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.
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"
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
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.
Why is that "sad"? Would you keep working for the Government if you had a skillset that was going to enable you to make a lot more money in the private sector? Does it also bother you when someone gets an entry level IT job and then leaves for greener pastures once they acquire sufficient work experience?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Or maybe, just maybe, the guy got a doctorate in plasma physics, and flew 7 Space Shuttle missions (which isn't exactly safe), directed the NASA Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory, and is investing in plasma rocket research after his NASA tenure because he's interested in plasma physics, rocket science, and the possibilities of space flight.
I am officially gone from
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.
Can't any amount of power move the ISS just at a slower rate?
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.
Yeah he retired after "just" twenty five years. He really screwed NASA on that one!
And what, after he retires, he's not supposed to do the most obvious things related to his education and experience? He was working on plasma rockets before he made it to NASA. So is it worse that he's planning to work on plasma rockets to sell to NASA after working for them for a quarter century, rather than going into private industry straight out of college? Why? Because it vaguely fits a stereotype of ex-government employees leaving to work for contractors?
A cynical view I know.
Yeah... What's the word where cynicism is used as a replacement for understanding? Kinda like "blind optimism", but the opposite? Blind cynicism doesn't sound right. As a cynic, I've always liked the expression "cynicism is realism plus experience". But you're not being realistic. So... what is it that you're doing?
The enemies of Democracy are
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
You do know that designing a big thing with lot's of moving parts actually costs a quite lot of money? Let alone building something like that. I doubt there's that much air in the prices when they are eventually selling it to NASA. Raw materials, workforce, facilities etc. cost money, they don't come for free. Hardware ain't like software where some old and grumpy guy with a big beard can do stuff for free.
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.
I think he took a look at the Space Shuttle and Ares Program and decided that he could provide better technology for a 1/20th of the price. Let's charge them a 1/10th of the price. He get's a lot and sill saves the taxpayers 90% of their money AND provides better technology.
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.
Louis, you might want to try being a little less transparent when pimping your own posts. At any rate, your ideas concerning motion aren't really that insightful. They're little more than wishful-thinking, without empirical evidence, experimentation, and subsequent math to back them up.
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
So we've got a _really smart_ guy we've paid to educate, paid for many years to perform exactly 7 times... I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.
Given your flippant tone, I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that 7 space shuttle flights is as many as anyone has ever done. Only one other astronaut has as many missions under their belt. This is because space flight is a Big Deal. Astronauts often train for years for a single specific mission.
By the way...how do you amass enough cash to personally invest significantly in this kind of endeavor, considering otherwise "normal" governmental salaries in the 70-130k/year range?Or is he primarily a front man - a very smart one - who is helping to get money from others (perhaps old colleagues with strings to government funds?) to pursue this research.
Front-man... inventor of the technology the company makes... Yeah, same thing.
I'm not saying he's not doing interesting, and possibly valuable, research, but I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches.
What does that even mean? A "pass" from what? What horrible sin has he allegedly committed? Leaving NASA after a mere twenty five years and a record number of shuttle missions? Turning his research into plasma propulsion into a real invention? Throw me a bone here!
Now, if he's made a bunch of money doing other things (dot com bubble investor?), and is pursuing this as a purely speculative path, then good for him.
Oh I see. So if he'd managed to fund this venture without having done anything productive rather than inventing a new propulsion system, then you'd be cool with it.
WTF is with these comments?
The enemies of Democracy are
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
No, you got it just about right.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This isn't going away.
How long do you anticipate this revolution to take anyway? 5 years?
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.
So if Mr. Astronaut became a lobbyist instead that'd be okay too? Or a Medal of Honor winner who pimps his heroism out to lobby for munitions makers seeking gov contracts? Guns and bombs is what he knows right?
But that's not what he's doing, now is it? He's starting a private company, with private investment, and creating what he hopes are practical solutions for other private industries and NASA.
This is exactly what I'm talking about -- "cynicism" is not saying "this will end badly" without concern for the specifics of what "this" is. You have to look at the actual reality and distinguish based on that. "So if he [did something else] that'd be okay too?", implying no distinction based on the actual activity or its outcome, is the opposite of realism.
For a self described cynic (as in always asking "who benefits?") you sure do have a idealistic outlook which goes against the weight of the evidence about who lobbys and for what.
He is going to benefit, obviously so, because he's the CEO of the company. What's the problem again? He's going to get a nice NASA contract, become Yet Another Defense Contractor, and lobby congress to give NASA more funds? Oh noes!
You don't sound like a cynic to me. You sound like a betrayed idealist, with a rosy-eyed view of how things "should" be, and constantly finding that not to be the case. So you say things will end badly in some vague way, without regard to what's actually happening because it doesn't matter.
Personally, seeing someone trying to use the 'best of both worlds' of private enterprise and government contracts to drag NASA kicking and screaming out of the 60s warms my cynical heart.
The enemies of Democracy are
I'm not sure you understand the potential that any particular astronaut has to ruin hundreds of billions of dollars of government investment. If an astronaut meant to, or just screwed up at something that may have seemed inconsequential at the time, the deaths of the people onboard would be, while publicly tear-jerking, relatively inconsequential compared to the gross loss of capital for the agency. (Less now that they're intending to stop using the shuttles altogether, but to some degree still.)
The fact that he made it through training and became an astronaut means that he was worthy of being trusted with a hundred-billion-plus dollar space ship. That's what the training is for. That's why we pay their training, and why we pay them. Not only could they die in a spectacular fireball if they make the wrong mistake--or if someone else does--but it's possible they could completely ruin NASA's chances of ever being useful again by swaying public opinion. A single person could--or could have--singlehandedly set back mankind's exploration of space by decades or longer.
And you've really got the balls to say that spending the money that he got as part of that trust to keep advancing something he loves and believes in is less respectable than if he had taken his money, gambled with it on the stock market, and taken whatever gains he had and spent them on this as an outsider?
Disclosure: I am related to a former high-ranking NASA employee, and while that doesn't make me an expert, I do have at least SOME sense of scale about the damned thing.
I'm sorry but obviously you don't realize that the shuttle is far from being a tugboat...
It's not like the ocean where you can put a vehicle in front of something, and put energy into pulling it to where you want, without a zillion different things that can go wrong, and are impeding. The travel in orbit isn't standing still, along with costly thruster fuel (costly in weight, & price)
Slapping an engine onto something, and letting it take care of itself is alot cheaper, safer, and more efficient.
hint: we aren't playing Homeworld here...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
You're a retard...
Where's your evidence or proof?
What does causality have anything to do with free energy?
Another crack pot, *sigh*.
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
Spot the logical fallacy after I've corrected your basic error. With the technology to perform (unmanned) interplanetary missions and retrieve resources from around the solar system the amount of raw stuff that we need to hoist up the gravity well diminishes considerably. Currently if want to attempt a manned interplanetary mission we need to lift every last gram that it needs from the surface. Orbital manufacturing and resource retrieval are orders of magnitude more important than improving our capability to lift things into orbit - because they reduce the amount that we need to lift by orders of magnitude.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Um... because for us real humans, money is not our only (pointless) reason of existence.
Actually, there was at least one big survey, that showed, that people actually prefer doing what they want, to having more money.
I chose more than once in my life, not to get more money, so I can do what I want. And I'm very happy with that decision. As long as I have food, shelter, friends, and can do what I want, what do I need all the rest for? The only reason money exists at all, is to get to those goals. It is no reason in itself, never was, and never will be. :)
If you can get there with less money, so be it.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Odds are, he's gone this route, because the current structure of the Federal government is such that it's much easier to fund and develop a project through a private corporation receiving federal funding than it is to have the agency to the actual work.
(This is nothing particularly new either. Although it's my understanding that NASA used to do more in-house engineering work than it currently does, rocket engines have been privately sourced since the days of Apollo, and possibly even earlier.)
He worked with NASA for 25 years before retirement, and was by all appearances, a model employee of the agency, not to mention the immense personal sacrifices he gave as an astronaut (years of training for an incredibly risky job that only lasts for a few days). I'm astonished by the negative tone being used in these comment threads, given that the guy is clearly displaying great scientific ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit.
Although I'd like to see NASA cultivate its own talent, as far as I'm aware, he's working well within the bounds of the system. Seriously....you're trying to fault a guy who's advanced the state of science and risked his own life numerous times by doing so for trying to make money by doing so. Are you going to now start complaining about how our greedy, money-grubbing soldiers want to eat while deployed?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
It's a way to start a space business in addition to the existing ones and increase competition. This is what I see as a typical behaviour of the US government.
The fact that you entered the space race with the soviet union doesn't mean that you have to copy her business model too.
Je me souviens.
Okay let's start off with why your nuts.
1. His Astronaut training that he got from NASA would have ZERO to do with a plasma rocket. He would get lots of training on how to operate the Space Shuttle systems and how to try and not die if things went very wrong.
2. His time in the advanced propulsion department might have something to do with with this but NASA doesn't make stuff. They may design stuff but then they have outside companies build the stuff.
In this case he is probably taking a project that was getting less funding than is spent on research of the American Bison flea and is getting outside funding for it. You really don't get rich starting a space technology company. It is a passion for a lot of people and I would say good show and I hope it works.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
... 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
You make it out that all lobbyists are evil. So if the medal of honor winner is trying to get congress to spend money on new state of the art body armor that is terrible? Or a new rife that doesn't jam all the time? Well that depends if you a soldier or not.
I would love to see no lobbyists or salespeople but we do not live in that world. If you believe that what you are selling or lobbying for is actually the right choice then why would it be wrong?
Greenpeace lobbies congress as do other groups is that wrong?
What is worse is this guy isn't doing any of that. He is working on developing a new space propulsion system with private money. This is really cool. It is no different than what SpaceX is doing.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
That's a nice bit of flower child idealism you've got there. Tell me, where did I advocate doing a job you hate just because it pays more money? All I said was would you continue working for one employer if your skillset allowed you to make more money working for another?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Um... because for us real humans, money is not our only (pointless) reason of existence.
That's just something poor people say.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
Oh my stars!! That was quite the "zing".
Plus it lets other people come in and subsequently be trained for the same things, thus adding to the pool of similarly skilled individuals. Having the same guys take up the same positions for life does not seem even remotely good for the world/country.
That's crazy talk
I think you're just confused about what money actually is.
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?
Wow. This post, while sounding vaguely all-knowing, is actually contentless.
The future is stranger than you can imagine. What will be, will be.
Well, quite. With your talent in making the obvious sound significant, have you ever considered going into astrology?
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
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.
In other news: Water is wet! Sex is pleasurable! What will be, will be! Simply genius, a modern day Nostradamus... do you have a book I can read with more of your revelations?
Choosing something instead of money is not all that different from having money and spending it. It's an opportunity cost instead of a realized cost. You still made a choice that in a comparison between something you value and money, you want the something more. Having money or the ability to make money gives you the ability to make those choices, and choices (at least IMO) are good.
No need to demonize a perfectly viable currency for representing value.
But I think we'll go ahead with our plans anyway.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I bet NASA wasn't going to get venture capital for Diaz to develop a plasma rocket; they're too busy paying $400 for a hammer.
You demonize capitalism just because the dude worked for NASA at one point. Even the space agency has a glass ceiling.
P.S.: I've met the guy, he's pretty cool. Had a nice house down the street.
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
In pointing out my logical fallacy, you've committed a much bigger one. Orbital manufacturing and retrieving resources is science fiction. The amount of infrastructure you need to process raw materials into finished products, much less aerospace grade hardware, is immense. You can't even imagine the amount of machine tools and people, spread between thousands of firms, that all contribute to manufacturing something like spacecraft parts. Before you can start orbital manufacturing on a large scale, you basically have to lift some serious infrastructure into orbit in the first place - which is flat out impossible if you have to pay 10k/kilogram. A real orbital manufacturing plant would probably be thousands, if not millions of tons - at current launch prices, more than the entire economy of the world combined could afford.
Yes, we could set up a simple automated plant to make the return fuel for a manned mission to mars. That only lowers the stupendous cost of a manned mission slightly. More likely than not, a manned mission would use a large nuclear reactor and power some kind of high ISP engine, such that propellant would not be the main driver of launch cost. And no, you aren't going to be manufacturing components for a nuclear power plant using orbital manufacturing - all that heavy, bleeding edge technology stuff has to be made on earth.
Yes, some day there will be orbital factories that can process resources on an immense scale. They'll be AI driven, and self replicating. But for today, we need to work out a way to get a stinking primate in a can into orbit without requiring the labor of a million other primates.
VASIMR is for in space propulsion only. Even then there are alternatives which require less outrageous amounts of energy to work in a reasonably efficient fashion such as ion engines.
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. :-(
LOL, thanks. :)
The enemies of Democracy are
"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.
Or a Medal of Honor winner who pimps his heroism out to lobby for munitions makers seeking gov contracts?
Don't go there. Seriously. Every Medal of Honor in the past 25 years has been awarded posthumously. Every single recent Medal of Honor "winner" gave his life to save his friends. Anyone awarded the Medal of Honor deserves nothing but your respect. You've done nothing in your whole life that gives you the right you judge a succesful astronaut, let alone someone who has been awarded the Medal of Honor.
Read some citations on the Medal of Honor site. Since you're probably too lazy to click a link, here's one example, picked at random.
EVANS, DONALD W., JR.
Rank and organization: Specialist Fourth Class, U.S. Army, Company A, 2d Battalion, 12 Infantry, 4th Infantry Division. Place and date: Tri Tam, Republic of Vietnam, 27 January 1967. Entered service at: Covina, Calif. Born: 23 July 1943, Covina, Calif. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. He left his position of relative safety with his platoon which had not yet been committed to the battle to answer the calls for medical aid from the wounded men of another platoon which was heavily engaged with the enemy force. Dashing across 100 meters of open area through a withering hail of enemy fire and exploding grenades, he administered lifesaving treatment to 1 individual and continued to expose himself to the deadly enemy fire as he moved to treat each of the other wounded men and to offer them encouragement. Realizing that the wounds of 1 man required immediate attention, Sp4c. Evans dragged the injured soldier back across the dangerous fire-swept area, to a secure position from which he could be further evacuated Miraculously escaping the enemy fusillade, Sp4c. Evans returned to the forward location. As he continued the treatment of the wounded, he was struck by fragments from an enemy grenade. Despite his serious and painful injury he succeeded in evacuating another wounded comrade, rejoined his platoon as it was committed to battle and was soon treating other wounded soldiers. As he evacuated another wounded man across the fire covered field, he was severely wounded. Continuing to refuse medical attention and ignoring advice to remain behind, he managed with his waning strength to move yet another wounded comrade across the dangerous open area to safety. Disregarding his painful wounds and seriously weakened from profuse bleeding, he continued his lifesaving medical aid and was killed while treating another wounded comrade. Sp4c. Evan's extraordinary valor, dedication and indomitable spirit saved the lives of several of his fellow soldiers, served as an inspiration to the men of his company, were instrumental in the success of their mission, and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.
Fuck you if you think you are in any position to judge a Medal of Honor recipient.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
If you've ever read his "science" blog, his alternative to chemical rockets is to tap into a free, near-infinite clean energy lattice that supposedly exists all around us. He also speculates that we'll also be able to ignore inertia and momentum. I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions about how realistic this hypothesis is.
He is, in this article, a cheerleader for the private sector whilst his only commercial product is derived from work done at NASA funded by the US government. I've found that a great deal of private sector 'acheivement' is actually co-opted from public works, or has its losses buried in the public purse.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
What this and other EP do is reduce the amount of fuel needed to get from LEO to where ever you're going. If you can reduce the mass fraction from say 2:1 to 1:2, you've cut your on-orbit mass in half, and thus can use a launch vehicle that's half the size.
While reducing the cost of the access to orbit is important, it doesn't mean that this is 'idiotic' and doesn't solve anything. I have issues with VASIMR (its always seemed very vapor-ish), but if its eventually capable of doing what it requires it will be a great tool for interplanetary missions. Something that can cut your launch costs in half isn't something to sneeze at.
In addition, it has one big advantage over, say, a space elevator. It is likely to eventually work in the next few decades(even if it is late and overbudget), and doesn't require materials that don't exist.
It only 'saves money' because the private sector has the option of shifting its losses onto the public sector or other private companies, and thus appearing to be more economically efficient. The public sector, because of its obligations in a democratic society, can't do this.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Blame Congress. Seriously. The guy spent a long time at NASA working on VASIMR technology. He only went private sector after Congress voted to ban NASA from funding research into VASIMR about ten years ago, for some idiotic reason (does Congress need any other?). So his job at NASA was gone overnight and he went private sector instead of just occupying a desk.
Personally I'm thrilled the research continues, since this is a very important piece of technology, in my opinion.
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?
As Lincoln said: "In times of war some people get killed and others make a killing." Some ex-brass hat with a chest full of medals cashing in on his Pentagon connections isn't doing Specialist Evans any honor by lobbying congress for some weapons system on behalf a well heeled client. And don't wave the flag at me, I served in uniform for four years.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
Yeah spending his own money in order to sell to the gov to make even more money. How noble.
"If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
Causality does not lie and does not make wishes.
Indeed. Causality also says that kinetic energy doesn't just disappear for no reason. There has to be a cause for acceleration.
It's not easy getting around the politically correct /. crowd.
Babble about /. censorship all you want. I gave you a chance to answer a simple question about Conservation of Energy, and you bitched out.
Because the truth which we both know is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
The enemies of Democracy are
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)
Laser launch would now. Cutting the cost for a Mars mission from 2 trillion dollars to 1 trillion IS something to sneeze at. If you could make laser launch work, you'd slash your total costs by at least a factor of 10. (because launch costs would be 100 times cheaper or more, and you would be able to launch lots of lower quality hardware and save money on your spacecraft and satellites)
I'm guessing you're American, or at least a legal resident alien, since you're saying "we paid"
But from your post, I'm also going to guess that you went to private primary, secondary, and higher education schools. Either that or you graciously provide your services to society for no additional cost.
Otherwise, we paid for 90+% of your education and you're churlishly demanding payment for a job that you got because of your education.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
If I'm designing a mission I'd be pretty happy to be able to cut my costs in half. Granted, it would be great to have a very cheap way to get to orbit, but as a practical engineer I'm much more impressed by a mostly functional prototype at the recommended scale with proper funding than I am by some theoretical work. While I have no reason to believe that laser propulsion will not work, it is at a TRL level of 2 from everything I can tell, while VASIMR is at TRL 6.
As someone looking at what I actually want to use to complete a mission, I'm much more interested in something that can cut my costs in half and is likely to be available within the next 10 years, than I am with something that has some paper concepts and a few basic lab experiments. I try not to be too much of a naysayer of new technology, but at the same time , comparing something entirely theoretical to something with significant amounts of development is absurd. Yes, if laser propulsion (or any other kind of new method to reach orbit) turns out to be a practical development it will be a much bigger deal, but in the meantime I find something that (almost) exists and reduces launch costs by half pretty valuable.
So we've got a _really smart_ guy we've paid to educate, paid for many years to perform exactly 7 times, paid to direct a "cool" program, and now that we've shelled out all that money, he's investing some of it in hopes of selling us some product we spent years paying him to learn about.
By the way...how do you amass enough cash to personally invest significantly in this kind of endeavor, considering otherwise "normal" governmental salaries in the 70-130k/year range? Or is he primarily a front man - a very smart one - who is helping to get money from others (perhaps old colleagues with strings to government funds?) to pursue this research.
I'm not saying he's not doing interesting, and possibly valuable, research, but I'm not about to give him a free pass just because he's got a doctorate and a handful of mission patches. Now, if he's made a bunch of money doing other things (dot com bubble investor?), and is pursuing this as a purely speculative path, then good for him.
Honestly, you know what the above reads like? I'll summarize it for you:
Whaaaaa! He's a succesful astronaut who spent the better part of his life doing something totally awesome and now gets to spend another part of his life doing yet more totally awesome stuff while I sit here staring at my penis and wondering why it is so tiny. Not fair!
Jealous much?
This guy went up 7 times, each time knowing fully well that there's a pretty decent chance the whole thing would end up in a big-ass ball of flame. Do you also complain about military personnel being schooled and trained on your dime? All they ever do is kill people, this guy has risked his life for the sake of science.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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?
VASIMR is a form of ion propulsion. The energy for the thrust has to come from somewhere in any case. It can either be carried up from Earth in the form of fuel or it can be collected in space from solar panels. The latter is much cheaper. Of course it will never be used for lift off. There we have chemical or, in theory, nuclear. But currently nuclear might as well be a dirty word, so that leaves chemical.
Move to North Korea then. Unless your Boeing and building the Delta and Atlas space is not a big money maker.
What would you want him to do then? NASA doesn't have the budget to invest in this so he found investors that where willing to pay for it.
He is not going to get Microsoft or even Google rich off this. He will be lucky if his company doesn't go bankrupt like most space tech companies do. And who else would by a plasma thruster but NASA?
Good freaking grief this person has done nothing wrong.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.