First Exotic Space Thruster Test Ends in Explosion 178
KentuckyFC writes "A NASA-funded test of an entirely new way to control orbiting satellites has ended with the prototype arcing dangerously and parts of the machine exploding. The new propulsion system is based on the Lorentz force: that a charged particle moving through a magnetic field experiences a force perpendicular to both its velocity and the field. So the plan is to ensure that a satellite passing though the Earth's magnetic field is electrically charged so as to generate a force that can be used to steer the spacecraft. The advantage of the idea is that it requires no propellant, which is a big deal since most satellites' lifespans are limited by the amount of fuel they can carry. But the first ground-based tests haven't gone entirely to plan."
I hope (Score:5, Funny)
Explosions are an indicator of work (Score:5, Insightful)
Percy Spencer (microwave oven): "...and then the egg exploded."
James Watt (steam engine): "...and then the boiler exploded."
Alfred Nobel (dynamite): "...and then the nitroglycerin-soaked soil exploded."
Vladmir Titov (Russian cosmonaut): "...and then the Soyuz rocket exploded."
Werner von Braun (NASA engineer): "...and then the Jupiter rocket exploded."
Yang Liwei (Chinese Taikonaut): "...and then the Long March rocket exploded."
Sony test engineer: "...and then the battery exploded."
J. Robert Openheimer: "...and then the Trinity device exploded"...oh wait, that was supposed to happen.
A more personal anecdote:
Someone in the shop at work needed a simple room-temperature dryer for a special project, so he got some large diameter PVC pipe that was handy, filled it with a desiccant, put the material in that needed drying, and screwed the cap on. Then he left it alone for a few hours.
Apparently some sort of gas-producing chemical reaction took place, probably helped by the sun shining through the open door, (...wait for it...) and then the drying chamber exploded, blasting the plastic lid through the ceiling 25 feet overhead and covering the work bay with the tiny pellets of desiccant.
Engineering is fun.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Funny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Explosions are an indicator of work (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
James Watt on one of his designs: "It is very defective."
No, that was James Watt describing the hasty description of potential steam powered carriage applications for his steam engine patent, included only to keep others out of the steam engine business in any capacity.
Clearly you noticed that the original Watt "quote" was in sharp contrast to reality when you searched and found nothing, but then you didn't even fess up! No, you just took one of his quotes out of context. Quit putting false words in Watt's mouth!
-Vengeful Steam Nerd!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ObGalaxyQuest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He lost large parts of all his
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pretty certain this is how Mythbusters got started.
Also from TFA: Obviously, a proplusion system that explodes while it is in operation needs some more work.
I dunno, kinda sounds like how rockets work.
Re:Heh (Score:5, Funny)
(Orion programme if my memory isn't failing)
(On that point when will which ever god or other deity is responsible for our design fix the bloody faulty memory unit and start using error correcting cells?)
Re:Heh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Might even stop global warming if it pushed the earth a bit farther out
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To achieve similar thrust and specific impulse with an electrical drive would need a propulsion-subsystem the size of Switzerland. (And yes, CERN could be considered to be a small-scale prototype).
Re: (Score:2)
The test took place in a vacuum chamber, so it shouldn't be any more likely to arc there than in space.
Re:Heh (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps its a survival mechanism that keeps you from going insane and killing yourself before you reach age 10. The ability to forget might be the only thing keeping us sane.
Or maybe its a performance optimization - keeping the dataset smaller makes retrieval faster.
Or part of a disaster recovery system, enabling you not to be permanently traumatised after seeing the goatse guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, do i forever have to remember the time i nearly tripped and fell down a stairway and got a stick shoved through the roof of my mouth that i was holding in my mouth (was a toy magic wand) as i went downstairs to play with the magic wand? Why do i recall the time i was playing with my sister, hit the back of my head ag
Re: (Score:2)
See what I mean? Listen, life is boot camp for eternity as far as I'm concerned. Live through it faithfully, and well, at least you've got some good stories to swap in heaven! I'm sure these NASA scientists are going to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
although, by the end of the Orion program, the idea was to build it in space (like a space station) and only detonate the bombs to get us all the way out to the large comet or asteroid
Re: (Score:2)
It is a gas giant after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can just imagine sending an asteroid into Jupiter only for it to come out the other side and smack right into us.
It is a gas giant after all.
"Jupiter is thought to consist of a dense core with a mixture of elements, a surrounding layer of liquid metallic hydrogen with some helium, and an outer layer predominantly of molecular hydrogen.[23] Beyond this basic outline, there is still considerable uncertainty"
I think the liquid hydrogen will freeze and shatter any meteor we aim at jupiter... superheated in the atmosphere and then plunged into an ocean of metallic hydrogen...
besides there is believed to be at least and earth sized core, in some fict
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. My question is, which idiot at NASA decided that their next series of spacecraft should be called "Orion" given the history of that name.
Project Orion (Score:2)
Ummm, I have to say you are wrong (Score:2)
This of course is not taking into account the remaining velocity of the Universe's bodies from the Big Bang, but that is a residual velocity, as opposed to the current applied forces on those bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
(Orion programme if my memory isn't failing)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/221 [ted.com]
It's Rocket Science (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, you got the basic points all right. Now, let's see some advanced stuff:
It should go like this [youtube.com]
NOT like this [youtube.com].
Re:It's Rocket Science (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's Rocket Science (Score:5, Informative)
A better example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
All new technology generates it's share of failures along the way. In the early days NASA blew up a lot of rockets in the process of learning to get them in to space. As long as we're using it on unmanned craft (or on the bench), a decent rate of failures is alright by me if they're learning something from them.
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Funny)
So I'm glad I got burned think of all the things we learned
For the people who are still alive
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Informative)
NASA has never stopped doing stuff that might not work - it's just that 99.99% percent of what does (successful or not) never makes Slashdot, let alone the mainstream media. Heck, even most of the stuff that's made the mainstream media hasn't really been 'stuff we know how to do'... Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity. Deep Space 1, Deep Impact, the Hubble repair missions, quite of the ISS assembly flights... I could go on, but those alone should suffice.
Had NASA suffered a failure because of a units error - you'd have a point. I assume you mean Mars Climate Orbiter - which was lost because NASA failed to analyze it's trajectory during the cruise phase. Not because of a units error. The units error was a contributing cause, but one trivially corrected for had standard monitoring been in place (both in testing and in flight) - but it wasn't because of sharp budget restrictions.
Not to be offensive, but it seems your impression of what NASA is or isn't doing seems to arise from not paying attention.
Dirty (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dirty (Score:5, Funny)
Protection (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't seem like a significant setback. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure why this is a big deal. Couldn't they just use a different kind of solder, or at least insulate vulnerable electronics from the charge?
Re:Doesn't seem like a significant setback. (Score:5, Interesting)
But when I got to reading, they use the word "explosion" for solder. Solder is not big. It's not like a fuel tank went up - this is a little bit of electronics. That sounds like a smaller explosion than you get with your average match when you strike it.
That's like talking about buildings and saying there was a "collapse", and if you RTFA close enough you find what they're actually referring to is the water glass on the table in the lounge tipped over.
Honest perhaps, but definitely deceptive.
Re:Doesn't seem like a significant setback. (Score:4, Interesting)
However, isolating the transistors might be harder than it seems at face value because transistors must be used to control the mechanics of the satellite. If you tried to isolate the charge to the metallic chassis, it might be able to pass through control lines into the electronics. The resulting electric field could either keep transistors from depleting, or even worse, blow the dielectric.
It seems to me that an isolated piece of metal would have to be incorporated specifically to hold the charge. In order to isolate it you would need a dielectric with a very high breakdown voltage. However, even then the isolated charge would cause electric fields to appear across the rest of the satellite.
Hmm... That is not an easy problem at all.
Re:Doesn't seem like a significant setback. (Score:4, Interesting)
Arcing, or at least conduction, is a huge problem in a vacuum and can even be worse in a rarefied or ionized gas where the effective resistance will be much lower and negative resistance may manifest leading to sudden destructive discharge. Vacuum tubes contain a vacuum for proper operation and the only tricky requirement is a source of electron emission. The vacuum of space conveniently provides such a source in the ultraviolet radiation from the sun which will quite handily knock electrons off of the right materials and has no problem ionizing various gas atoms in the vicinity. A flame detector for safety applications can be made using a gas filled tube somewhat like a neon bulb and they work by watching for the characteristic ultaviolet from a flame which will ionize the gas.
I have never designed or worked with vacuum rated electronics (except for tubes and certain other devices with a self contained vacuum) but my guess is that a conformal coating is used to insulate all conductors from the vacuum. Conformal coatings are also used in high precision circuits to prevent surface leakage. Most of my work has been at the low end of the current and voltage spectrum (less then picoamps and nanovolts) but at the high end (kilovolts, amps, and kilowatts), I have occasionally found component failure mode to be "disappearance" with attendant explosive like effects.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be an issue that eventually enough charge is built up without any means of eliminating the excess that the voltage defeats conventional insulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Need more coffee (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
best to discover flaws early (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Jazzing up the story a bit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jazzing up the story a bit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jazzing up the story a bit (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, nevermind... Even then it's probably not a very impressive explosion.
It bothers me that the editors here simultaneously push the "we don't invest enough in space research" platform, and fall into the "journalistic" trap of sensationalizing NASA's failures to make their readers feel "smarter than those rocket scientist guys".
I have every expectation that the readers and comment writers on Slashdot have vastly differing opinions on the subject, but you'd think that the clearly biased editorial staff here could get their story straight.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A real arc (Score:2)
You don't know what a real arc is until it hits your house [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The circuit breaker feeding the distribution wires (that were damaged in some way by an unknown cause) apparently failed. These distribution wires are running somewhere between 7200 and 19800 volts relative to ground. What is happening is that as the wires burn down in various places, that voltage is crossing over to the 120 volt (relative to ground) wires going into the homes. The insulation on the home wiring would be rated for 600 volts, which means they could fail with as little as 2400 volts or less
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this one [youtube.com] easier to understand? It's a small construction crane, but big enough to contact a power line. Don't try this at home or anywhere.
Redefining your way to success! (Score:5, Funny)
Well I certainly wouldn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Another variant also had problems. (Score:5, Informative)
They tried an experiment on this with the shuttle and a tether to a satellite they were launching, and found a problem: The motion along the orbit also causes it to act like a generator, powered by the orbital momentum. (This was known - and also has possible uses.) This produces a voltage gradient along the wire tether. So the tether has to be insulated to prevent arcing to the very low-pressure plasma that constitutes the high atmosphere and solar wind.
What they discovered was that minute flaws in the insulation caused localized arcs to the surrounding plasma. These were powered by the orbital motion relative to the earth's field and were very intense. They quickly melted through the thin tether.
So such a motor is not an impossibility. But it will require some heavy engineering work to get around this problem.
(It also says that large-scale tethered orbital structures have an additional problem to be solved: Keeping the tethers intact despite kilovolts of induced voltage along the tether and the resulting arcing.)
It's easy to think of space as filled with a hard vacuum. Unfortunately it's actually filled with very low pressure conductive plasma and near the Earth that's dense enough to be a major engineering issue.
Re:Another variant also had problems. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the ObReference: Tank Farm Dynamo [davidbrin.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That is interesting. Capacitors occasionally suffer from a similar problem where if the dielectric is not uniform, like it has a bubble or discontinuity, the extreme electric field change at the discontinuity where the dielectric constant changes will cause local
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would those same issues apply to a Space Elevator?
To a much smaller extent - at least for the skyhook/beanstalk variety. (Some of the tumbing ones might have issues.)
A skyhook is rotating with the Earth, which also means with the Earth's field lines. Or at least roughly:
- Any waving back-and-forth in the beanstal
dependant on earth's magnetic field? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mind you, when this begins, I suspect the last thing we would be worried about if/when this comes would be the odd satellite crashing back to earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Will this screw up when the earths field begins fluctuating when poles being going into reversal again?
Seeing as the force generated is in a direction perpendicular to both the satellite's direction and the magnetic field lines, it really shouldn't have a major effect.
As long as the magnetic field stays at least somewhat parallel to the earth's surface, a lift force will be generated regardless of the field polarity.
Of course, if there is zero magnetic field that means no lift force, but that doesn't mean things immediately fall out of the sky, only the potential to drop a little in orbit until the fi
Left-hand rule (Score:2)
Of course, then all you need to do is charge the hull positively instead of negatively. (But it might not be possible to swap that without reconfiguring some hardware, which tends to be a problem in orbit.)
Not sure that was the best approach.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Refueling (Score:2, Informative)
I was surprised to learn that satellites are not refueled more often. After a bit of googling, this pdf [dtic.mil] came up. From page 15:
This was from 1996, but as I understand, basic shuttle capabilities haven't
Re: (Score:2)
Not to be negative... (Score:2)
on principle.
Re: (Score:2)
They blow things up all the time (Score:2)
I mean those guys are no rocket scientists.
What? Oh.....
They should have expected it. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a negatively charged target in a plasma the target will attract positive ions which will knock bits off of the target if they arrive with sufficient velocity, otherwise they'll stick and neutralize the charge. In a sputtering chamber we want those bits knocked off. If we're sputtering something non-metallic we need to use RF to keep it charged.
The only failed test... (Score:5, Insightful)
GO NASA!
Warp Core Breach (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
First Exotic Space Thruster Test Ends in Explosio (Score:2, Informative)
looping B field (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want to deflect the plasma (and thereby use the resultant Lorenz force to thrust your spacecraft), you have to use microsecond pulses of surface charge, not continuous charge like you would get from a weak alpha-emitter. Continuous charge = intact plasma filament = charge lead right back to your surface. Break the filament and you still get the expansion of plasma, with the resultant force transferred to the spacecraft through the magnetic field.
"Magnetic forces do no work". (Score:2)
Doesn't sound very useful.
Heh... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Beavis is everyone's inner child.