THIS is why we invest in science. This.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/21/this-is-why-we-invest-in-science-this/

by supercopter • 14 years ago

27 6 14 years ago

blogs.discovermagazine.com

narkee• 14 years ago

I think research funding in general could take some cues from the Y Combinator funding model, in the sense that if you give smart people money and time, they'll discover/create amazing things.

You would think the value and return you get from investment in science would be apparent to anyone living in the modern age.

iRobot• 14 years ago

Nothing to discus, I just agree

Herring• 14 years ago

I agree with the general sentiment (more money to NASA) but I'd point out just because it pays doesn't mean it's the best use of that money. There might be better investments.

juliennakache• 14 years ago

I agree. But still, for that much money, they could put up a youtube video of the experiment :)

marshray• 14 years ago

I hate to uh "pour cold water on this", but if you follow the link to the NASA site: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2011/ps_5.html

What it actually says is "HMA incorporated elements derived from ORBITEC’s propulsion work into its design for fire suppression, and the improvements significantly enhanced the performance of HMA’s UHP systems. For example, the company studied how to better manage the flow of a liquid to create an energetic blanket of fine water droplets."

It does not actually justify the claim that the vortex flow of propellant has anything to do with the firehose optimizations.

Science people are always so hypercritical when it comes to surprising claims made by non-scientists. They shouldn't give a free pass to Discover magazine and NASA to make such a stretch.

hartror• 14 years ago

I would expect controlling of propellant flow into a combustion chamber has many lessons that can be applied to other fluid dynamics problems. And it says right there that is what they did:

"HMA incorporated elements derived from ORBITEC’s propulsion work into its design for fire suppression."

Sure it probably isn't the vortex itself by the sounds of it but there are plenty of other problems they would have had to solve to get the working engine design.

So there is no stretch as I read it, though I appreciate your skepticism as often these things are blown out of proportion by the media.

THIS is why we invest in science. This.

Related Stories