Comments on: Next Generation Magnetoplasma Rocket Could be Tested on Space Station

By: TorbjÃ¶rn Larsson, OM

TorbjÃ¶rn Larsson, OM — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:49:01 +0000

Great, VASIMR has entered the upper league now! I was rooting for it, but had no frame of reference to judge against.

this is what I assume is the real break thru here.

Yes, IMHO (previously cold plasma experimenter here) the schematic and photo pictures a standard vacuum testbed (but as always with its own instabilities and pushed for scale to boot). Helicons and IC techniques are useful for cold plasmas as well. But I too imagine that the nozzle will be the major new component.

The ISS demo will likely be a conservative smallish prototype, as noted previously.

By: Van

Van — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:30:15 +0000

Coolness. Someday, we can replace part 1 and 2 with a fusion reactor and use it's energy to drive the magentics and provide the plasma. Hey, many even draw power from the plasma stream instead of injecting it. The Russian have tried this, it think.

Magnetohydrodynamics and fusion were made for each other.

But I know, one step at a time. Fusion is not ready to send to the ISS, yet.

By: SUGARAT

SUGARAT — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:11:29 +0000

Come on people, who would send an engine up without testing in the environment it is intended to be used in? Ok, G-dub would, but he doesn't decide these things luckily.

By: Korjik

Korjik — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:21:05 +0000

Jason, the main work on the VASIMR is done in Houston TX.

By: young

young — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:45:38 +0000

why not test it ASAP!

By: Aodhhan

Aodhhan — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:00:46 +0000

Physicists have been "holding" plasma in magnetic fields for a little bit of time now, so doing so isn't really the huge challenge.
I won't go into great detail about the engine, this isn't brand new theory, so there should be plenty of resources out in cyber space.

The big breakthrough with this engine (at least to me) is the fact it is FAR more efficient than what is currently used, and pretty much any of the lighter gas elements will work, so we aren't limited to H or He.

Since it is more efficient, we can keep the engine running for much longer times than we currently do, in turn increasing the amount of speed we can propel something at. Uhm… not warp speed mind you.
The gas used, type of magnets used, how well the magnets are kept cooled etc has a bearing on efficiency and speed. I'm not going to stretch out my neck and give a WAG on speed, but I have to imagine it will be much better than current ion propulsion; definitely a better acceleration rate.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:43:50 +0000

Made in COSTA RICA, yup.

By: Joel Raupe

Joel Raupe — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:10:57 +0000

My guess is any flyable test bed would be a small item, indeed, and equal to an RCS thruster in terms of yield, or less. Significant perhaps as a sustained thrust to more efficiently and less dangerously keep ISS out of a swelled upper atmosphere at next solar max.

US Support for ISS will continue beyond 2016, though budget plans call for it to be scaled back in favor of Constellation and the SPA lunar station's development.

Let's hope they can actually get the thing doing science before then. The $100 Billion was worth it if only to improve our working knowledge of construction in orbit.

It will have been worth it if it has given international partners a leg up toward greater support for space exploration, which it may indeed have accomplished.

While American support for ISS will be scaled back, international support is likely to continue for a decade or more longer. The Russians will continue to utilize it.

Unfortuantely, it was not built to be a waystation, but a destination for a net science
yield, if the power can be brought up to potential. The sheered Alpha Rotary Joint and failed bathroom pumps could be the first signs of Mir Syndrome, however. Cost of maintenance will eventually overtake better alternatives, including waystations.

By: marcellus

marcellus — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:34:36 +0000

This is the kind of thing that the ISS is built for- a place in space that we can test things to get us to the Moon, Mars, and beyond!

What really irks me is the remarks that the ISS will be obsolete in 2016. Spend 100 billion and then junk the thing six years after its built!???

The ISS should be there as long as we have a space program. The Shuttle should be extended as well. Until the space elevator concept becomes a reality, mankind needs a truck to haul whatever to Earth orbit.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:44:44 +0000

What I would like to hear more about is the physical construction of the "magnetic nozzle", and how the magnetic fields are modulated thru it. this is what I assume is the real break thru here.

By: Ian O'Neill

Ian O'Neill — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:08:14 +0000

Hi Maxwell. No, this engine isn't being proposed as a propulsion device for the station, it will simply undergo "tests" up there. You can't beat testing rockets in the vacuum of space at zero-G. I can only guess that the engine could be attached to one of the modules so outdoor test firing can be carried out.

I've updated the article to make this fact a bit clearer. When I first read the original story, I was thinking the same thing!

Oh well,

Cheers, Ian

By: Maxwell

Maxwell — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:25:26 +0000

So… about how much thrust are we talking about?

Throwing the ISS into deep space would become a very bad idea if this thruster could make for efficient earth-moon or earth-mars missions. You'd need an orbital outpost simply for transferring crews from orbital trucks to exploration craft.

More over, the ISS will be reaching retirement age by the time upgrades for deep space travel could have been carried out.
It would make more sense just to design a new deep space ship from the start.