Ion Propulsion Engines
This is how an Ion Engine works and its applications
Ion Propulsion is one of the least known form to travel space unless you've read science fiction books. So as a space enthusiast that's why I have decided to write about it, so here is the brief.
Ion Propulsion have high specific impulse (Isp) requiring it to use significantly less fuel during space flight compared to its chemical counterpart. Not only it uses less fuel but it is significantly much more efficient to its chemical rocket counterpart. Ion thrusters are used to keep communication satellites in place, maintaining Low Earth Orbits (LEO), Deep Space missions, refuelling missions and numerous other varieties of missions. Ion Propulsion may seem like a wonder engine but it has several cons not allowing it to be used everywhere.
How does Ion Propulsion Work?
![](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://i.imgur.com/9EBNw3E.jpg)
Source
The Process first begins with injection of the propellant (neutral) from the downstream end of the thruster to maximize ionization, the propellant (neutral) is bombarded with electrons. These electrons are generated by a hollow cathode, called the discharge cathode. The electrons flow out the discharge cathode are attracted to the discharge chamber walls, which are charged by the power supply of the thruster. When a high energy electron bombards the propellant (neutral) a pair of electrons will be knocked off the propellant, making it a positively charged ion. Magnets placed along the discharge wall redirect electrons into the discharge chamber. (1&3)
“In a gridded ion thruster, ions are accelerated by electrostatic forces. The electric fields used for this acceleration are generated by two electrodes, called ion optics or grids, at the downstream end of the thruster. The greater the voltage difference between the two grids, the faster the positive ions move toward the negative charge. Each grid has thousands of coaxial apertures (or tiny holes). The two grids are spaced close together (but not touching), and the apertures are exactly aligned with each other. Each set of apertures (opposite holes) acts like a lens to electrically focus ions through the optics.” (3)
“NASA's ion thrusters use a two-electrode system, where the upstream electrode (called the screen grid) is charged highly positive, and the downstream electrode (called the accelerator grid) is charged highly negative. Since the ions are generated in a region that is highly positive and the accelerator grid's potential is negative, the ions are attracted toward the accelerator grid and are focused out of the discharge chamber through the apertures, creating thousands of ion jets. The stream of all the ion jets together is called the ion beam. The thrust is the force that exists between the upstream ions and the accelerator grid. The exhaust velocity of the ions in the beam is based on the voltage applied to the optics. Whereas a chemical rocket's top speed is limited by the heat-producing capability of the rocket nozzle, the ion thruster's top speed is limited by the voltage that is applied to the ion optics, which is theoretically unlimited.“ (3)
I’ve taken these two extracts from NASA as I could’ve not explained better.
A second hollow cathode is called the neutralizer, it is used to push out needed electrons to neutralize the exhausted propellant. (1&3)
Different Propellants
An Ion thruster works by ionization of the propellant, although any element can be used xenon is the most commonly used, this is for its chemical properties or rather better put there lack of chemical properties. One of the questions you may be asking why not use argon’s its properties are virtually nearly the same and it’s cheaper (240x - Source 8&9) and the (Isp) is higher as the particle has less mass compared to it’s xenon counterpart. Well this may make argon look as a superior gas, as it’s cheaper and has higher (by 80%) (Isp), first we should look at the energy needed for ionization of each of the two gases, it takes 15.75eV for Argon and 12.13eV (7) for Xenon which makes Xenon 23% better, per unit atom this makes xenon 3.2 (131.293amu/40amu) times more efficient. Since the competing atoms have to go through an electric field to get accelerated to their exhaust velocity, @2500eV an Argon atom will reach ~100km/s while a xenon will reach ~55km/s. Since xenon has more mass it will generate more than twice the thrust which is a bigger and more significant advantage over having higher Isp.
From the Argon-Xenon example you may be wondering why not go one step up the periodic table and use radon, well radon is radioactive and that doesn’t quite bade well with spacecraft and sensitive electronics on it. (11)
Applications and Uses
Adjustments for drag experienced in LEO, it’s high efficiency of up to 90% compared to 35% of its chemical rocket cousin make it excellent for deep space missions with multiple destinations. Even though these engines may seem like wonder engines and we should use them for everything, I haven’t yet to mention one important statistic which is the top Ion Engines produce up to around .5 Newtons of thrust, to put it into perspective that’s equivalent of holding a few US quarters in your hand, lower powered Ion Engines produce about .07-.25 Newtons of thrust. The low thrust makes it useless at landing on anything but on asteroids. Ion Engines also tend not to work in atmospheres, (1-6) (10)
Personal Comments
This is my first post so please leave me criticism and point out any errors I may have made, follow if you would like to and upvote it if it’s of quality, thank you.
Sources
(1) https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_impulse
(3) https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/ion_prop.html
(4) https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/Ion_Propulsion1.html
(5) https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/60s/sert1.htm
(6) https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/ds1.html
(7)https://chem.libretexts.org/Textbook_Maps/General_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Map%3A_ChemPRIME_(Moore_et_al.)/06Chemical_Bonding_-_Electron_Pairs_and_Octets/6.06%3A_Ionization_Energies
(8) https://www.chemicool.com/elements/xenon.html
(9) https://www.chemicool.com/elements/argon.html
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1#NSTAR_ion_engine
(11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon
Hi, I found some acronyms/abbreviations in this post. This is how they expand:
Hey a great post yah made. Hope fer more posts in th' future!
Will do thanks for the feedback, just remember to follow. I will be doing politics and stem posts if you are interested :D
Will do.
Congratulations @nonationnoborder! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP
Well this post was quite informative .Ion engines makes the idea of deep space missions quite realistic .So that ones in a life time we can visit to our nearest star system well it would take almost 6 years with Ion engines. Well our deep space voyagers have crossed the solar system and are into interstellar space .Well if voyager would have been directed towards the nearest star Proxima Centauri it would need another 70000 years so with the current technology its impossible that within a human time scale to could reach the outer space .So hope for the best !!!!
6 years to proxima centauri with ion engines is quite a stretch, but lets do a calculation on what it would take to get to proxima centauri with an ion engine, let's suppose we have a spacecraft that all it is just an antenna a big tank and nuclear reactor and an ion engine. The dry mass of this space craft let's give it 3 tons. How much fuel do we need to get the Proxima Centauri. Let's take the specific impulse of a real life spacecraft that we have used from not so long ago. I'm gonna use Dawn 1 which has a specific impulse of 3100. Now let's start calculating, Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away to get there in 6 years. That means we need to travel 3.974e+13/6 kilometers a year. Turning this into km/s we get 210024.52 km/s which is roughly 60% of c. Plugging this into the rocket equation give's us 2.995345082×10^6 kilograms of just fuel for the spacecraft. Hell, I'd believe I was quite generous how much I gave it for dry mass, and this is only to get there and immediately exit not even slow by. At this point there is no reason for me to any more equations as the sheer task would be too big achieve.
Well than what about the antimatter engines ???
As we have seen in the movie avatar .
Yes it would be more possible to do that with antimatter engines, but concurrent technology only allows us to hold antimatter for very little time before it annihilates itself with the walls of containment unit. Very unpractical during these days and times.
Well that's true its not possible for now. As its extremely expensive. But its quite potent that a teaspoon of it would allow us to exit the earth gravity. And it also allows us to reach mars at a staggering rate of 2 weeks i think . Well i am not sure about the number of weeks.
And thanks for the info @nonationnoborder.
When people talk about arriving at such locations in such tiny timescales, people often don't realize that you need to slow down otherwise you'll just zip right past your destination. If your estimation is correct then, it'll take twice that to arrive there. As too much deceleration will turn everyone into a goop of flesh on the windshield of the spacecraft. If you have any questions about the possibilities of space travel or any hypothetical situations (what if the deathstar replaced the moon etc) I may make a post on it of what would happen with mathematics included on a separate PDF.
Thanks for the info !!
@originalworks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @nonationnoborder to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
Congratulations @nonationnoborder, this post is the forth most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Dust account holder (accounts that hold between 0 and 0.01 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Dust account holders during this period was 5414 and the total pending payments to posts in this category was $2096.61. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
Congratulations @nonationnoborder, you have decided to take the next big step with your first post! The Steem Network Team wishes you a great time among this awesome community.
The proven road to boost your personal success in this amazing Steem Network
Do you already know that awesome content will get great profits by following these simple steps, that have been worked out by experts?