VASIMR Plasma Thruster To Be Tested Aboard ISS

Toren Altair brings news that NASA and the Ad Astra Rocket Company finalized a Space Act Agreement earlier this week to test the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) on the International Space Station. The agreement hinges on a series of requirements for the thruster's performance and efficiency in ground-based tests. "The primary technical objective of the project is to operate the VASIMR VF-200 engine at power levels up to 200 kW. Engine operation will be restricted to pulses of up to 10 minutes at this power level. Energy for these high-power operations will be provided by a battery system trickle-charged by the ISS power system. These tests will mark the first time that a high-power, steady-state electric thruster will be used as part of a manned spacecraft." Reader clarkes1 points out related news of a runway trial for Virgin Galactic's WhiteKnightTwo, the mothership that is designed to carry SpaceShipTwo from the ground to 50,000 feet. A very brief video shows the oddly-shaped plane moving down a runway under its own power.

Comments

Bugger that namby pamby stuff

[David Gerard]

Just give 'em gigantic pounding thrust, none o' this wussing about with plasma. OXYGEN AND KEROSENE. It was good enough for Wernher von Braun!

Re:white knight 2 looks too fragile

[Nyeerrmm]

Actually, on any airplane, the wing has to be able to support the full mass of the aircraft, albeit spread over the entire surface of the wing. If you think about it, it has to have the aerodynamic pressure be at least equal to the mass of the aircraft. And then all that load gets transferred to the spars, so on a normal single-wing aircraft, the central spar is carrying the entire aircraft mass, if its the type of design that carries through the middle of the aircraft.

Also, in order to strengthen it to support the weight of SpaceShipTwo, you can do it without any visible change, just make the spars in the wing heftier.

As far as having to make it look cool, of course they do... its supposed to appeal to people who want to spend $200k going to (suborbital) space. And given that the methods to check the structural soundness of such a set-up are well established, and that Rutan isn't an idiot, I'd imagine it can handle worst case scenario loads with a safety factor of 1.2 or 1.3, as is common for any aerospace application.

Launch from altitude vs near equator

[ILikeRed]

I think I have heard that the US space program(s) launch near the equator (or as near as they can in the US) to get free energy from the spin of the Earth. I think it is great that Rutan's program uses an aircraft to additionally lift the rocket for the first 50,000 ft or so.

I've looked, but not found the equations - what is the relative advantage of near equator (if any) vs height? Florida is close for the US, but how high would you have to be to make launching off a mountain in Colorado worthwhile? I realize the tallest mountain is only at ~29k feet (8.85km), but even that would have to be a boost out of the gravity well, wouldn't it?

What I really wonder, is why we don't have powered rails launching rockets off the top of mountains - seems like it would be worth the budget - but again, if anyone knows where to find the equations it would be much appreciated.

Re:Launch from altitude vs near equator

[Nyeerrmm]

You get some free energy from the spin, yes, but the main reason you try and launch from lower latitudes is that you want to have the option to get a near equatorial orbit inclination. Basically, you can't launch to an inclination lower than your latitude; if you think about it, launching due east (or west, but that would be going against the spin) would put you in an orbit thats the same inclination. If you aim a little north or south you end being inclined a little bit more... whether its north or south changes the position of the ascending node, but not the overall inclination. If you aim due north or south you get into a polar orbit. As far as the additional altitude... its such a miniscule amount that its not worth worrying about.

The reason you may want to have a low as inclination as possible is because if you're going to GEO or lunar or planetary missions, you want to be near zero inclination. In order to get there, you have to do an expensive plane change maneuver, which has a delta-v=sin(i)*V, so getting that inclination lower means big fuel savings.

As far as calculating the fuel savings, just consider the difference between the rotational speed of the point on the surface (sin(lat2)-sin(lat1))*r_earth*(2*pi/24 hrs) to get the additional velocity you get (and thus less delta-v you need to apply on orbit). Running that between the Russian Star City (45 degrees) and the cape (21 degrees) shows that we get ~150 m/s difference, which is nice but not game changing.

As far as sky launch or mountain launch, I learned a great little rule of thumb here a few weeks ago, the 666 rule. Launching from Mach 6 at 60000 feet (probably much higher than any reasonable air launch system), gives you only a 6% energy savings for orbital systems. So, it really doesn't give you a whole lot for the added complexity, which is why as far as i know theres only one air-launched system, an Orbital Sciences rocket that launches off an L1011. The reason why it works for Virgin/Scaled Composites is that it gives you probably 30% of the energy needed to reach the altitude, but not the orbital velocity.

As far as equations... the atmospheric drag models make launch hard to judge, but what is cleverly called the "Rocket Equation" is a really easy way to look at fuel usage with impulsive delta-vs... usually a more valuable quantity than energy since it directly applies to the amount of fuel needed and used.

Re:Launch from altitude vs near equator

[Deadstick]

As far as satellite launching is concerned, the height of the launch site is utterly trivial. In order to achieve a low earth orbit, you have to accelerate an object to about 23,000 feet per second; for a one-pound object, that will take over 8 million foot-pounds of energy. Lifting that same object from sea level to the top of Mt. Everest will take 29,029 foot-pounds.

The latitude of the launch site offers some tradeoffs. A site on the equator will give you a few hundred extra feet per second than one at 45 degrees latitude, not a real big advantage. However, a launch directly into orbit will always put you in an orbit whose inclination is at least the latitude of the launch site. Launch from Cape Canaveral, and you'll be in an orbit inclined at least 28 degrees from the equator. You can make it higher, but not lower. If you want to get an equatorial orbit -- which most communications birds need -- you have to launch into the inclined orbit first, fly to the equatorial plane, and then make a "plane change" maneuver which takes a substantial fraction of the energy it took to put you in orbit. From the equator, you can launch directly into any inclination, which is why the European Space Agency birds come out of French Guiana.

rj

Two scientists aboard the ISS

[RevWaldo]

- "Rochambeau for it?"
- "Two out of three?"
- "Deal."
- "OK. Rock-paper-scissors-Shoot! Rock. Rock-paper-scissors-Shoot! Paper. Rock-paper-scissors-Shoot! Rock."
- "I win!"
- "Yeah, you win... go ahead and say it.."
- "Helmsman! Engines to FULL IMPULSE POWER!"
- "Doofus." (pushes button)

NUCLEAR ISOMERS

[sanman2]

Since energetics is the key trumping factor for overcoming the earth's gravity well, we need more energetic power sources than mere chemical fuels. I've read that there have been some recent new successes announced in the past few months in nuclear isomer research. As we know, nuclear isomers are atomic nuclei whose protons and neutrons have absorbed extra energy to keep them at a higher energy state, analogous to the idea of electrons absorbing energy and being promoted to a higher energy state. But the far heavier mass of the protons and neutrons means they absorb way the hell more energy. This is the kind of energy we need to power space travel.

Re:Yes, but...

[Titoxd]

Indeed, the power supply problem does exist, and is actually the limiting factor in the performance of ion thruster engines and electric propulsion in general. That limitation actually causes very high specific impulses to be undesirable as the power supply weight savings exceeds the mass savings in propellant. The ideal specific impulse then becomes an optimization problem.

That said, my point is that there are particular applications for which electric propulsion is better than conventional methods (long-distance robotic missions, to pick one), and there are other applications in which chemical propulsion is better than electric propulsion (such as moving a satellite from low-Earth orbit to geostationary orbit... we don't want to wait months for that to occur!) Kind of like in anything involving engineering, you have trade-offs that you have to consider for a particular mission. But assuming that big liquid propulsion rockets are the solution to all the problems is rather lame.

doing the obvious on the ISS

[heroine]

After 8 years of crews testing obscure basic science, they finally have the first tentative approval for the most obvious experiments some time in the future. Incredible.