Neat...
To: RightWhale; Brett66; xrp; gdc314; anymouse; NonZeroSum; jimkress; discostu; The_Victor; ...
2 posted on
01/18/2006 5:30:04 PM PST by
KevinDavis
(http://www.cafepress.com/spacefuture)
To: KevinDavis
I watched a show about ion engines last night on the Science channel. It worked.
3 posted on
01/18/2006 5:34:37 PM PST by
processing please hold
(Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
To: KevinDavis
I haven't heard that explaination before.
The ion engines I worked on used a strong magnetic field to 'excite' the atoms in the rocket's exhaust. A band of magnet flux was created in the nozzle area. The magnetic flux 'excited' the atom's electrons, causing the electron to jump to the next higher orbital shell; thus making the atoms 'Fatter'. Thus, 'Bigger' atoms were packed tightly against each other created more thrust, while maintaining the same mass.
As the atoms left the influence of the magnetic field, the 'excited' electrons dropped back to their 'normal' orbital shell, and a photon was released; thus the blue light that ion engines create.
5 posted on
01/18/2006 5:36:32 PM PST by
Hodar
(With Rights, come Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
To: KevinDavis
And what do they do with the compensating negative charges? Positive ions are expelled out, but they cannot keep accumulating the electrons in the craft.
9 posted on
01/18/2006 5:44:34 PM PST by
GSlob
To: KevinDavis
Doing a google search on "Dual-stage Gridded Ion Thruster" revealed the specific performance of these engines. In this article,
Advanced Dual-stage Gridded Ion Thruster, they state that a 250kW engine could produce 2.5 Newtons of thrust with a specific impulse of 19,300. Very impressive.
10 posted on
01/18/2006 5:44:49 PM PST by
Brett66
(Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
To: KevinDavis
I think what makes ion engines so attractive is that when coupled with a small pebble-bed nuclear reactor, a space vehicle could get a constant low thrust for
weeks at a time, which could result in tremendous velocities for the spacecraft. This may make it possible to cut the transit time between Earth and Mars from nine months to six weeks!
With only six weeks of transit time, a manned spacecraft flying to Mars could actually be
smaller, since we don't need to waste so much space for consumables such as oxygen and water.
To: KevinDavis
Does it clean the air too?
20 posted on
01/18/2006 6:01:13 PM PST by
AmericanDave
(More COWBELL....................)
To: KevinDavis
I've seen that somewhere before, but can't quite remember where.
21 posted on
01/18/2006 6:01:22 PM PST by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
To: KevinDavis
This stuff is always ten years away. I won't hold my breath.
To: KevinDavis
Gosh, I wish I were smarter,,,lol,,,thanks for the ping
32 posted on
01/18/2006 6:08:42 PM PST by
meanie monster
(http://guptonator.myvideochat.net)
To: SirKit
34 posted on
01/18/2006 6:12:45 PM PST by
SuziQ
To: KevinDavis
"We're givin' ya' all she's got, captain!"
37 posted on
01/18/2006 6:48:33 PM PST by
manwiththehands
(The only politician worse than a crooked democRat is a crooked Republican.)
To: AntiGuv
43 posted on
01/18/2006 9:45:04 PM PST by
Wiz
To: KevinDavis
Ion propulsion is fine, as long as they don't mess around with that damn Queller Drive...
47 posted on
01/19/2006 12:26:30 PM PST by
gridlock
(It's not really a circus until Teddy Kennedy steps out of the clown car...)
To: KevinDavis
OK, we've got the impulse drive. Now, about that warp drive . . .
54 posted on
01/19/2006 3:32:09 PM PST by
colorado tanker
(I can't comment on things that might come before the Court, but I can tell you my Pinochle strategy)
To: KevinDavis
Maybe ten years to wait. I'll be pushing 70 then.
Hurry up guys!
57 posted on
01/19/2006 3:48:13 PM PST by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson