Gave my lecture on rocket engine cycles today. I love starting with: “A brash young millionaire with a penchant for sports cars decides to overturn the space launch industry by developing a FedEx-like, low-cost and reliable space launch service. Who am I talking about?” The class answers: “Elon!”
“Wrong! George Koopman.”
[blank stares]
gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-ph…

Today, at the Spring Technical Meeting of the Canadian Section of Combustion Institute, @cbkiyanda and I will be hosting a special session featuring the student-team-led propulsion activity across Canada, centered around the @Spaceport_Cup competition. Opening keynote by Adam Trumpour of @Launch_Canada: There are now 22 university-based student rocket teams across Canada, half of which are now active in development of their own hybrid or liquid bipropellant engines, representing the effort of thousands of students.

Reports are emerging that yesterday’s tragedy in Beirut was the result of the explosion of a store of 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate (AN). How did we end up with kiloton-sized depots of potential high explosives being stored in cities? A long thread follows. Tens of millions of tons of AN is produced worldwide every year, predominately as fertilizer and is a basis of our agricultural food chain; it is not going away. AN is often not even classified as an explosive, in fact, it is not even considered flammable:

@JFluidMech @cambUP_maths @PeerRevWeek On first read through, try to be sympathetic to the manuscript. We all like to see good papers, so read it hopefully. Similarly, try to start the reviewer's report with a brief summary of the paper (2-3 sentences) and point out its contributions. (1/12) @JFluidMech @cambUP_maths @PeerRevWeek The summary is important, as it signifies to the authors and editor that you actually read the paper. Next, if there are any major deficiencies or foundational errors, point them out immediately. (2/12)