Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

The International Space Station experiences constant, low-level aerodynamic drag, which causes its orbit to steadily decay. Electrodynamic tethers had long been proposed to generate thrust by using solar power to drive electrical current (collected from the ionosphere in this animation) against an induced voltage, adding orbital energy to compensate...

96,255 views • 11 months ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🚨 CHINA IS RACING TO BUILD A SPACE SOLAR POWER PLANT THAT COULD BEAM ELECTRICITY FROM ORBIT TO EARTH. Scientists at Xidian University have successfully tested a ground-based system that can wirelessly transmit kilowatt-level power over 100 meters using microwaves. Their ultimate goal is far more ambitious: placing large solar power stations in geostationary orbit (36,000 km up), where sunlight is available 24/7 with no weather or atmosphere blocking it. The project, called Zhuri (“chasing the sun”), uses mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, converts the electricity into microwaves, and beams it down to a receiving antenna (rectenna) on Earth. Why this matters: • In space, solar energy is up to 6 times more efficient than on Earth because there’s no night, clouds, or atmospheric filtering • A single large space solar station could theoretically generate gigawatts of continuous clean power enough for millions of homes • The team has already proven the system can beam power to multiple moving targets at once • China is now among the world leaders in this technology, alongside the US and Japan The deeper implication: Space-based solar power has been a dream for decades because it could provide truly baseload renewable energy. While the technical and financial challenges are enormous (building massive structures in orbit, precise microwave beaming, and safety), steady progress like this brings the concept closer to reality. If successful, it could fundamentally change how humanity generates and distributes energy moving power collection off the planet entirely. Near-term applications could include wirelessly charging satellites or powering future lunar bases. Do you think space-based solar power will become a major energy source in the coming decades, or will it stay too expensive and complex? Follow for more frontier energy and space technology developments.

TheNewPhysics

15,361 views • 1 month ago

🚨 SPACEX IS ABOUT TO TEST A RADICALLY DIFFERENT KIND OF SPACECRAFT AND IT COULD UPEND THE ENTIRE ORBITAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY. On Tuesday, SpaceX plans to fly the first prototype of Starfall, a flat, disk-shaped reentry capsule designed to return up to 1,000 kilograms of cargo from orbit in a single flight. That’s roughly 30 times more payload capacity than current commercial return vehicles (like those from Varda Space Industries). It’s not a scaled-down Dragon it’s a completely different approach: no onboard deorbit engine, a wide flat disk geometry, and Starlink terminals mounted to maintain communication through the plasma blackout during reentry. Why this matters: • Current orbital manufacturing companies are limited to returning only dozens of kilograms per mission • Starfall’s design could make large-scale commercial production in space economically viable for the first time • SpaceX would be directly competing with companies (like Varda) that currently pay SpaceX to launch their capsules • Successfully testing Starlink through reentry plasma would be a major technical win with applications across SpaceX’s vehicles The deeper implication: SpaceX is quietly expanding its vertical integration. They already dominate launch. Now they’re moving into the return leg of the orbital manufacturing supply chain the part that has been the biggest bottleneck for companies trying to make products in microgravity and bring them back to Earth. If Starfall works at scale, it doesn’t just give SpaceX another revenue stream. It gives them significant control over the economics of an entire emerging industry. The disk shape and high-capacity design suggest they’re thinking about high-cadence, lower-cost returns rather than the traditional high-value, low-volume approach. This is classic SpaceX: take an existing problem (expensive, low-capacity return from orbit), apply first-principles thinking to the vehicle design, and try to make it dramatically cheaper and higher volume. How do you think this move into orbital return changes the competitive landscape for companies trying to build businesses in space manufacturing? Follow for more analysis on SpaceX’s expanding role across the space economy.

TheNewPhysics

445,776 views • 1 month ago

😓 Air India 🇮🇳 Flight AI171 with fully loaded Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner fatal accident: I‘m an airline pilot with >15‘000h of experience and a physics institute: My brief PRELIMINARY analysis of the visible facts from the video of the takeoff: * The flaps are only slightly extended, presumably to position 1 instead of 5. * The landing gear is still extended, which should have been retracted at this altitude and causes additional drag. * The aircraft is at a high angle of attack, which confirms the insufficient flap setting. * From the video and witness accounts, only low engine noise is audible. * Neither smoke nor fire is visible. * An engine failure is less likely. The most probable cause is presumably a human factor, an incorrectly chosen, insufficient flap setting for takeoff, and consequently an inadequately selected thrust. In this context, the correlated speeds were too low because they were calculated for a larger flap setting or a lighter aircraft. As a result, the aircraft took off with insufficient speed and intentionally but falsely derated thrust, was therefore on the unstable side, and rapidly lost more speed and altitude due to the additional failure to retract the landing gear in a timely manner, leading to a subsequent stall at low altitude and crash. For the experts: the aircraft got onto the wrong side of the speed vs drag curve and maneuvered itself into a corner from where there is no escape. Another possible cause could also have been an incorrect input of a wrong takeoff weight into the Flight Management System, resulting in too low thrust and too low speeds. The pilots got startled after takeoff, couldn’t wrap their head around what went wrong and incorrectly prioritized making an emergency call instead of flying the aircraft first, manually increasing thrust immediately to maximum, and retracting the landing gear. In summary of this very early and preliminary assessment (your confidence level should be as low as mine): The most probable cause is human error 😓 - as most of the time these days. Not because the pilots got worse (although that effect can be observed as well with prioritization of diversity over competence) - but because technology got so much better.

Iven‘s Dad

2,786,753 views • 1 year ago