Comments on: Flat Nano-Thrusters Could Save Weight and Fuel for Spacecraft

By: baley

baley — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:35:59 +0000

@david
that cost estimation is not so accurate that including that 0.2 will make a significant difference.
Besides most people won't be familiar with both units at the same time.
I sometimes use 'Imperial' (or rather american) units at work but if you ask me how long is a ft or a in I would still have to make the calculation mentally.

By: David

David — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:23:01 +0000

no wonder you guys have so many problems, a kilogram is not 2 pounds in any part of the world , a Kg is equal to 2.205 pounds. Surely accuracy is important in the space race?

By: Sili

Sili — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:59:08 +0000

And just how 'cheap' are these fancy nanoparticles?

By: TorbjÃ¶rn Larsson, OM

TorbjÃ¶rn Larsson, OM — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:02:33 +0000

I should also grumble that AFAIU NS is known, in the science community, for reporting on science that isn't quite there (i.e. sensationalism journalism) and I wouldn't be surprised if they would do the same with technology. This doesn't quite pass the smell test.

By: TorbjÃ¶rn Larsson, OM

TorbjÃ¶rn Larsson, OM — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:58:05 +0000

A further nitpick is that it isn't clear whether the nanoparticles are actually atomized and ionized, or simply charged as-is. I'll bet its the latter [the reference NS article costs money], because the power consumption for the former seems both excessive and prohibitive.

By: Justine Ayers

Justine Ayers — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:34:40 +0000

Yeah that picture make it look like the thrusters you are talking about belong on something from a empire destroyer from Star Wars.

By: sfwrtr

sfwrtr — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:45:30 +0000

Umm… I don't think the picture has anything to do with the content of the article.

By: Yoo

Yoo — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:08:09 +0000

They're probably so much simpler and lighter that a larger surface area would still end up with an overall weight reduction.

By: LLDIAZ

LLDIAZ — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:48:40 +0000

( they would probably have to cover large areas of spacecraft)
Would'nt that defeat the purpose by adding more weight?