Slashdot Mirror
Tiny Ion Engine Runs On Water
symbolset writes "Discovery News is covering a project by two engineers from the University of Michigan to pair cubesats with tiny ion engines for inexpensive interplanetary exploration. The tiny plasma drive called the CubeSat Ambipolar Thruster (CAT) will ionize water and use it as propellant with power provided by solar cells. In addition to scaling down the size of ion engines they hope to bring down the whole cost of development and launch to under $200,000."
n/t
.....but more practically: how much thrust/impulse/whatever would you be able squeeze out of an amount of water that can be carried by a tiny cubesat? The article implicitly compares it favorably to current Xenon/Krypton based systems, but made no effort to explain why. Any slashdoter willing to work out the math?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Jesus could only walk on water this thing runs on water. That is no small feat...
I'd be also interested in knowing that. Xenon really is the almost ideal propellant: low ionization energy, heavy ions, completely inert, good density... Water might be slightly nasty, especially if the oxygen ions will come into contact with something reactive. But I do hope that these guys pull it off. I've been a space propulsion junkie since the age of ten or so. Stuff like this makes me tickled pink.
Ezekiel 23:20
Summary makes no mention of the CAT kickstarter campaign for this thing.
Thats true, but the issue in a cubesat is going to be all about total propellant mass fraction (The fraction of the vehicle mass at launch made of of stuff you can sling out the back at high speed), so while Xe is a better reaction mass if you have the space for the tank, it may well be that in this particular use case the higher storage density (and thus the ability to fit more of it into a tiny tank) actually trumps the heavier ion.
Space propulsion is all about propellant mass fraction and exhaust velocity, as those two numbers define how much delta V you can get out of your available fuel.
The problem with light ions in this situation is that the momentum transferred is simply the product of exhaust mass and exhaust velocity, the energy required to produce that exhaust velocity is 1/2 mv^2, thus a heavier ion travelling more slowly requires less energy input to the accelerator for a given amount of momentum transfer then a light ion moving fast.
However if you have surplus electrical power, and are not too concerned about producing large accelerations (even by ion drive standards), and can solve the corrosion and thermal management problems, it might actually be a reasonable tradeoff.
All space propulsion is tradeoffs between energy/reaction mass/specific impulse/acceleration, there are no really right answers here, and having another validated tool in the box is always going to be useful.
A cubesat is a kilogram or so. Adding a cold gas thruster with a solar panel could give it limited attitude control and not break the mass budget. I don't know how you build interplanetary telemetry and control in a kilogram so that an ion thruster can get to mars and transmit data. the solar panels necessary for a jupiter mission are massive and much more limited than a nuclear option. A big benefit of the ion engine is a reduction in the fuel that has to be lifted. And the fuel must be easy to ionize, which seems to currently argon, not water. Of course any test bed to see how things actually work is space is great. We can theorize all we want but won't know until we try
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
As has been previously mentioned, the key question of space propulsion is how much thrust can you get for a given mass of propellant? The usual measure of this is Isp, which is thrust per weight flow rate of propellant. While it seems unlikely that water will beat Xe due to having lower mass per ion, it does have several key advantages, which are not really in the article except the first one:
1. Smaller storage tank can be used for liquid water as opposed to a gas. This is especially important if you're trying to piggyback with another satellite.
2. Gas will leak out over time, requiring more expensive hardware to contain it. You need something able to handle the expansion and contraction associated with sunlight, plus the very high pressure. That's a lot of seals, and getting seals that won't degrade in space is not that trivial- it's a harsh environment, especially from a radiation standpoint.
3. This is just something that occurred to me, but a large fraction of the weight on a spacecraft is a radiator, because the only way to get rid of heat in space is radiative heat transfer, which is much less efficient than convection. (and if you are generating power and thrusting, you are making heat) If you utilized the water as the working fluid in the radiator, you might be able to simplify another subsystem. I don't know if they actually did this.
So in summary:
It is unlikely that water produces a more efficient propulsion system, but it may well produce a simpler, cheaper, and easier to transport one.
Disclaimer: No actual math was done for the writing of this post. If you have math to prove me wrong, please do so.
Exhaust velocity is 20,000 Km/hr and propellant is half the mass of the craft so it should be on the order of Dawn Mission's 10,000 KPH delta V. If it works at all. These ion engines can theoretically run on a wide variety of propellants like xenon, argon or iodine but since water is so common in space it would be nice if it were effective. Ultimately that means one might refuel in transit, or we might shoot fuel at one with a rail gun. Further out there is less solar energy for the solar cells but we can laser illuminate them. Radio is a problem because of power laws, but space to space laser comm fixes that, with satellite to ground radio relays.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The main asteroid belt is beyond Mars, but it's also the closest space that water ice can remain on a body after all these billions of years. Ceres is a gift. It is a fuel depot for interplanetary exploration. It is a potential habitat. It is a gateway to the stars. 200 quadrillion metric tons of water in a low-g environment close enough to the sun for solar cells to work. What more could you ask for? Somebody to exploit it for you? Just wait and they'll come along but they will charge market rates for the effort and then some margin.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It is a potential habitat. It is a gateway to the stars.
...and here you reveal your true colours.
Ceres is not a potential habitat.
Assume you can develop a shelter with adequate shielding from cosmic rays and solar storms, adequate insulation, pressure containment, etc. (Despite the fact that we don't know what "adequate" is, or exactly what's in "etc".) And assume you can transport inhabitants there, all the while keeeping them healthy. Fine. One teeny little failure in one annoying little subsystem, lasting a mere minute, and every inhabitant is dead. What are the odds of zero operation failures in a lifetime? Never happened in any city here on Earth. Or even any inhabited building.
Another thing. If you could build machines reliable enough to transport people safely around the solar system (and you actually wanted to have people live off Earth), why would you bother with a habitat on an asteroid? Stick with what works: the spaceship. Iain Banks had this right.
Ceres is not a gateway to the stars.
Nothing is. The stars are too far away. You'll never live long enough to learn anything from sending a physical mass to any star with Earth-like, habitable zone planets; your city won't exist long enough. Your civilization likely won't last long enough. (The Fermi paradox is no paradox at all. It's a demonstration of how far apart stars are, and how hostile and unrewarding the intervening space is...and perhaps of the rationality of other intelligent life.)
So what are we left with? Ceres is a potentially useful source of reaction mass/propellant, if anyone ever discovers a valid reason to send physical masses past geosynchronous orbit. (I'll believe mining asteroids could be profitable when I discover a pressing ubiqitous and essential materials problem for which all solutions require one particular element, and the element is both in short supply here on Earth and abundant on an asteroid near Ceres. To date, though, there are substitutes and alternatives for pretty much everything that might start to get short in the next century, so don't hold your breath.)
I can see a point to mini ion drives. They're potentially handy for sending things out to geosynchronous orbit and doing stuff there and in LEO. And I can see a point to operating telescopes with good resolving power out "in space". But I can't see why they'd need to be very far away from Earth. And even for purposes of scientific experimentation, I can't see a point to sending physical mass much past the outer part of the Oort cloud.
If you want to get a semi-knowledgeable public interested in this stuff, don't use words and phrases like 'habitat', 'gateway to the stars' or 'profit' when talking about this stuff. They scream "space cadet".
Correction:
A cubesat is made up of one or more 10x10x10cm blocks AT LAUNCH.
Mass is entirely dependent on how those blocks are filled up.
Flying configuration is entirely dependent on how they're designed to pack. Quite a few of them unfold quite large solar panels and linear antennas once released into orbit - and you're not constrained to ONE block, just the block-based configuration (Many larger cubesats are made up of 3 blocks. OTOH some cubesats may disperse into a bunch of smaller devices once released.)
Launch cost is based on the volume taken up and/or the mass (there is limited space available and limited mass capability, so you have to fit within both constraints)
They're intended for quick'n'dirty development. The reason they're so cheap is that there's no guarantee of delivery in any desired orbital plane, no interfacing with the launcher (except in the physical sense of being loaded into a carrier), and comms with them is your problem from the outset. They're expected to be entirely self-contained and be able to sort themselves out once they discover they're free-floating.
(They're also cheap because 99% of them are prototypes made with COTS gear and duct tape, not subjected to any kind of space/launch qualification except those the maker decides to run. For any other type of launch there are dozens of prototypes made, plus flight spares and virtually _everything_ down to screw level is custom made and space rated over hundred of tests (space rating an instrument such as an ion detector takes several months in a vacuum chamber over extreme temperature excursions and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Launch rating requires similar tests on high powered vibration tables more than easily capable of turning your insides to jelly should you be silly enough to sit on one while running (There's one in the same building as I am and everyone knows when it's in use). On top of that there are ultra-precision requirements for everything, to ensure that it all assembles correctly - but that doesn't always stop things being installed backwards (eg gyro sensors on a Proton, the parachute dispensing sensor on New Horizons or the swapping of camera assemblies between spirit and opportunity despite precautions being taken at every step of the way to prevent exactly that occurance) because all the engineering in the world is no use if it doesn't include "design for assembly".)