![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Probably such things have been hashed out before, but allow me to
solicit the opinion of the readership on this question that has come up in some off-line discussions: Supposing you wanted a reactive propulsion system -- say a nuclear rocket, electrical thruster, mass driver or other throw-mass-out-the-back widget that had continuous thrust = 1 kN, ISP = 10,000 sec (= 100 km/sec Ve) and a total run time = 1 megasecond or greater, preferably getting toward 10 Ms. If it needs a reactor or other power supply, plumbing, radiators to get rid of excess heat, etc., ignore that and concentrate on the thrust-producing part. It's ok to have a system composed of shorter lifetime parts if that helps (e.g., banks of 100 N thrusters with individual lifetimes of 100,000 seconds that get shed as they burn out). Does current technology or anything that can be reasonably foreseen in the next 20 years support anything like that? If so, what might it be? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
10 Ms = 116 days: That is definately achievable for ion engines,
though the power source (dutifully ignored) will be impressive. Remember, you have to take all the energy with you - interstellar space is remarkably energy-free. However, your big problem is propellant. For 1 kN @ 10,000 sec Isp, you are using about 10 g/s. That means you have 100,000 kg of propellant in orbit (expensive, probably impossible with the best propellant, Xenon), and you are only pushing it at 1kN - so you aren't accelerating very fast. Where do you want to go? -David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() David Summers wrote: Where do you want to go? Inside the solar system outwards of Earth, say low Mars orbit at a minimum, but also major asteroids, Europa orbit, Titan orbit, etc. as you think you can do it. Massive-as-possible unmanned cargo payloads on Hohmannish trajectories and fast-as-possible passenger vehicles are the idea. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
However, your big problem is propellant. For 1 kN @ 10,000 sec Isp,
you are using about 10 g/s. That means you have 100,000 kg of propellant in orbit (expensive, 100 tonnes in LEO is indeed expensive, but doable with existing technology, even if we don't revive Saturn 5 or Energiya. probably impossible with the best propellant, Xenon), This assumes, I think, an electrical thruster. Maybe that's the right solution; maybe a mass driver slinging sand is. That's part of the question. and you are only pushing it at 1kN - so you aren't accelerating very fast. That's ok. Actually, that's where the run-time requirement came from, though, admittedly, it kind of begs the question/ assumes something about the solution. Something that can provide one to a few cm/s^2 would be fine. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Orbiter part of the Space Shuttle is around 100 tonnes.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, you have lots of options in that area - solar sails, ion drives,
even direct LOX/LH propulsion will work. Mass slingers have some very hard problems to overcome - and in the end would almost certainly at best have the same thrust and Isp as ion drives. The areas you mention still receive a lot of energy from the sun, so ion drives (or solar sails if you can afford the risk) are probably the best bet. The main problem with ion drives for this is that the best propellant, Xenon, is rather rare - there may not be enough available in the forseeable future for this mission. -David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .com,
Allen Thomson wrote: Supposing you wanted a reactive propulsion system -- say a nuclear rocket, electrical thruster, mass driver or other throw-mass-out-the-back widget that had continuous thrust = 1 kN, ISP = 10,000 sec (= 100 km/sec Ve) and a total run time = 1 megasecond or greater... Mmm... Even at 100% efficiency, this requires 50MW of continuous power, which will not be easily had. (Jet power is 0.5*thrust*exhaustvelocity.) That kind of exhaust velocity is almost certainly impractical with a mass driver or anything similar. Most electric thrusters are out too. Ion thrusters can get up into that range easily enough, although they are more usually optimized for lower Isp; you will need a whole bunch of them to get 1kN. The power source and thruster hardware will be quite heavy. There is no way that solid-core nuclear can do 100km/s. Even gas-core probably tops out around 50km/s. 100km/s or more should be feasible with systems that don't try to separate fission fuel and propellant -- NSWR or imploded-pellet fission, for example -- but operating costs will be high and the exhaust generally rather dirty. Fusion or antimatter rockets can deliver the performance, but fusion is beyond what we can build now, and antimatter is beyond what we can fuel now (the hardware technology is rather easier than fusion [!!], but large-scale antimatter production would require massive infrastructure). Does current technology or anything that can be reasonably foreseen in the next 20 years support anything like that? If so, what might it be? Current technology can stack up an array of ion thrusters, but powering them is problematic. That is much too big for current-technology solar; the problem is not the solar cells but the structural dynamics of enormous lightweight solar arrays. 100MW space reactors are not off-the-shelf items either. Solving either in the next 20 years is conceivable, but not a small project, and probably will not happen without specific need. 100km/s dirty-fission or antimatter systems are probably buildable without major new technology, but again, it would be a big project and is unlikely to happen within 20 years unless someone makes a major effort to do it. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Allen Thomson" writes:
Probably such things have been hashed out before, but allow me to solicit the opinion of the readership on this question that has come up in some off-line discussions: Supposing you wanted a reactive propulsion system -- say a nuclear rocket, electrical thruster, mass driver or other throw-mass-out-the-back widget that had continuous thrust = 1 kN, ISP = 10,000 sec (= 100 km/sec Ve) and a total run time = 1 megasecond or greater, preferably getting toward 10 Ms. If it needs a reactor or other power supply, plumbing, radiators to get rid of excess heat, etc., ignore that and concentrate on the thrust-producing part. Oh, in that case, no problem. Ion thrusters can do that quite easily, just a matter of scaling. Possibly some sorts of plasma thrusters as well, but if you talk to whomever winds up owning Boeing's ion thruster shop after the current round of mergers and selloffs, convince them you are serious, they can make you up a cluster of high-power ion thrusters that deliver the sort of performance you are looking for, without even stretching the state of the art. The hundred or so megawatts of electric power it will take to run the thing, most of us would consider a showstopper, but you've told us to ignore that part of the problem. And yes, the ion thruster array will be heavy (kiloton) and expensive (gigabuck), but unless you're invoking magic the power supply will be heavier and more expensive, so no worries there. If it really matters, I suspect the second gigabuck could shrink the mass down to a hundred tons, but anything beyond that is going to be *really* expensive. -- *John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, * *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" * *Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition * *White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute * * for success" * *661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() John Schilling wrote: "Allen Thomson" writes: continuous thrust = 1 kN, ISP = 10,000 sec (= 100 km/sec Ve) and a total run time = 1 megasecond or greater, preferably getting toward 10 Ms. they can make you up a cluster of high-power ion thrusters that deliver the sort of performance you are looking for, without even stretching the state of the art. Could they really? That's excellent news. And yes, the ion thruster array will be heavy (kiloton) Apparently you have a specific design, or design in mind. What, in general, are you thinking about? and expensive (gigabuck), A pittance. I'd be happy to fund out of beer money.(*) but unless you're invoking magic the power supply will be heavier and more expensive, so no worries there. If it really matters, I suspect the second gigabuck could shrink the mass down to a hundred tons, Ok, so we're up to a few gigabucks for a 1000 tonne thruster and a somewhat smaller power supply. I didn't think this thing would be possible at all, but you've given me hope. Please continue. but anything beyond that is going to be *really* expensive. Like a hundred gigabucks? (*) Well, actually, my beer funds are a little low at the moment, but NASA should be happy to pick up the difference. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A revolutionary propulsion system | asps | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 21st 03 10:25 PM |
A revolutionary propulsion system | Christopher | Policy | 17 | December 21st 03 10:25 PM |
A revolutionary propulsion system | Franz Heymann | Policy | 8 | December 13th 03 07:29 PM |
A revolutionary propulsion system | Harry Conover | Policy | 0 | December 11th 03 09:18 PM |
Ion Engine Records No Tuneups, No Problems | Ron Baalke | Technology | 3 | July 31st 03 11:03 AM |