Briefs: Improved ion engines; Improved radioisotope power

Not exactly at Enterprise performance, but doing better thrust-wise: Next-generation ion engine sets new thrust record - New Scientist - Sept.28.07.
===
Radioisotopic nuclear power generation gets more efficient: NASA To Accelerate Space Nuclear Power - Aviation Week - Sept.28.07.

More info here: NASA’s Advanced Stirling Radioisotope Generator (ASRG). Summary Sheet. - NASA GRC - 2007
===
However, a nuclear reactor will be needed to power a really high thrust ion propulsion system like VASIMR.

Posted 09/28/07 | 20:22:30 by TopSpacer | Filed under: Space Technology

Comments

To truly open the interplanetary space frontier we must go nuclear and shed the habit of relying on 60 year old chemical propulsion. Exposure to radiation and zero-G will kill us in a very short time; deep space is a very inhospitable environment. Sorry Zubrin. . . I don't want to spend years (starring out the window) hunkered down in a tin can while my body slowly waste away. VASMIR Ion drive, field propulsion systems like Mach Lorentz Thrusters (MLT) and MIT research into inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) Fusion reactors are opening new possibilities. Follow this link to find out how to produce the power for ION based propulsion to get to Mars in 3-months.

http://iecfusiontech.blogsp...

http://www.technologyreview...

This is where we need to be spending our R&D if we truly want to open the space frontier. Chemical based propulsion just won't cut it, even Von Braun realized that. Can’t be done, defies physics cry the naysayer’s . . . reminds of the X-1 and the sound barrier.

Posted by Doug Gard at 09/29/07 08:05:55

I agree with Doug. It's becoming increasingly apparent that we're not really going to get anything substantial done in space without next-generation propulsion. Chemical performance hit a brick wall decades ago.

Posted by xraydog at 09/29/07 12:08:02

I don't totally agree - part of it depends on where you want to go. For going to the moon, I think that chemical will do just fine. For the first few trips to mars, it'll also work. However, moving to large scale treks to mars, frankly it makes more sense to use gravity based ships (of Buzz aldrin's design).

Chemicals might also work with some NEOs, but im not totally convinced of that.

But the instant we want to do anything beyond those limited places, well, chemical won't cut it.

Posted by Ferris Valyn at 09/29/07 12:37:31

Nuclear propulsion sure would be nice to have. But you can do an awful lot with space tethers and solar thermal propulsion. Especially tethers have the potential for propellantless propulsion within the inner solar system including the main belt.

I think that nuclear propulsion will happen _after_ there is a significant off-earth population. A space colony that relies on technology for its very existence will be much less likely to produce the kind of luddites that seem to dominate public opinion on earth.

Posted by anonymous at 09/29/07 16:57:09

Add Comment

Note: HTML code will not work except for bare URLs (i.e. http://www...). Also, for postings older than 1 week, comments are filtered manually to prevent spam and so may not appear for a few days.
Note: Trash talking and name calling, especially in anonymous comments, won't be tolerated.