Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Astronaut Developing Plasma Rocket To Revitalize NASA
TechReviewAl writes "Former astronaut Franklin Chang Diaz believes that the private sector can revitalize NASA, and his company is developing a plasma rocket to back up that claim. Chang Diaz argues that private industry can be used to develop much of the basic technology needed for space exploration, allowing NASA to focus on more sophisticated and critical components. His company, Ad Astra, is developing a variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket (VASIMR) that will be used to reposition the International Space Station. Last week, the rocket passed an important milestone in testing — reaching 200 kilowatts (enough to move the ISS). A video of the rocket can be seen on Ad Astra's site."
Bonus points for the space invaders noises it apparently makes.
It was written and submitted by AI. What do you expect? Proper editing?
There, I hope that making more sense.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Since the ISS only has 120-130 Kilowatts of Solar Panels, running a 200 Kilowatt motor would be difficult.
Also Kilowatts though stated in the article aren't really a measure of thrust.
The engine can operate at different levels UP TO 200 kW, but would probably have to use about half that because of the stations limitations. Though if the Motor can use waste hydrogen from the Fuel Cells/Ox Generators they are estimating it would save NASA bringing up fuel for reboosts. (From the Proposal/white paper on VASIMR)
AFAIK they have been working on VASIMR for over a decade now... This isn't exactly "news"
A cynical view I know. But the US Gov pays through the nose to train these guys who then just retire and try to cash in on the Washington gravy train. Just like the rest of the high level military, political and bureaucratic employees that leave gov employment in order to cash in. Typical and sad.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
I've been building this big ol' rocket in my barn, here in Texas. If I could just get the feds off my back long enough to fuel the thing, I'd be happy to help out.
If you measure distance in terms of transit times, the sustainable thrust potential of this technology would make the Solar System the same size to travelers as the Earth was during the Age of Sail.
"Ad Astra Per Alia Porci" -- "To the stars on the wings of a pig". John Steinbeck's personal motto.
NASA really needs to move to a research and incubation role, similar to what it does in the aeronautical world. Given the constant changes in direction each new administration brings, and the whims of budgeting each new congress brings, NASA can't continue to be the primary source for launch vehicles.
They should license out the Ares technology, promote competitions among the multiple private rocket vendors and focus on scientific and development missions using private vendors to provide the launch capacity.
VASIMR means the only expensive part is getting to LEO. Once there, a space tug using VASIMR can lift satellites to GEO for almost nothing (compared to today's prices). It's not really fast enough for human travel, but for moving equipment around Earth orbit (or elsewhere), it's very promising. Between this and SpaceX reducing the price to LEO, the next 10 years should be very exciting in commercial space travel.
Not a typewriter
Can somebody explain how a government agency paying a for-profit company to develop something "saves money" over said agency doing it themselves? All I see is some fraction of the development budget falling into this guy's (and his investors') pockets.
The classic example is if you spread a gallon of gasoline out evenly and ignite it perfectly it can raise the Empire State building one foot in the air. Translated a gallon of gasoline could potentially lift a human into orbit, less spaceship. Three things are keeping us Earth bound. Gravity, friction and efficient use of fuel. Remove any two of these factors and you can orbit a human for the price of a modest plane ticket.
But plasma + rocket in the same sentence = really cool.
Can't any amount of power move the ISS just at a slower rate?
He's not trying to revitalize NASA. He's trying to make money from his fancy rocket and saying that he's trying to revitalize NASA as a way to get good press. There's quite a big difference.
If his goal was really to revitalize NASA, he'd sell them at cost to NASA. You can bet that isn't happening.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Can't it do that? Why the need to develop something new and expensive?
Translation: The private sector can make a lot of profit doing things under subcontract that NASA would otherwise have to justify to OIG/OMB. (Proof of concept: Is Chang Diaz making more, or less, money than he did working for NASA?) NASA gets to subcontract the work out, which is easier to push through Congress for appropriations (see Blackwater USA and Halliburton for references.) The subcontractor at a critical point will prove that the work cost more than the estimate and not have to live within the budget quoted. The only loser: Still the American taxpayer, who will ultimately pay more for the private subcontract *and* eventually still pay NASA the same amount as before for doing only the "important stuff." (And I happen to be in favor of space exploration and travel.)
Russian technology
Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore T.
Literally, this thing blows... in a vacuum...
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"Thrust can be calculated by the power and the ISP:"
I have Charter cable - does that give me more thrust than Qwest DSL ?
What's news is the comment on the TR page by Mapou. If Mapou is right, both magnetoplasma and chemical rockets are history.
Jawn is trolling for karma. I know his game.
This is the same kind of math used by proponents of President Obama's healthcare socialization package. If you will, it's also the same math used to justify the Soviet command economy.
On paper, eliminating profits saves money for the hypothetical society. In reality, however, eliminating profit also eliminates self-interest, which very effectively stagnates or degrades the enterprise... be it at the level of a single supermarket, or the economy of the wealthiest country on Earth.
The reason why this doesn't work, is because you need several things to get something accomplished. You need the WILL to start it... the RESPONSIBILITY to see it through, and the MEANS to get it done. Socialism helps with the means... but not the will. Capitalism helps with the will, by accepting man as the egotistical bastard he is, and appealing to the basest of desires: greed.
But nothing helps with responsibility. For as long as clerks with 1-inch fingernails will 1-finger-type endless requisition forms to get anything done in large organizations (which includes companies as well as governments) with zero interest or concern for what they are doing, waste will reign supreme. At least in private enterprise, this is somewhat moderated by the need for more profit. A government bureaucracy, on the other hand, is like entropy. It spontaneously expands, and this can only be reversed locally, at an even greater cost to the entire system.
How can we incite people to use the already-existing word "incite" rather than making up words like "incentivise"?
Without oversight by NASA, components won't have the compatibility required to integrate within the launch vehicle. Essentially it means that all of these companies will just be contractors to NASA (Company X builds the fuel injection, Company Y builds the stage seperators, etc). Is that really cheaper than paying NASA employees to develop the same technology?
I was under the impression that VASMIR was a low-thrust technology (high energy, low propellant mass = high Isp, but normally with low absolute thrust). The proposed 200kW model was expected to have a thrust of 5 Newtons, according to wikipedia. Now, that's nice, but it's on the order of the smallest black powder Estes engines used to fly 50-100gram rockets for fun. It will move a space ship, but it will provide relatively low acceleration.
Since sail circumnavigation of the earth can be done in less than 180 days, it's a bit premature to expect us to circumnavigate the 12 billion kM diameter disc which houses our solar system in anything approaching that kind of time frame. Even if you allow for 1000 of these engines running continuously (all 300 metric tons of engines, plus the 200MW power source, plus the ship, shielding, etc. needed), 5kN is going to take quite a while to bring an interplanetary vessel up to any useful speed.
Don't get me wrong - it's cool technology...but it's still a couple of orders of magnitude from sailing around the world.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If only we could invent some device that could store energy for a limited amount of time so that we could output more energy than we take in, if only periodically.
Why is it that nearly every Slashdot thread that mentions private enterprise, becomes populated with these holier-than-thou replies.
"Why shouldn't he/she/it just give away X?" is the question that drives me up the wall.
Let me answer it.
"For the mortgage".
Somehow, a large number of well-fed, well-clothed, and easily-surviving members of Slashdot have gotten into their heads that they (or some proxy of themselves, such as the NASA in this instance) are entitled to the fruits of other people's labors, simply because they exist. "Why doesn't he just give it away!" "Why should doctors make money, aren't they in it to help people?" "Patents and copyright should be abolished". etc... etc... etc...
To be honest, I find that attitude to be far more selfish than any kind of profiteering. It's a product of a life lived with few real difficulties, without denying themselves anything substantial... a live full of luxuries and entitlements.
Anyone else disappointed in the 'video'. Nothing like some CGI and then some still photographs to NOT sate the urge to see a plasma engine in use.
- Kal`Goblez
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bank in 1999. electricity has been generated in space by dragging a copper tether though the earth's magnetic field (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/astronauts-seek-power-in-space-1319781.html).
Presumably this produced drag. Can't this "drag" be used for some near earth maneuvering using a mesh system to create an electromagnetic sail by which one might tack? Or is the amount of force to small to be useful?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I liked the methane blast engine and its sound by XCOR Aerospace way more... http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/images/methaneblast/testfiring.wmv
Just how big of a rocket do you need to go from one movie studio lot to another?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
This doesn't solve ANYTHING.
The problem with space travel, that has been true for the past 60 years since the first rockets reached the edge of space, has been it costs a HUGE amount of finite resources to get anything into orbit. At least $10,000 a kilogram for a man rated launcher. Better engines that only work out in space do utterly nothing to solve this problem.
Laser launch, space elevators, cheap rockets made in China....whatever solution works, we need to be spending every dollar on that. Once we finally have a technology that is cost effective, THEN we can start sending missions to other planets and setting up space hotels and building plasma engines that only work in vacuum.
Despite it's high specific impulse this engine isn't the whole answer to the exploration of the solar system. Blame the inverse square law.
It may be feasible to power an slow unmanned Earth-Moon VASIMR transfer vehicle with solar, but at Mars solar radiation is only 25% as strong and at Jupiter it's 4%. So you are talking about nuclear for probes to the outer planets and for manned missions to anywhere.
There's nothing technological that would stop space-based nuclear but you just know it'll take years to get that done.
New Scientist has an article that says VASIMR + nuclear = 39-day transit time to Mars.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
you post is far more typical and sad. The fact is that Chang-Diaz developed this original for NASA. In 2001 when bush and the republicans were gutting NASA, they told them to cut this project. NASA allowed Chang to start a company and continued to fund it on the side. In fact, this engine is about 1/2 NASA developed. Thankfully, Chang, kept this going. He, along with the likes of Bigelow who bought rights to TransHab, are the ones that will make NASA stand out. The only issue that I have with this, that Chang should have been required to do all the work in USA, since it American started and nearly 100% American funded.
... a gallon of gasoline could potentially lift a human into orbit, less spaceship.
Actually it's quite a bit more than a gallon. (LEO is very high and very fast. Other orbits are moreso.) But the basic idea is sound.
Rockets are HORRIBLE energy-spenders. (Their big advantage is that they do work and are self-contained.) That's why there's all that work on various "space elevators", where you can use electric motors (or the equivalent), at efficiencies in the 75 to 98% range from electricity to kinetic energy, to move stuff from the ground to LEO, geosynch, or otherwise get it persistently off the ground and out of the atmosphere.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
From Wikipedia:
The Tu-155 first flew on 15 April 1988. It used hydrogen as fuel and later LNG. It flew until the fall of the Soviet Union and it is currently stored in the Ramenskoye Airport in Zhukovskiy. The Tu-156 was intended to fly around 1997 but was cancelled also due to the fall of the Soviet Union. The aircraft used Cyrogenics to store fuel. The fuel tank was located in the air-blown (or Nitrogen) rear compartment. A distinctive feature of the aircraft is that the protrusion of the ventilation system is visible on the tail (near the no.2 engine). The Tu-155 used the Kuznetsov NK-88 engines. The Tu-156 was intended to use the Kuznetsov NK-89 engines.[1] It flew around 100 flights until it was placed in storage.
Cheers,
KT
Mass of ISS = 3x10^5 Kg .333x10-5 = 3.33x10-6 m/sec^2
Diameter of Pluto's major orbital axis = 14x10^9m
Thrust from a 200KW VASMIR engine = 5 newtons
f=ma=5N so a=f/m=1/(3x10^5)=
s=1/2 at^2 so t=sqrt(2s/a)
t=sqrt((28x10^9) / (3.33*10^-6)) = 1061 days
So as anyone who completed high school physics can see even one of these engines can cross the entire solar system along Pluto's major axis in just under 3 years or about the amount of time it took Magellan's crew to circumnavigate the globe.
This is a silly example of course. Orbits aren't straight lines. Why would anyone want to completely cross the solar system? (At most you would cross half) climbing out of the gravity well would be slower and falling in would be faster. I also assume you want to stop at your destination so half the trip would be spent in deceleration.
But it does show the power of even one of these engines if you can carry the fuel and a power source. It is the magic of constant low acceleration without opposing friction. It is why ion engines are attractive and VASMIR is a step up from them.
This is the kind of engine that will allow us to settle the solar system. Now if only we can find a good way to climb out of this stinking gravity well!
will it open a portal to hell like Carmack's space project?
The rewards are very good. Whole moons. Entire planets. Weapons that make nuclear weapons look like firecrackers. Survival for your offspring beyond the end of the Earth. Ultimately the prize is all of the universe beyond our atmosphere - more wealth than all wealth in the World, by a billion billion times.
Yes- the rewards are very good.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But I think we'll go ahead with our plans anyway.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
What will revitalize NASA is for it to follow the law and get the hell out of the launch business like its supposed to.
That will make way for the private sector to invest in launch services without fear of a "public option" driving their investors away at the critical moment.
Seastead this.
This is a pretty big deal. The fact that NASA signed up about a year ago to let him test it on ISS makes it worth paying attention to.
The embedded video links on the AdAstra website don't work so great, so here are some YouTube videos posted by one of the AdAstra PhD's yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIg6pWwezEU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bRgK590u-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvuNUNqW6Sc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs0e2qhxdZ4
Below is the info attached to that first video.
I'd like to see someone here explain what the difference is between this and an ion thrust engine, like the Xenon unit in use on the Dawn spacecraft now. Since I'm posting this, I won't be able to mod up, but if you see such an explanation please mod it up.
Also, can someone explain was those huge RF power outputs are NOT expected to wreak havoc with ISS communications?
-----
Ad Astra Rocket Companys VASIMR® VX-200 rocket prototype reached its highly-coveted 200 kW maximum power milestone at 11:59 am (CST) September 30th 2009 in tests conducted at the companys Houston laboratory. The DC power trace actually exceeded the design requirement by 1 kW and exhibited the clear signature of a well established plateau at peak power. The achievement comes after an intense experimental campaign that began in April 2009 when the engine was fitted with a powerful low temperature superconducting magnet, a critical component that enables VASIMR® to process large amounts of plasma power. The electrical power processing is accomplished using high efficiency, 95%, solid state RF generators built by Nautel Ltd of Halifax, Canada. Demonstration of a 200 kW capability was required to validate, with full scale performance data, the design of the VF-200-1 already underway. The VX-200 turns out to exceed the expected power density of VF-200-1 by about 25%, so this is a robust demonstration of the technology. The VF-200-1 is the first engine that the company plans to fly in space, and it is presently working with NASA to effectuate inspace testing in late 2013 on the International Space Station (ISS).
The total power processed by the engine is distributed between its two electromagnetic stages. The first, tested last July at its full 32 kW power rating, generates the plasma from Argon feedstock gas, while the second energizes it to the desired output conditions. At maximum power, the second stage contributes an additional 168 kW to complete the 200 kW power rating. The 200 kW test is, in effect, a validation of the VASIMR® second stage design, a hitherto untested element of the engine at these tremendous power levels, said Dr. Jared P. Squire, Ad Astras Director of Research and leader of the experimental team conducting the tests. Preliminary data indicate a better than expected power coupling, leading to slightly less thermal stress than originally predicted. These findings will continue to be verified, but the indications point to operation well within the chosen design specifications he said.
Short for Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket, VASIMR® is a new high-power plasma-based space propulsion technology, initially studied by NASA and now being developed privately by Ad Astra. A VASIMR® engine could transport payloads in space far more efficiently and economically than todays chemical rockets. The company envisions an early commercial deployment of the technology, beginning in 2014, to greatly reduce the operational costs of maintaining an evolving space infrastructure, including space stations, satellites, lunar outposts and fuel depots in the Earth-Moon environment. Ultimately, VASIMR® engines could also greatly shorten robotic and human transit times for missions to Mars and beyond.
THE TECHNOLOGY
The VASI
One simple rule for its versus it's
"Incite" is now an entirely captured word used solely with the phrase "to riot." Trying to change that back may incite a riot among descriptivist linguists.
No idea why, but the video page linked in the summary totally kills my Kubuntu box. Had to do a hard restart, twice, until I finally just decided to try not watching the videos. :-(
"Costa Rican scientist and former astronaut Franklin Chang-Diaz created the VASIMR concept and has been working on its development since 1977."
This deserves a new category of vaporware.. plasmaware?
How we know is more important than what we know.
The problem is that in the case of healthcare, money shouldn't be the goal of the enterprise. And rational self-interest through care denial is my only good explanation for US life expectancy.
I wish my healthcare was more like my car insurance -- which is also a government mandate. I choose (not my employer). My company is a fortune 500 entirely owned by the people it insures. If there's a profit for a quarter, I get a letter apologizing for charging too much and they give me a refund. It's also got stellar reviews. It's also gotten pretty consistently stellar ratings for the people it employs.
So no, in practice, there's more effective means of providing insurance (from a cost/customer happiness/financial solvency perspective.) But hey, maybe you like phone trees in India (mine's in San Antonio) and customer service whose job it is to be efficient while denying you coverage (since they're employed by shareholders).
Unfortunately, since it's your company's job to provide health care rather than your choice, this model doesn't work for health care at the moment.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Guest Speaker Benjamin W. Longmier, a Research Scientist for the Ad Astra Rocket Company is speaking about the VASIMR project on campus. It will be in the HRB Bright building tomorrow at 6pm (Tuesday the 6th). Just for any slashdotters in the area or at Texas A&M.
Rockets are pretty efficient actually.
Their disadvantage is that they have to carry their working fluid with them. To get into orbit you need to gain over 8km/s of horizontal velocity and to do that you want to get above the majority of the atmosphere ASAP - so you quickly leave the area where you could snatch any external substance to use for propulsion.
Space elevators are not an automatic fix either - electric motors require power and to carry the kind of power supply that could lift you up a distance equal to about 5 times the diameter of the Earth would give you much the same engineering problems as a rocket.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
NASA is not holding back 'private' space development - it is helping them. Who do you think turned up and told Scaled Composites how to make fuel tanks that didn't kill their employees on the ground? Who do you think did the groundwork for VASIMR? Who do you think is providing the launch facilities for the SpaceX Falcon 9? Your libertarian drivel doesn't hold up under even the slightest examination.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Screw rocket science, bring back Bonfire!
Quite the contrary. Rockets are EXCELLENT energy-spenders. In vacuum at exhaust speed they have an efficiency of about 70% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propulsive_efficiency). The Problem of chemical rockets is not their efficiency, but the energy density. And that problem is solved by solar(or any other form of power "beaming"), nuclear, fusion or antimatter powered vehicles.
Ion thrusters only solve the by far easier problem of propulsion. The real issue is the power source. Solar is too low powered for anything more then station keeping. High power nuclear reactors (>10MW) have problems with heat radiation. Nuclear batteries are far too inefficient. Fusion reactors small enough for space are probably still a century away, and would have the same heat radiation problems like nuclear. For interplanetary journeys there are more promising technologies like good old Nuclear thermal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket) or Mini Mag Orion (http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/20/2321219.shtml)
The problem is that in the case of healthcare, money shouldn't be the goal of the enterprise... ...
I wish my healthcare was more like my car insurance...
Do you actually read the drivel you post for self-consistency?
If you want more context for this story, check this Q+A Seed Magazine did with Chang-Diaz, published in September. It includes a more robust discussion of what Ad Astra is trying to do, and the ultimate potentials of their success.
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/a_rocket_for_the_21st_century/
Yes, I do...but apparently you don't. A non-profit or co-op's primary goal isn't to make money. As it is with any group with shareholders.
And no, since my company chooses my health insurance, I don't get a choice of health insurance...just between whatever plans Blue Cross offers.
Is there some part of this that's incoherent?
If you still think I'm full of shit, this is an enlightening bipartisan discussion of the topic. But you probably don't want that. We're happier when our views are simply confirmed.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.