They produce electricity and electricity powers electric motor... This wouldn't work in space...

[removed]

How many went up at a time in the shuttle?

1. We cannot see any exoplanets from any galaxies outside our own. All the exoplanets we’ve found are in nearby areas of the Milky Way.

2. When we do detect exoplanets, they tend to be large and orbiting close to their parent star. We cannot see them directly, but instead we observe their effect on the star, either by watching it wobble slightly as the two orbit their common center of mass, or by watching the star dim slightly as the planet passes in front. Neither of these methods is applicable to a planet in our own system orbiting far out from the Sun.

I was thinking about it more, do you have any RC plane or drone clubs near by?

There are other subreddits for astrophotography, so this one limits photos to 1 day a week to allow more room for general space news.

The exoplanets we see are from other star systems in our galaxy, not in other galaxies.

And we didn't see these exoplanets directly, we see a drop in the magnitude (brightness) of the star the exoplanet is orbiting.

Because diffraction, and most exoplanets have been detected by star transits where even if the star only shines on a single pixel in the detector, we can still look for periodic brightness changes.

We can't see exoplanets from distant galaxies. I think you've got things a bit confused.

Simply to say we are looking at stars, not planets. Mostly in our galaxy

Unfortunately that's just all wrong. The part you took from the second source isn't even about the rotating detonation engine but the detonation pulse jet engine. Maybe the exhaust velocities are the same but I doubt it. And the figures used aren't even the actual exhaust velocities. That's the speed of the Shockwave from the detonation and the speed of the wave from deflagration.

But rocket engines use something called a de laval nozzle. Designed for the flow to speed up to Mach 1 at the throat and then go supersonic out the back. So the exhaust velocity of a typical rocket engine is already in the several km/s range. For example, rs25 has an exhaust velocity of about 4 km/s. Twice that of the figure you used for the detonation engine.

You can't easily just take an exhaust velocity and calculate how long a trip to mars would take. The exhaust velocity is not a limit on how fast the rocket can go. It's more about showing its efficiency. Higher exhaust velocities are more efficient. This is also measured in a term called Isp, specific impulse. Which is why ion thrusters are so efficient. They cam have effective exhaust velocities of about 40 km/s.

With effective exhaust velocity (which I'm not sure 2km/s is it for an rde) you'd at least need the initial (or wet mass, aka fully fueled rocket mass) and final mass (dry mass, mass after burning all propellant) to get the total delta v from the rocket equation. That would give you a rough idea of where the rocket can get you. The more delta v the faster you can get somewhere.

It stills needs liquid fuel though doesn’t it? Just does not need an oxidizer so it saves that portion of liquid fuel.

I feel like Russia may have just been launching empty cans or something. Their consistency is impressive but it might just have been painted cardboard boxes all this time.

Any mention on its size or what the consequences of its impact would've been?

>nd if you plotted number of people sent into space instead of launches, the Space Shuttle era would really stand out.

I'm wondering how that would have looked in the last two years as well? Dragon is now sending 4 at a time frequently vs 2-3 at a time on Soyuz. Not going to make a drastic difference, but should look interesting as well.

Sounds like Rijal, or ree-JUHL. I think that means Man or Youth.

And then what? Nuclear power on earth just steam power. Propulsion in space requires Newtons 1st law - to go forward you gotta shit some stuff out the back. You can't just heat up water and shoot it out the back, I mean, you can, but that's a lot of squeezing for not a lot of juice.

Just permanently emitting a stream of decayed nuclear atoms would produce a tiny amount of thrust, but it could build up to tremendous speeds over time. But again, not really practical for transit during human life time scales.

Weeeeeell aaaaaacthuallyyyy, I said hypothesis just for this reason. I know the definition of words I use.

>fyi, you forgot to do that part

Big rip or big crunch are disapproved

>seriously, it's weird to see trolls like you in this sub. But hey, whatever makes you feel good inside.

You seem like a 14 yr old emotional fella-- troll, arguing whatever, i was just simply discussing and i get called these , there's problem simply with you, everyone was commenting and replying and you're the only one pissed off.

The subs and carriers have nuclear power plants aboard to generate electricity. While that power is used for propulsion, it's not the same thing as a nuclear engine. A nuclear rocket engine operates on the same principles but rather than using the heated water to turn a turbine, the water is directed through a nozzle to create thrust.

> Don't we have nuclear powered boats floating around aka the carriers and subs with nuclear engines?

The issue with nuclear reactors in space is waste heat. Boats you're referring to have literally whole ocean around them to use as coolant. In space you don't have such luxury and you need massive radiators to dump the heat.

[removed]

That's a good point and more so what I meant when I don't know how it works

[deleted]

What was its velocity relative to earth at its closest?