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
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.
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.
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".