NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep Space Missions

Re:NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep S... by ClumsyPilot on Saturday April 01, 2023 @11:35PM (#35406913)

There is never going to be a 100% improvement in 'normal' rockets - you cant gey any more energu out of a chemical reacrion. We are using all the energy that we can get out of the most powerfull fuels that exist.

The only two ways to get 'sci-fi style rocket is either nuclear, or to beam energy to the rocket from outside with giant lasers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep S... by WalterBright on Sunday April 02, 2023 @12:32AM (#35407185)

Other ways are:

1. air launch, which boils down to using the O2 in the air rather than carrying it with you

2. mass driver, which needs to be in a vacuum

3. gravity slingshots

But, yeah, we need a fusion drive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep S... by fbdab103 on Sunday April 02, 2023 @02:02AM (#35407651)

>2. mass driver, which needs to be in a vacuum

Project HARP[0] disagrees. Launched a payload 110 miles (177km) into space using a 120 foot (36m) long cannon. This was in the 1960s.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:NASA Validates Revolutionary Propulsion Design for Deep S... by WalterBright on Sunday April 02, 2023 @02:59AM (#35407913)

It didn't achieve orbit.

[ Parent | on HN ]