Lmao those idiots who want propulsion engines to take us out of the atmosphere, the con men say it would “just” require enough energy to be stored in the fuel tanks!
The difference between a catapult and a jet engine is, that the jet engine allows a slow, controlled and steady release of the energy. Once the catapult has released its object it has to go well or else it will come down.
It would work fine in a vacuum, e.g. on the moon. Unfortunately, on earth we have a thick atmosphere to deal with. Orbits are about going sideways VERY fast. If you try and plough through the atmosphere at 7km/second it creates a LOT of heat, and uses a LOT of energy. You also can’t just lob a satellite up. It will need to circularise its orbit, so you need to log an engine and fuel too.
Basically, it’s viable as a technological idea, but not on earth.
Technically, the Alcubierre drive is also just a mathematical equation that will be solved by someone someday if we figure out how to acquire and concentrate enough negative energy. That doesn’t mean it’s happening anytime within the next 1000 years though.
I didn’t say anything about whether this concept was viable from a physics standpoint.
I said that the article is a puff piece (which it is) and probably a paid advertisement, and that the headline claims that a thing has happened which has not actually happened.
It’s mathematically impossible to send an object into orbit just from energy imparted on the ground. Depending on the speed you launch it, either it falls back down or it flies off into space.
To achieve orbit you need a circularization burn at the highest point of your trajectory.
Or as Scott Manley put it:
“Getting into space is easy. Getting into orbit is hard.”
Lmao don’t be so dramatic.
It just takes building enough energy to launch the object of whatever mass.
It’s a mathmatical equation that will be solved by someone someday.
Edit: lmao do you babies bitch about all new tech?
A bunch of old men shaking their fists at clouds
“sends” in a headline means one thing to most people. They should have said “may one day send” if they wanted to be accurate.
In mice.
“Just”.
Lmao those idiots who want propulsion engines to take us out of the atmosphere, the con men say it would “just” require enough energy to be stored in the fuel tanks!
Lmao idiots!
The difference between a catapult and a jet engine is, that the jet engine allows a slow, controlled and steady release of the energy. Once the catapult has released its object it has to go well or else it will come down.
It would work fine in a vacuum, e.g. on the moon. Unfortunately, on earth we have a thick atmosphere to deal with. Orbits are about going sideways VERY fast. If you try and plough through the atmosphere at 7km/second it creates a LOT of heat, and uses a LOT of energy. You also can’t just lob a satellite up. It will need to circularise its orbit, so you need to log an engine and fuel too.
Basically, it’s viable as a technological idea, but not on earth.
Technically, the Alcubierre drive is also just a mathematical equation that will be solved by someone someday if we figure out how to acquire and concentrate enough negative energy. That doesn’t mean it’s happening anytime within the next 1000 years though.
Do you struggle with reading comprehension?
I didn’t say anything about whether this concept was viable from a physics standpoint.
I said that the article is a puff piece (which it is) and probably a paid advertisement, and that the headline claims that a thing has happened which has not actually happened.
It’s mathematically impossible to send an object into orbit just from energy imparted on the ground. Depending on the speed you launch it, either it falls back down or it flies off into space.
To achieve orbit you need a circularization burn at the highest point of your trajectory.
Or as Scott Manley put it:
“Getting into space is easy. Getting into orbit is hard.”