Ion Rocket Engine Can Take Us to Mars Faster

[JonnyDough]

Pair this with a towel, some mice, and an infinite impropability drive and you've got a Heart of Gold.

 

[jj463rd]

Yeah you need a power source for the engine obviously a nuclear fission reactor.I remember a hobbyiest built ion propulsion system back in the early 1950's.Also I remember other propulsion systems like this.
http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

 

[mofogo]

Yeah, the VASIMIR is based in down here in Houston, and that is the one slated to test on the ISS in 2013. Every other article mentions ISS, VASIMIR, 39 Days, and talks about Ad Astra, whereas this article is so devoid of information its ridiculous. Its a plasma engine also.

 

[wiyosaya]

A very similar

 

[wiyosaya]

A similar, yet more technical, article appeared on the physorg site not too long ago. Plasma Rocket Could Travel to Mars in 39 Days

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]Honis[/nom]They had Ion Engines in Star Trek?I've been keeping up with this research for awhile and I think this is some of the most revolutionary engineering of our century.[/citation]
No, they used three forms of propulsion: thrusters (basically rockets), impulse engines (these are the ones powered by the fusion reactors), and warp engines (powered by the warp core, a matter/anti-matter reaction channeled into warp coils within the nacells which allowed the ship to move at FTL speeds by creating a sub-space bubble around the ship). In the original series episode, "Spock's Brain", the crew of the Enterprise encountered a ship that was propelled by an ion drive. Scotty made a comment about, "They could teach us a thing or two." leading to the assumption that it was more advanced than warp drive. In truth, an ion drive is still a Newtonian drive (i.e. reactionary) that uses electrical power (which can be generated on the ship) rather than rockets (which use a chemical fuel that the ship must carry, and hence, is very limited).

 

[jellico]

[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]wow, so you could make it there even faster if you didn't bother breaking. just fit BIG air bags![/citation]
Technically, yes. If we could find a way to shield the craft sufficiently, we could then travel at full acceleration for the whole distance, and then dip into the atmosphere of Mars to slow the ship down (see the movie 2010). I don't know, though... that's a hell of a lot of delta V in a short period of time. The astronauts may not be able to survive that (unless they could be placed in tanks filled with an oxygen saturated perfluorocarbon liquid).

 

[sunflier]

Does this mean NASA will replace hot meals with peanuts?

 

[everygamer]

Ok, don't want to point myself out as a super geek, but Ion Engines were used in Star Wars not Star Trek.

On to a less sci-fi statement, the benefit of ION drives has to do with mass to thrust ratio. The reason why ION drives are better is because the fuel is lighter and lasts longer. Though its slower to speed up or slow down, it can get to higher top speeds before running out of fuel. In space travel, fuel and mass are the limit of how fast you can go.

 

[sonofliberty08]

[citation][nom]skine[/nom]Interestingly, it took Columbus 36 days to sail from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas.[/citation]
Columbus was not sail but floated to the new world that he thought it was India.

 

[nachowarrior]

turn the ship around backwards? can't they just put one on the front?

 

[rambo117]

when can we haz dilithium engine? engage!

 

[balister]

[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]

They're called SNAP, Space Nuclear Auxillary Power, and have existed since the 60s. One of the first things Neil Armstrong did when he got off the Apollo Lander was to take a Plutonium rod attached to one of the lander legs and insert it into the SNAP to power Eagle's systems (the Apollo Lander).

 

[balister]

[citation][nom]everygamer[/nom]Ok, don't want to point myself out as a super geek, but Ion Engines were used in Star Wars not Star Trek.On to a less sci-fi statement, the benefit of ION drives has to do with mass to thrust ratio. The reason why ION drives are better is because the fuel is lighter and lasts longer. Though its slower to speed up or slow down, it can get to higher top speeds before running out of fuel. In space travel, fuel and mass are the limit of how fast you can go.[/citation]

No, Star Trek used Ion Engines as well for sublight speeds. Go back and watch some of the original series episodes, they'll mention use of them on occasion. You might also hear mention of them in tNG.

 

[Guest]

the Cassini probe currently in use around Saturn uses an ion drive.

However the further you get from the sun the less officiant solar power generation is. Mars is the current boundary for solar power, that is why the Cassini probe used a mini nuclear reactor for its power source. These are just probes to power a spaceship, you will also need something more powerful then just solar to get there and back.

Ion drives are not fast in any sense of the word. but it can be compared to the current way of throwing people up in space strapped to a rocket in the sense of a dragster versus a scooter. A dragster uses it fuel quick and can get you to a certain point down the track quick but slows down and drifts, a scooter keeps going and going and can go further, but in the case of Ion drives the continuous thrust speeds it up gradually and the longer thrust equals faster speeds and greater distances over time

 

[michaelahess]

Soooooo anyone else realize NASA is planning on scrapping the ISS in 2012? How the hell can they test these engines without the ISS, somebody needs to look at a calendar.

 

[solymnar]

[citation][nom]AlexTheBlue[/nom] 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 have to take into account that there is virtually no resistance in space. In very loose theory you could make collapsable reflective foil that could spread out once in space to cover an absolutely rediculous foot print and focus the light to either a turbine loop or a conversion grid designed to use the concentrated focus.

Current solar turbine plants (mirrors reflect the light and concentrate it to heat a target and run a turbine) generate upwards of 10megawatts, this is after the atmosphere takes its share of heat energy away from the light. Seems reasonable to me?

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]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.[/citation]

Perhaps you haven't paid enough attention to the news lately? Or maybe it's because I work for one of the companies in question, that I know we have indeed been working towards a better battery:
New Dow Kokam Lithium-ion battery tech

 

[Guest]

You forget that NASA has already used an ion engine in their deep space explorer.

 

[CerianK]

With ion propulsion's expected 39 day trip time, astronauts would be able to make a return trip during the same Earth/Mars pass.

That statement does not make sense (unless by 'return trip' they mean a 'return trip back to Mars' using the same ship... which would be technically challenging). Regardless of the trip time, the only relevant factor to getting back home is how much time is spent on Mars. If you want to spend 2 weeks on Mars, just make sure you land on Mars 1 week before it is closet to Earth. The total distance traveled will be unsubstantially unaffected by the trip time.