19 thoughts on “Using Gridded Ion Engines for Spacecraft Propulsion | NASA Space Science HD Video

  1. and you have to inject a gas.. still the same thing as fuel.. when you dont
    need fuel then it will be revolutionary.. how bnout an engine that goes
    forever not just when the tanks run out

  2. That makes more sense. LOL I was thinking my figures were off. The speed
    would still increase has it traveled. But not knowing how much thrust made
    it imposable for me. The other engine you were talking about is for
    launching things. This one is for space. I do not think an ion engine would
    work in an atmosphere. Years now to reach light speed. Only good is it
    doesn’t need to carry tons of fuel.

  3. For this test it would be exactly 20 seconds because the rocket burn was
    exactly 20 seconds long and as soon as the motor no longer provides thrust
    drag and gravity take over and begin reducing the speed. i believe it
    reached mach 1.4 after a 20 second burn.

  4. Electrons are emitted from a separate cathode placed near the ion beam,
    called the neutralizer, towards the ion beam to ensure that equal amounts
    of positive and negative charge are ejected. Neutralizing is needed to
    prevent the spacecraft from gaining a net negative charge.

  5. I believe the point of Ion Engines is they get way more thrust for each
    particle of it’s “fuel” it uses up, so it can carry way less “fuel” for the
    same final speed, or achieve a much bigger final speed for the same amount
    of fuel, as a regular rocket.

  6. How many G’s acceleration? (Or does that depend on the total mass it has to
    ‘push’ ?) I’ve read that constant 1G acceleration ‘soon'[?] builds up very
    fast velocities (it would also solve the deleterious effects of prolonged
    time in zero-G). Back in the 60’s, various popular (but official) books on
    space flight were mooting nuclear &/or ion engines that would be able to
    constantly accelerate (at 1G) a decent payload halfway to Mars (for
    example), then constantly decelerate it the rest & retrn

  7. What neutral atom would be used? if it only loses one electron via another
    electron collision I imagine it would be an alkali of some sort. But of
    course another atom more centered in the periodic table would give off more
    energy when its electrons are removed. consequently it would take more
    energy to do so though.

  8. i’m not sure. it would take more time for it to effect the mass of the
    craft. i estimate it would take 3 minutes to each mach speed. But its rate
    of speed would grow exponentially. In about 3 days of continual thrust
    might reach enormous speed. Near light in about 2 weeks. But that would be
    with continued thrust. My figures are rough. Probably wrong. Thanks.

  9. My guess is that it’s for neutralizing a build-up of excess charge. For
    example, neutralization in chemistry is used to describe an acid mixed with
    a base in order to create a neutral substance such as water or a salt, so
    my guess is that the neutralizer shown in this video is to uncharge the
    electrons after they leave the chamber.

  10. whoa, I thought I posted that comment on the 20 second virgin galactic
    space ship two test they did a few days ago, my bad. In this case I would
    be more conservative than you, this type of propulsion would take many
    weeks to reach even an efficient interplanetary speed with light speed
    being out of the question as this ion engine has demonstrated no more than
    9600 Isp.

  11. Fuel is a big problem. However so is time. Does this engine reduce how long
    it takes the aircraft to get to it’s destination? If not, then it will
    mainly propel robots not humans.

Comments are closed.