3 ms·
> Also, how is this better than existing ion thrusters? Isn't it just a bigger ion thruster? Besides just operating on a different principle, the theoretical e
by handol 6y ago
> Also, how is this better than existing ion thrusters? Isn't it just a bigger ion thruster?
Besides just operating on a different principle, the theoretical exhaust velocity is about ten times higher than the highest actually flown ion thruster.
So flying the same mission with this thruster would require significantly less propellant. But you don't get to throw something out the back of the spacecraft faster for free. Kinetic energy scales as the square of velocity, so ~10x exhaust velocity is going to mean ~100x power draw.
- sdenton4 6y agoThat still seems like a win, though. Getting 10x further on the available reaction mass in exchange for needing to wait for the batteries to recharge sounds like a great deal for big trips.
- Tuna-Fish 6y agoIt's not. Modern electric propulsion is generally more limited by power than propellant.
- LatteLazy 6y agoI feel like I'm missing some key piece of physics here. This seems like an ion engine but with magnets propelling the exhaust rather than electric fields. Is that it?
- handol 6y agoThat basic description already fits hall-effect thrusters. I think the idea here is not a new electric thruster but bleeding off plasma from a fusion reactor to power a rocket.