Next generation of ION Thrusters sets new records

[GeckoOBac]

http://1.usa.gov/17Zhmhm

It seemed quite fitting here

Will you look at that thing? That thing looks as sci-fi as they come!

[Nuke]

yep. but ion drives will continue to improve as they are able to source more power for their operation. right now the main constraint is the limits of solar and rtg power sources.

[tikker]

I immediately thought of KSP when I saw it . I read somewhere they're planning on using it on a craft that'll intercept an asteroid in the 2019ish. I wonder how long it'll take to get there.

[Nuke]

you can either

burn -> wait a long time -> burn

or you can

burn really slow for a long time

face it, space travel takes a long time

[dizzysaurus]

What's the thrust and ISP on that thing?

[Bunsen]

What's the thrust and ISP on that thing?

0.236N (yeah, less than an ounce of force) and 4190s, according to the specs.

[Scotius]

Hmm, i will contain my enthusiasm until VASIMR prototype gets installed on ISS and fires for the first time. Then we'll have a spaceship with a proper, honest-to-gosh plasma drive on board

[Moar Boosters]

So they've gone from giving a mouse farts worth of thrust, to a rat's fart.

That's progress!

[GeckoOBac]

So they've gone from giving a mouse farts worth of thrust, to a rat's fart.

That's progress!

Well actually judging from the specs, it's well over 2 times as much force than the current state of art...

[Apature rocket science]

I am trying to make a sato only using iron engines, at the current rate the rocket needs to be the size of 8 orange tanks just to lift off at .005 mps, it will take me about 1 hour real time to get to orbit and the peri aspires will allways be less then a meter above the rocket. The rocket is so weak that it can't time warp at all. If I could use the new iron thrusters the rock would only be the size of 3 orange taks and could reach .5 mps so these new iron engines are a huge leap ford.

[leax256]

I would like to eventually see ion engines at least reach 1/200 of current engines but still maintain isp

[Nuke]

mpd thrusters will be at least an order of magnitude higher thrust than vasimr at equivalent isp. the problem with vasmir is that you have to give up isp to get more thrust. mpd on the otherhand maintains high isp even at high thrust levels. the only problem of course is power. you need about a gigawatt of power to get anywhere with an mpd thruster.

[Morrigi]

The real problem with the VASMIR is its energy requirements. 200KW is a lot, especially considered that the ISS only has 90kw of power and the engine generates under 6N of thrust. The new ion engine in the OP is actually over a third more energy-efficient than the VASMIR, though possibly less fuel-efficient.

For high-thrust ion or plasma propulsion to be viable, I see two options.

1. Nuclear reactors (already tested and operational on satellites during the Cold War)

2. Considerable, very expensive improvements to solar panels.

Or we could just use nuclear engines of various types, some of which (such as the nuclear-thermal rocket) have been prototyped and tested by NASA, passing with flying colors. They have higher thrust and can theoretically have an efficiency of 3000-7000isp with a gas-core design but this isp is impossible with current technology due to the truly ridiculous temperatures exhaust temperatures necessary.

However, even simple solid-core NTRs can reach 875isp which is far beyond the capability of chemical rockets. while a practical gas-core design could potentially reach 1500-2000isp. Liquid-core reactors could get up to ~1200-1500isp.

NTRs are also capable of thrust comparable to chemical rockets in the range of hundreds of kN. NASA has conducted considerable research into NTRs to the point that an upgraded Saturn V with an NTR upper stage was proposed with a thrust of 334kN. Another 73kN thrust design was proposed to replace the Space Shuttle main engines as well.

NTRs have a thrust-to-weight ratio large enough that they could in fact be used as a first stage, though this is probably a bad idea for multiple obvious reasons.

Oh, and fission-fragment rockets. 'Nuff said.

Edited September 1, 2013 by Morrigi

[Nuke]

im actually starting to think that using isp to rate ion engines is a rather bad idea once you start introducing rtgs and fission/fusion reactors that power the whole thing. since those devices also use consumables to produce electrical power, which itself becomes a consumable for the ion engine. in those cases it makes little since to only include propellant in isp computations. i think the equations need to include the specific energy of the power source as well as the specific impulse of the engine. how that would look mathematically im too lazy to figure out, but it should be considered part of the metric for engine ratings, so that electric engines can be compared more fairly with conventional engines.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Nuke

[magnemoe]

im actually starting to think that using isp to rate ion engines is a rather bad idea once you start introducing rtgs and fission/fusion reactors that power the whole thing. since those devices also use consumables to produce electrical power, which itself becomes a consumable for the ion engine. in those cases it makes little since to only include propellant in isp computations. i think the equations need to include the specific energy of the power source as well as the specific impulse of the engine. how that would look mathematically im too lazy to figure out, but it should be considered part of the metric for engine ratings, so that electric engines can be compared more fairly with conventional engines.

RTG and nuclear reactors tend to give power for decades, they will last longer than your xenon reserves. Unfornatly neither reactors or RTG become noticeable lighter over time after using the fuel:(