Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Technology

Fuel Efficient Five-Gear Rocket Engine Designed 122

Roland Piquepaille writes "Georgia Tech researchers have had a brilliant idea. Rocket engines used today to launch satellites run at maximum exhaust velocity until they reach orbit. For a car, this would be analog to stay all the time in first gear. So they have designed a new space rocket which works as it has a five-gear transmission system. This rocket engine uses 40 percent less fuel than current ones by running on solar power while in space and by fine-tuning exhaust velocity. But as it was designed with funds from the U.S. Air Force, military applications will be ready before civilian ones. Here is how this new rocket engine works."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fuel Efficient Five-Gear Rocket Engine Designed

Comments Filter:
  • point missed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sporkme ( 983186 ) * on Saturday February 24, 2007 @05:48AM (#18132796) Homepage
    This should lead to a new space speed record. The simplicity is beautiful, and having paid attention to ion drive since Deep Space One (pun intended) [wikipedia.org] I am surprised that they have just come up with this. Hell, I an surprised I hadn't come up with this. As far as I can tell this baby is beautiful in its simplicity.
  • Amazing Technology (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bellum Aeternus ( 891584 ) on Saturday February 24, 2007 @05:55AM (#18132826)

    40% less fuel usage means less fuel needed to get into space, meaning a lighter rock; saving even more fuel. This will also drastically reduce the cost of getting into orbit as well, meaning more satellite based technology in the near future. This is an all around good thing.

    I do wonder if this technology will go the route of the automobile or the bicycle. Staying at five gears or heading for twenty-one?

  • Uhm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joto ( 134244 ) on Saturday February 24, 2007 @06:05AM (#18132860)

    Apart from the fact that no technical details are described about this new technology, and that "gears" makes no sense at all in a rocket, and thus the comparison got tiring even the first time they used it, the authors of the article couldn't even make up their mind about what this invention is intended for. In the heading they talk about rockets for launching satellites, but everywhere else in the article, they talk about "satellite engines" used in orbit, which are apparently some form of improved ion-drive, completely useless for launch vehicles.

    This is just silly. To illustrate how silly it is, we could just as well have an article about how a new toaster will use multiple stages to toast, just like rocket engines have multiple stages to orbit. This can potentially lead to up to 40% reduced cost of toasting toast, and potentially, making toast in deep space more of a reality, as well as in other energy-starved places. Then we can include a drawing of a hairdryer to "explain" it, and continue to explain that while commercial applications are a few years off, the new toaster will soon be ready to used for military infrared signalling.

  • by pln2bz ( 449850 ) * on Saturday February 24, 2007 @06:33AM (#18132960)
    It's completely impressive that people can write so many articles about plasma without directly referring to it. I see this over and over.

    Is this a competition? Is there a prize?
  • nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PopeOptimusPrime ( 875888 ) on Saturday February 24, 2007 @06:52AM (#18133008)
    Last time I checked, the reason IC engines use transmissions is because they're only efficient in a dreadfully small window (1000-10000 rpm). Less than 1000rpm, you're not producing enough power to overcome friction. More than 10,000 and the whole thing goes boom. This range is even smaller for diesel engines and even greater for performance engines... but for rockets it's essentially infinite. (Relativity notwithstanding) I mean, there are no physical barriers to stop you from spraying hot gases from the business end of a projectile...
  • Really misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Alex Belits ( 437 ) * on Saturday February 24, 2007 @08:59AM (#18133422) Homepage
    1. In an ion engine you WANT to accelerate the propellant as fast as possible -- the satellite get the same momentum as propellant in the opposite direction, so to get best use of the same mass of propellant you should accelerate it to the maximum speed your engine allows with reasonable energy efficiency. If it's a chemical engine, the amount of energy you can use is proportional to the amount of fuel you burn, so you don't really have a choice -- from conservation of energy the maximum possible speed of escaping gas is square root of the twice energy produced by burning a unit of mass. If energy can only come from fuel, the only way to increase speed beyond that is to leave some burned fuel in the satellite yet pass its energy to the escaping gas, so even if you somehow manage to do that, you have to release burned fuel at a lower speed later, thus wasting energy, or keep it stored thus wasting energy and also increasing your mass.

    If your energy comes from solar panels (so it arrives if you want it or not) or a nuclear reactor (so fuel and propellant are separate), you should try to use propellant as efficiently as possible, accelerating it to the maximum speed that the engine design allows. To control the total momentum produced by the engine you can just run it for a longer or shorter time.

    2. Drawing in the article makes no sense, unless it's missing something important. If electric and magnetic fields' directions are as shown (electric along the axis, magnetic along the radius), electrons' trajectories will be, depending on the initial speed, spirals around the axis of the device, or , more likely, loops returning them to the anode, not spirals around circles shown on the drawings. They would look like those spirals if those circles were magnetic field caused by the current produced by ions, but then this field should be significantly stronger than the radial magnetic field.

    3. There should be something accelerating electrons, or this engine will end up charged negatively, decelerating ions that leave it until the whole process stopped with a large cloud of positive ions hanging behind it. The drawing shows cathode that supposedly emits electrons, and direction of the electric field suggests that cathode is much larger than shown of that there is another cathode, but it still doesn't show why this cathode emits electrons. It may be in a way of the stream of ions, so it's hot from being bombarded by them, or it may be an electron cannon, like in CRTs, or both, but the drawing shows neither. If the electrons going in circles are outside the engine, as opposed to how they are shown inside it, it kinda makes sense considering that ions leaving the engine produce circular magnetic field, but then the drawing misplaces it inside the cylindrical engine, where magnetic field is in a completely different direction.

    See http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/history/ip sworks.html [nasa.gov] for comparison.

    4. Any ion engine can regulate the speed of its exhaust -- it's determined by electric field's strength that is in its turn determined by voltage/position of electrodes. Maybe they have invented some other way to regulate it, for example, by changing the magnetic field, but it's not what the articles claim.

    5. Ion engines can't launch satellites by themselves -- even if they are used at some point, the vast majority of the energy passed to the satellite is produced by chemical engines. Ion engines can be used to adjust orbit, or to accelerate in the process of interplanetary travel, but they are useless for initial launch that requires huge amount of energy to be released over a short time. Optimizing the use of fuel for orbit adjustment may reduce the initial mass of satellite (by the amount of fuel or ion engine propellant saved over the lifetime of the satellite), what in its turn can decrease the amount of fuel used for launch.

    However at the point when satellite reaches the orbit most
  • Re:pun intended (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) * on Saturday February 24, 2007 @09:26AM (#18133514) Journal
    Is there anyone else that finds something poetic about Roland's summaries?
  • Re:Solar? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jacksonj04 ( 800021 ) <nick@nickjackson.me> on Saturday February 24, 2007 @09:55AM (#18133610) Homepage
    Lower fuel consumption in space = less fuel required onboard = lower launch weight = lower launch cost.
  • by cbnewman ( 106449 ) on Sunday February 25, 2007 @03:22AM (#18141094)
    OK he's not that bad, but he evidently chose to continue to post links to his blog on the slashdot main page despite numerous complaints from the community. If I accidentally click on a link to his blog one more time, my head is going to explode.

    I remember that I changed some parameter when Katz was crapping up our message boards so I wouldn't have to even see his posts. Is that possible under the current incarnation of the site? How do I do it?

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...