Ion Space Travel Thrusters

www.nasa.gov...

10X more efficient than the current space shuttle propulsion system. And it can last much longer.

it says no where "10X more efficient".

Ion engines have being around for a while, first used in a 1998 mission.

They are weak, they will puch the craft slightly...but over time it adds up. Since all you need is electricity, all you need is a nuclear reactor, and it can run for years and years.

I can tell you have no idea what they are...but you tried to make it sound like you want them to replace the shuttles chemical rockets...which is impossible.

they are good for 2 things.
1. long expensive voyages
2.short voyages on the cheap

Europe's using one now, orbiting our moon.

True, they are not able to get anything into orbit as they are very very weak, something like a breeze blowing on paper Over large distances they can reach higher speeds than chemical rockets but they take a long time getting up to that speed, maybe with a large electrical power source many banks of them could be used to achieve a more perceptible acceleration.
NASA are actually building something like this, i think its called prometheus.

The new ion thruster is designed to last seven to 10 years in space and is about 15 times more efficient than the Space Shuttle Main Engines.

You are right it isn't 10x more efficient, it is 15x more efficient than the Space Shuttle!

For a Newtonian propulsion system, it appears to be pretty good!

As already said the Ion drive is the solution for space travel (for example a ship with powerfull ion engine and nuclear reactor is the prime candidate for Mars mission). But todays largest problem is not how to travel when in space, but how to get sufficient payload to orbit with cheap and enviromentaly friendly propulsion.

Originally posted by longbow
As already said the Ion drive is the solution for space travel (for example a ship with powerfull ion engine and nuclear reactor is the prime candidate for Mars mission). But todays largest problem is not how to travel when in space, but how to get sufficient payload to orbit with cheap and enviromentaly friendly propulsion.

what the hell for???

We can get to Mars in just 7 months...its close to us, a Ion engine wont get us there any faster.

oh, unless your talking about an orbiter mission, which I guess you probably are. It will take the orbiter longer to get to Mars, but once it gets there if could be above Mars for a decade.

Originally posted by Murcielago


what the hell for???

We can get to Mars in just 7 months...its close to us, a Ion engine wont get us there any faster.

oh, unless your talking about an orbiter mission, which I guess you probably are. It will take the orbiter longer to get to Mars, but once it gets there if could be above Mars for a decade.

Hmm, but the ion engines need much less fuel than chemical ones. I have read a book which had estimates for spaceship weight for Mars mission(with 5-7astronauts).
Wtons. ith nuclear reactor+ion engines - 450 tons, nuclear reactor heating the fuel 900 tons, spaceship with chemical motors - 2500. Only lifting such weight to the earth is big difference. So I think if not ion than nuclear engines will be used. Not to mention that with ion engines you have better flight control and you can correct the space flight path trajectory(because they work longer).

An ion engine uses metal ions moved over a gradient, to gain thrust. (Basically)

Ion engines won't help us escape Earth's huge gravity well, but in the future we shouldn't be doing that anyway, it is a tremendous waste of energy.

The space elavator will be a great way to avoid this.

www.spaceelevator.com...

Once we can cheaply get things into orbit, ion technology or even solar sails will be a great way to cheaply travel through space. Even Interstellar distances will become economical.

Even better would be Lagrange point bases, or a moon base. Then we could use the costly chemical rockets to reach one of the above, and launch these energy efficient vehicles on long vayages.

Or even better have nuclear powered constant boost ships built and launched in space where the radiation would no longer be so much of an issue.


So who knows, in the future we could even build space fighters with twin ion engines.

A space elevator! That has trouble written all over it! Ion propulsion systems have been used on a space probe before. They are slow to accelerate but are incredibly effecient. They have an expodentioal accceleration pattern that can reach amazingly high speeds over time.

Originally posted by GoldEagle
A space elevator! That has trouble written all over it! Ion propulsion systems have been used on a space probe before. They are slow to accelerate but are incredibly effecient. They have an expodentioal accceleration pattern that can reach amazingly high speeds over time.

A space Elevator would only be for getting stuff off the planet and into space...so it would complement the ion engines.

Once we have a Space Elevator..... Are knowledge in space will sky rocket, since it will be really cheap access to space, hundreds of probes and satellites would be "launched" in a year.

The only problem with space elevator is that it would be too costly. Even with carbon nanotubes and similar advanced light materials it weight would be in hundred thousands(or milions) tons that must be lifted to the orbit first. And how do you want to do it? Not only the price is too high, so many fuel emisions (presuming we will use rockets) could cause ecological disaster.
But maybe it can be done cheaper by capturing an asteorid with high carbon percentage and place it to the geostationary orbit. Than we could make small space factory that will produce carboon nanotubes from it. I know it sounds like sci - fi but I think it's more possible than building it from earth materials IMHO.

*sigh* You havn't read up on the plans on the Space Elevator have you. It would take approximately 9 Shuttle Flights to get it up and running for at least Cargo runs. And they wouldn't send the whole thing up at once, they would send one Spool up first with its counterweight Sat. There is a really good thread where I think Murc and a few others go into great detail into how it will be done, I'm trying to find the thread now.

We ain't talking a Diamond Age Elevator, think more of a stepping stones approach. First we have a Cargo Tether and build upon the knowledge we gain from that endevor.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by sardion2000]

Actually Murcielago - A space elevator would have the capability to sling shot a spacecraft out of orbit and into the solar system. I’ll try finding a link to where this attribute of the space elevator was stated.
Sardinion - Yeah you’re totally right. The first spool of CNT will be unravelled in orbit or LEO and lunreiled to an offshore platform. The cable would then send up more CNT's using a lifter and gradually make it stronger and stronger until heavy payloads can be supported.

rufi0o
Actually Murcielago - A space elevator would have the capability to sling shot a spacecraft out of orbit and into the solar system.

what are you talking about??? A Space Elevator would slingshot anything. However you put the satellite on it and it can place it in orbit, and the spacecraft can use its own engine and thruster do do what ever its job is.

But there is no slingshoting.

Originally posted by sardion2000
*sigh* You havn't read up on the plans on the Space Elevator have you. It would take approximately 9 Shuttle Flights to get it up and running for at least Cargo runs. And they wouldn't send the whole thing up at once, they would send one Spool up first with its counterweight Sat. There is a really good thread where I think Murc and a few others go into great detail into how it will be done, I'm trying to find the thread now.

We ain't talking a Diamond Age Elevator, think more of a stepping stones approach. First we have a Cargo Tether and build upon the knowledge we gain from that endevor.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by sardion2000]

Can you provide some link to me which states that it needs only 9 shuttle flights? It seems unbelievable to me, because shuttle lifts only 33tons to the 400km orbit. That means the whole elevator would weight only app. 300 tons. Thats really hard to believe. Are we talking about the surface to geostationary orbit elevator? Because it is more than 36000km.

Here is the ATSNN discussion right here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Murcielago:

Once the space elevator is completed in stationary Earth orbit, about 22,000 miles up, scientists anticipate it could be used like a virtual slingshot to accelerate to other space locations.

www.g4tv.com...
members.aol.com...

If you type "space elevator slingshot" into google you will see that a lot of scientist state this attribute of the space elevator

[edit on 30-5-2005 by rufi0o]

[edit on 30-5-2005 by rufi0o]

Originally posted by rufi0o
Murcielago:

Once the space elevator is completed in stationary Earth orbit, about 22,000 miles up, scientists anticipate it could be used like a virtual slingshot to accelerate to other space locations.

www.g4tv.com...
members.aol.com...

If you type "space elevator slingshot" into google you will see that a lot of scientist state this attribute of the space elevator

[edit on 30-5-2005 by rufi0o]

In your first link I found nothing on how the slingshot theary works.

an you second link is more of an older elevator design...where its not anchored to the earth, but hangs in sub-orbit, and a craft would only have to go up to around that 62 miles high height and hook the payload to it for it to get lifter higher.

But that kind has lost supporters over the last 5 years, because with Carbon Nanotubes getting better and better, they now relize that it would actually be cheaper to have it anchored to the earth.