Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Successfully Tests Ion Engine
Spaceref ^ | 11/20/03

Posted on 11/20/2003 8:11:24 PM PST by Brett66

NASA Successfully Tests Ion Engine

NASA's Project Prometheus recently reached an important milestone with the first successful test of an engine that could lead to revolutionary propulsion capabilities for space exploration missions throughout the solar system and beyond.

The test involved a High Power Electric Propulsion (HiPEP) ion engine. The event marked the first in a series of performance tests to demonstrate new high-velocity and high- power thrust needed for use in nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) applications.

"The initial test went extremely well," said Dr. John Foster, the primary investigator of the HiPEP ion engine at NASA's Glenn Research Center (GRC), Cleveland. "The test involved the largest microwave ion thruster ever built. The use of microwaves for ionization would enable very long-life thrusters for probing the universe," he said.

The test was conducted in a vacuum chamber at GRC. The HiPEP ion engine was operated at power levels up to 12 kilowatts and over an equivalent range of exhaust velocities from 60,000 to 80,000 meters per second. The thruster is being designed to provide seven-to-ten-year lifetimes at high fuel efficiencies of more than 6,000-seconds specific impulse; a measure of how much thrust is generated per pound of fuel. This is a contrast to Space Shuttle main engines, which have a specific impulse of 460 seconds.

The HiPEP thruster operates by ionizing xenon gas with microwaves. At the rear of the engine is a pair of rectangular metal grids that are charged with 6,000 volts of electric potential. The force of this electric field exerts a strong electrostatic pull on the xenon ions, accelerating them and producing the thrust that propels the spacecraft. The rectangular shape, a departure from the cylindrical ion thrusters used before, was designed to allow for an increase in engine power and performance by means of stretching the engine. The use of microwaves should provide much longer life and ion-production capability compared to current state-of- the-art technologies.

This new class of NEP thrusters will offer substantial performance advantages over the ion engine flown on Deep Space 1 in 1999. Overall improvements include up to a factor of 10 or more in power; a factor of two to three in fuel efficiency; a factor of four to five in grid voltage; a factor of five to eight in thruster lifetime; and a 30 percent improvement in overall thruster efficiency. GRC engineers will continue testing and development of this particular thruster model, culminating in performance tests at full power levels of 25 kilowatts.

"This test represents a huge leap in demonstrating the potential for advanced ion technologies, which could propel flagship space exploration missions throughout the solar system and beyond," said Alan Newhouse, Director, Project Prometheus. "We commend the work of Glenn and the other NASA Centers supporting this ambitious program."

HiPEP is one of several candidate propulsion technologies under study by Project Prometheus for possible use on the first proposed flight mission, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO). Powered by a small nuclear reactor, electric thrusters would propel the JIMO spacecraft as it conducts close-range observations of Jupiter's three icy moons, Ganymede, Callisto and Europa. The three moons could contain water, and where there is water, there is the possibility of life.

Development of the HiPEP ion engine is being carried out by a team of engineers from GRC; Aerojet, Redmond, Wash.; Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices, Torrance, Calif.; Ohio Aerospace Institute, Cleveland; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.; Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.


TOPICS: Government; Technical
KEYWORDS: goliath; hipep; ion; ionengine; nasa; prometheus; propulsion; rocket; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last
To: Bogey78O
I missed your point, what rarely happens nowadays?

LVM

41 posted on 11/20/2003 9:39:41 PM PST by LasVegasMac (Thunder was his engine and White Lightning was his load....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac
Losing multimillion dollar projects because we convert wrong.
42 posted on 11/20/2003 9:41:20 PM PST by Bogey78O (No! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Could we get this past 10,000-20,000 ISP with around 100 Newtons of thrust? A technology definitely worth investigating

It would be slow but extremely efficient for long flights for light spacecraft ..... exciting times indeed ....

We could catch and retrieve Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft with these.

43 posted on 11/20/2003 9:43:06 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Resolve to perform what you ought, perform without fail what you resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
....pair of rectangular grids that are charged with 6,000 volts...

Yes...but then you will need a 5 story building size electric power plant to provide the volts. Just kidding.
44 posted on 11/20/2003 9:54:28 PM PST by Silvermont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"is it something I want the government to take care of?"

Its something I want to see the government take care of.. Staying ahead in space technology is a national security issue.
45 posted on 11/20/2003 9:57:01 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
where do I sign up to get one of those installed on my 4-wheeler?
46 posted on 11/20/2003 9:57:03 PM PST by Blue Scourge (A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I don't understand word one of what's being said, so let's break it down to laymans' terms.

1. Does anyone know how long it'd approximately take to normally get to Mars?

2. Does anyone know approximately how long it'd take to get to Mars with this thing?

That's all I want to know.
47 posted on 11/20/2003 9:59:57 PM PST by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
this is putting out around .9 Newtons of thrust

I figured .3 Newtons with power of 12 KW and velocity of 80000 meters per second, but maybe I made a mistake. Oddly, I first read about ion engines in the Weekly Reader, an elementary school publication. That was a very long time ago. Let's just say it has taken several decades and we are just getting to 1 Newton of thrust.

48 posted on 11/20/2003 10:02:44 PM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: commish
exhaust velocities from 60,000 to 80,000 meters per second

Wow. That translates to 3750 to 5000 Miles per second, or a speed of 13.5 to 18 MILLION Miles per hour. Or 2.7% of the speed of light

Not quite.

80,000 meters per second is 80Km per second which is about 50 miles per second not 5000 miles per second.

49 posted on 11/20/2003 10:10:42 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (We secretly switched ABC news with Al-Jazeera, lets see if these people can tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
You have to remember this is a single engine, what would happen if they were clustered?
50 posted on 11/20/2003 10:11:02 PM PST by stylin_geek (Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
No ping for me huh? Sheesh.
51 posted on 11/20/2003 10:12:25 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: unix
I wonder what the full potential of this technology could be if we got serious and invested a couple billion a year in the development of ion propulsion. Deep Space1 put out 90 millinewtons of thrust, this is putting out around .9 Newtons of thrust with an ISP of >6000. Could we get this past 10,000-20,000 ISP with around 100 Newtons of thrust? A technology definitely worth investigating.

What the hell did you just say?!
English Please?

I think it translates as...
Even with improvements, the Ion engine can't lift it's own weight off the ground, although it can "push" itself on a fairly level, smooth surface..

Given a weightless environment, and millions of miles to accellerate, it can reach incredibly high speeds, however.
Highly charged ions reach an exit speed much higher than chemically powered particles. (rocket fuel exhaust)

Ion engines are best used in a hybrid system.
In such a system, chemically fueled rockets would act as "low" gear, providing the torque for getting the vehicle /load moving, and up to a fairly good velocity. ( up to 10g, or 10 x gravity )
The Ion engines would then take over the long haul work, increasing velocity at a much lower thrust, (1 to 2 gravities) but able to reach much higher speed over time.

At least I think that's what he said.

52 posted on 11/20/2003 10:14:06 PM PST by Drammach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Green Knight
At 80000 meters/second? Pretty damn fast. A few weeks maybe? I think mars is like 56,000,000 km away when its orbit is right.

(56,000,000,000 m)*(1 second/80000 m)*(1 day/86400 seconds) = 8.101 days.

Is that right? That doesn't seem possible.. Of course it would be a little more than that since it isn't really a straight shot to mars.. But that's still insane.
53 posted on 11/20/2003 10:16:06 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
Oh, not to mention it would take a long time to build up that much speed.. and how exactly do you hit the brakes when you're going 80 km/s?
54 posted on 11/20/2003 10:18:30 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Bogey78O
Ok, gotcha.

Sad, no?

Unbelievable that we lost a Mars probe because the right hand did not talk to the left hand.

Who the f*** is in charge here? Anyone with a semblance of mangagement skills?????

Then you have issues like the EPA dictating that NASA can't use a certain chemical on the shuttle main tank insulation, NASA uses new chemical, chunk comes off, we lose lives.

Sigh.

LVM

55 posted on 11/20/2003 10:18:46 PM PST by LasVegasMac (Thunder was his engine and White Lightning was his load....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LasVegasMac
It's funny because the basis of organization is to train people to do the same thing as a matter of habit even if the meaning is lost.

There are guys in the military who do a billion things a day a set way and they have no clue why except that's just what they were told.
56 posted on 11/20/2003 10:21:34 PM PST by Bogey78O (No! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
Well from what I understand the shortest path to mars would take almost a year. It's a shame we aren't 20 years ahead. I imagine we were awfully close recently.
57 posted on 11/20/2003 10:23:22 PM PST by Bogey78O (No! Don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right; Green Knight
This propulsion system is relatively weak but highly efficient. With a properly designed ship, it could be possible to reduce travel times to Mars to about half of what a standard chemical rocket could do. The real benefit would be weight, you could make a spacecraft that uses 1/20th the propellant to get to Mars in half the time.

Unfortunately we would need an ion drive with a lot more "oomph" to make it a practical system for taking humans to Mars. It has the efficiency, but the thrust just isn't what we need for such a mission. But even with this current system we could get sizable advantages over current chemical propulsion systems. In fact I would say that this system, even in it's current state, would make any plans of using conventional chemical propulsion to get to Mars fairly obsolete.

58 posted on 11/20/2003 10:27:29 PM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Good point. That extra space not taken up by extra fuel could be used for extra supplies for the crew, a larger crew compliment, a couple more Photon Torpedo launch bays, etc. Though I definitely like the sound of halving the time.

While practical would be nice, if it's good enough to get us there so we can plant the flag and claim the entire planet as American territory, then that's good enough for me! :D

Seriously, sounds like one hell of a leap forward. As for practicality, does it at least make trips to the moon more practical? About how long would it take to get to the moon with this thing?
59 posted on 11/20/2003 10:59:09 PM PST by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Thanks for the ping!
60 posted on 11/20/2003 11:00:11 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson