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

Skip to comments.

NASA's Ion Engine Runs for Nearly 5 Years: No Problems
spaceref.com ^ | 31 Jul 03 | staff

Posted on 07/31/2003 8:55:12 AM PDT by RightWhale

NASA's Ion Engine Runs for Nearly 5 Years: No Problems

The future is here for spacecraft propulsion and the trouble-free engine performance that every vehicle operator would like to see, achieved by an ion engine running for a record 30,352 hours at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. The engine is a spare of the Deep Space 1 ion engine used during a successful technology demonstration mission that featured a bonus visit to comet Borrelly. It had a design life of 8,000 hours, but researchers kept it running for almost 5 years -- from Oct. 5, 1998, to June 26, 2003 -- in a rare opportunity to fully observe its performance and wear at different power levels throughout the test. This information is vital to future missions that will use ion propulsion, as well as to current research efforts to develop improved ion thrusters.

"Finding new means to explore our solar system -- rapidly, safely and with the highest possible return on investment -- is a key NASA mission," said Colleen Hartman, head of Solar System Exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. "Robust in-space flight technologies such as ion propulsion are critical to this effort and will pioneer a new generation of discovery among our neighboring worlds." While the engine had not yet reached the end of its life, the decision was made to terminate the test because near-term NASA missions using ion propulsion needed analysis data that required inspection of the different engine components. In particular, the inspection of the thruster's discharge chamber, where xenon gas is ionized, is critical for mission designers of the upcoming Dawn mission. Dawn, part of NASA's Discovery Program, will be launched in 2006 to orbit Vesta and Ceres, two of the largest asteroids in the solar system.

"The chamber was in good condition," said John Brophy, JPL's project element manager for the Dawn ion propulsion system. "Most of the components showed wear, but nothing that would have caused near-term failure."

Marc Rayman, former Deep Space 1 project manager, said, "There are many exciting missions into the solar system that would be unaffordable or truly impossible without ion propulsion. This remarkable test shows that the thrusters have the staying power for long duration missions." Ion engines use xenon, the same gas used in photo flash tubes, plasma televisions and some automobile headlights. Deep Space 1 featured the first use of an ion engine as the primary method of propulsion on a NASA spacecraft. That engine was operated for 16,265 hours, the record for operating any propulsion system in space. Ion propulsion systems can be very lightweight, because they can run on just a few grams of xenon gas a day. While the thrust exerted by the engine is quite gentle, its fuel efficiency can reduce trip times and lower launch vehicle costs. This makes it an attractive propulsion system choice for future deep space missions.

"The engine remained under vacuum for the entire test, setting a new record in ion engine endurance testing, a true testament to the tremendous effort and skill of the entire team," said Anita Sengupta, staff engineer in JPL's Advanced Propulsion Technology Group. "This unique scientific opportunity benefits current and potential programs."

"The dedicated work of NASA's Solar Electric Technology Application Readiness test team, led by JPL, continues to exemplify a commitment to engineering excellence," said Les Johnson, who leads the In-Space Propulsion Program at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. "This work, along with significant contributions from NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, will take NASA's space exploration to the next level."

NASA's next-generation ion propulsion efforts are led by the In-Space Propulsion Program, managed by the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters and implemented by the Marshall Center. The program seeks to develop advanced propulsion technologies that will help near and mid-term NASA science missions by significantly reducing cost, mass or travel times. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is managed for NASA by the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: cit; cool; jpl; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: Normal4me; RightWhale; demlosers; Prof Engineer; BlazingArizona; ThreePuttinDude; Brett66; ...
Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!
41 posted on 08/01/2003 7:56:05 PM PDT by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
It would seem the VASIMR would lend itself towards reusability as well. We could build true "ships" that could be used many times with this as the propulsion source.
42 posted on 08/01/2003 8:16:36 PM PDT by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion
When I read things like this, it makes me wish I'd worked harder at my maths and sciences. Ion engines! Spaceflight! Trips to mars!Wonderful stuff.

As an aside, does anyone here know why we can't use atomic explosions to move things along in space? Seems to me that space is already fulla radiation, and the blast would really get things moving. Is it against the law or would the ship be blown up too?
43 posted on 08/01/2003 8:38:28 PM PDT by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Threepwood
Yeah, atomic explosions would work. Ulam and Everett proposed that idea in 1955. Theodore Taylor took that idea and got the USAF to turn it into Project Orion in 1958. So far as I know, the idea remains science and science ficion only ("Footfall" describes a scenario in which humans become desparate enough to really try it).

I think it's a great idea, but the problem is that, for political reasons, it really can't be used until you get out into space. Detonating hundreds of nuclear devices in the atmosphere would be frowned upon by everyone who breathes. (yeah, I know that last sentence is going to attract some loon who claims that increased levels of radioactive dust in the atmosphere are a small price to pay for space travel. Frankly, I might agree with such a loon. On the other hand, the line "opposed by everyone who breathes" just sounded too cool to leave out of this post)

Further, for practical reasons, such a spaceship would require TONS of mass to construct, which mass at this point would have to be lifted into orbit without the Orion nuclear thrusters.

So, the bottom line is that it ain't gonna happen any time soon.
44 posted on 08/01/2003 9:35:56 PM PDT by Jubal Harshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jubal Harshaw
Hmm. Those are pretty compelling reasons not to do this thing. Despite my love of spaceflight, my interest in avoiding the oncological consquences of this kind of spaceflight are pretty sturdy too. Darn.

45 posted on 08/01/2003 10:52:41 PM PDT by Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
PHOTON ACCELERATOR

Yep, though I see that phrase with what should be described as laser particle accelerators. First read about this concept I think in 1999 about hafnium 178-m in an article called "Light Plays Tricks with Nuclei" (search on google). One study said they had something like a 60 to 1 return on the x-ray energy that they radiated onto the hafnium 178m sample. Later another study refuted it so I'm not sure what the status is on the subject.

But the idea is enormous. If we can stimulate the emission of gamma rays from a americium 242m sample there will be nothing this side of fusion that is more powerful. It would open up the solar system . Easily. Do you know anything about this subject?

46 posted on 08/05/2003 1:07:33 PM PDT by techcor (What crayon do I use to draw a blank?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: techcor
Do you know anything about this subject?

Not a thing.

First read about this concept I think in 1999 about hafnium 178-m in an article called "Light Plays Tricks with Nuclei"

The trick, as always, is getting the right frequency.

47 posted on 08/05/2003 1:51:13 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Scottie! I need those engines now!!!

And when can you get the warp drives online?

48 posted on 08/05/2003 1:54:28 PM PDT by DannyTN (Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Threepwood
why we can't use atomic explosions to move things along in space?

We can. A highly polished reflector on shock absorbers, a tank full of 100-pound energy units [formerly known as bombs,] and we're in business.

kaboom . . .

. . . kaboom . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .kaboom . . .

49 posted on 08/05/2003 2:14:32 PM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Ask Orolo about it.


50 posted on 07/17/2009 2:10:36 AM PDT by Rummenigge (there are people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

bump


51 posted on 07/17/2009 2:11:03 AM PDT by Captain Beyond (The Hammer of the gods! (Just a cool line from a Led Zep song))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jubal Harshaw; Threepwood
...that last sentence is going to attract some loon who claims that increased levels of radioactive dust in the atmosphere are a small price to pay for space travel...

You rang? Dyson estimated the number of fatal cancers caused by fallout from each Orion launch to be between 0.1 and 1. And I think that was with a fission-based Orion. If he's right, I think it's kind of loony to object to Orion on those grounds. There must be hundreds of things we're exposed to all the time in our air, our food, our water, in all kinds of manufactured goods, building materials, furnishings, adhesives, you name it, that cause higher rates of cancers than that, and we gladly accept it because we like living in the 21st Century. No siree, bring Orion on, baby! It's long overdue. :-)

52 posted on 07/17/2009 3:09:07 AM PDT by LibWhacker (America awake!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 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