3 ms·

Here's a link to the actual paper [1]. According to the paper, the magnetic part of the thruster consumes between 10 and 100 kW if it uses regular magnets, and

Here's a link to the actual paper [1]. According to the paper, the magnetic part of the thruster consumes between 10 and 100 kW if it uses regular magnets, and only 0.2 kW with these superconducting magnets. Most spacecraft use solar panels, and they claim the largest satellites produce 30 kW of power. It follows that 10 kW is an unacceptable level of power consumption, while 0.2 kW is ok. They admit that nuclear powered spacecraft don't necessarily need this new technology, because 10 kW might be negligible for them. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772830724000504 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277283072...

VladVladikoff 2y ago
Wouldn’t it still be better to use more efficient engines? could they not just have more of them?
- wiredfool 2y ago
  You’d get more thrust, but lower delta-v for the same total mass, because you’re replacing propellant mass with fixed mass.
- bluGill 2y ago
  That is an economic question. What does efficiency costs vs what does providing more power cost?
- credit_guy 2y ago
  There are several ways a spacecraft engine can be efficient. The fundamental thing is the tyranny of the rocket equation: in order to get faster you need fuel, and then you need fuel to push that fuel, into a compounding way. The best way to address this tyranny of the rocket equation is to have an engine that expels something at a very high speed. The best chemical rockets push hot gas at about 4.5 km/s. The engines discussed here are "magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters" [1]. They push plasma with a velocity in excess of 15 km/s. Some studies suggest even 100 km/s. They are basically the most efficient rocket engines our current technology can build. The next type of efficiency is how much of the source energy is converted into the energy of the plasma jet. Is it 50%, 90%, 99%. That I don't know, and obviously you want as much as possible. But this project is addressing a different problem. In order to create this plasma jet, you need a very strong magnetic field to contain the plasma while it is being accelerated. The field itself does not provide the propulsion, it is there only for containment. You don't want to expend a lot of energy maintaining this field. Superconducting magnets are much better than regular electromagnets, so it's no surprise that containing this plasma with superconducting magnets requires a fraction of the power of regular magnets. But someone still needed to do the actual research. What works on paper doesn't translate always in things that work in real life. These guys did just that, and now are ready to send a technology demonstrator in space. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster
IanCal 2y ago
Power consumption may not be the only concern but also dissipating the heat. You don't have air or water around you to dump the heat into so you're limited by what you can radiate (is my understanding). Trying to radiate out 200W of heat vs 10-100kW is a dramatically different challenge.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Fill a surrounding container with a volumetric shit ton of nitrogen gas (perhaps with stepped pressure gradients) and you might be able to radiate a significantly larger amount by increasing your surface area without drastically increasing your weight (or use nuclear power to mitigate the weight concerns). But yes, today’s design space generally prefers as low a power envelope as possible to not have to worry about dissipation.
  - IanCal 2y ago
    Wouldn't the limiting factor be the outer layer? I'm not sure what layering would give you, or what adding a container would give you. For short bursts this may make a difference but the steady state means the system as a whole needs to radiate out that energy somewhere. More mass gives some kind of ballast I guess but kilowatts of energy is just a lot to get rid of.
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      It's not about ballast. Black body radiation, which I'm sure you know is the only way heat is dissipated in a vacuum (unless you're the Sun & even then it's still the primary way), is defined as: P = ε * σ * A * T^4 That's the constant, the emissivity of the material, the surface area A, and temperature. We want to increase the temperature differential above what the natural black body radiation can dissipate for a given device (let's take a space probe) and assume we can't change the material. The only thing we can play with is surface area. The point of the nitrogen gas is to leverage normal convection / conduction to dissipate into a larger gaseous volume which then naturally also has a larger surface area. This would then give you more surface area to dissipate across. The reason I'm thinking the layering with different pressure gradients might be useful is that it reduces the overall weight because you need less overall gas for a given dissipation profile (i.e. you need high density beside your heat source to transfer energy away quickly but less density further away because there's a larger surface area growing with the square of the distance away from the heat source). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

VladVladikoff 2y ago

Wouldn’t it still be better to use more efficient engines? could they not just have more of them?

wiredfool 2y ago
You’d get more thrust, but lower delta-v for the same total mass, because you’re replacing propellant mass with fixed mass.
bluGill 2y ago
That is an economic question. What does efficiency costs vs what does providing more power cost?
credit_guy 2y ago
There are several ways a spacecraft engine can be efficient. The fundamental thing is the tyranny of the rocket equation: in order to get faster you need fuel, and then you need fuel to push that fuel, into a compounding way. The best way to address this tyranny of the rocket equation is to have an engine that expels something at a very high speed. The best chemical rockets push hot gas at about 4.5 km/s. The engines discussed here are "magnetoplasmadynamic thrusters" [1]. They push plasma with a velocity in excess of 15 km/s. Some studies suggest even 100 km/s. They are basically the most efficient rocket engines our current technology can build. The next type of efficiency is how much of the source energy is converted into the energy of the plasma jet. Is it 50%, 90%, 99%. That I don't know, and obviously you want as much as possible. But this project is addressing a different problem. In order to create this plasma jet, you need a very strong magnetic field to contain the plasma while it is being accelerated. The field itself does not provide the propulsion, it is there only for containment. You don't want to expend a lot of energy maintaining this field. Superconducting magnets are much better than regular electromagnets, so it's no surprise that containing this plasma with superconducting magnets requires a fraction of the power of regular magnets. But someone still needed to do the actual research. What works on paper doesn't translate always in things that work in real life. These guys did just that, and now are ready to send a technology demonstrator in space. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster

IanCal 2y ago

Power consumption may not be the only concern but also dissipating the heat. You don't have air or water around you to dump the heat into so you're limited by what you can radiate (is my understanding). Trying to radiate out 200W of heat vs 10-100kW is a dramatically different challenge.

vlovich123 2y ago
Fill a surrounding container with a volumetric shit ton of nitrogen gas (perhaps with stepped pressure gradients) and you might be able to radiate a significantly larger amount by increasing your surface area without drastically increasing your weight (or use nuclear power to mitigate the weight concerns). But yes, today’s design space generally prefers as low a power envelope as possible to not have to worry about dissipation.
- IanCal 2y ago
  Wouldn't the limiting factor be the outer layer? I'm not sure what layering would give you, or what adding a container would give you. For short bursts this may make a difference but the steady state means the system as a whole needs to radiate out that energy somewhere. More mass gives some kind of ballast I guess but kilowatts of energy is just a lot to get rid of.
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    It's not about ballast. Black body radiation, which I'm sure you know is the only way heat is dissipated in a vacuum (unless you're the Sun & even then it's still the primary way), is defined as: P = ε * σ * A * T^4 That's the constant, the emissivity of the material, the surface area A, and temperature. We want to increase the temperature differential above what the natural black body radiation can dissipate for a given device (let's take a space probe) and assume we can't change the material. The only thing we can play with is surface area. The point of the nitrogen gas is to leverage normal convection / conduction to dissipate into a larger gaseous volume which then naturally also has a larger surface area. This would then give you more surface area to dissipate across. The reason I'm thinking the layering with different pressure gradients might be useful is that it reduces the overall weight because you need less overall gas for a given dissipation profile (i.e. you need high density beside your heat source to transfer energy away quickly but less density further away because there's a larger surface area growing with the square of the distance away from the heat source). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law