RegularJoe@lemmy.world to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoAn in-space propulsion company just raised a staggering amount of moneyarstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square12linkfedilinkarrow-up137arrow-down13cross-posted to: spaceflight@sh.itjust.worksarstechnica_index@rss.ponder.cat
arrow-up134arrow-down1external-linkAn in-space propulsion company just raised a staggering amount of moneyarstechnica.comRegularJoe@lemmy.world to science@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square12linkfedilinkcross-posted to: spaceflight@sh.itjust.worksarstechnica_index@rss.ponder.cat
minus-squareMonkderVierte@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-22 months agoAnd far more efficient than chemical propulsion.
minus-squareBimfred@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·2 months agoBut exactly because of that, they don’t have yeet. Long periods of low thrust are great for long duration missions, like satellites, stations and interplanetary probes, awful for a TLI burn.
minus-squarei_love_FFT@jlai.lulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 months agoAlso, is a bit more complicated to use in kerbal, because the manoeuvring node expects strong instantaneous impulse.
And far more efficient than chemical propulsion.
But exactly because of that, they don’t have yeet. Long periods of low thrust are great for long duration missions, like satellites, stations and interplanetary probes, awful for a TLI burn.
Also, is a bit more complicated to use in kerbal, because the manoeuvring node expects strong instantaneous impulse.