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."

Comments

A question for the physicists ...

[eldavojohn]

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?

Re:A question for the physicists ...

[Lumpy]

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.

Re:A question for the physicists ...

[Millyways]

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

Re:A question for the physicists ...

[Lumpy]

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)

Hello!? Ion engines are NOT traditional thrusters.

[flowerp]

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

Now back to thrusting my girlfriend traditionally.

Energy sources

[everphilski]

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-

BBC also han an article, with nifty pics too!

[Khyras]

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.

Re:Hello!? Ion engines are NOT traditional thruste

[Trogre]

I put on my robe and wizard hat.