# NASA to flip ion engine's 'OFF' switch after brilliant 5.5 year burn

NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT), an ion-propulsion engine that has been firing continuously for five and one-half years, is due to be shut down at the end of this month. NASA's Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT) at the Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio The world's record holder for ion-propulsion longevity: …

This topic is closed for new posts.
1. #### Mass of NEXT and power source ?

What is the mass of the NEXT engine and the required solar array (plus the xenon propellant) compared to the mass of a thruster and its propellant for the same total impulse ? (A quick calculation suggests that over 8kW of electrical power is needed which is a large array and the NEXT engine is large compared to a low output thruster.)

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

A quick calculation suggests that over 8kW of electrical power is needed...

From the NASA press release:

"The 7-kilowatt class thruster could be used in a wide range of science missions..."

So, same order of magnitude.

Also from the press release:

"...the engine consumed about 1,918 pounds (870 kilograms) of xenon propellant, providing an amount of total impulse that would take more than 22,000 (10,000 kilograms) of conventional rocket propellant..."

So, the engine + powerplant mass could be up to 9,130 kilograms (20,086 pounds) more than the mass of a comparable rocket thruster and the entire system would still be less massive for the 5.5 year mission.

According to http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/nstc2007/papers/Patterson_Michael_D10P3_NSTC-07-0014.pdf (Section III table II), a single thruster string is about 56.3kg. Add in the High Pressure Assembly and you get a total of 58.2kg. Call it 60, and there's still 9,070kg left over for the solar array.

According to http://www.asertti.org/events/fall/2011/presentations-workshop/Landis.pdfthe ISS solar arrays have a total mass of ~1,000kg, and according to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/onthestation/facts_and_figures.html, they produce 84 kW.

Assume we need this extra solar panel mass because the probe is heading to the outer solar system, and we still have over 8,000kg of mass savings or additional payload available.

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

I couldn't see any reference to the thrust produced by the engine. Is it just my reading skills, or wasn't it mentioned?

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

You're not the only one. I was idly wondering how many of these you would need to produce 1g of thrust. I expect some insanely large number, but just wanted to know to see what it would take to get "artificial gravity" along the axis of acceleration once in space.

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

I couldn't see any reference to the thrust produced by the engine. Is it just my reading skills, or wasn't it mentioned?

Not in the article or press release. But the first paper I linked to has the maximum thrust per thruster at 236mN.

I was idly wondering how many of these you would need to produce 1g of thrust.

One g ~= 9.8 N per kg of mass. Going back to our 10,000kg example (yes I know it'd actually be more than 10,000kg but it's an easy starting point) that would be 98,000N of force needed. At 236mN per thruster, that would nominally be ~415,536 thrusters required to produce 1 g -- except, of course, that many thrusters will significantly increase the mass, significantly increasing the amount force required to reach 1 g, leading to a runaway situation which makes the conundrum of escaping Earth with a chemical rocket look like child's play.

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

Actually, now that I think about it, there's no way these thrusters will ever reach 1g.

If we assume absolutely no payload, no fuel mass, and no power supply mass, each thruster masses 60kg and produces 235mN of thrust.

That's 0.000 401g. Adding more thrusters increases the mass and thrust linearly and proportionally, leaving the g-force constant.

So that's your absolute theoretical maximum g-force produced by any size bank of these thrusters.

2. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

thrust is roughly nought-point-bugger all, but 24/7 after 5.5 years the area under the curve is pretty effing large

2. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

Did somebody just say "5 year mission"?

GJC

3. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

Worth noting that when you get to your destination you've effectively got a 'free' power source to drive your science payload and communications gear, with chemical engines you still need a power supply for the instruments but the mass has to come out of the payload.

And for comparison, the Dawn spacecraft currently travelling between Vesta and Ceres runs its ion engine from a solar array that produced 10kW around Earth and about 1300W in the asteroid belt.

4. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

It's likely for missions to the outer planets that NASA would use some form of radiothermal generator rather than solar panels. Cue the usual hysteria from the, er, "differently scientific".

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

I am reminded that when the isotope of plutonium used in RTGs was discovered, there was speculation that every household would have a thermal source to provide central heating, run the cooker and so on.

Growing up in the 50s and 60s it all seemed so optimistic. I was watching Tomorrow's World when Raymond Baxter explained why a handheld computer was technically impossible, but all the predictions on fusion power and the takeover in the next 20 years by fission reactors were still taken almost for granted - nobody was discouraged from using electric heaters because electricity would soon be almost free.

Clarke's Law duly intervened, and we have tiny handheld computers that could emulate a 60s mainframe with a higher throughput while making a phone call and posting to Facebook, but fission is now further in the future than it was in 1963.

1. #### Re: Mass of NEXT and power source ?

-- fission is now further in the future than it was in 1963. --

Due to human factors, rational and otherwise. Dioxin has no half life.

2. #### If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power, like Voyager 1 & 2, not a solar array.

So two new questions:

1. What would the required nuclear power generator (plus shielding) weight?

2. At what distance from the sun does it become cheaper to use nuclear than solar?

1. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

Voyager type RTGs won't do the job. At launch they only produce 470W from three units massing about 38kg each. Back of an envelope gives about 250kg for 1kW so a couple of tonnes to get the 8kW needed. A Russian TOPAZ gets closer, 300-1000kg for 5kW but at the low end there's no (or very minimal) shielding so you'd not want to put it on a long duration flight.

The cut-over between solar and nuclear power for payload operations is generally the asteroid belt, although the Juno mission currently on its way to Jupiter is solar powered due in part to there not being enough of the relevant Plutonium isotope to build the RTGs needed. The Curiosity rover had first call on it and even then there wasn't quite enough and a couple of instruments got dropped. There's a second Curiosity type rover due to go to Mars in a few years time, it looks like that will have to use solar panels as Spirit and Opportunity did.

1. #### you'd not want to put it on a long duration fligh

I'm not sure about that - the inverse square law means that you just need a long, rigid cable between the power source and the payload.

Is it thanks to the weapons program that there is too much of the wrong kind of plutonium about? Or did the US, for patriotic reasons, spend too much time trying to make americium RTGs work?

2. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

As you get beyond Mars, RTG or Fission power becomes much more practical, Voyager 1&2, Cassini-Huygens, Galilieo. the Pioneers, New Horizons are all RTG powered.

The exceptions being Juno and Dawn, which are solar.

For 8Kw+ you're probably looking at a proper fission reactor as the mass of an RTG at that output would probably get too high and given the electrical conversion efficiency of around 3-7% you have over 100kW of heat to get rid of as a minimum and potentially up to 250kW!

As the heat can only be radiated, it makes cooling a significant challenge, it would also vastly increase weight.

NASA is (or was) working on a 40kW reactor for space, but I've not seen much news recently.

It's not just electrical power, out here with less sunlight, it is also relatively 'cooler' for the spacecraft, so they require more heating capability than something operating in the inner solar system.

1. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

If the craft used its solar panels in the vicinity of the Sun by doing an outwardly spiralling orbit, then with the addition of a gravity nudge from one of our larger neighbours it would have the craft up to speed before it had left the influence of the Sun behind.

Maybe?

1. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

The clever way to do this, is have Wall-e do baseball practise off the stern with the Higgs particles scavenged from the craft.

1. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

Or give Wall-E a pallet full of fire extinguishers.....

2. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

Nuclear is the answer, however not in the rtg form. The stirling engine is more efficient, and is said to be the answer (if perfected for radioisotope energy and years in deep space)

1. #### Stirling (Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power)

Like this : http://youtu.be/3-eH1M0EcXA

(a piece of news of a small, simple reactor with stirling engine, developed at Los Alamos)

3. #### Re: If you're going into deep space you'll be using nuclear power

Heat is useful; it can be used to help speed reaction mass on its way.

3. #### Once you get to top speed

Once you get to top speed.... How the hell do you stop?

1. #### Re: Once you get to top speed

Quite easily, flip the craft 180 degrees and your thruster becomes a brake. This is has been proposed as a means of moving humans through deep space, you accelerate the craft at around 1G until you achieve half-light speed then flip the craft around and decelerate at 1G, the advantage being that a similar gravity to the Earth is maintained throughout the vogage the avoiding muscle atrophy of the occupants.

2. #### Re: Once you get to top speed

The answer to that is: SLOWLY.

I am still wondering how they get to 200,000km/h with a jet only doing 90,000km/h. Superman might be involved.

1. #### Re: Once you get to top speed

"I am still wondering how they get to 200,000km/h with a jet only doing 90,000km/h. Superman might be involved."

Because the 200,000 km/h is relative to the speed of the start point. The 90,000 km/h is relative to the spacecraft.

Basics

1. #### Re: Once you get to top speed

So 200,000km/h being the limit, is based on the impact with the very thin spread of particles in space retarding acceleration?

In other words, the craft regardless of its thrust would accelerate to the speed of light in a total vacuum, it is only friction that sets a limit relative to the thrusters ability to overcome it.

1. #### Re: Once you get to top speed

To gain credence, Goddard had to show that rockets did not require something to push against to work.

quote: The prestigious New York Times dismissed Goddard's ideas and said that he didn't even possess an elementary knowledge of physics. The Times' editor incorrectly thought that rockets could not work in space. He thought the exhaust from the vehicle would have nothing to push against; he did not realize that the rocket exhaust would be acting against the inner walls of the rocket itself, :quote

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Goddard.html

He also built ion rockets.

quote" From 1916 to 1917, Goddard built and tested experimental ion thrusters, which he thought might be used for propulsion in the near-vacuum conditions of outer space. The small glass engines he built were tested at atmospheric pressure, where they generated a stream of ionized air.[27] :quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

2. Perhaps this is the tech that takes us to Mars... since the 6 months journey is considered borderline too dangerous due to radiation.

Providing acceleration gets to 200K mph within a decent timeframe.

Exciting stuff though. For all the time it's took Voyager to reach the edge of the Solar System, at 200K mph it can be done within a decade.

1. #### Nuclear propulsion

If you want to go to Mars in a month, an ion drive isn't going to help all that much as it just doesn't have enough thrust. You're going to have to bring a nuclear thermal or a nuclear electric (VASIMR, for example) rocket to get the required combination of thrust and impulse.

You could theoretically build an electric rocket using a VASIMR or similar technology powered by solar panels but that would require some pretty damned large solar panels with all the requisite expenses and mass

1. #### Re: Nuclear propulsion

VASIMR is not Nuclear, it's just a different type of Ion engine.

1. This post has been deleted by its author

1. #### Re: Nuclear propulsion

One tiny detail ... the acceleration region develops a negative net charge because of the excess electrons not fired with their atoms, but there is a pretty simple solution :

Fire the excess electrons with another beam (an X ray beam, for example, like your old CRT tv).

That way, you can use the electrons to give some really tiny impulse to the craft. More than the impulse obtained, the main advantage will be the ability of not attracting the expelled ions with the spacecraft charge, that would otherwise provide a braking force ....

2. Within 500 years someone will have collected one of the Voyager probes and bought it back to Earth

1. #### Been there, done that, seen the movie

Or it comes back on its own accord. "Slightly" modified.

3. #### Neat

It is really too bad the politicians keep undercutting NASA's budget. They really can get some neat things done when they are allowed to.

Also, that picture features someone who has never looked at that machine before. His face is all 'holy shit look at this thing, I wonder what it does'.

1. #### Re: Neat

By the look of it, I believe that is the inside of the vacuum chamber so I'd wager that pic was taken at the start of the project and there is a very good possibility the gentleman in question was thinking something very like you describe only perhaps 'I wonder if it will work'.

With that, I pint to the NASA folks for another job well done.

2. #### >It is really too bad the politicians keep undercutting NASA's budget.

No, it is too bad that NASA's budget is only very slightly geared towards things like Kepler, Curiosity and Next.*

Most of the budget goes to manned spacecraft, i.e. the shuttle and ISS (75/25 iirc). If the Mars manned mission planning ever takes off, it will crowd out scientific research even more.

Think of what would have been achieved if the \$100B of ISS had funded 40 Curiosity equivalents.

* to be fair, the politicians are still to blame, because they favor the manned aerospace lobby over real science.

1. #### Re: >It is really too bad the politicians keep undercutting NASA's budget.

I agree, because I think our intentions should be science and discovery.

I feel there is too much money spent on the cowboy hero aspect and not enough on the science.

It is incredibly expensive to send humans into space, with all the incredible amount of shielding, food and energy we require.

If our intentions are to create American (Russian, etc.) heroes, then yes, the only way is with manned missions. Why create national heroes, and the answers might be to motivate youth in the nation concerned or it might be nationalism and prestige.

If we had unlimited money, I'd say do both and use international teams. But since it is one or the other, I say go for the science.

1. #### Re: >It is really too bad the politicians keep undercutting NASA's budget.

Its worth doing both. As much as doing the hard science experiments is useful, and unmanned missions teach us much. Surely one day we ourselves want to reach for the stars .

1. #### @Triggerfish

Absolutely! I grew up in the Apollo era, and as a seven-year-old nagged my parent's (successfully) to see the first moon landing in the middle of the night. Astronauts and cosmonauts were heroes that transcended national boundaries. They showed us we could reach beyond Earth. Almost every boy in my class wanted to follow Gagarin and Armstrong. I consider that a rather better aim in life than to become filthy rich in finance. If astronauts inspire a next generation of kids to reset their ambitions and aim for the stars (literally, not in the X-factor sense) it is money well spent.

2. #### >Its worth doing both.

I won't downvote, since after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But, currently we DON'T have the budget to do both. We wouldn't have the budget to do both if it was increased by 50%. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

That's the way it is and wishful thinking will not change that in the medium term (barring a Chinese space challenge leading to a fully-funded Apollo-type space race).

What we are doing is underfunding unmanned missions, and not advancing technology for manned missions all that much. For all the Apollo nostalgia, much of what goes into current manned missions would not be unfamiliar to Skylab and Saturn V folks. Our computers are better and we have the Shuttle to warn us about the perils of "reusable savings".

In order to put up manned missions and fulfill our dream to explore and colonize space, we need to upgrade our technologies, very significantly.

Things like NEXT, Dragon, _anything_ that brings down \$/KG to orbit, space-based automated manufacturing (cracking O2 and H out of water in meteorites or the moon. Heck, even space elevators and blimps that launch rockets from near space. We also need to encourage experimentation by private enterprise - the Google guys extracting platinum out of asteroids and Virgin space hotels.

In coding equivalents, we are hand-writing in assembler right now. We need to come up with compilers to make things cheaper, otherwise there will ever only be a need for 5 computers in the world.

That's what gets me excited and that's what I believe should get a better piece of our limited budget pie.

Downvote away, folks :-)

3. #### Re: Neat

Manned missions are fscking cool, and if the Space Race had carried on we'd be on Mars already.

4. "If mankind ever wants to explore deep, deep space, ion propulsion and other solar-electric thrusters might better be described as a necessity – which is why work on ion propulsion has been underway at the Glenn Research Center since the 1950s."

Ironically though it's exactly this kind of work that is stopping us from leaving. So long as propulsion technology has the prospect of improving fast enough there will be no incentive to launch anything into deep space.

If we launched a probe with this ion-engine today at Proxima Centauri 4.2 lightyears it would take 14,000 years to reach the target. Obviously we won't do that though because aside from the time period being ridiculously long it's almost certain that by 2100 we'll be able to launch a much faster probe packed with far more advanced equipment that would get there first (it would only have to be about 1% faster) and so rendering the original launch pointless.

The danger is that if propulsion advances average out to about eg 2% gain in max speed per 30 years it could take us centuries (or longer) to feel it's worth sending anything into deep space which increases the amount of time we have to survive together in one place without blowing ourselves up.

... but the bold move would be to send it anyway. If a later mission catches it up then pull over, clear the cans from the back seat and give it a lift. The time it's spent out there would make it useful to study, and if the faster future missions never get off the ground then it'll still serve the original purpose.

2. ...propulsion advances average out to about eg 2% gain in max speed per 30 years it could take us centuries (or longer) to feel it's worth sending anything into deep space which increases the amount of time we have to survive together in one place without blowing ourselves up...

You can pick any figure you like to be an 'average'. But progress usually proceeds in jumps as new technologies get invented.

For instance, an average shows us gradually learning to fly from about 1800-2000. But in fact we did the base theoretical work from 1800-1850, developed the first practical machines around 1900, had a huge technology jump between 1930-1950, and have been refining things ever since...

1. not really, there just is not a good electric power source, unless they make a mine perpetual generator for all extra system you need on a space craft

atom vacuums for hydrogen fuel instead of xenon gas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

1. i suspect some super condensed heat being pumped out and super cooled like a ramjet could push you along

1. and if you build a perpetual generator that is started up with a small amount of solar power, all other electrical systems onboard are not classed as energy waste, the only energy that is being wasted is the small amount looping back to the motor on the generator

3. And it's that same reason I'm still using my trusty Atari ST, if I started upgrading computers I'd never finish this level of Xenon 2...

1. you can get an amiga emulator for xenon 2 complete with the trusty fairlight bootsector screen

4. #### But you might also want to consider...

By sending a probe now into deep space, it could still send back telemetry and data that might make that next deep space mission safer/better for a live crew instead of a remote device. So while the distance and time to get there aren't practical for a human crew, the data sent back could give us a better idea of what to expect and what is out there. It's one of the interesting things about Voyager being on the fringes of our galaxy.

Why not send a probe? We have everything to learn and nothing to loose.

5. #### great analysis

Not sure about you but I have been taking a vitamin supplement which should keep me alive for 15K years to see the results. Now I just need to work on a project at work which does not expect a deadline for 15K years then I wont need to work so hard.

1. #### Re: great analysis

it could all be done in a few months if nasa and europe made them next gen shuttle with joint funding and have 1 or 2 each

a shuttle is only a chasis and a 2 mould hull and bolted together, all the hard work was done 30 years ago

5. The engine the Norton Nemesis deserved :(

6. #### Thrust level (according to Wikipedia) is 236mN. That's 24 gram or 0.857 oz of force

And I'm b***ered if I can tell you what that's in poundals or any of those other stupid former Imperial units.

I'll note that the SP100 space reactor was designed to deliver 100Kw of electricity and it's resulting power to weight ratio was around 46kg/Kwe.

Sadly RTG's don't really cut it for this sort of power level. Large thin film solar arrays (with or without concentrators), full scale reactors or beamed power (yes JPL have looked at this) are viable.

The question is when will it be used on a mission?

1. #### Re: Thrust level (according to Wikipedia) is 236mN. That's 24 gram or 0.857 oz of force

The answer to the question will be no , unless some bright spark at NASA welds a gun to the front and claims it will be used against terrorists

Then the dumb ass republickons (and the demoprats) will throw money at it as its a vital defence interest( as well as a chance for their corperate backers to get 6 tonnes of federal pork)

2. #### Re: Thrust level (according to Wikipedia) is 236mN. That's 24 gram or 0.857 oz of force

@10 t using 900 kg fuel peak deltaV is 8.46 km/s. (~30,500 km/h or ~19,000 mph).

From LEO, @ ~7.8 km/s, peak would be around 16.26 km/s (~58,300 km/h or ~36,133 mph).

7. #### So watts the temperature equivalent on the ion stream?

Just wondering how it compares with laser ablation?

I'm guessing there's some form of thermodynamic law in there in terms of efficiency so if you could use a high enough frequency laser you'd get more bangs per ... flash?

8. #### Aaaargh! The limitations imposed by physics!

It's an outstanding record, an engine that fires non-stop for more than 5 years, albeit without any moving parts of course. Now we must continue to think about how to overcome the limitations imposed by physics which make space travel very expensive and very slow, relative to the distances involved. If we want to carry people to the stars, we have two problems: time and mass. Time, because they will want to get to their destination in a reasonable time frame. Mass, because the more mass you carry, the less speed you can reach.

One solution would be not to carry people, and to make all space exploration virtual, with vessels carrying a minimal payload consisting of sensors and communications systems, and humans experiencing space exploration by being plugged into these sensors and communications systems back home. These vessels might be able to accelerate to significant speeds on account of their low mass, if using external methods of propulsion (e.g. solar wind).

Another solution might lie in discovering in real life something practical about the curvature of space. In other words, whether there are any shortcuts built into the system which we can use. For that of course, we would need new physics. But we got quite a lot of new physics over the past century, so it's definitely possible that we could get some significant discoveries over the next few centuries.

Yet another solution, which would enable manned space exploration, would be to lengthen the lifespan of human beings by a significant factor, in fact several orders of magnitude, for instance by evolving our technology to the point where we can sustain life or at least thoughts for millions of years, perhaps in conjunction with machines. We could then slow down our thought processes, so that 1000 real years would be like a single day to us. This would involve changing the essence of a human being drastically. However, you never know what might happen in 1000-10000 years: we might look and behave very differently indeed. Look at the changes brought about in the late 20th and early 21st century, say over a period of 70 years, relative to how we were before: mobile phones (virtual telepathy), air travel (virtual tele-transportation), computers (virtual super-brains), Internet (virtual universal knowledge), bathrooms (cleaner, better-smelling), mechanised agriculture (taller, better fed), etc.

1. #### Re: Aaaargh! The limitations imposed by physics!

Physics doesn't impose limitations, only our inability to see past our current understanding of physics limits us.

I think ion drives are a waste of time, the acceleration will always be too low to be off much use.

What we really need is to invest more in theoretical physics and change our education system away from imposing a rigid mode of thinking on our children. Then, maybe then we won't have to wait another 200 years for the 'next Einstein'.

It may be quicker to put more money into strong AI research which with Moore's law will eventually allow us to put a planet's worth of thinkers to work on the problem.

Then, and only then will we create warp/ingrav/regrav/wormhole/badnews drive or whatever and get us out of the solar system.

I can't help wondering where humanity would be (figuratively and literally) if we redirected our entire global military spending into research

1. #### Aaaargh! "if we redirected our entire global military spending into research"

<##>Cathartic rant follows – proceed to next

Every time an article discussing a scientific achievement, like this one, is published some delusional posts “I can't help wondering where humanity would be (figuratively and literally) if we redirected our entire global military spending into research,” or some such rot.

Rockets were a great lark at the park on Sunday afternoons for Wernher in the ‘20s. But it took successive military paymasters with blank cheques, specific goals, and a willingness to sacrifice as many lives as necessary to achieve his impossible dream of pushing an object into space.

Enrique had a blast playing with atoms under the bleachers in the ‘30s as well. But who developed those ideas into the practical nuclear engine (see SSN-571). What kind of effort did that take? How much did it cost? Who else would/could have done it? How long would that have taken?

And Alan had some impressive notes on napkins regarding computational possibilities. Yet the first computers weren’t built to calculate protein folds, but rather artillery trajectories.

Who else had the drive, skill, and resources to deliver the Space Shuttle, the Internet, the Super Computer (there’s a reason HAL is from Urbana)?

It’s the primitive instincts and vices (survival, security, envy, greed, lust, etc) that usually spur humans to achieve. They are what drive us to labor for what seems impossible, to struggle against the inevitable defeats along the way, to sacrifice even life itself in the name of progress. A simple reality recognized by literary observers from Homer to Roddenberry (watch “This side of Paradise” sometime). It’s also something that has motivated the intellectual giants of humanity. Da Vinci didn’t design the tank as a method to travel in comfort, and Newton didn’t obsess about alchemy in the name of altruism.

Which all means that the answer to your answer is, still on the earth throwing bottle rockets out of bi-planes! Who do you think ultimately pays for this kind of reasearch? And if the military weren't willing to force that expenditure, the money wouldn't go to research, numpty. It would have gone to providing clean water in Africa, or some such project - Which maybe where it should have gone...

So put some water on the jos stick, accept the reality of the human condition, and fill out that application for BAE. Even you may have some small part to contribute to the advancement of mankind.

<##> end rant

1. #### Re: Aaaargh! "if we redirected our entire global military spending into research"

Common historical error of correlating warfare and advancement in science. Actual war catalyzes some types of research - i.e. stuff that has an immediate military application; preparation for war ('defence spending') does the same. The vast majority of innovation in the sciences, engineering and technology are funded by and primarily investigated by civilian agencies.

Both your argument and the one you responded to are gross simplifications of the complex social processes involved in discovery and innovation - warfare has just as often set things back or meant that some fields remain static in development by being deemed irrelevant for the needs of warfare (not to mention the massive resource hogging & destructive nature of war generally).

9. #### Cosmic rays...

...Exhaust residue from an alien's even higher performance ion drive.

1. #### Re: Cosmic rays...

Given that some of those particles have energies in the joule range, I really don't want to meet those aliens. They might vapourise our planet just sending a "hello" message.

10. #### electrons ?

So the engine spits out lots of positively-charged ions. Quite fast.

What do they do with all the extra electrons?

1. #### Re: electrons ?

They go back into the ion stream:

"....and neutralize them"

2. #### Re: electrons ?

If I remember correctly (probably not), they are used to sand-blast the anode grid? VASIMR doesn't have this problem, btw, because it doesn't have a grid that the ions have to pass through.

Disclaimer: IANARS

11. 7 kw class probably has a mighty 6 cm thruster

6mw = both wings like in the movies

12. #### Not just...

It's not just about propulsion and the kind of speeds you can reach though, is it. The faster you go, the more energy gets imparted when you impact something. Travel at even small fractions of light speed and a dust particle hitting you could blow your equipment up in a brilliant flash of light.

1. #### Re: Not just...

i have all that covered with toughened graphite hull, with titanium mesh inside normal carbon all bonded together, with electro magnets covering the whole of the inner hull creating the force field from the 6mw generator to bounce of radionation and small debris

1. #### Re: Not just...

and extra electric for all the super computer under the floor to manage the force field that works like a maglev train, constantly adjusting your field to stop plasma etc from outside sensors

13. #### Thanks NASA

For 5.5 years of pollution to literally move nothing nowhere.

1. #### Re: Thanks NASA

Haven't you noticed that the days are getting a bit longer?

2. #### Re: Thanks NASA

Well, due to the rotation of The Galaxy alone NEXT and earth with it moved 43200 million km in 48 kh.

14. #### 200,000mph

Otherwise known as 0.03% of c... that's shit.

15. This post has been deleted by its author

1. #### It's not in an atmosphere?

Go back to remedial physics and I mean Gallilean relativity, forget Newton or Einstein. I mean, I guess that means that every rocket engine we fire in space can't work because it doesn't exceed the velocity of the earth around the sun?

2. #### Re: Bollocks

So TDog, you created an account yesterday to call bollocks on the conservation of momentum? Rocket science may not play much part in your future, but on the bright side, your failure to understand this basic physics concept won't be a hurdle should you ever apply for editor of New Scientist.

By the way, NASA has been using SI units for decades, the mph is for the benefit of the American press. And regarding the Mars craft you refer to, NASA was consistently using SI; it was Lockheed that ignored the metric units specified in the contract and thereby destroyed the orbiter.

1. #### Re: Bollocks

if you have a powerful enough forcefield, your crasft can probably become a neutron too,and create your own gravity

artififial gravity can probably be known by knowing the gravity inside http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/mediacenter/slideshows/hybrid/

3. #### Re: Bollocks

"You can not have a thrust velocity of 90,000 mph and a final velocity of 200,000 mph. After 90K it stops thrusting."

Did he really mean this, or is he just trolling us?

16. #### tasteless (not in the Kardashian sense)

They're aliens from a sci-fi series, aren't they?

1. #### Re: tasteless (not in the Kardashian sense)

Star Trek Deep Space 9 AFAIR

17. #### No warp bubble yet?

Come on NASA, it has been over 50 years since Start Trek told you how it's done.

Great job on the ion thruster, Now if they only had a portable Monday morning model.

18. #### Pricey

And how much taxpayers' money did that burn up?

1. #### Re: Pricey

\$50 in gas, xenon has been standard on satelites for 15 years or so

19. #### Interesting

But I wonder what will be the big breakthrough for an interstellar drive.

The future will hopefully be exciting.

1. This post has been deleted by its author

1. This post has been deleted by its author

2. #### Re: Interesting

pulse propulsion like aurora project, except with magnet fields

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

if you have a fusion reactor, they would push you along like a railgun

if you push to poles together in a cylinder, and release 1 of the magnets before it would "flip" to the nano second, the force will push you along, and you would need no fuel to leave a planet and go into space etc, using ring magnets or so like a standard rocket thruster, not lame ufo and flying saucers

20. #### Fission reactor?

I just assumed this type of engine is designed with the implication that it will run on electricity produced by a fission reactor. Uranium and Plutonium have such a high energy to mass ratio compared to anything else that they would be the ideal rocket fuel, and the only real possibilities using current technology for outer solar system or interstellar spaceships. Solar panels really aren't worth carrying that far out.

1. #### Re: Fission reactor?

you can make a perpetual generator out of a modern wind turbine, and a small initial charge to get the motor to turn the direct drive dynamo to start turning at the minimum generating RPM, and be 99% efficient

i`ve said it a million times, so a basic post and random math is http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/3/2013/03/25/uk_energy_crisis_illustrated/#c_1773369

21. #### And to think

I was talking with teachers and our school Science Club about ion thrusters as long ago as the mid 1950's -- and I can't have been the first to think of it.

How many good ideas are lost because those who have them are only children? (Or stolen; as happened to the young Philo Farnsworth.)

1. #### Re: And to think

all sci-fi uses ion thrusters since the 70s and star wars

the force of pushes 2 mini fridge magnets together and letting 1 go, will make you go light speed with just 1 pulse in space

1. #### Re: And to think

pulses are so you can fly about like a normal jet engine and leave a planet without needed 4 extra types of engines and fuel types because of no air etc

This topic is closed for new posts.