Maintaining a detonation (as opposed to deflagration) is quite a technical challenge. If nothing else, it pushes mechanical engineering and material science forward.
Of course, hypersonic transport would not be as efficient as a satellite, but still, at 100k feet, for example, you can go 5000km/h while only consuming the same amount of fuel that you would use to go 300km/h at sea level. The potential for efficiency gains are huge, and the fuel cost of getting to altitude is mostly returned in the descent.
Of course, the technical challenges are also huge, so I don’t expect to see hypersonic airliners any time soon, but when we do get them, they could easily be 6-7x as efficient as existing transports. And it would be nice to have long haul flights be 3x as fast or faster.
People mistakenly assume that this kind of travel only has applications for the military or the elites, and, like air travel in general, that will probably be initially true. But after the rich and the government foots the bill in lives and research to make it safe and economical, it should hold huge gains for society at large.
Science and engineering is one of the only cases where trickle down economics actually kind of works. In knowledge, a rising tide really does lift all boats.
As an engineering project it sounds really cool, but is the application really commercial travel? I would have thought the military would be far more interested and much better funded.
"We're actively engaged with US defense and national security agencies as well as commercial partners exploring hypersonic applications in logistics, aerospace, and future mobility—including large primes," she said. "The enthusiasm we’re seeing reflects a broad recognition that Venus’s technology can unlock new operational and economic possibilities across multiple markets."
The guy was former Lockheed. One night at dinner I told him to cut the BS and that their real goal was to target military/government contracts. He said "off the record" this is correct. This an unspoken goal by everyone involved - management, investors, etc.
My understanding is it can be hard to position yourself as a defense company as a start up if you don't already have a foothold in the space.
I mean, that pitch is an accurate claim if the insights in mind are "We just told the pentagon to blow up these pixels". That tends to affect global trade and futures markets.
Their YouTube is insanely technical, I think, lots of videos with big equations anyway - https://www.youtube.com/@venusaerospace/videos
This is a meaningless term. There's just varying degrees supersonic. "hyper" implies a completely different thing.
EDIT: apparently the military has bastardized the term
What are we going to do when we hit mach 11, start talking about "hyperhypersonic"? "superhypersonic"?
There was also some precedence from wave research back in 1938 which suggested hypersonic and ultrasonic for high frequency waves[1].
At this point it's a well-established term, with 60 years of history[2].
[1]: https://www.ias.ac.in/public/Volumes/seca/007/03/0163-0176.p...
[2]: https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/...
There have been tests with multiple detonation fronts, but controlling them is much harder. It's very hard to have them go around the channel at exactly the same speed, so their positions relative to each other remain fixed.
ColinWright•8h ago
"In contrast to a traditional rocket engine, in which a highly pressurized propellant and an oxidizer are injected into a combustion chamber where they burn and produce an energetic exhaust plume, a rotating detonation engine is different in that a wave of detonation travels around a circular channel. This is sustained by the injection of fuel and oxidizer and produces a shockwave that travels outward at supersonic speed."
Nope ... on my way to do web searches to try to figure out what this means.
First stop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_detonation_engine
"A rotating detonation engine (RDE) uses a form of pressure gain combustion, where one or more detonations continuously travel around an annular channel. ... In detonative combustion, the flame front expands at supersonic speed. It is theoretically up to 25% more efficient than conventional deflagrative combustion ... Disadvantages include instability and noise."
No images, no animations.
OK ... bookmarked, and I'll chase the references later.
Edit: OK, here's the best reference I've found so far:
https://www.sandboxx.us/news/what-is-a-rotating-detonation-e...
Now back to work.
philipodonnell•8h ago
kd5bjo•7h ago
Think about it in terms of an old-fashioned gunpowder line fuse: If you lay it out in a ring and have some kind of mechanism to continuously place down new gunpowder on the ring in front of the flame, you can keep it going until you run out of fuel.
twic•5h ago
To put it another way, if you set up a deflagration engine and a detonation engine next to each other, and fed them fuel and oxidiser at the same rate, how would the streams of exhaust gas coming out of them look different? What other external differences would you see?
Symmetry•5h ago
slow_typist•3h ago
Carnot-Efficiency is the theoretical limit of the cycle’s ability to get work out of the thermal energy where T_c is the exhaust (coldest) temperature after expansion and T_h the hottest temperature (before expansion). Temperatures given in K (Kelvin), so 100% if you manage to get T_c to absolute zero temperature.
mannykannot•4h ago
With regard to your comparison, I guess this means that the detonation engine can have a higher pressure in the combustion chamber, together with a larger bell, a faster-moving exhaust, or some combination.
[1] https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2013-3971
xeonmc•3h ago
Symmetry•7h ago
magicalhippo•7h ago
His channel has a certain flavor, but at least the video is informative.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRMMSyCcTDI
nfriedly•5h ago
It's kind of an anti-tomato flavor.
zelos•7h ago
coreyh14444•7h ago
pxndxx•5h ago
Symmetry•7h ago
Symmetry•7h ago
Rocket engine efficiency, like all heat engine efficiency[1], governed by the difference in temperature between hot and cold in the cycle. Because at any given point in a detonation engine the combustion engine only comes in pulses it can reach temperatures that would otherwise melt the rocket engine. That's true of regular rocket engines too, which use active cooling, but seems more true of a detonation engine. And I would guess that the exhaust, already being supersonic, needs less of a chock on the de Laval nozzle to ensure laminar flow.
[1] Strictly speaking this only applies to combustion rocket engines. An ion engine, for instance, is a rocket engine but not a heat engine.
kragen•3h ago
Symmetry•57m ago
yread•7h ago
https://www.rtx.com/news/2025/03/04/more-power-no-moving-par...
hammock•4h ago
That is my naive attempt to grok with an analogue, that is probably wrong.
xeonmc•4h ago
kragen•3h ago