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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 next last
To: commish
warp factor .027 Scotty. Hmm Impulse power maybe

Must learn to crawl before we can walk...or run.

61 posted on 11/20/2003 11:01:16 PM PST by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Experiment 6-2-6
Problem is, there aren't any electronic terrorist satellites in outer space. I'd rather fly over and blast the people themselves.
62 posted on 11/20/2003 11:08:07 PM PST by Terpfen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
I like smoke and fire--and high thrusts.

Alas, high Isp (efficiency) comes with low power and (usually) high power system mass.

"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."

60,000 to 80,000 m/s is 6118 seconds; 80,000 is 8157 sec.

They do not quote a thrust level but it must be small. My rule of thumb is 20 kW per pound of thrust; this would mean 20/12 = 1.67 lb of thrust or 7.4 Newtons. The wording is very misleading because it does not quote thrust...

--Boris

63 posted on 11/21/2003 1:17:23 AM PST by boris (The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Experiment 6-2-6
I'm waiting for the Ion Cannon available for home defense.. (as per Planet Hoth defense in The Empire Strikes Back)

I'm looking more forward to seeing ion cannons deployed on satellites by the US military as alternatives to tactical nukes, a la the Westwood Studios PC game Command and Conquer.

64 posted on 11/21/2003 1:32:41 AM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: commish
Sorry, dude. 80,000 meters per second translates into about 50 miles per second, or 180,000 mph.
65 posted on 11/21/2003 3:25:49 AM PST by Junior ("Your superior intellects are no match for our puny weapons!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
The ions are traveling at 80 km/s, not the spacecraft.
66 posted on 11/21/2003 3:29:39 AM PST by Junior ("Your superior intellects are no match for our puny weapons!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Ions are charged particles (having had their electrons stripped away for easier manipulation). Charged particles let loose in a vacuum will quickly repel one another and dissipate. Ion guns in orbit won't work.

However, charged particle beams, with a little help from a tunneling laser, hold together a bit longer in an atmosphere and could be used as weapons, which is what the Directed Energy Weapons programs of the former Soviet Union and the United States were working on.

67 posted on 11/21/2003 3:36:48 AM PST by Junior ("Your superior intellects are no match for our puny weapons!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; Physicist
Saw this and thought of you.
68 posted on 11/21/2003 3:41:30 AM PST by Junior ("Your superior intellects are no match for our puny weapons!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Thanks for the ping. Related threads:
NASA's Ion Engine Runs for Nearly 5 Years: No Problems. Prometheus: The Paradigm Buster .
69 posted on 11/21/2003 4:08:16 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter; Junior
80,000 meters per second is 80Km per second which is about 50 miles per second not 5000 miles per second.

UGH! Sad thing is I am a Computer Programmer and a math Major and did not catch myself making such a silly error. But hey, whats a factor of 10 among friends. :-)

70 posted on 11/21/2003 4:48:59 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
Well then change your screen name. Because it's not fiscally conservative. Building ion engines to go to Mars or Saturn has nothing to do with national security but rather to do it just so one can say 'we' did it
71 posted on 11/21/2003 4:58:43 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Not fiscally conservative? If they spent 100% of the medicaire budget(including this 400bil prescription drug plan) on NASA it would be an infinitely better use of money. By the way, I didn't say getting to mars first was a national security issue. Staying ahead in space technology is though.

Do you realize the dividends that were realized from technology developed during the space race? ICBM technology, computers, superconductors, satellite advances, GPS, cell phones. Not to mention the MANY industrially important materials and techniques originally developed by NASA. Plus it won't be long before someone puts nuclear weapons into orbit. When that happens, I wanna know we have the technology to shoot them down before they can launch.
72 posted on 11/21/2003 7:34:17 AM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Hopefully this works better than the engine on Deep Space 1.
73 posted on 11/21/2003 7:34:40 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Yeah but doesn't that mean that given enough time, the spacecraft could reach that speed in a frictionless environment?
74 posted on 11/21/2003 7:37:05 AM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: fiscally_right
If they spent 100% of the medicaire budget(including this 400bil prescription drug plan) on NASA it would be an infinitely better use of money

Again you make the mistake that either plan is good use of the government. What would happen if instead they returned the money to the citizens of the respective states instead of spending it on whatever project crosses some bureaucrat's desk

Do you realize the dividends that were realized from technology developed during the space race?

And how much cheaper could it have been done and how further would the 'race' have continued if it was privately instead of publically funded? Would there be stations on Mars by now? The moon? And how exactly is ion propulsion going to help in defense?

75 posted on 11/21/2003 7:43:57 AM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Silvermont
Yes...but then you will need a 5 story building size electric power plant to provide the volts. Just kidding.

The ignition on your car makes about 25,000 volts mr. Tesla.

76 posted on 11/21/2003 7:46:52 AM PST by biblewonk (I must answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
Looks like a microwave oven to me. About as powerful as a microwave oven, too. Oh, it actually is a microwave oven, you say? With an electrostatic cling dust collector attached.

The power levels here are still a joke...

77 posted on 11/21/2003 7:56:44 AM PST by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
I am, too. I never thought NEP's could acheive that performance while maintaining such long service lives. This is a very good thing Glenn Research Center has done.

VASIMR is still better, as the service life is still higher and it is vastly more powerful, perhaps 10 MEGA-watt (not 25 KILO) in the first operational engine.

But Prometheus will be well served by an engine such as the one in this article. I wonder what a Mars mission profile looks like with this system?
78 posted on 11/21/2003 8:03:48 AM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: commish
Yeah, but these are really light ions being spewed out of the engine. What they are doing is adding a LOT of kinetic energy to a very small amount of material, and that is why it is very efficient.

What you end up with is a level of thrust that is pretty low, but you can keep it going for a loooong time. It's like compound interest - at first it doesn't seem like much, but it piles up over time.

Chemical rockets give you very high thrusts at pretty dismal efficiencies, but it'll get you to orbit. It's more like gambling, one big win will put you way ahead, but then you coast.
79 posted on 11/21/2003 8:11:01 AM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Brett66
Thrust and ISP are different aspects of rocketry. The ISP for these engines are very high, but the thrust is dismal. By design you are not going to get anything near shuttle thrust levels.
80 posted on 11/21/2003 8:13:18 AM PST by Frank_Discussion (May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 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