraft to achieve apparent faster-than-light travel. Instead of a ship accelerating through space, which is limited by (the speed of light), the drive manipulates space itself. It works by contracting the fabric of space in front of the vessel and expanding it behind. Essentially, the ship sits in a "bubble" of flat spacetime, effectively "surfing" on a wave of warped reality. Elon did not just call warp drive science fiction; he broke down the physics of warping space so that space itself does the traveling. When you have a mind that views the speed of light not as a ceiling but as a technical challenge to be engineered around, the future starts looking a lot more like Star Trek and a lot less like a stagnant rock in the vacuum. Elon was a decade ahead of the curve. Back then, he noted that while SpaceX was focused on the immediate Mars roadmap, breakthroughs in warp theory were already bubbling at places like NASA. Fast forward to late 2025, and the vision is becoming reality. Former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden once admitted the goal was warp speed, and groundbreaking research even suggested we are finally moving toward manipulating spacetime without needing the impossible amounts of exotic matter we once feared. Source: Journal of Modern Physics, The Debrief, AllThingsD, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

201,882 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

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 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten