NEW PLASMA PROPULSION SYSTEM GENERATES A HELLUVA LOT OF THRUST

New Plasma Propulsion System Generates A Helluva Lot of Thrust - The Debrief

ANALYSIS: PLASMA PROPULSION MAY BE THE ANSWER
“My new plasmoid thruster is complementary to existing thruster technology,” Dr. Ebrahimi told The Debrief. “It is unique in being able to deliver high thrust at high and variable exhaust velocity (tens to hundreds of km/s). It should therefore get unsurpassed gas mileage for longer trips (Mars and beyond).”

Her concept is based upon the magnetism present in solar flares. In simple terms, charged plasma is emitted containing strong magnetic fields. The plasma converges, then separates, then merges again. This back and forth transfer creates thermal and kinetic energy and can give any object using this theoretical propulsion system one helluva kick.​

Yay! A new thruster with quite a kick. In the vastness of space, anything that can get us around the solar system quicker is a blessing.

I wonder who has the intellectual property rights to this propulsion?? I'm already getting ideas on how to use it. Probably too much cost involved, and above my pay grade for such ideas to be possible, though.

 

Two problems. Firstly it's only been modeled/simulated, not designed and tested. So the specs for ISP and power consumption etc are theoretical. At this stage they haven't even got as far as designing and test bedding primary components, let alone building the first working model. None if which means it won't work as anticipated (physicists have been studying magnetic linkage/separation effects in plasma physics for decades) just that they don't know how realistic their numbers may really be until they build one.

One bit of good new? Testing the idea in space doesn't mean launching a fully developed drive capable of achieving the maximum theoretical specs listed in the paper. If they can build one that works for an extended period and produces even a small fraction of the thrust anticipated from a fully developed platform then they have a justification for going ahead and testing one in space. It just needs to be better than currently existing drives, not fully perfected. That should speed things up a little anyway. Assuming of course they get funding! No $$$ no drive.

Secondly, it needs a nuclear power source, which means a reactor (or several reactors combined) that can generate the power needed for really fast trips. The good news is that there are several models that are close to readiness of testing in space. The bad news - getting funding the legal approvals to actually do it. In any event the power source issue should be ready to go by the time the drive is. (Assuming some body builds one).

 

Oh, no. I've let my excitement for this news get the better of me, and I didn't realize it was just at the preliminary stage of the process.

Yes, funding wiill mean everything. And there are small fusion plants under study right now. That's a little bit of good news.

 

I think all our missions to Saturn/Jupiter/beyond have some sort of nuclear power, as solar is pretty much useless out there.

There are significant differences in design of those power plants, of course. There has to be a pretty big difference in carrying enough energy to make some electricity/warmth and actually creating major thrust.

Do you know what the national or international agreements are on nuclear material in space?

Is it true that low Earth orbit satellites are supposed to be nuclear free - maybe with an exception for science experiments?

 

The reactor of choice for this thruster is a fusion reactor. It doesn't produce nuclear radiation like the current nuclear fission power plants that we currently have and think about when we hear about nuclear power. It's a completely different process.

 

All good points.

And, I'm certainly excited about the prospect of a new methods of propulsion for space. Our chemical rockets are limited in what they can accomplish, plus electric power and heat are required.

My understanding is that a fusion reactor requires gigantic heat to start. I have heard it said that on Earth starting a fusion reactor would probably be done by an adjacent fision reactor.

Would rocket fuel be enough to start the fusion reactor in space? Could one start the fusion reactor while still on Earth, where such gigantic heat could be available. This form of propulsion isn't useful in launching from Earth's surface (i think?), but having that reactor running before launch may be OK.

While fusion reactors are very clean compared to fision reactors, my understanding is that they do constantly produce/contain tritium which is radioactive with a half life of 12 years or so. While short compared to fision products, one would not want to spread that with an Earthly crash landing - or maybe even to pollute some other moon or planet.

I'm not complaining - this looks promising. And there will be time to solve issues between today and the time when someone manages to package a fusion reactor for space flight - presumabely, after someone has created a viable fusion ractor on Earth.

 

Building a true fusion propulsion system is a long way off. We haven't even mastered the art of maintaining stable long term fusion on Earth, let alone in space, albeit we're getting closer. What is being worked on are various forms of plasma drive which rely on a electrical power and magnetic fields to direct hot plasma's into an exhaust stream (e.g. like VASIMR). These are an order of magnitude down from true fusion power but are never the less quite capable of generating significant velocities - in theory.

Most of the near future systems are looking at nuclear fission reactors as the potential power source for plasma rockets. They are increasingly compact with inbuilt fail safe systems that prevent meltdowns and can run for decades. E.G. the current new generation of reactors of the Virginia Class attack subs are whole of life designs. They don't need refueling at all, lasting the anticipated hull life of the sub itself before they run down (at least I read that somewhere). Of course subs have that nice deep ocean as a heat sink so the space based systems will be nowhere near as powerful as those. At least to start with anyway.

But plasma drives don't need multi megawatts of power to be effective anyway. At least not the for the first few generations. This new magnetic separation/re-connection thruster is more of the same although, if the paper is to be believed in theory it's a big improvement on other ideas. Just have to keep an eye out to see if it gets any funding.

 

After a Russian Satellite powered by a nuclear thermo-electric generator fell to earth in the 80??? an released nuclear waste on impact (not a significant amount and confined to the impact point BTW) I believe everyone gave up on the idea. I don't know if there is a binding international agreement or not though, I'd have to look it up. In any case solar panels are perfectly satisfactory for near Earth use and getting better al the time. They still do however power deep space missions i.e. beyond Mars and the Belt using nuclear thermo-electrics or similar devices because solar cells rapidly become inefficient the further you get away from the Sun.

 

Re Fusion Reactions: extreme heat or pressure, more usually both are required for ignition. And electric power can come from any source. Usually capacitors are used to store power from the grid until ignition is required. Finally while deuterium/tritium is one common fusion reaction, there's a list in Wikipedia and lots of other sites that go into the pros and cons of each. (Try Atomic Rockets it covers possible methods of future space flight in detail.) And no as far as I am aware you cant use convention chemical rockets to kick start a fusion reaction - not enough concentrated power.

Re Nuclear Fission; Yes the there is risk that a reactor could breach if a ship carrying one re-entered the atmosphere and impacted land. However good design can reduce that to some non-zero level. Same way as they can design nuclear bombs not to breach in crashes or aircraft black boxes. The key thing is the choice of nuclear fuels. A plutonium reactor would be an absolute no no however. Other reactors even if they did crash land might breach but again the radioactive particulate matter would be localized around the impact site. The reactor casing would crack/shatter, not blow up! It would also be easy to keep one powered down/dampened during launch from Earth and then power it up once attached/installed on it's ship

 

Operation Morning Light, the cleanup of the Russian nuclear satellite crash, covered 48,000 square miles. There were pieces that would kill within a few hours of contact.

Luckily enough, it missed the USA and crashed in NW Territories in Canada, so no major population centers were involved.

Russia has never paid the cleanup bill.

As you point out, the issue isn't nuclear explosions. But, Russia launched that satellite into Earth orbit with no plan for how it would return to Earth. Their plan was that at end of life it would be placed in a "safe" Earth orbit. But, all orbits decay.

When they totally lost control they did notify America - which the nuclear reactor missed! Woohoo!!

 

Thanks for the update. I read up on Morning Light. It appears only 10 pieces of the core were recovered about 1% of the total core mass from the RNE. Debris was scattered along a line about 600 k long with the heavy radio active pieces being found closer to other heavier parts. I was under the impression (its years since I read about it) that the heavier parts were found much closer together than they actually were.

Anyway, only one piece was highly radioactive. All the rest of the power unit vaporized on reentry, leaving particles so small they disbursed in the upper atmosphere. The power core was U238 not Plutonium thank God - not even the Soviets were that crazy apparently.

The key problem (apart from dodgy Soviet era engineering of the satellite itself which failed) seems to have been the fact that the power core was not designed to withstand retry unlike the designs being considered today as discussed. End of life disposal of the core was supposed to involve its ejection from the satellite and insertion into a higher orbit. Unfortunately the ejection system was poorly designed and failed on other occasions as well.

Oh, one other thing I found out, Russia did eventually pay - half the bill. Canada billed Russia 6 million C$ for the cleanup and change. The Russians eventually coughed up 3 million.

 

I haven't disputed your facts and you haven't disputed mine.

However, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

The only point was/is that your reply made the whole episode a trip down memory lane. You corrected an error I made about how intact the core remained prior to impact and it encouraged me to go back and read up on the whole event!

 

The only point was/is that your post lead to a trip down memory lane. You pointed to an error I made about how exactly intact the nuclear power pack remained during re-entry and that inspired me to go back and revisit the whole episode in more detail! Thanks.

 

And here's a link to all you could ever want to know (and more) about the drive in question.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/enginelist.php#ppalfvenic

 

P.S: I tried to set up the link so that it sent you directly to the Pulsed Plasmid Thruster discussed in the original article. This didn't work but if anyone is interested you just have to scroll through until you come to VASIMR. The Plasmid Thruster in question is the one immediately before VASIMIR in the list.

 

It works for me. Must be your browser.

 

WARP Drive
Twist space. Warp space.
Don't be a slave to space as a constant!


Whatever plasma drive ship you send out now
will be passed by the Warp Drive ship on its' way, later.


Moi
Future thinking

Knows The Secrets Of
Ice Power​

 

Well, even in Star Trek, they had an impulse drive.

 

The problem with nuclear power is, it's radioactive (which is poisonous)...
That's why we have nuclear subs and nuclear power plants, but no nuclear flight (yet).
You could build a nuclear reactor on a plane to power a plane, but all the lead shielding would make it too heavy to leave the ground...
Enter; plasma.

Someone should tell this person that plasma means squat for travel but everything in being lighter than lead.
Plasma, like lead, also protects from harmful radiation poisoning, but, unlike lead, isn't heavy.

If you build a reactor core surrounded by a plasma field, then nobody will get hurt, and you'd be able to leave the ground...
Now, this doesn't mean you'd get any faster, just that you'd have nuclear flight.

http://www.minimagnetosphere.rl.ac.uk/downloads/pdfs/9Levy French AIAA-29306-386.pdf

 

Will this work on cars?

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/nwxwy/does_anyone_here_remember_altpavetheearth/

I still salivate at the thought of the Rockies being paved over so Ford Nucleons can move freely at 800mph. And the Earth's interior being converted to a giant hamburger grill for the genetically modified cows.

 

Plasma isn't about propulsion, it's about shielding and weight reduction.

Look into the unified field theory and The Philadelphia Experiment if you want to talk drives, no, plasma is just to safely shield any nuclear power supply without weighing it down like lead does.

Plasma = lighter nuclear power able to lift off the ground because it protects from radiation without making it too heavy for flight, nothing about propulsion; to travel vast distances, look into unified field theory.

 

Um, your link talks about plasma being used as a shield. My link talks about using plasma as a drive.

And, at the low end(10 km/s), it just about reaches the escape velocity of Earth. (11.19 km/s), and at higher speeds it would really blast off into the sky!

 

I know; I believe plasma is more useful as a radiation shield and trying to use it as a drive is redundant and barking up the wrong tree.
I believe time invested into plasma drive is wasted, so I'd cut my losses and refocus my attention to a plasma shielded reactor core.

 

It's not an either or type of thing. Since they are two different things, there is no reason why a spacecraft couldn't have both technologies.