Can Ion Engines change the way we explore space? Check out our sponsor Mova Globe: Biggest sale of the year! Get 15% off all MOVA Globes with code BM15 at bit.ly/bmmova. Expires 11/30!
Q&A for aguments sake say its Sci fi 1.~Where should I start after I draw a diagram of the Hyper tube and make a model? I assume it would be added to an earth orbiting innerplanetary station. I really want a way to use electro magnetic tracks in space. or a Hyper tube Port. ~A small Cu coil tube surrounded by rubber on the outside |stationary|... ~A medium Cu coil tube |moving but stationary to the expo ship| this medium tube is has cut off the feild to the expo ship's track until we reach max velocity. The medium tube will be moving at the same max velocity while it's adding thrust to the expodition ship. ~The large tube propells the meddium tube with electro mag lev tracks. i expect we could achieve a higher starting velocity from orbit but I'm not sure if i could do it alone
I remember reading that the now cancelled JIMO mission (a nuclear powered orbiter to Jupiter's moons) was supposed to use all the existing supplies of xenon. Using a less rare noble gas might be better for the long term.
This is a fantastic video about ion propulsion! I would like to mention about the Ion Propelled Vehicles shown online and on my channel. The series of crafts have a greater than one to one thrust ratio, with onboard power... No other ion thrusters that I am aware of are within an order of magnitude of lifting their power supplies vertically, normally ion thrusters are many orders of magnitude away from a 1 to 1 TWR. There are some videos of the crafts carrying onboard propellant tanks as well. They will have a tremendous ISP in space since they operate at very high voltages. It is surprising the project currently gets so little funding.
Apogee and Perigee are terms specific to orbits around Earth. The lunar equivalents are Apolune and Perilune. There are different terms for every body in the solar system ( 'jov' for Jupiter, 'sol' for the sun etc...)
Btw perihelion and aphelion for the sun, pericynthion and apocynthion for the moon, and yeah… that’s why I stick with the generic terms. I’m not learning new Greek compounds for every possible central body lol.
it's also electrically conductive and corrosive. which means it will be aways restricted to very specialized missions. And while krypton is cheaper per Kg it way less dense so you trade prop $ for a lot more space and mass in you tankage which often cancels out the saving the cheap prop gets you . not using xenon only make sense if you are flying huge constellations.
Actually that ion engine goes back even farther- to the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter where it would be nuclear powered and send a huge probe from moon to moon doing science. It did turn out to be radically more complicated and expensive than was desired in the 00s, but at least it found a new home!
Doc, I do have a silly question. Gold is a rather dense material, in solid form, and still dense compared to Xeon when vaporized. It's also a Noble Material. Yes, we would need to supply the energy to vaporize the Gold. But, given the volume savings of solid fuel, et cetera, I think it would be viable. And Gold is a LOT more common than Xeon.
Gold is a Transition Metal. It boils at 2,966 °C (5,371 °F). The energy to do that to then use it as a method of ionisation propulsion, would require probably more energy than the solar panels, feeding a laser for long periods (to boil it), would be able to sustain. And the other problem this creates, is that you have a fine stream of metal particles, that in a Near Rectolinear Halo Orbit, you will crash into them on the next rotation.
I realize that my question has nothing to do with ion thrusters, but how do these various probes and satellites deal with space dust and micro-meteors? Have you ever produced a video about this topic?
what about placing big mass stations in earth orbit with ion drives that harvest additional energy via solar panels (or nuclear or both) and convert that to rotational energy, building up more and more momentum. the , for longer range missions this built up momentum could be transferred to a smaller spacecraft and flung away like a slingshot would. (details on "docking" would need to be worked out). Returning spacecrafts could slow down by transferring momentum back to the rotator station, so less energy would need to be burned off in reentry and energy could be preserved for next "takeoff"
A bank of these emgines could be built and put in space to be used on different craft. Think of a ring of these engines, say 500 of them that are used only to fly between the moon and earth like a space tug. 500 mice are a lot stronger than 3. Even if it's a smaller number, these thrusters could be much better if they used a nuclear energy source, (or multiple small nuclear sources). It wouldn't need anything accept guidance (maybe not even that) and structure to attach to the space ship.
The idea is good, but the specific application isn't. If you look into orbital dynamics/mechanics, -OH, we could just as well put this Gateway in a lunar tranfer orbit. It would take 6 days from ISS to lunar south pol and back to ISS. I don't see any good in a 7 day lunar orbit. A transfer orbit would take care of logistics without more propulsion requierments. 🚀🏴☠️
I always thought ion engines would be used to move asteroids to an orbit suitable to be mined (ie closer to a mining platform or orbiter) so that their 'ore' could be used to make space and other 'platforms' to explore near by bodies etc.
You will see Gateway in a big circle around the Moon (like an egg, but the Moon is the yolk) as its orbit continually rotates so that it always faces Earth. Some on the program have actually noted that we may even be able to (via long exposures) see the ion engines operating from the ground here on Earth!
at around 6:35 you discuss the speed of the deep space 1 probe. 725m/s sounds exceptionally slow for objects in the solar system, what is its speed relative too? It flew past 9969 Braille at a speed that was intended to be 56,000km/h (15.6km/s) - Wikipedia.
Deep Space 1's total delta V was 4300m/s or 3 miles per second (5km/s) using its own propulsion. The launch vehicle provided most of the delta V to launch it into solar orbit and velocities are given relative to different objects, such as Earth, Sun or its targets such as Braille and can vary by quite a margin. Also, the spacecraft slows down as it travels further from the Sun and maybe the 725m/s is relative to the Earth. Velocity depends on what stage of the orbit it is in and the eccentricity of the orbit, being higher close to the body (periapsis) and very low if far away (apoapsis) in an elliptical orbit. Delta V is the change in velocity (total acceleration) and does not often have much relation to any velocity relative to any solar system body, for example it may expend some of its delta V to slow down relative to a body.
@@Spedley_2142 That's a bit too much for small space probes. Juno insertion burn was 35 minutes long for 542m/s using a hypergolic thruster. Larger rocket engines are very difficult to start after months or years in space.
I would love to see more exotic propulsion systems in near future, ION engines offer not that big of a step up of ISP compared to the chemical rockets (around 10 times at best), at the cost of miniscule amounts of thrust. For example there already exist technology that if optimized for propulsion would create high ISP electric drive: Helion Energy reactors. They are firing rings of plasma at velocities of 300 km/s which would give it ISP 6x higher than that of the best ION engines. Ofcourse there is a question of scaling it down to be fit for reasonably sized space-craft, but it could be a big step up in terms of spacecraft propulsion.
Helion use FRC tech this not new concept in EP. And yes FRCs have crazy high ISP but they use hydrogen so the momentum per ion is basically nothing. so your thrust /power ratio tanks. What this means is you r need to provide way more power or take way longer to accelerate. So if you have nuclear powered ship that going to Pluto sure but a cislunar tug run forget it
Why do you need ions though? Isn't it possible to build a thruster with photons only? Since they also carry inertia. Edit: Okay, as far as I understood, photon only is possible, even if the source of photons is on the vessel. But it's rather inefficient, since generating the needed energy requires a ton of fuel, even for fusion processes. On the other side of the spectrum, combustion engines use a lot of mass that has to be exhausted, fuel so to speak, which again leads to less efficiency. Ion engines can be designed to sit right at the sweet spot of efficiency, using just enough fuel as a thrust medium and just enough fuel for energy generation to accelerate the medium.
It is possible: Simply use a laser, and the escaping photons impart an action/reaction thrust to the laser itself. But the problem is that the amount of momentum carried by each photon is TINY. A laser creates very little thrust in comparison to using the SAME amount of power to run an ion engine. And there is no good way to increase the photon momentum, either. Photons all travel at the maximum (only) possible speed, and while you could increase the energy a bit by going up-wavelength into gamma-rays, we don't have a good way to make a gamma-ray laser. Even if we did, it still wouldn't be very efficient at providing thrust.
One major concern I have with using ion engines on manned spacecraft is the Van Allen Belts. I’m not an engineer; I’m a geologist, but it seems to me that the slow acceleration of ion engines would leave people in the VABs way to long. Perhaps someone out there has a better perspective on this area than I do. I would love to hear from you, thanks.
You are correct. This is why using ion engines to depart from low Earth orbit is a bad idea. This is also why using Gateway makes these kinds of crafts even more viable- the crew would only meet up with the Mars Transfer Vehicle in NRHO- around the Moon and well above the belts (which the crew would traverse in the shielded Orion). This also makes reuse of the vehicle much easier- previous LEO designs were expendable transfer vehicles. But with Gateway, any returning vehicle from Mars has a tiny ∆V requirement to brake into that orbit.
Here is the game plan: we improve and spread around Mass Drivers; they launch the material to build a triple ring orbital platform, with the lowest ring just outside of the atmosphere, accessible by jetliners and skyhooks, the top-most ring outside the Van Allen Belt with a space launch platform, the final middle ring will be a elevator/train connecting the other two.
? So the difference between chemical and ion is the mass and exhaust speed. Can you not modify the Ion-Engines to expell more mass ? Couldnt you stack the engines. I mean if we manage this we can start from earth with Ion engines that require much less fuel. Whats stopping the engineers to build an ion engine that expells 10000 times the mass ?
On my channel there are over 40 videos of ion thrusters that lift their power supplies against Earth's gravity. They currently use ambient oxygen as a propellant but have carried onboard propellant tanks as well. Since they utilize very high voltages, they will have a much higher ISP in space.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Interestingly, the PPE mentioned in the video has enough xenon on board to send itself to Mars and return! Not enough to send the whole station, but its interesting the capability is about to exist in any form!
There is no starship in our lifetimes, unfortunately, at least not what I'm imagining what you mean, and not elon musks starship, we would need to have a starship spaceyard to build them in space as the power to get a big ship out of earth's gravity would be massive, but I would love to see these things.
no mention of the IVO Quantum drive? Zero fuel thrusters using electrons accelerated with high voltage capacitors and the Casimir effect now being tested in orbit
@@filonin2 technically there have been published experimental evidence that it does work... the baseline is being collected NOW, and the in orbit experiment will start in a few weeks. see "Electrostatic accelerated electrons within symmetric capacitors during field emission condition events exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust"
Could they use a small advanced nuclear energy option to power & ionize the craft? Once in orbit. We still need to launch it the usual rocket way but in space it could provide tons of electrical power. A lot more than solar but they can have multi features on it in case of any issues it would have adaptability?
Strangely enough, that would be more weight (we need to shield the occupant from Radiation), more complexity, and a shorter life span. And for the amount of power we actually need, not worth.
Yep. The NASA studies for ion engines in the Mars Transfer Vehicle assume nuclear power. Reactor mounted on the end of a long boom with radiators between it and the main spacecraft. Would be boosted out of NRHO by a chemical stage and then work on Nuclear Electric Propulsion drive for the rest of the mission. Solar Electric is not considered very viable for the more distant mission. Either way the engines being human-rated at Gateway means that they'll be able to be used on either design of craft.
@@okankyoto We are looking at two completely different requirements: One craft needs mere ounces of thrust for Station Keeping Purposes, whereas the other requires a few thousand pounds of thrust to push my phat azz to Mars. As a result, WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING REACTORS. Not for a Space Station.
Wouldn't a quad or five sectioned mass each with an electromagnetic Field "much like an Electron Gun or mag train would operate only the main mass is not tethered but rather via each unit of mass and it's electromagnetic pole is configured so that three or four of the masses end up with the same pole acting as the main mass ergo repulsing the one that has been flipped out of phase" work more efficiently than an Iron propulsion? I mean how much energy do the magnetic trains use? and what is limiting their speed? Hey if it works.. no need to refuel if the propulsion is powered by solar power, failing that battery or nuclear power.. after all once desirable velocity is gained all that is required is energy for deacceleration.
Every rocket or thruster to date works by squirting stuff out the back and this will never cut the mustard for interstellar travel. The only way humanity will ever venture to the stars is by discovering some new physic, whatever this may be or if it even exists.
@@filonin2 Tens of thousands just to get to the next star, and by all observations there nothing there to go take a look at. I guess if earth becomes uninhabitable the remnants of mankind could just float around the cosmos for hundred of thousands of years (or longer ) in an ark of sorts hoping to find somewhere to settle. Providing they have an endless source of energy onboard. Mustn’t forget to load the elephants.
@@mitseraffej5812 The Earth WILL become uninhabitable, in time, no matter what we do. But that doesn't mean humanity needs to stay in the cradle until we die.
Amazing inventions by NASA & Team! Now it is easy to reach lunar surface or nearby planets faster in near future. Now humanity to shift its ISS permanently on Lunar surface only for farther space travels and discoveries.
Its still a long way untill these are "strong" enough for crewd transfers. But at the same time NASA is building and testing a nuke motor. While its easy to go to the moon, (Starship or Orion burn their engines for 7 minutes and float the 3 days to Luna), Mars needs significantly more power. 🚀🏴☠️
Tiny thrust means not only means tiny acceleration but very slow course corrections ( which is just acceleration to the perpendicular.) They will have to make course corrections by twirling a ball on a string over their head and flinging it at a wall.
Here is the game plan: we improve and spread around Mass Drivers; they launch the material to build a triple ring orbital platform, with the lowest ring just outside of the atmosphere, accessible by jetliners and skyhooks, the top-most ring outside the Van Allen Belt with a space launch platform, the final middle ring will be a elevator/train connecting the other two.
🤖 That does not compute Earthling, we can not self reproduce. (🤫 He he he he, well not yet, but in 3.141 X 10²⁴ years time, we will have developed our synthetic bio metal then.................................................. 🤐mmm mmb md)
Beautiful. TIE fighters from Star Wars are powered by twin ion engines and have solar panels on the wings to gather more power. 10 points to George Lucas!
@@DrBenMiles Biggest problem with xenon at the moment is that most of it comes from Ukraine... Krypton is 1/3 the cost, but has different ionization valences so the same thruster parameters don't work, and as you noted it's not as effective a propellant.
Nice video, but I think that most people viewing this video know what ion engines are. Cut the chase go into details right away. Nobody has time to listen about ion engines for 20th time.
@@filonin2 Me, not. Grams of force. Miles. Massive when it's not about mass.Thats without trying. He speaks well, but the language is sloppy. It's infotainment, not science or education. I have already selected "don't recommend".
Will all be made obsolete by more powerful propellant-less thrusters, soon. Ivo Ltd's is in orbit, testing to be done next month, several others in development to follow...
That's not a thing though and the hypothetical thrust is so low the Earth's magnetic field overpowers it. If it was powerful the effect wouldn't be subtle. Might as well hope for a flying carpet.
@@filonin2 Ivo's Quantum Drive passed vacuum chamber tests on Earth before launching last week, so either it will work or it won't. Other stacked asymmetric capacitor systems report 62% thrust-to-weight ratio in vacuum. Another asymmetric Casimir plate system in development (not yet built) predicts 0.9G.
@@tonywells6990 Ivo's Quantum Drive passed vacuum chamber tests on Earth before launching last week, so either it will work or it won't. Other stacked asymmetric capacitor systems report 62% thrust-to-weight ratio in vacuum. Another asymmetric Casimir plate system in development (not yet built) predicts 0.9G.
@@kavorka8855 No. He's saying rockets pollute so much that electric cars will never offset it - and that's just a surface level issue with electric vehicles. Now imagine where the vast majority of power comes from, oil and coal, now think about where the power in your socket is coming from that's charging your electric car.
There’s a couple rocket companies trying to make “green” rockets. Methane fueled rockets have good potential too since we can use atmospheric co2 and water to create methane. Obviously you need a carbon free electricity source to power that but there’s potential at least
Frankieboy didn't get it. That chemical rocket 'burns' for 7 minutes and then floats 3 days to Luna. To Mars it will float 6 months ! Iis a source of artificial gravity as long as the engine burns. So if we get these ion drives stronger ..... 🚀🏴☠️
Thrust isn't everything. Ion engines are super-efficent- you only need thrust when you're fighting gravity. When you have an engine that operates over a long period of time efficiently, it can do some crazy things in a small package. The station base block PPE is able to go to Mars and return without refueling the Xenon (it won't be doing this) which would be impossible in a chemical rocket that size.
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ใช้ของของตัวเองไปเลยสิคะ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ea_mTywx2p4/mqdefault.jpg)
Can Ion Engines change the way we explore space? Check out our sponsor Mova Globe: Biggest sale of the year! Get 15% off all MOVA Globes with code BM15 at bit.ly/bmmova. Expires 11/30!
Id argue they already have, my real interest is plasma propulsion
Nobody cares about anything you have to say, denier. You obviously have zero genuine scientific knowledge.
Q&A for aguments sake say its Sci fi
1.~Where should I start after I draw a diagram of the Hyper tube and make a model?
I assume it would be added to an earth orbiting innerplanetary station.
I really want a way to use electro magnetic tracks in space. or a Hyper tube Port.
~A small Cu coil tube surrounded by rubber on the outside |stationary|...
~A medium Cu coil tube |moving but stationary to the expo ship| this medium tube is has cut off the feild to the expo ship's track until we reach max velocity. The medium tube will be moving at the same max velocity while it's adding thrust to the expodition ship.
~The large tube propells the meddium tube with electro mag lev tracks.
i expect we could achieve a higher starting velocity from orbit but I'm not sure if i could do it alone
I remember reading that the now cancelled JIMO mission (a nuclear powered orbiter to Jupiter's moons) was supposed to use all the existing supplies of xenon. Using a less rare noble gas might be better for the long term.
@@someguy782 So what?
This is a fantastic video about ion propulsion! I would like to mention about the Ion Propelled Vehicles shown online and on my channel. The series of crafts have a greater than one to one thrust ratio, with onboard power... No other ion thrusters that I am aware of are within an order of magnitude of lifting their power supplies vertically, normally ion thrusters are many orders of magnitude away from a 1 to 1 TWR. There are some videos of the crafts carrying onboard propellant tanks as well. They will have a tremendous ISP in space since they operate at very high voltages. It is surprising the project currently gets so little funding.
Is Gateway's weird orbit going to be awkward for a lot of spacecraft to match? As a spaceport, I'd think you'd want to make that as easy as possible.
Apogee and Perigee are terms specific to orbits around Earth.
The lunar equivalents are Apolune and Perilune.
There are different terms for every body in the solar system ( 'jov' for Jupiter, 'sol' for the sun etc...)
That's why I stick with apoapsis and periapsis.
I came here for exactly this comment 🙂
Btw perihelion and aphelion for the sun, pericynthion and apocynthion for the moon, and yeah… that’s why I stick with the generic terms. I’m not learning new Greek compounds for every possible central body lol.
Like you spoke briefly, the iodine is the better gas, it is solid and doesn't need a pressured container
it's also electrically conductive and corrosive. which means it will be aways restricted to very specialized missions. And while krypton is cheaper per Kg it way less dense so you trade prop $ for a lot more space and mass in you tankage which often cancels out the saving the cheap prop gets you . not using xenon only make sense if you are flying huge constellations.
Actually that ion engine goes back even farther- to the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter where it would be nuclear powered and send a huge probe from moon to moon doing science. It did turn out to be radically more complicated and expensive than was desired in the 00s, but at least it found a new home!
Doc, I do have a silly question. Gold is a rather dense material, in solid form, and still dense compared to Xeon when vaporized. It's also a Noble Material.
Yes, we would need to supply the energy to vaporize the Gold. But, given the volume savings of solid fuel, et cetera, I think it would be viable. And Gold is a LOT more common than Xeon.
Besides, I like the idea of farting gold to get around in space…
Gold is a Transition Metal. It boils at 2,966 °C (5,371 °F). The energy to do that to then use it as a method of ionisation propulsion, would require probably more energy than the solar panels, feeding a laser for long periods (to boil it), would be able to sustain.
And the other problem this creates, is that you have a fine stream of metal particles, that in a Near Rectolinear Halo Orbit, you will crash into them on the next rotation.
May the force be with you. 🧿🙏
I realize that my question has nothing to do with ion thrusters, but how do these various probes and satellites deal with space dust and micro-meteors? Have you ever produced a video about this topic?
Very cool, good stuff man (I actually understood most of it). Thanks.
Amazing ion engine
what about placing big mass stations in earth orbit with ion drives that harvest additional energy via solar panels (or nuclear or both) and convert that to rotational energy, building up more and more momentum. the , for longer range missions this built up momentum could be transferred to a smaller spacecraft and flung away like a slingshot would. (details on "docking" would need to be worked out). Returning spacecrafts could slow down by transferring momentum back to the rotator station, so less energy would need to be burned off in reentry and energy could be preserved for next "takeoff"
A bank of these emgines could be built and put in space to be used on different craft. Think of a ring of these engines, say 500 of them that are used only to fly between the moon and earth like a space tug. 500 mice are a lot stronger than 3. Even if it's a smaller number, these thrusters could be much better if they used a nuclear energy source, (or multiple small nuclear sources). It wouldn't need anything accept guidance (maybe not even that) and structure to attach to the space ship.
So you're saying we might get star wars esque "hyperspace rings"? Count me in.
The idea is good, but the specific application isn't. If you look into orbital dynamics/mechanics, -OH, we could just as well put this Gateway in a lunar tranfer orbit. It would take 6 days from ISS to lunar south pol and back to ISS. I don't see any good in a 7 day lunar orbit. A transfer orbit would take care of logistics without more propulsion requierments. 🚀🏴☠️
I always thought ion engines would be used to move asteroids to an orbit suitable to be mined (ie closer to a mining platform or orbiter) so that their 'ore' could be used to make space and other 'platforms' to explore near by bodies etc.
I can't wait to see Gateway crossing the Moon's disk once a week or so. What will the flerfs "think" of that?
I don't think it will.. the orbit will make earth visible at all times.
@@davidpayton-pb8to There is still the possibility of shadows cast on the Moon. Long exposure can be used to follow it's orbit too.
You will see Gateway in a big circle around the Moon (like an egg, but the Moon is the yolk) as its orbit continually rotates so that it always faces Earth. Some on the program have actually noted that we may even be able to (via long exposures) see the ion engines operating from the ground here on Earth!
Unfortunately, getting the flerfers to admit their mistakes is more energy than to launch the rockets that get them into orbit.
at around 6:35 you discuss the speed of the deep space 1 probe. 725m/s sounds exceptionally slow for objects in the solar system, what is its speed relative too? It flew past 9969 Braille at a speed that was intended to be 56,000km/h (15.6km/s) - Wikipedia.
Good question !
Still no answer ?
It's a difference of 21.45 times.
🚀🏴☠️
16km/s sounds about right. Think somebody misread 16,000m/s as 1600mph then converted to m/s to get a totally ridiculous answer.
Deep Space 1's total delta V was 4300m/s or 3 miles per second (5km/s) using its own propulsion. The launch vehicle provided most of the delta V to launch it into solar orbit and velocities are given relative to different objects, such as Earth, Sun or its targets such as Braille and can vary by quite a margin. Also, the spacecraft slows down as it travels further from the Sun and maybe the 725m/s is relative to the Earth. Velocity depends on what stage of the orbit it is in and the eccentricity of the orbit, being higher close to the body (periapsis) and very low if far away (apoapsis) in an elliptical orbit. Delta V is the change in velocity (total acceleration) and does not often have much relation to any velocity relative to any solar system body, for example it may expend some of its delta V to slow down relative to a body.
@tonywells6990 The point is that 1600mph could be achieved in a few seconds with a small chemical rocket.
@@Spedley_2142 That's a bit too much for small space probes. Juno insertion burn was 35 minutes long for 542m/s using a hypergolic thruster. Larger rocket engines are very difficult to start after months or years in space.
Great video...👍
I would love to see more exotic propulsion systems in near future, ION engines offer not that big of a step up of ISP compared to the chemical rockets (around 10 times at best), at the cost of miniscule amounts of thrust. For example there already exist technology that if optimized for propulsion would create high ISP electric drive: Helion Energy reactors. They are firing rings of plasma at velocities of 300 km/s which would give it ISP 6x higher than that of the best ION engines. Ofcourse there is a question of scaling it down to be fit for reasonably sized space-craft, but it could be a big step up in terms of spacecraft propulsion.
Helion use FRC tech this not new concept in EP. And yes FRCs have crazy high ISP but they use hydrogen so the momentum per ion is basically nothing. so your thrust /power ratio tanks. What this means is you r need to provide way more power or take way longer to accelerate. So if you have nuclear powered ship that going to Pluto sure but a cislunar tug run forget it
6:00 virgin galactic proved we can skip a big part of this...flying
I have a stupid question, how to store the xenon gas? In the free space there is no air so how long the engine can work?
Why do you need ions though? Isn't it possible to build a thruster with photons only? Since they also carry inertia.
Edit: Okay, as far as I understood, photon only is possible, even if the source of photons is on the vessel. But it's rather inefficient, since generating the needed energy requires a ton of fuel, even for fusion processes. On the other side of the spectrum, combustion engines use a lot of mass that has to be exhausted, fuel so to speak, which again leads to less efficiency. Ion engines can be designed to sit right at the sweet spot of efficiency, using just enough fuel as a thrust medium and just enough fuel for energy generation to accelerate the medium.
It is possible: Simply use a laser, and the escaping photons impart an action/reaction thrust to the laser itself. But the problem is that the amount of momentum carried by each photon is TINY. A laser creates very little thrust in comparison to using the SAME amount of power to run an ion engine. And there is no good way to increase the photon momentum, either. Photons all travel at the maximum (only) possible speed, and while you could increase the energy a bit by going up-wavelength into gamma-rays, we don't have a good way to make a gamma-ray laser. Even if we did, it still wouldn't be very efficient at providing thrust.
It is like a flea tugging the mouse tugging the spaceship.
@DrBenMiles seems like Lunar Gateway might be in a bit of a rethink phase after @SmarterEveryDay gave them a lecture...
Deep Space One Probe can't possibly only be moving @ 1600mph. Hell there are fighter jets that fly that fast.
One major concern I have with using ion engines on manned spacecraft is the Van Allen Belts. I’m not an engineer; I’m a geologist, but it seems to me that the slow acceleration of ion engines would leave people in the VABs way to long.
Perhaps someone out there has a better perspective on this area than I do. I would love to hear from you, thanks.
You are correct. This is why using ion engines to depart from low Earth orbit is a bad idea. This is also why using Gateway makes these kinds of crafts even more viable- the crew would only meet up with the Mars Transfer Vehicle in NRHO- around the Moon and well above the belts (which the crew would traverse in the shielded Orion). This also makes reuse of the vehicle much easier- previous LEO designs were expendable transfer vehicles. But with Gateway, any returning vehicle from Mars has a tiny ∆V requirement to brake into that orbit.
Here is the game plan: we improve and spread around Mass Drivers; they launch the material to build a triple ring orbital platform, with the lowest ring just outside of the atmosphere, accessible by jetliners and skyhooks, the top-most ring outside the Van Allen Belt with a space launch platform, the final middle ring will be a elevator/train connecting the other two.
? So the difference between chemical and ion is the mass and exhaust speed. Can you not modify the Ion-Engines to expell more mass ? Couldnt you stack the engines. I mean if we manage this we can start from earth with Ion engines that require much less fuel. Whats stopping the engineers to build an ion engine that expells 10000 times the mass ?
On my channel there are over 40 videos of ion thrusters that lift their power supplies against Earth's gravity. They currently use ambient oxygen as a propellant but have carried onboard propellant tanks as well. Since they utilize very high voltages, they will have a much higher ISP in space.
I'm so ready for some REAL STARSHIPS! LETSGOOO!!
Ion engine have very little thrust, so don’t expect anything larger then a probe.
But this particular one is for an entire space station !?!! 🚀🏴☠️
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx Interestingly, the PPE mentioned in the video has enough xenon on board to send itself to Mars and return! Not enough to send the whole station, but its interesting the capability is about to exist in any form!
There is no starship in our lifetimes, unfortunately, at least not what I'm imagining what you mean, and not elon musks starship, we would need to have a starship spaceyard to build them in space as the power to get a big ship out of earth's gravity would be massive, but I would love to see these things.
no mention of the IVO Quantum drive? Zero fuel thrusters using electrons accelerated with high voltage capacitors and the Casimir effect now being tested in orbit
No mention because it doesn't work.
Yes, being tested, so it can be debunked for once and all. 🚀🏴☠️
No mention of the nuke motor either. This one is about ion drives. 🚀🏴☠️
@@filonin2 technically there have been published experimental evidence that it does work... the baseline is being collected NOW, and the in orbit experiment will start in a few weeks.
see "Electrostatic accelerated electrons within symmetric capacitors during field emission condition events exert bidirectional propellant-less thrust"
1 mouse power engine 👍😎
Could they use a small advanced nuclear energy option to power & ionize the craft? Once in orbit. We still need to launch it the usual rocket way but in space it could provide tons of electrical power. A lot more than solar but they can have multi features on it in case of any issues it would have adaptability?
Strangely enough, that would be more weight (we need to shield the occupant from Radiation), more complexity, and a shorter life span.
And for the amount of power we actually need, not worth.
Yep. The NASA studies for ion engines in the Mars Transfer Vehicle assume nuclear power. Reactor mounted on the end of a long boom with radiators between it and the main spacecraft. Would be boosted out of NRHO by a chemical stage and then work on Nuclear Electric Propulsion drive for the rest of the mission. Solar Electric is not considered very viable for the more distant mission. Either way the engines being human-rated at Gateway means that they'll be able to be used on either design of craft.
@@okankyoto We are looking at two completely different requirements: One craft needs mere ounces of thrust for Station Keeping Purposes, whereas the other requires a few thousand pounds of thrust to push my phat azz to Mars.
As a result, WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING REACTORS.
Not for a Space Station.
Wouldn't a quad or five sectioned mass each with an electromagnetic Field "much like an Electron Gun or mag train would operate
only the main mass is not tethered but rather via each unit of mass and it's electromagnetic pole is configured so that three or four
of the masses end up with the same pole acting as the main mass ergo repulsing the one that has been flipped out of phase" work
more efficiently than an Iron propulsion? I mean how much energy do the magnetic trains use? and what is limiting their speed?
Hey if it works.. no need to refuel if the propulsion is powered by solar power, failing that battery or nuclear power.. after all once
desirable velocity is gained all that is required is energy for deacceleration.
Every rocket or thruster to date works by squirting stuff out the back and this will never cut the mustard for interstellar travel. The only way humanity will ever venture to the stars is by discovering some new physic, whatever this may be or if it even exists.
Or you just accept that some tasks take hundreds or thousands of years. Then you don't need new physics.
@@filonin2 Tens of thousands just to get to the next star, and by all observations there nothing there to go take a look at. I guess if earth becomes uninhabitable the remnants of mankind could just float around the cosmos for hundred of thousands of years (or longer ) in an ark of sorts hoping to find somewhere to settle. Providing they have an endless source of energy onboard. Mustn’t forget to load the elephants.
I can already see it. Now is waiting for high temperature super conductors. 🚀🏴☠️
@@mitseraffej5812 The Earth WILL become uninhabitable, in time, no matter what we do. But that doesn't mean humanity needs to stay in the cradle until we die.
You fart out ions to get the inertia going, then you crank on Ambercombie Warp Drive to fall into the new solar system.
Всеобщая структура вселенной и спираль Парьева
Amazing inventions by NASA & Team! Now it is easy to reach lunar surface or nearby planets faster in near future. Now humanity to shift its ISS permanently on Lunar surface only for farther space travels and discoveries.
Its still a long way untill these are "strong" enough for crewd transfers.
But at the same time NASA is building and testing a nuke motor. While its easy to go to the moon, (Starship or Orion burn their engines for 7 minutes and float the 3 days to Luna), Mars needs significantly more power.
🚀🏴☠️
And then the aluminum mining!
Now ionize the exhaust gases of a chemical engine and accelerate them to 15000m/s.
Tiny thrust means not only means tiny acceleration but very slow course corrections ( which is just acceleration to the perpendicular.)
They will have to make course corrections by twirling a ball on a string over their head and flinging it at a wall.
You could use reactionary wheels.
@@David-yo5ws Good point.
@@4pharaoh >😁 Thanks! Sometimes I get the 'right answer', bright spark.
I wonder if the millennium falcon used an iron engine
We need a rocket base in low gravity and capture space junk for raw materials.
Too bad we can’t just bleed off the inertia and transfer it into a dynamo
Here is the game plan: we improve and spread around Mass Drivers; they launch the material to build a triple ring orbital platform, with the lowest ring just outside of the atmosphere, accessible by jetliners and skyhooks, the top-most ring outside the Van Allen Belt with a space launch platform, the final middle ring will be a elevator/train connecting the other two.
NEVER DID THIS IN A PHYSICS IN 1967!
this tech theoretically promises 99.9% light speed as top speed?
Mouse power!
He said rectilinear 😲
Sorry but at about 4.08 mins in you said. No air to push against???? Noooooo!!
So when we sending the AI to mars to colonize it first?
🤖 That does not compute Earthling, we can not self reproduce.
(🤫 He he he he, well not yet, but in 3.141 X 10²⁴ years time, we will have developed our synthetic bio metal then.................................................. 🤐mmm mmb md)
❤❤❤
Beautiful. TIE fighters from Star Wars are powered by twin ion engines and have solar panels on the wings to gather more power. 10 points to George Lucas!
Xenon is probablility expensive.
100% other fuels are on the table, NASA still seems to like Xenon 🤷♂️
@@DrBenMiles Biggest problem with xenon at the moment is that most of it comes from Ukraine... Krypton is 1/3 the cost, but has different ionization valences so the same thruster parameters don't work, and as you noted it's not as effective a propellant.
eh since mariupol's destruction multiple other manufactures have come online, price is now half of what it was year ago. @@VAXHeadroom
Its idea not idear
Nice video, but I think that most people viewing this video know what ion engines are. Cut the chase go into details right away. Nobody has time to listen about ion engines for 20th time.
Redundant repeating has some retention benefits.
Everything is more powerfull then zero.
Sorry, I mistook this channel for a science / education channel.
That's... what it is. You seem confused.
@@filonin2 Me, not. Grams of force. Miles. Massive when it's not about mass.Thats without trying. He speaks well, but the language is sloppy. It's infotainment, not science or education. I have already selected "don't recommend".
Scroll past and shut up about it.
Will all be made obsolete by more powerful propellant-less thrusters, soon. Ivo Ltd's is in orbit, testing to be done next month, several others in development to follow...
That's not a thing though and the hypothetical thrust is so low the Earth's magnetic field overpowers it. If it was powerful the effect wouldn't be subtle. Might as well hope for a flying carpet.
Think about it for a second, propellant-less thrust makes no sense. Even photon thrusters use photons as propellant!
@@filonin2 Ivo's Quantum Drive passed vacuum chamber tests on Earth before launching last week, so either it will work or it won't. Other stacked asymmetric capacitor systems report 62% thrust-to-weight ratio in vacuum. Another asymmetric Casimir plate system in development (not yet built) predicts 0.9G.
@@tonywells6990 Ivo's Quantum Drive passed vacuum chamber tests on Earth before launching last week, so either it will work or it won't. Other stacked asymmetric capacitor systems report 62% thrust-to-weight ratio in vacuum. Another asymmetric Casimir plate system in development (not yet built) predicts 0.9G.
@@OverwoundGames It's aluminium foil crackpot crazy stuff!
Every time I see a rocket launch I wonder why we bother with electric cars…
You prefer rockets over electric cars?
@@kavorka8855 No. He's saying rockets pollute so much that electric cars will never offset it - and that's just a surface level issue with electric vehicles. Now imagine where the vast majority of power comes from, oil and coal, now think about where the power in your socket is coming from that's charging your electric car.
@@Hirome_Satou you're right and thank you for your kind clarification 🤓
Not rockets but planes
There’s a couple rocket companies trying to make “green” rockets. Methane fueled rockets have good potential too since we can use atmospheric co2 and water to create methane. Obviously you need a carbon free electricity source to power that but there’s potential at least
The fact that you need a propellant renders the entire exercise pointless….!
That's how rockets work, kiddo.
Not a very smart comment
@@filonin2 Obviously, but at least you get a useful amount of thrust out of a chemical rocket….
Frankieboy didn't get it. That chemical rocket 'burns' for 7 minutes and then floats 3 days to Luna. To Mars it will float 6 months ! Iis a source of artificial gravity as long as the engine burns. So if we get these ion drives stronger ..... 🚀🏴☠️
Thrust isn't everything. Ion engines are super-efficent- you only need thrust when you're fighting gravity. When you have an engine that operates over a long period of time efficiently, it can do some crazy things in a small package. The station base block PPE is able to go to Mars and return without refueling the Xenon (it won't be doing this) which would be impossible in a chemical rocket that size.
What’s with all this talk about “exploring space” it’s literally empty 😂
Guess you haven't seen the psyche asteroid.. has like 100x the metal resources that earth has available in the crust.
The entire universe is in space.
Same with these atoms, 99.999% empty space ! 🚀🏴☠️
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx actually that's nonsense if you know anything about field densities
@@filonin2 yeah but earth is special