Slashdot Mirror


ESA Moves Forward on New Electric Engine

museumpeace writes to tell us the ESA is reporting that they have confirmed the principle behind a new space thruster. Plasma Double Layers, first discovered by Australian researchers Christine Charles and Rod Boswell, may help to develop a new electric engine that gives more thrust than traditional engines while still maintaining efficiency. From the article: "In essence, a plasma double layer is the electrostatic equivalent of a waterfall. Just as water molecules pick up energy as they fall between the two different heights, so electrically charged particles pick up energy as they travel through the layers of different electrical properties."

16 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. A question for the physicists ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ok, I RTFAed so don't be mad at me. I'm still not clear on something though stemming from this excerpt from the article:
    Calculations suggest that a helicon double layer thruster would take up a little more space than the main electric thruster on ESA's SMART-1 mission, yet it could potentially deliver many times more thrust at higher powers of up to 100 kW whilst giving a similar fuel efficiency.
    Is this saying that the energy used to propel the shuttle can now be deferred to depending on an electric source (for the 100kW)? I'm wondering if I should be excited about this new technology or if I should just give them a pat on the back for finding a different and possibly slightly better way to power an engine? I guess it's comparable in size but can rely more on electricity instead of solid fuel for thrust, correct?
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:A question for the physicists ... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Imagine probe. Ok now imagine proe with nicely size Nuclear reactor in place of the big propellant tanks.

      Now imagine voyager rebuilt with this technology and having the ability 30 years later to still apply thrust vectors.

      Understand now? current thrusters are more volatile and are a crap shoot every time they fire them, espically on deep space probes that have not fired the engines in 15 years.

      This has less chances of freezing up, only one valve to worry about and no nasty easy leaking hydrogen. This is something that is really cool for probes and long term missions.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:A question for the physicists ... by Millyways · · Score: 5, Informative

      The plasma thruster is designed to deliver low amounts of thrust over long periods of time with low fuel consuption. They are best suited to use on interplanetary probes and that kind of thing, not for reaching escape veolcity.

      One of the most interesting things about this new thruster (developed here at the ANU) is that by using the double layer the need for any metal parts coming in contact with the plasma is reduced. This greatly increases relabily through reduced erosion of the thruster.

      See: http://prl.anu.edu.au/SP3/research/HDLT for more info

    3. Re:A question for the physicists ... by david.given · · Score: 4, Informative
      Understand now? current thrusters are more volatile and are a crap shoot every time they fire them, espically on deep space probes that have not fired the engines in 15 years.

      Actually, hydrazine chemical rockets these days are pretty much a solved problem. Cassini's main engine is not substantially different from the Apollo lander's main engine; IIRC, they're hypergolic hydrazine thrusters using helium to pressurise the tanks (and blow the hydrazine out). They're reliable and can cope with long periods of inactivity.

      Of course, they're still chemical rockets, which inherently suck. But they're not nearly as shoddy as you make out.

    4. Re:A question for the physicists ... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Every time they fire the thrusters on a probe they hold their breath because the risk of not firing is higher than they like. espically on thrusters that need to be on off on off on off wait 5 years on off on off wait 3 years.... etc.. the more you use it the more you have failures. This setup reduces the failure potential significantly and offers a HUGE advantage of a long thrust period if you need it. Imagine a probe that after hitting the Heliopause that can point it's self in the direction of travel and then kick in the thrusters until all fuel is spent.. this would give it a nice kick to get going out there much faster. heck a voyager probe redesigned with these engines could pass voyager in 1/2 the time it took voyager to get where it is now. There is a huge increase in the amount of thrust (time) compared to the chemical setups.

      rnted when you are out of argon you are done, but it takes much less argon to give you X grams of thrust than it does in a chemical rocket. (chem rockets certianly have a much bigger kick in the pants for a shorter amount of time though)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:A question for the physicists ... by lilmouse · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, a few more answers to your question that I haven't seen yet:

      The plasma drive is good because it's efficient. A chemical rocket is terribly inefficient, so you have to carry a lot more fuel then you'd like to for a given amount of ability to thrust.

      We already have an ion drive that's very efficient, but it's got a *very* low rate of thrust - essentially, it can't accelerate quickly. It's got great mileage, but you it'll take you 10 minutes to go from 25 to 75. The new drive still has great mileage. It's slightly bigger, but you can go from 25 to 75 in only 2.5 minutes (or whatever). To carry the analogy a bit further, a chemical rocket has *terrible* mileage, but you can get to 75 in about 2 seconds...

      Low mileage is great - it means your intersteller probe (or interplanetary probe) can get some really high speeds built up. It just takes a while to get there. However, it doesn't have enuf thrust to get you out of a gravity well - great mileage, but you can't drive up a hill.

      It's a pat on the back for an ion drive that gives many more times the thrust of the old model, which means your probe can do things like turn quicker, get up to speed quicker, and make emergency adjustments a little better (altho if we calculate that badly, you can probably kiss your probe goodbye). Not revolutionary, but a big step.

      The fact that it uses electricity is convenient for a lot of reasons; ion drives are really cool. More information here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_drive

      --LWM

  2. No. by everphilski · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because these are very low thrust engines, they can't hold a candle to gravitational forces. Where they shine in interplanetary and stationkeeping (orbit and orientation) applications.

    -everphilski-

  3. Hello!? Ion engines are NOT traditional thrusters. by flowerp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would the article submitter PLEASE not call ion engines "traditional thrusters"?

    Now back to thrusting my girlfriend traditionally.

    --
    --- Eat my sig.
  4. Basic kinetics... by sac13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In essence, a plasma double layer is the electrostatic equivalent of a waterfall. Just as water molecules pick up energy as they fall between the two different heights...

    Water molecules do not pick up energy as they fall. There potential energy is simply converted into kinetic energy. However, they had the energy all along in the form of potential energy.

  5. Energy sources by everphilski · · Score: 5, Informative

    Energy source for the SSME is combustion (Hydrogen and Oxygen)

    Energy source for this engine is electricity, or rather an energy potential... solar cells, nuclear power plant, etc.

    Two different concepts. Two different ballparks. While the article states that this method will deliver "many times more thrust" than ESA's "SMART-1" thruster (70 mN, thats mili-newtons) http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/Space/archives/00034 3.html ... even 10*5 times more thrust is only 5 newtons (read: not much). Scale it up to a SSME sized engine and your talking maybe 25-50 newtons. SSME thrust is measured in MILLIONS of newtons.

    So basically, different tech that won't scale to drive a vehicle out of a gravity well. But it is useful for orbital/stationkeeping/interplanetary maneuvers if you have the time.

    -everphilski-

  6. BBC also han an article, with nifty pics too! by Khyras · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read about this on the BBC article, with diagram This morning... Sounds like it's greatest use will be in deep space missions. It still hold potential for other use if we can find a more efficient way to use it.

    --
    -Khyras
  7. Re:Hello!? Ion engines are NOT traditional thruste by Trogre · · Score: 5, Funny

    I put on my robe and wizard hat.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  8. Oblig ... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 4, Funny
    I thought articles that got to the front page were screened/checked? Am I wrong?

    You must be new here.

  9. It sounds to me... by jd · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...that they've rediscovered the tandem accelerator. This is basically two electric grids placed one after the other, arranged in such a way that the first grid gives particles one round of acceleration, but doesn't decelerate the particle on the other side. The second grid then accelerates the particle but again is screened so that it doesn't slow it down once the particle has gone past it.


    The principle was popular in particle accelerators for a while - I worked at Daresbury some time back, which was a 20 MeV tandem accelerator. It's cheap and easy. A variant, only with reversed electrical fields, was used in old-fashioned thermionic valves. In that configuration, they were termed deflection grids. CRTs use the same technology to steer electrons towards the correct place on the screen.


    Not sure why anyone would need to prove the idea would work in space, since we already use the technology in vaccuum and we already know tandem accelerators can produce greater acceleration than a single grid.


    I would be much more interested in knowing if it were practical to ionize oxygen then use this technique to improve the oxygen/nitrogen ratio in the engine. If you could, it would improve engine efficiency and may help in reducing the complexity of the engine electronics and mechanics.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  10. Double Layers Well-known, Still Fascinating by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 4, Informative
    Charles and Boswell didn't discover double layers in 2003. Double-layers have been known (albeit under various names) for decades. Look closely at a candle flame and you might be able to make out a concentric pair of them. Double layers have also been made in near-vacuum plasma apparatus in laboratories and even in popular toys, for decades, where, incidentally, they accurately model astronomical events at many scales. I wonder what it was those two really did do in 2003...

    (Astronomers are, as a rule, mystified by plasma-dynamic events, leading them to talk about "hot gases", "stellar plumes", "galactic jets", "magnetars", "dark matter", "dark energy", and worse. For most, their only exposure to anything like plasma in school was an unphysical mathematical construct called MHD, so they are worse off than if they'd skipped class. (Hawking is often quoted, with no trace of irony, saying "the greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.") For those of us even a little more familiar with real plasma effects, astronomical press releases are no end of hilarity.)

    Plasma double layers aren't mysterious. They develop naturally as the diffuse particles containing ions tend toward equilibrium. Variation in composition, ionicity, and density in a diffuse plasma gather at boundary layers between regions, making the space between the boundaries much more uniform, and concentrating mass, electric fields, and current flow. Highly-stressed double layers tend to explode; on the sun they call it a "coronal mass ejection". On another star it may be called lots of things.

    In one of those plasma ball toys, you can see double-layer tubes connecting the electrode in the center with the transparent ball. You see them because the current density is high enough to put the plasma it runs through in "glow-discharge" mode, exactly as in a neon sign or St. Elmo's Fire. The other two modes are "invisible" and "arcing". The former is common throughout the universe (and detectable only indirectly, as you might imagine) such as between the earth and the sun, between star systems, and even between galaxies. The latter is what you see in a lightning bolt, on the surface of the sun, or in one of those spotlights they used to use at movie premieres. Astronomical glow-discharge events (with the exception of earth's polar aurorae) are usually confused with "shock waves".

    The most beautiful astronomical glow-discharging double-layer structure I know of is M2-9 in Ophiucus. "In this image, neutral oxygen is shown in red, once-ionized nitrogen in green, and twice-ionized oxygen in blue."

  11. Re:very low thrust? by JakusMinimus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gonna nitpick here: one-over-r-squared ( 1/r^2 ) forces do NOT decrease exponentially with increasing distance. They decrease in proportion to ... one-over-r-squared.

    --

    You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC