Three different types of electric plasma rockets, the ion thruster, the Hall Thruster, and the magnetoplasmadynamic (MPDT) were discussed, and the relative merit for each was compared in the article called New Dawn for Electric Rockets. Edgar Y. Choueiri wrote this article, published on the 58th page of the February 2009 issue of Scientific American. In the article, it is put forth that rockets designed with electric plasma engines (EPE’s) can attain a higher speed than conventionally powered rockets; they are more efficient at doing so. Furthermore, it is implicated that this makes them better for deep space and long-range missions.
A conventional (chemical) rocket burns nearly the entirety of available fuel in initial launch; final velocity is achieved closely after leaving the launch site where the magnitude of thrust is large. EPE rockets, on the other hand, have less thrust during launch, but it can maintain this thrust for a much longer time, which allows acceleration to last longer. Because of its high potential speed, the vehicle may be used in more operations. The electric power supply may even be recharged, although solar power generation is extremely inefficient anywhere beyond the approximate range of mars. Micro-thermonuclear power supplies could be constructed to generate additional energy.
The drive in current operation on many satellites is the ion thruster (whose precursor was patented as long ago as 1916); it is therefore the most relevant technology. The Ion Thruster is the simplest of the EPE devices, and its basic functioning is as follows. A neutral gas (usually Xenon) enters a chamber and is bombarded with electrons; this creates positive ions and causes the element to lose electrons. The electrons are introduced into a magnetically charged environment, and a neutralization device collects the ions. This charged environment accelerates them into an electrically charged net that further accelerates the particles out of the rocket. This type of EPE has exhaust speeds of ~20-50 kilometers per second (km/s), thrust (in a vacuum) of about 20-250 micronewtons (μN), and is approximately 60-80% efficient. Of the three types of EPE mentioned it is the most efficient, but provides the least thrust and has the slowest exhaust speeds.
The future of human societies depend on space travel, therefore any important advancement in this field allows future generations a place in the universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
This seems like another improvement in space travel technology. Could this new technology be implemented in the Orion launcher?
It there any information regarding the comparative price of these three plasma rockets? What about quantities of needed resources for production?
This seems to be the next step in propulsion technologies. But are there any ideas on other non-rocket propulsion methods that are advancing (Such as a photon sail)?
Could these Ion Thrusters be uses in the atmosphere safely?
To again clarify the amount of thrust which is equal to 20-250 micronewtons is equivalent to the weight of a piece of paper on ones hand. This is about 0.157OZ.
The ion thruster and other EPE technologies are not practical for use in the atmosphere because the initial thrust is not great enough to allow the rocket to escape the gravitational pull of the earth, I apologize for not making this clear in the body of the S.I.N. These techs have been tested in research facilities on earth, so I assume it is safe. Forthcoming S.I.N's will describe other types of EPE's. The xenon required for a flight to the asteroid belt is approximately 1/10 that required (by weight) for a conventional rocket, however other than that I have no information the resources that topic. Price was not discussed except to say that 1kg take about $10,000 to put into space.
On looking back at my source I seem to have been slightly confused, the xenon ions create the exhaust with electrons used to cancel, not the other way around. Sorry for the confusion.
ummm... I am realy confused. explane please.
TJ please clarify, what is confusing you specifically?
Why would the public care?
To answer your question TJ, there are several reasons, including, but not limited to: cheaper (NASA is founded by you to a certain extent so that would matter), for human to continue to exist in the manner we do we must leave the planet to do this we must explore, this excel at do that, also the making of the rockets would require less synthesis of materials, therefore it is cleaner. There may be other reasons, but I can't think of any more right now.
Right.... ok thanks.
Post a Comment