This ion propulsion system is called VASIMR and runs at 200-kW with Argon propellant to produce a whopping 2 to 20 lb of thrust...While this engine is neat and uses some crazy superconducting magnets it is actually less efficient at ~40% (thrust-power/electrical-power) than traditional ion engines (>70%) and hall effect thrusters (50-70%). A few pre-existing Hall thrusters (such as the 72-kW NASA-457M which was built and tested way back in 2002 and doesn't use supercoducting magnets) slapped onto the ISS or a Mars spacecraft would leave a VASIMR propelled craft in the interplanetary cosmic dust!
- Status
mlopinto2k1
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 817
- 0
- 18,930
How about exploring our own planet first? We, as an ENTIRE SPECIES, have but only explored.. ummmm... 1-2% of our oceans? Yea! Let's go to MARS! GTFOD!
A Nuke reactor... Its space, not even you environuts can complain about them in space. They can provide all the power you need for several years.
If we build cities in the ocean.. We just end up destroying another envoriment. If we build cities on mars/moon what is there to destroy? I say space is the way to go. We have to move on to something else.. If not it will eventually catch up with us.
Gin Fushicho
Distinguished
- Mar 11, 2009
- 645
- 0
- 18,930
Gin Fushicho
Distinguished
- Mar 11, 2009
- 645
- 0
- 18,930
Gin Fushicho
Distinguished
- Mar 11, 2009
- 645
- 0
- 18,930
Gin Fushicho
Distinguished
- Mar 11, 2009
- 645
- 0
- 18,930
Damn you toms hardware for your glithyness and making me unable to see one comment , let alone that I posted THREE.
Pyroflea
Distinguished
- Mar 18, 2007
- 341
- 0
- 18,930
AlexTheBlue:
I completely agree. It's not that we would have any problems getting there via electrical propulsion, our technology in that field is fairly advanced. The one thing we truly need that doesn't get enough attention in a new type of battery. They were talking for warp drive that you need the power of 10 suns (not sure on actual amount, I believe I'm close). So before we waste time making the motors, make the fuel.
I completely agree. It's not that we would have any problems getting there via electrical propulsion, our technology in that field is fairly advanced. The one thing we truly need that doesn't get enough attention in a new type of battery. They were talking for warp drive that you need the power of 10 suns (not sure on actual amount, I believe I'm close). So before we waste time making the motors, make the fuel.
ion engines have been around for awhile. nasa developed it first and used it already. then europe did.
Showing the Excelsior Class for ion rocket is incorrect. The ship uses fusion reactors that are tied to a magnetic coil that is used to direct the plasma that is given off of the fusion reactor(s).
Anyways, this is really cool. Next they need to make artificial gravity.
Anyways, this is really cool. Next they need to make artificial gravity.
anamaniac
Distinguished
- Jan 7, 2009
- 1,035
- 0
- 19,230
http
/www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/01/real-life-gunda/
So, now we can make one of these much lighter, allowing extra headroom for our rocket salvos?
Atleast to NASA's claims, the first ION propulsion was developed in 1960. And the only reason why we haven't tried it yet is because we're not sure whether it will flop or not. NASA originally planned to use a test flight with ION propulsion in 2004.
I love the idea of ion propulsion myself. Can we all be like Iron Man? (Though needing a small nuclear battery with us to power it).
It still uses fuel, unfortunately, just like combustion. It propels a particle (NASA wanted to use xenon, a non-reactive heavy gas)with intense amount of energy, which at the same times repels the craft in the opposite direction (basic physics, for every action, there is a equal and opposite reaction). NASA expected it to use about 1/10 or less the amount of fuel. Would we find enough particles (space dust or whatever) to propel ourselves indeffinetely with some type of solar generator?
How about a hybrid system?
Has a traditional fuel rocket to get it to high velocity quickly (big motha burning as fast as it can), and once it's empty, launch it off (using that for an extra boost too), and then switching to ion propulsion?
[citation][nom]AlexTheBlue[/nom]"Ion propulsion system designed partly in Canada." The last I looked, the most advanced ion engine was primarily designed by Ad Astra in Texas. It's the VASIMR engine. Yes, Canada builds one of the main pieces of hardware for it, yes they were involved. I'm not trying to take that away from Canada, its just that you obviously skipped over any details of the origin of the engine, or you didn't bother to do any actual independent research. Or you're just the Al Gore of Canada, inventing the internet AND ion engines."The ion drive engine is able to turn electrical power into thrust, which would make solar panels extra useful." Do you think solar panels would generate enough electricity to reliably power these things? The current VX-200 generated 201 kilowatts, enough to keep the ISS afloat using .3 tons of fuel. I've seen estimates for a Mars mission requiring a 10-20 megawatt ion engine. That would require some serious solar panels... but then again I hear they build everything bigger in Texas. Maybe they'll have a couple of square miles of solar panels strapped to that baby.[/citation]
You mention Al Gore and Canada again, and it won't be pretty. Just because we gave you Mariah Carey doesn't mean we're willing to take that idiot off your hands.
Though a few square kilometres of insanely efficient super thin solar panels is actually viable on such a craft. Just ship all the panels to the Internatioal Space Station, and build it up there. (We could rrobably automate the process of connecting all the panels with small robots).
[citation][nom]NiLLion38546[/nom]A Nuke reactor... Its space, not even you environuts can complain about them in space. They can provide all the power you need for several years.[/citation]
That's more like it.
Space is full of harmful shit, what's a little more?
A serious nuclear reactor (or two) would do well in a project like this I believe.
[citation][nom]nukem950[/nom]Showing the Excelsior Class for ion rocket is incorrect. The ship uses fusion reactors that are tied to a magnetic coil that is used to direct the plasma that is given off of the fusion reactor(s). Anyways, this is really cool. Next they need to make artificial gravity.[/citation]
I love you.
P.S. Picard owns Kirk, Voyager was decent, Seven of Nine was hot, Deep Space 9 was a horrid mistake, the new series sucked, and the movie was crap.
/www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/01/real-life-gunda/So, now we can make one of these much lighter, allowing extra headroom for our rocket salvos?
Atleast to NASA's claims, the first ION propulsion was developed in 1960. And the only reason why we haven't tried it yet is because we're not sure whether it will flop or not. NASA originally planned to use a test flight with ION propulsion in 2004.
I love the idea of ion propulsion myself. Can we all be like Iron Man? (Though needing a small nuclear battery with us to power it).
It still uses fuel, unfortunately, just like combustion. It propels a particle (NASA wanted to use xenon, a non-reactive heavy gas)with intense amount of energy, which at the same times repels the craft in the opposite direction (basic physics, for every action, there is a equal and opposite reaction). NASA expected it to use about 1/10 or less the amount of fuel. Would we find enough particles (space dust or whatever) to propel ourselves indeffinetely with some type of solar generator?
How about a hybrid system?
Has a traditional fuel rocket to get it to high velocity quickly (big motha burning as fast as it can), and once it's empty, launch it off (using that for an extra boost too), and then switching to ion propulsion?
[citation][nom]AlexTheBlue[/nom]"Ion propulsion system designed partly in Canada." The last I looked, the most advanced ion engine was primarily designed by Ad Astra in Texas. It's the VASIMR engine. Yes, Canada builds one of the main pieces of hardware for it, yes they were involved. I'm not trying to take that away from Canada, its just that you obviously skipped over any details of the origin of the engine, or you didn't bother to do any actual independent research. Or you're just the Al Gore of Canada, inventing the internet AND ion engines."The ion drive engine is able to turn electrical power into thrust, which would make solar panels extra useful." Do you think solar panels would generate enough electricity to reliably power these things? The current VX-200 generated 201 kilowatts, enough to keep the ISS afloat using .3 tons of fuel. I've seen estimates for a Mars mission requiring a 10-20 megawatt ion engine. That would require some serious solar panels... but then again I hear they build everything bigger in Texas. Maybe they'll have a couple of square miles of solar panels strapped to that baby.[/citation]
You mention Al Gore and Canada again, and it won't be pretty. Just because we gave you Mariah Carey doesn't mean we're willing to take that idiot off your hands.
Though a few square kilometres of insanely efficient super thin solar panels is actually viable on such a craft. Just ship all the panels to the Internatioal Space Station, and build it up there. (We could rrobably automate the process of connecting all the panels with small robots).
[citation][nom]NiLLion38546[/nom]A Nuke reactor... Its space, not even you environuts can complain about them in space. They can provide all the power you need for several years.[/citation]
That's more like it.
Space is full of harmful shit, what's a little more?
A serious nuclear reactor (or two) would do well in a project like this I believe.
[citation][nom]nukem950[/nom]Showing the Excelsior Class for ion rocket is incorrect. The ship uses fusion reactors that are tied to a magnetic coil that is used to direct the plasma that is given off of the fusion reactor(s). Anyways, this is really cool. Next they need to make artificial gravity.[/citation]
I love you.
P.S. Picard owns Kirk, Voyager was decent, Seven of Nine was hot, Deep Space 9 was a horrid mistake, the new series sucked, and the movie was crap.
Thurin
Distinguished
- Apr 8, 2008
- 26
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]daft[/nom]wow, sorry, but i read this over on physorg about 2 weeks ago[/citation]
No offense intended, but I hadn't read it before, and with me, I think there are plenty of others who had not read this before either.
What it comes down to is that I believe it's good if more than one source feeds us information. More sources not only raises the probability of truthful news, but also makes sure that the article in question reaches more people.
All in all, good job guys and keep 'em coming.
Kind regards,
Mike
No offense intended, but I hadn't read it before, and with me, I think there are plenty of others who had not read this before either.
What it comes down to is that I believe it's good if more than one source feeds us information. More sources not only raises the probability of truthful news, but also makes sure that the article in question reaches more people.
All in all, good job guys and keep 'em coming.
Kind regards,
Mike
socrates047
Distinguished
- Apr 23, 2009
- 90
- 0
- 18,580
grimjester
Distinguished
- Sep 24, 2009
- 2
- 0
- 18,510
The article is badly short on real info, which is reflected in the comments. Read http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR
Ion engines are nothing new. They've been used on several small spacecraft already. The new thing in VASIMR is that the ions don't contact any part of the engine directly, therefore no erosion, so it can be scaled up.
Solar panels give about 170W/kg at 1 AU from the sun. NASAs SAFE-400 reactor gives electricity of just 200W/kg but heat of 800W/kg; I'm not sure if the heat can be useful for a VASIMR engine. If not, solar might be used as far out as Mars. Nuclear does scale somewhat better than linearly, so at the tens of MW needed for a manned Mars trip, nuclear might yet win out.
Ad Astra's home page mentions 4kg/kW (i.e. 250W/kg) for a reactor and 200MW for the 39 days to Mars trip. 800 tons, right... The more realistic one is 4 months with 12MW power, giving 48 tons of reactor or maybe twice that of solar panels. Launch to LEO for the solar panels would cost about 300 million USD, half that for a reactor.
/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VASIMR Ion engines are nothing new. They've been used on several small spacecraft already. The new thing in VASIMR is that the ions don't contact any part of the engine directly, therefore no erosion, so it can be scaled up.
Solar panels give about 170W/kg at 1 AU from the sun. NASAs SAFE-400 reactor gives electricity of just 200W/kg but heat of 800W/kg; I'm not sure if the heat can be useful for a VASIMR engine. If not, solar might be used as far out as Mars. Nuclear does scale somewhat better than linearly, so at the tens of MW needed for a manned Mars trip, nuclear might yet win out.
Ad Astra's home page mentions 4kg/kW (i.e. 250W/kg) for a reactor and 200MW for the 39 days to Mars trip. 800 tons, right... The more realistic one is 4 months with 12MW power, giving 48 tons of reactor or maybe twice that of solar panels. Launch to LEO for the solar panels would cost about 300 million USD, half that for a reactor.
JonnyDough
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2007
- 496
- 0
- 18,940
ION? Pish, thats soooo yesterday. If it doesn't have a quantum space hyper drive it isn't moving.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Why are windows laptop cameras so bad compared to other's?
- Started by bakriwa5
- Replies: 2
-
Discussion What new phone technology trends should we keep an eye on?- Started by Vandna Jadhav
- Replies: 2
-
Question Best laptops for a student going to high school
- Started by joninte2
- Replies: 2
-
Question What if the EU forced laptop makers to allow upgradeable ram and storage?
- Started by kionbo2
- Replies: 2
-
Question Which games are you playing right now please suggest me some- Started by happyclub
- Replies: 8
-
Facebook
Twitter