Slashdot Mirror


Revolutionary Ion Thruster To Be Tested On International Space Station (abc.net.au)

Three Australian researchers have developed "an ion thruster that could replace the current chemical-based rocket propulsion technology, which requires huge volumes of fuel to be loaded onto a spacecraft." Slashdot reader theweatherelectric shares this article from the ABC News: An Australian-designed rocket propulsion system is heading to the International Space Station for a year-long experiment that ultimately could revolutionize space travel. The technology could be used to power a return trip to Mars without refuelling, and use recycled space junk for the fuel... It will be placed in a module outside the ISS, powered, as Dr Neumann describes, by an extension cord from the station. "What we'll be doing with our system is running it for as long as we can, hopefully for the entire year on the space station to measure how much force it's producing for how long."
In the early 2000s "it was basically a machine the size of a fist that spat ions from a very hot plasma ball through a magnetic nozzle at a very high velocity," and the researchers are now hoping to achieve the same effect by recycling the magnesium in space junk.

8 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Re:This is the missing piece by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Informative

    No it isn't. TLDR, read atomic rockets, n00b. Or, since you won't be reading it : high specific impulse ion drives have existed in various test forms for years. They are easy to make and they all have high efficiency, albeit some designs are more reliable than others. The problem with all of them is the nasty equation KE = 1/2 m * V^2. That means the higher the exhaust velocity (and thus specific impulse which is the fuel efficiency), energy required goes up with the square of exhaust velocity.

    Plenty of ion thruster designs, including VASIMR, have reasonable energy efficiency. The problem is that you still have to pay the bill even if the efficiency were 100%. You still have to supply as much electrical power as the kinetic energy of the escaping propellant.

    This is a big problem. Even the most exotic nuclear power generator designs anyone has drawn up, the nuclear generator is a heavy ass piece of equipment being propelled by barely any resulting thrust from the ion drive. It means that you might have great specific impulse but trips to Mars still take months. What you need is also high thrust. That's why the best engine for space travel that currently is feasible is still plain old nuclear-thermal. You only get an ISP of about 1000 (compare to 15k for this particular thruster), but you get thousands of times more thrust. You can complete your Mars injection burn in about half an hour instead of having to run the engine for months. That in turn increases efficiency because there is always 1 optimal point to do your engine burns at.

  2. Interview with Dr Neumann by SpaceDave · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those interested, there is a lengthy and interesting interview with Dr Neumann about this on The Space Show. http://thespaceshow.com/show/0...

  3. Some more information by Ian+Whitchurch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi,

    I'm Ian Whitchurch, the CEO of Neumann Space.

    First of all, if you want more technical information about the Neumann Drive, there's an article in Applied Physics Letters. It may be available here

    http://scitation.aip.org/conte...

    If that isnt working, then you might know someone with an APL subscription, or it might be somewhere on the internets under "A centre-triggered magnesium fuelled cathodic arc thruster uses sublimation to deliver a record high specific impulse Patrick R. C. Neumann, Marcela Bilek and David R. McKenzie".

    Secondly, it's not just the Neumann Drive that's going up to the Bartolomeo platform on the ISS. We're planning on taking a bunch of other peoples small projects, which deserve to go into space, but cant by themselves get a ride into orbit, or an easy method to get power, heating, cooling and communications once they are there. If you're interested, you might want a look at this fine Airbus DS press release.

    https://airbusdefenceandspace....

    There is also information available about the Facility for Australian Space Tests on our website, at http://neumannspace.com/fast/

    Thirdly, Im happy to answer further questions people might have.

    Finally, our poor, poor website. Also, the original post lacks a poll, which itself lacks a Cmdr Taco option. What the heck am I supposed to vote for ?

    1. Re:Some more information by Ian+Whitchurch · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's press coverage - it's going to be hypey, and thats just the world we live in. As indeed is toxic comment environments :)

      While running on space junk would be nice, it doesnt need to happen for the drives to be useful. If you're rocking 11 000s of specific impulse, then it's simple enough to bring a shipment of cathodes up from earth, transfer to a SEP tug and take them to where they are needed. The fact they are solid, and therefore dont need to be kept at the correct temperature and pressure helps a lot.

      Cathode geometry is something we need to do more science on. At the moment, we've been working with one inch diameter circular cathodes, and the 'star' erosion pattern appears to be a thing. Yes, we're definitely looking at cast/extruded cathodes. We've got some ideas about how to move cathodes forward, and thats on the 'to do' list for the model thats going up to the ISS.

  4. The main problem is safely grabbing the space junk by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with space junk is less about getting to it and more about getting to it safely. Everything in orbit is travelling a minimum of 17,000 mph. Have you seen what happens when car into a wall at only a 100 mph difference? Think two flimsy satellites colliding with a 400 mph difference. There will be hypersonic shards of metal everywhere.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Re:Comparison, please by Ian+Whitchurch · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/S... is as good a summary as any about NASA's current ion engines, while the APL paper by Neumann, Bilek and McKenzie for the http://scitation.aip.org/conte... has information about the Neumann Drive.

    Short version is that xenon drives vary in specific impulse and power efficiency depending on the power levels, while Neumann Drives vary in specific impulse and power efficiency depending on the fuel used, while the power level affects how many pulses per seconds. Higher power levels appear to cause faster wear of the grid in Gridded Ion Thrusters, or the chamber in the case of Hall Effect Thrusters, as well as needing more investment in Power Processing Units and so on. Additionally, there is the issue of tankage, regulators and so on for dealing with the xenon itself, which means it's not a straight 1:1 comparison. That said ...

    TLDR : Magnesium in a Neumann Drive runs about 9 uN/watt and 11 000s specific impulse. A NSTAR running at ~1000 watts input has about 32 uN/watt and 2850s of specific impulse.

  6. EM Drive -v ION drive = 1st space robot wars by seoras · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to see an EM Drive put into testing up there too (yes, yes, yes - I know it's defying the [known] laws of science. No reason not to test it in space since it seems to pass all tests on earth)

    Hey maybe we could strap the ION Drive face-to-face with an EM Drive, throw them out the hatch and see who pushes who around!

    1. Re: EM Drive -v ION drive = 1st space robot wars by Ian+Whitchurch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is this a casual conversation, or are we talking, like *numbers* here ?

      If it's the latter, the 1kW is going to be the biggest constraint - you're asking for a lot of power.

      As far as costs go, I'd say we're looking at 'not especially ambitious' Kickstarter, especially if you're happy for it to not come back, and to cut that power demand down a little.