Mixing
Will an array of multiple ion engines still be more efficient than a single chemical engine?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was just thinking the other day and got this idea out of my head. I'm not an aerospace expert or anything even close to it, so please understand even if this turns out to be a really basic question:
Provided that the power issue can be solved, would an array of multiple ion engines (or a scaled up version of one engine for that matter) that has the same amount of thrust with that of a traditional chemical engine, still be more efficient than the chemical engine?
I am well aware that given the T-W ratio of the ion engines, it would still make it impossible for them to be used as first stage engines no matter how many you strap them together, but what about for the space stations or reusable interplanetary vehicles?
propulsion orbital-maneuver ion-thruster
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was just thinking the other day and got this idea out of my head. I'm not an aerospace expert or anything even close to it, so please understand even if this turns out to be a really basic question:
Provided that the power issue can be solved, would an array of multiple ion engines (or a scaled up version of one engine for that matter) that has the same amount of thrust with that of a traditional chemical engine, still be more efficient than the chemical engine?
I am well aware that given the T-W ratio of the ion engines, it would still make it impossible for them to be used as first stage engines no matter how many you strap them together, but what about for the space stations or reusable interplanetary vehicles?
propulsion orbital-maneuver ion-thruster
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I was just thinking the other day and got this idea out of my head. I'm not an aerospace expert or anything even close to it, so please understand even if this turns out to be a really basic question:
Provided that the power issue can be solved, would an array of multiple ion engines (or a scaled up version of one engine for that matter) that has the same amount of thrust with that of a traditional chemical engine, still be more efficient than the chemical engine?
I am well aware that given the T-W ratio of the ion engines, it would still make it impossible for them to be used as first stage engines no matter how many you strap them together, but what about for the space stations or reusable interplanetary vehicles?
propulsion orbital-maneuver ion-thruster
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I was just thinking the other day and got this idea out of my head. I'm not an aerospace expert or anything even close to it, so please understand even if this turns out to be a really basic question:
Provided that the power issue can be solved, would an array of multiple ion engines (or a scaled up version of one engine for that matter) that has the same amount of thrust with that of a traditional chemical engine, still be more efficient than the chemical engine?
I am well aware that given the T-W ratio of the ion engines, it would still make it impossible for them to be used as first stage engines no matter how many you strap them together, but what about for the space stations or reusable interplanetary vehicles?
propulsion orbital-maneuver ion-thruster
propulsion orbital-maneuver ion-thruster
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
asked 1 hour ago
K.H.
61
61
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
K.H. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
While this seems like a good idea at first, you very quickly run into the main problem with ion engines - their tiny thrust.
Let's compare a typical ion engine from the Dawn mission and an upper stage commonly used for interplanetary injections, the Centaur Upper Stage with its RL10 Hydrogen-Oxygen engine.
Ion Engine
- Thrust: 90mN
- Mass: 8.2kg
RL10 C-1
- Thrust: 102kN
- Mass: 190kg
We can see that the RL10 generates on the order of 1 million times more thrust for around only 20 times more mass. This means that we're going to need some 8 million kg of ion thrusters to produce the same thrust - equivalent to about 2.5 fully fueled Saturn V's.
It gets even worse when we consider the fact that this massive array of thrusters will require a similarly enormous amount of extra plumbing and structural support for it to run. Not to mention the difficulties in trying to squeeze a million engines onto the mounting plate at the base of the stage.
This will clearly negate any benefit we gain from using a higher-efficiency engine.
Of course, there will be a break-even point. A very quick-and-dirty approximation says that if we modified a Centaur Upper Stage to give it ion engines and filled the tanks with xenon (this obviously wouldn't actually work), an array of ~500 ion thrusters would give a 1000kg payload about the same delta-v as a single RL10, albeit at a much lower thrust.
So any useful benefit to be gained by using ion thrusters will involve far, far fewer than this break-even point which is what we see on existing spacecraft. For example - Hayabusa2 has four ion engines on a gimbal mount, three of which can be run simultaneously.
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Why is an ion engine more efficient than a chemical engine? The exhaust velocity is much higher.
If the power issue can be solved and each ion engine of the bundle has the same high exhaust velocity, the bundle is still more efficient than a single chemical engine.
But what about weight? To provide more power will increase the weight of the vehicle as well as the additional ion engines. To compensate the increased weight more ion fuel is necessary. To store more fuel a larger and heavier tank is needed.
So if there is enough time for slow acceleration with a single ion engine over years the total costs are lower than for the bundle of engines delivering the same delta-v in months. You will need a larger first and second chemical stage to lift that vehicle into orbit where the ion engines may take over.
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
While this seems like a good idea at first, you very quickly run into the main problem with ion engines - their tiny thrust.
Let's compare a typical ion engine from the Dawn mission and an upper stage commonly used for interplanetary injections, the Centaur Upper Stage with its RL10 Hydrogen-Oxygen engine.
Ion Engine
- Thrust: 90mN
- Mass: 8.2kg
RL10 C-1
- Thrust: 102kN
- Mass: 190kg
We can see that the RL10 generates on the order of 1 million times more thrust for around only 20 times more mass. This means that we're going to need some 8 million kg of ion thrusters to produce the same thrust - equivalent to about 2.5 fully fueled Saturn V's.
It gets even worse when we consider the fact that this massive array of thrusters will require a similarly enormous amount of extra plumbing and structural support for it to run. Not to mention the difficulties in trying to squeeze a million engines onto the mounting plate at the base of the stage.
This will clearly negate any benefit we gain from using a higher-efficiency engine.
Of course, there will be a break-even point. A very quick-and-dirty approximation says that if we modified a Centaur Upper Stage to give it ion engines and filled the tanks with xenon (this obviously wouldn't actually work), an array of ~500 ion thrusters would give a 1000kg payload about the same delta-v as a single RL10, albeit at a much lower thrust.
So any useful benefit to be gained by using ion thrusters will involve far, far fewer than this break-even point which is what we see on existing spacecraft. For example - Hayabusa2 has four ion engines on a gimbal mount, three of which can be run simultaneously.
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
While this seems like a good idea at first, you very quickly run into the main problem with ion engines - their tiny thrust.
Let's compare a typical ion engine from the Dawn mission and an upper stage commonly used for interplanetary injections, the Centaur Upper Stage with its RL10 Hydrogen-Oxygen engine.
Ion Engine
- Thrust: 90mN
- Mass: 8.2kg
RL10 C-1
- Thrust: 102kN
- Mass: 190kg
We can see that the RL10 generates on the order of 1 million times more thrust for around only 20 times more mass. This means that we're going to need some 8 million kg of ion thrusters to produce the same thrust - equivalent to about 2.5 fully fueled Saturn V's.
It gets even worse when we consider the fact that this massive array of thrusters will require a similarly enormous amount of extra plumbing and structural support for it to run. Not to mention the difficulties in trying to squeeze a million engines onto the mounting plate at the base of the stage.
This will clearly negate any benefit we gain from using a higher-efficiency engine.
Of course, there will be a break-even point. A very quick-and-dirty approximation says that if we modified a Centaur Upper Stage to give it ion engines and filled the tanks with xenon (this obviously wouldn't actually work), an array of ~500 ion thrusters would give a 1000kg payload about the same delta-v as a single RL10, albeit at a much lower thrust.
So any useful benefit to be gained by using ion thrusters will involve far, far fewer than this break-even point which is what we see on existing spacecraft. For example - Hayabusa2 has four ion engines on a gimbal mount, three of which can be run simultaneously.
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
While this seems like a good idea at first, you very quickly run into the main problem with ion engines - their tiny thrust.
Let's compare a typical ion engine from the Dawn mission and an upper stage commonly used for interplanetary injections, the Centaur Upper Stage with its RL10 Hydrogen-Oxygen engine.
Ion Engine
- Thrust: 90mN
- Mass: 8.2kg
RL10 C-1
- Thrust: 102kN
- Mass: 190kg
We can see that the RL10 generates on the order of 1 million times more thrust for around only 20 times more mass. This means that we're going to need some 8 million kg of ion thrusters to produce the same thrust - equivalent to about 2.5 fully fueled Saturn V's.
It gets even worse when we consider the fact that this massive array of thrusters will require a similarly enormous amount of extra plumbing and structural support for it to run. Not to mention the difficulties in trying to squeeze a million engines onto the mounting plate at the base of the stage.
This will clearly negate any benefit we gain from using a higher-efficiency engine.
Of course, there will be a break-even point. A very quick-and-dirty approximation says that if we modified a Centaur Upper Stage to give it ion engines and filled the tanks with xenon (this obviously wouldn't actually work), an array of ~500 ion thrusters would give a 1000kg payload about the same delta-v as a single RL10, albeit at a much lower thrust.
So any useful benefit to be gained by using ion thrusters will involve far, far fewer than this break-even point which is what we see on existing spacecraft. For example - Hayabusa2 has four ion engines on a gimbal mount, three of which can be run simultaneously.
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
While this seems like a good idea at first, you very quickly run into the main problem with ion engines - their tiny thrust.
Let's compare a typical ion engine from the Dawn mission and an upper stage commonly used for interplanetary injections, the Centaur Upper Stage with its RL10 Hydrogen-Oxygen engine.
Ion Engine
- Thrust: 90mN
- Mass: 8.2kg
RL10 C-1
- Thrust: 102kN
- Mass: 190kg
We can see that the RL10 generates on the order of 1 million times more thrust for around only 20 times more mass. This means that we're going to need some 8 million kg of ion thrusters to produce the same thrust - equivalent to about 2.5 fully fueled Saturn V's.
It gets even worse when we consider the fact that this massive array of thrusters will require a similarly enormous amount of extra plumbing and structural support for it to run. Not to mention the difficulties in trying to squeeze a million engines onto the mounting plate at the base of the stage.
This will clearly negate any benefit we gain from using a higher-efficiency engine.
Of course, there will be a break-even point. A very quick-and-dirty approximation says that if we modified a Centaur Upper Stage to give it ion engines and filled the tanks with xenon (this obviously wouldn't actually work), an array of ~500 ion thrusters would give a 1000kg payload about the same delta-v as a single RL10, albeit at a much lower thrust.
So any useful benefit to be gained by using ion thrusters will involve far, far fewer than this break-even point which is what we see on existing spacecraft. For example - Hayabusa2 has four ion engines on a gimbal mount, three of which can be run simultaneously.
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
edited 12 mins ago
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
answered 40 mins ago
Jack
6,11512848
6,11512848
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Why is an ion engine more efficient than a chemical engine? The exhaust velocity is much higher.
If the power issue can be solved and each ion engine of the bundle has the same high exhaust velocity, the bundle is still more efficient than a single chemical engine.
But what about weight? To provide more power will increase the weight of the vehicle as well as the additional ion engines. To compensate the increased weight more ion fuel is necessary. To store more fuel a larger and heavier tank is needed.
So if there is enough time for slow acceleration with a single ion engine over years the total costs are lower than for the bundle of engines delivering the same delta-v in months. You will need a larger first and second chemical stage to lift that vehicle into orbit where the ion engines may take over.
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Why is an ion engine more efficient than a chemical engine? The exhaust velocity is much higher.
If the power issue can be solved and each ion engine of the bundle has the same high exhaust velocity, the bundle is still more efficient than a single chemical engine.
But what about weight? To provide more power will increase the weight of the vehicle as well as the additional ion engines. To compensate the increased weight more ion fuel is necessary. To store more fuel a larger and heavier tank is needed.
So if there is enough time for slow acceleration with a single ion engine over years the total costs are lower than for the bundle of engines delivering the same delta-v in months. You will need a larger first and second chemical stage to lift that vehicle into orbit where the ion engines may take over.
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Why is an ion engine more efficient than a chemical engine? The exhaust velocity is much higher.
If the power issue can be solved and each ion engine of the bundle has the same high exhaust velocity, the bundle is still more efficient than a single chemical engine.
But what about weight? To provide more power will increase the weight of the vehicle as well as the additional ion engines. To compensate the increased weight more ion fuel is necessary. To store more fuel a larger and heavier tank is needed.
So if there is enough time for slow acceleration with a single ion engine over years the total costs are lower than for the bundle of engines delivering the same delta-v in months. You will need a larger first and second chemical stage to lift that vehicle into orbit where the ion engines may take over.
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
Why is an ion engine more efficient than a chemical engine? The exhaust velocity is much higher.
If the power issue can be solved and each ion engine of the bundle has the same high exhaust velocity, the bundle is still more efficient than a single chemical engine.
But what about weight? To provide more power will increase the weight of the vehicle as well as the additional ion engines. To compensate the increased weight more ion fuel is necessary. To store more fuel a larger and heavier tank is needed.
So if there is enough time for slow acceleration with a single ion engine over years the total costs are lower than for the bundle of engines delivering the same delta-v in months. You will need a larger first and second chemical stage to lift that vehicle into orbit where the ion engines may take over.
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
answered 40 mins ago
Uwe
7,44622334
7,44622334
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
K.H. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
K.H. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
K.H. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
K.H. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31202%2fwill-an-array-of-multiple-ion-engines-still-be-more-efficient-than-a-single-chem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
