The race into space - Is the U.S. in it?

Washington Times ^ | May 29, 2003 | Robert S. Walker

[Light Speed]

Hughes' Ion Engine Serving as Primary Propulsion to NASA's Deep Space 1

In 1995, Hughes Electron Dynamics, today known as Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices, Inc., located in Torrance, Calif., was awarded a $9.2 million contract to design and manufacture the NASA Solar Electric Propulsion Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) 30-centimeter system for validation on the New Millennium Deep Space 1 project. This would be the first time an ion engine would be used as the primary method of propulsion in a deep space mission. The system consists of an ion thruster, power processor, and digital control and interface units.

Deep Space 1 was launched on Oct. 24, 1998 from the Cape Canaveral Air Station, the first mission in NASA's New Millennium Program. The purpose of the New Millennium Program is to test and validate new technologies in a series of deep space and Earth-orbiting missions. This is the first deep space NASA mission to focus on technology, rather than science.

As one of the 12 new technologies being tested on Deep Space 1, the ion engine performs the critical role of spacecraft propulsion. It is the primary method of propulsion for the 8-1/2-foot, 1,000-pound spacecraft, and its use is preparing it for possible inclusion in future NASA space science missions.

Still on its planned 11-month technology validation mission, as of the end of February 1999, the Deep Space 1 spacecraft has traveled more than 28 million miles from Earth.

An ion engine relies on electrically charged atoms, or ions, to generate thrust. Xenon, an inert, noncombustible gas, is electrically charged and the ions are accelerated to a speed of about 62,900 miles per hour (30 kilometers per second). The ions are then emitted as exhaust from the thruster, creating a force, which propels the spacecraft in the opposite direction.

The primary advantage of electric propulsion is efficiency. An ion engine is 10 times more efficient than its alternative, a chemical propulsion system. With xenon, it is possible to reduce propellant mass onboard a spacecraft by up to 90 percent. The advantages of having less onboard propellant include a lighter spacecraft, and, since launch costs are set based on spacecraft weight, reduced launch cost.

Unlike its chemical counterpart, the ion engine produces a gentle thrust, but for a very long duration. The Deep Space 1 spacecraft carried about 81.5 kilograms of xenon propellant, which will provide about 20 months of continuous thrusting, more than enough to propel Deep Space 1 throughout its entire mission. The 30-centimeter ion thruster on Deep Space 1 will eventually change the spacecraft's speed by 4.5 kilometers per second, the equivalent of 10,000 miles per hour.

Hughes and NASA began investigating the use of xenon as a propellant alternative back in the early 1960s. Other materials, such as cesium and mercury, were also investigated, but xenon was preferred because it would generate the greatest thrust and, as an inert gas, would not be hazardous to handle and process.

The NSTAR engine was designed for operation in deep space. Prolonged periods of operation in low levels of sunlight required a unique design for deep space missions. The NSTAR engine is remotely programmable from the ground, enabling ground stations to adjust the thruster's operation as needed. The spacecraft's on-board autonomous software can also adjust the operation of the thruster.

Boeing Electron Dynamic Designs also produces a commercial xenon ion propulsion system, XIPS, for use on Boeing 601HP and Boeing 702 spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit. The first satellite to fly with an onboard XIPS system was PAS-5, which was launched in August 1997.

Boeing Electron Dynamic Designs is a world leader in the design and manufacture of microwave, traveling wavetube amplifiers, and ion thrusters for commercial and military applications.

Deep Space 1 Ion Drive Engine

[Light Speed]

Boeing is working on a different "Deep Space" Ion drive Plasma engine...which is lofted upon successes of Deep Space 1 Program : )

[XBob]

21 - "We can have a lunar campsite in five years."

Sorry, NOT. We don't have a single rocket capable of getting a man to the moon, and we have none even in design stage.

They burned the Saturn 5 blueprints years ago, so we can't even attempt to rebuild it.

[brityank]

Personally, I can't afford ...

No problem. You go through your lifestyle, and eject anything that had any help or development from NASA's myriad programs.

Start by shutting down your computer. Then your home appliances; car; office, hospitals, ... the benefits you use every day have some relationship to the science and technology developed and improved by the space community.

Even Luddites have more intelligence than you show.

[brityank]

The whole focus has been on riding. Why?

Ask John Glenn. The political whores are the primary cause of the deterioration of the 'can-do' attitude in NASA's early days.

[Cincinatus]

We don't have a single rocket capable of getting a man to the moon,

True. So obviously, we use more than one rocket. The NASA Exploration office has devised an architecture to get people to the Moon using existing launch systems -- it takes three Delta-IV heavy and two Shuttle launches to get cargo and people to the Moon and back, using the Earth-Moon L1 point as a staging area.

[error99]

amen brother

[brityank]

Remember after the loss of the Challenger, Rockwell offered to pay for a replacement Orbiter if they could rent it out?

NASA (of course) refused. They will never release their death-grip on the U.S. manned space program.

I was not aware of that. Pitiful.

[error99]

"...Because for better or worse, they're all we've got right now. As a conservative, I would much rather see private enterprise take the lead. But it's just not happening. ..."
- -
And perhaps the reason for that is because there is no REAL value ?
IF there was real value, wouldn't private industry jump all over it?

[error99]

"...You go through your lifestyle, and eject anything that had any help or development from NASA's myriad programs...Start by shutting down your computer. Then your home appliances; car; office, hospitals, ... the benefits you use every day have some relationship to the science and technology developed and improved by the space community..."
- -
For you to think that none of these things would have ever come to pass without your precious space program is naive.

[snopercod]

Let's not forget Tang...

[brityank]

You need challenges to develop technology, otherwise we'd all still be running computers based on private enterprise developed and patented legacy systems. The space program was one of the biggest motivators to discovery that directly impacts your daily life. If you don't see that, your blind.

[brityank]

Let's not forget Tang...

Hey; I liked that stuff! ;^)

[Mamzelle]

re: Entertainment and inspiration are valid aims for the space program, but even on that score the unmanned program delivers far more for far less expense)))

Maybe the unmanned program needs to hire some PR jerks. When I visit the jpl site, I'm just blown away and excited by all that's going on. Right now, only one probe goes out at a time. What if we sent a *team* of probes, to land on either the moon or Mars, which would then fan out in a grid. Wow. Think of the pics we'd get before they keeled over in a ditch somewhere. Maybe anthropomorphise a robot, a la C3PO.

Somehow, we've got to ditch the celebrity-naut culture or we may as well live for the funerals. The Retired Ones sit on non-profit boards, give speeches, and basicaly obstruct as much as possible to protect their legacies.

[Gunslingr3]

No problem. You go through your lifestyle, and eject anything that had any help or development from NASA's myriad programs. Start by shutting down your computer. Then your home appliances; car; office, hospitals, ... the benefits you use every day have some relationship to the science and technology developed and improved by the space community. Even Luddites have more intelligence than you show.

So, without government no one would try to make better consumer goods? If the government space program is responsible for all of these fantastic consumer items, why didn't Soviet citizens have them too? Didn't their bureaucrats dictate resource allocation, or are ours just better? You can't imagine how society would get this far without bureaucrats directing resources, I see the Soviet Union and realize how much farther along the U.S. would be without bureaucrats directing resources. I do not share your view that human progress and American prosperity is largely consequence of farsighted decision making by government bureaucracies. If anything, it's in spite of them.

[Mamzelle]

It is quite true that technology has taken many leapfrogs through spinoff benefits. The children of astronauts were taught practically out of diapers to lisp "thpinoff benefith" to the Life reporters--it was of political value to NASA.

However, you ought to challenge those who use this argument to justify unthoughtful further expenditures whether these benefits will necessarily continue. They'll be hardpressed to be specific. Perhaps all the low cherries have been picked off this tree...

Unmanned space exploration has enormous potential spinoff benefits, because robotics have taken such a dramatic turn in development. From the space program, to medicine and mfging, back to the space program for another likely leapfrog...

[KevinDavis]

Robots are for wimps.

[Mamzelle]

Re: Robots are for wimps.

Punctuation is for users of English, but I'll let you share.

The real explorers do more than fantasize about getting the Big Ride.

[XBob]

64 - "Start by shutting down your computer. "

NASA did nothing to develop the PC. It wasn't till the orbiter even got 'electronic' computers. We replaced the 'core' (using magnetic 'donuts' from the early 1950's) computers in the orbiters equivalent to the 80-386 in the early 90's.

Personal Computers came from Video Games, such as the 'Pong" game, Atari game machines, and Commodore PET, and the first PC was an Altair, which did not even have a keybord.

If it were up to NASA we would still use main-frames with dumb terminals.

I got my first PC (a Commodore) in 1980. In the late 80's, and early 90's (10 years later) while working at KSC, I tried for years to get a PC to help with my work, and just couldn't even get an authorization for one, so I ended up bringing in my own PC from home.

[Movemout]

"Sorry, NOT. We don't have a single rocket capable of getting a man to the moon, and we have none even in design stage. "/I>

I don't have the inclination nor time to educate you. If you will do a little homework you will find that Saturns aren't required for these missions. If you don't believe me get a hold of Doug Cook down at Johnson Space Center.