CanisLupus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2016
- Messages
- 121
I'm surprised that there has not previously been a thread started on this topic . http://grabat.es/en/[url] . The big...st could we charge that increased range ? ' .
It has been slow but not non-existent. Lots of money is being spent all around the world investigating all sorts of battery technologies because significant upsides exist for proven improvements.gt1 said:The progress in chemical energy storage is slow or non existant.
You're right about the batteries. I was thinking about the other type of the chemical energy storage- fuels. Our space rockets aren't essentially any better than they were 60 years ago, despite all this time and money spent. Chemistry is very different from electronicsalohart said:It has been slow but not non-existent. Lots of money is being spent all around the world investigating all sorts of battery technologies because significant upsides exist for proven improvements.gt1 said:The progress in chemical energy storage is slow or non existant.
We are recovering a larger percentage for refurbishment and reuse. The 60 year old rockets were one time only.gt1 said:alohart said:. . . Our space rockets aren't essentially any better than they were 60 years ago, despite all this time and money spent. . . .
Specific impulse is a function of the combustion energy and there are limits. At Marshshall Space Flight Center, there is an early, unused, nuclear reactor powered rocket. Impressive performance IF you don't mind sterilizing any biology near the working reactor.gt1 said:The rocket technology is improved, but not the propulsion efficiency. We gained nothing in speed or distance from the same mass of the fuel.
Enter your email address to join: