<i>"The SABERS concept proposes a battery that meets the key performance criteria through development of a solid-state architecture battery utilizing high-capacity sulfur-selenium cathode and lithium metal anode."</i><p>This isn't even a result. It's a proposal for funding. There is no "Solid State Battery from NASA". There is, at most, a prototype cathode.<p>There are real solid state batteries. Maxell has tiny ones for sale.[1] Many companies are making solid state battery noises, but few, if any, are shipping a product. Toyota's announcement of Real Soon Now has the Financial Times writing "The trillion-dollar question is whether solid-state batteries — a technology that promises greater range and safety than lithium-ion ones, and which Toyota has indicated it is near to mass producing — can be that miracle."[2]<p>Solid-state batteries are the next overhyped big thing. They may eventually work, but they don't work yet.<p>Typical solid state battery company hype site: [3] Note pictures of green and eco scenes and renders of battery modules. Note absence of product data sheets. If you dig enough, you find "Note that we have not completed the development of our multilayer commercial battery cell..."<p>[1] <a href="https://biz.maxell.com/en/rechargeable_batteries/allsolidstate.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://biz.maxell.com/en/rechargeable_batteries/allsolidsta...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ffc78e5d-eb8d-442c-bc5e-d2f029951165" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ft.com/content/ffc78e5d-eb8d-442c-bc5e-d2f029951...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://www.quantumscape.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.quantumscape.com/</a>
Previous HN discussions have been relatively quiet on this battery:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33603281">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33603281</a><p>>> To that end, SABERS has experimented with innovative new materials yet to be used in batteries, which have produced significant progress in power discharge. During the past year, the team successfully increased their battery’s discharge rate by a factor of 10 – and then by another factor of 5 – inching researchers closer to their goal of powering a large vehicle.<p>Looks like they're not quite there yet?
> "“Fire” and “airplane” are two words that should never be used in the same sentence"<p>Don't ICEs and Jets all require fire and explosive fuel to fly?
<i>> This presentation will demonstrate a feasible path for solid-state cells that possess a specific energy of greater than 400 Wh/kg to enable electric aircraft</i><p>Wow!! Gasoline is 12 kWh/kg. Only 4x better!<p><a href="https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energy/density.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://chemistry.beloit.edu/edetc/SlideShow/slides/energy/d...</a>
Suddenly a new element on the table piqued my interest. Selenium [0].
Seems relatively abundant, already used in glass and semiconductor
making, but a tad toxic like arsenic etc.<p>Any chemists weigh-in on Se ?<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenium</a>
FTA: "Most of us have little idea what NASA — the National Aeronautics and Space Administration — has been doing since the Apollo moon missions ended. We know it is responsible for Tang and space blankets, but what has it done for us lately?"<p>This is such a dumb and off-putting opening sentence that I can't imagine this was written by an adult person and passed by a real editor. The rest of the article is equally infuriating. It quite literally looks like output of ChatGPT for an article where the input prompt was to summarize a NASA press release but in a way that will be presented to gradeschool children. And poorly. Which isn't appropriate for... anybody, actually.<p>The real technical overview that isn't written like a middle-schooler-GPT-generated report is located here, specifically the PDF:<p><a href="https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230013163" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230013163</a>
Anyone care to explain what they mean by:<p>> As any EV advocate knows, vehicles powered by batteries and electricity are far more efficient than conventional cars powered by last century internal combustion technology.<p>Because they are comparing energy storage with energy creation. And as far as I know fuel holds more energy per cubic centimeter than batteries.