This is the worst math that ever mathed. IPv4 is 32 bits of address space. IPv6 is 128. That is 2^32 vs 2^128. Not 2^52, which isn’t even wrong it’s just weird, hopefully this is just some weird performance joke. There are enough addresses in ipv6 to address every known atom on earth. We aren’t running out anytime soon. 96 doublings of IPv4s address space is a number you can’t fathom.

Reminds me of ye olde experts exchange domain.

What about giddy goat? https://youtu.be/1EBfxjSFAxQ

The cat zone is for loafing and unloafing only.

Shiba Inu’s are kinda close, and a lot less loud and smelly. They’re like dogs with cat software.

The nerve! Did we send a strongly worded letter with pictures of teabags held hostage above a body of water until they get their shit together?

I attack the darkness.

I mean crashing technically counts as a landing. We can use the rocketry term lithobraking to make it sound better.

You could say it just doesn’t make cents.

Important note rde’s can have more than one detonation wave, most cfd simulations and prototypes have 2 or 3 chasing each other. The challenge being keeping all of them moving at the same speed so as not to flame out etc…

Edit: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Rotating-detonation-engine-with-two-shocks_fig1_323353046

The coolest thing here is we can remove compressors from engines with this approach. That’s huge complexity just poof gone and weight. And that’s ignoring the efficiency gained from these guys.

I’d say still too soon to say. It’s a very touchy process to maintain so my guess is we would see this in rockets and probably large turbines used for power at first then likely ships and probably filtering down as we improve. Best bet on this is to expect it in a 10 year horizon from where it’s at. The fact we can run as long as this test did in only about 3ish years of development? Is a good sign. Honestly rotating detonation engines working at all is a minor engineering miracle so even just a working rocket engine is huge. This can help the rocket equation a ton depending on how far from theoretical we get in reality but let’s swag 20%, that is better than the 10% we gained from switching from an open cycle to closed cycle rocket engine.

Fun times ahead though!

The physics behind this can theoretically improve all turbines by up to 25% efficiency. Not just rockets but turbines, thats nothing to sneeze at. Your point is noted, but misguided as nasa is around for exactly this reason to push the limits of physics not building housing. This is a huge leap forward. The brayton cycle working at the top of its efficiency curve at all is akin to jet engines over propellers. It’s that big of a deal to increase efficiency by 25% for an entire class of engines.