Iodine-Powered Satellite Successfully Tested In Space For First Time (newscientist.com) 51
Tesseractic shares a report from New Scientist, written by Chen Ly: A satellite has been successfully powered by iodine for the first time. Iodine performed better than the traditional propellant of choice, xenon -- highlighting iodine's potential utility for future space missions. Currently, xenon is the main propellant used in electric propulsion systems, but the chemical is rare and expensive to produce. As a gas, xenon must also be stored at very high pressures, which requires specialized equipment. Iodine has a similar atomic mass to xenon but is more abundant and much cheaper. It can also be stored as an unpressurised solid, meaning it has the potential to simplify satellite designs.
Dmytro Rafalskyi at ThrustMe, a space technology company based in France, and his colleagues have developed an electric propulsion system that uses iodine. The propulsion system first heats up a solid block of iodine, turning it into a gas. The gas is bombarded with high-speed electrons, which turns it into a plasma of iodine ions and free electrons. Negatively charged hardware then accelerates the positively charged iodine ions from the plasma towards the system's exhaust and propels the spacecraft forwards. [...] The group found that the iodine system slightly outperformed xenon systems, with a higher overall energy efficiency, which showcases the viability of iodine as a propellant. "There are some difficulties with iodine that need to be addressed says Rafalskyi," the report adds. "For example, iodine reacts with most metals, so the team had to use ceramics and polymers to protect parts of the propulsion system. In addition, solid iodine takes about 10 minutes to turn into a plasma, which may not provide a propellant quickly enough for emergency maneuvers to avoid an in-orbit collisions."
The research has been published in the journal Nature.
Dmytro Rafalskyi at ThrustMe, a space technology company based in France, and his colleagues have developed an electric propulsion system that uses iodine. The propulsion system first heats up a solid block of iodine, turning it into a gas. The gas is bombarded with high-speed electrons, which turns it into a plasma of iodine ions and free electrons. Negatively charged hardware then accelerates the positively charged iodine ions from the plasma towards the system's exhaust and propels the spacecraft forwards. [...] The group found that the iodine system slightly outperformed xenon systems, with a higher overall energy efficiency, which showcases the viability of iodine as a propellant. "There are some difficulties with iodine that need to be addressed says Rafalskyi," the report adds. "For example, iodine reacts with most metals, so the team had to use ceramics and polymers to protect parts of the propulsion system. In addition, solid iodine takes about 10 minutes to turn into a plasma, which may not provide a propellant quickly enough for emergency maneuvers to avoid an in-orbit collisions."
The research has been published in the journal Nature.
Re:You little fudgepacker. Do me in the blowhole.. (Score:4, Informative)
Uhm, propellant of choice FOR WHAT? You know the propellant of choice for satellites for a lot of groups is still TETRAZINE.
Learn to read dong-dong:
Currently, xenon is the main propellant used in electric propulsion systems, ...
ie: Ion thrusters [wikipedia.org]
Re: You little fudgepacker. Do me in the blowhole. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Propellent is the thing being kicked out of the back of a rocket to make it go. In a chemical rocket, the propellent is usually the exhaust of the fuel, (hydrogen + oxygen = water, kerosene + oxygen = co2 + some stuff, hydrozine + itself = a bunch of hydrogen and nitrogen diatomic molecules)
For chemical rockets, the exhaust is a gas and HOT, making it expand and blast out of the rocket nozzle.
In an electrical rocket, electricity is generated somehow and the propellent mass is usually something inert like Xe
Re: You little fudgepacker. Do me in the blowhole (Score:2)
Even though it was clear in the next sentence in the article that propellant rather than electrical power was being discussed.
Even though it is an electrical rocket being discussed, the iodine does not provide the electrical power (AFAIK) but instead 'powers' its motion (speaking loosely). Or more precisely, the iodine is the propellant that is
Starlink sats use krypton (Score:2)
There are 1600 Starlink satellites in orbit which are a majority of recently orbited satellites with ion engines. They use krypton rather than xenon and they seem to work very well.
Re: Starlink sats use krypton (Score:3)
Not sure why people feel compelled to point out that some get ELECTRICAL power (not propellant) from solar/RTG, or that some use krypton instead of xenon, as if they are correcting mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you American, South American, or European? The way that this is worded makes no sense.
A satellite has been successfully powered by iodine for the first time. Iodine performed better than the traditional propellant of choice, xenon
From the first two sentences, one infers that satellites are usually "powered" by xenon which is certainly never the case. Satellites are almost always powered by solar cells, electrochemical cells, and RTGs.
The sentence you quoted is immediately followed by this sentence.
Currently, xenon is the main propellant used in electric propulsion systems.
(North) American, South American, European or Klingon, if you only go by one sentence alone and decide not to look at the supporting sentences around it that creates the meme theme a paragraph is supposed to convey, then yeah, I can see how things won't make sense.
But that's just a function of reading comprehension, which is more than just the ability to read a single sentence in isolation. That's enough for a 3rd grader. But true reading co
New proposals for /., no first posts from AC (Score:2)
Wow, what a troll.
"Iodine performed better than the traditional propellant of choice, xenon -- highlighting iodine's potential utility for future space missions."
Uhm, propellant of choice FOR WHAT?
Propellant of choice for electric propulsion systems (e.g., ion engines).
You know the propellant of choice for satellites for a lot of groups is still TETRAZINE.
Tetrazine!? I think you mean hydrazine. Tetrazine [wikipedia.org] is not a rocket fuel.
If you're going to go full flame-on troll criticizing a sentence as being misleading (when the very next sentence clarifies what the application is), you should at least have a superficial understanding of what you're posting about.
ThrustMe?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:ThrustMe?! (Score:4, Informative)
They are French, and French does not have a "Th" sound. (We English stole the sound from the Greeks, but neglected to add the letter theta to the latin alphabet.)
So when French (or other Europeans) try to say "thrust", it probably sounds like "trust", hence the play on words "trust me".
Rocket scientists have a quirky sense of humour. Just check out all the names of craft at SpaceX or Rocketlabs.
"BFR" was so much better than "Starship", don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Im not sure thats better lol.
"Trust me" is a line that usually raises my suspicions. Its the language of car salesmen.
Re: (Score:2)
The private space companies tend to pick names that exaggerate their products. Virgin Galactic can barely get to orbit, Starship doesn't travel the stars and is only designed for operation within our solar system.
Actually for once Bezos didn't exaggerate with New Shepard, named after the first American to make a similar non-orbital flight.
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin Galactic does *not* get to orbit. Not even close. Virgin Orbit is a different company :)
Re: ThrustMe?! (Score:2)
It wouldn't surprise me if this innuendo was deliberate to get people's attention and not forget about the company.
Guess what, it worked.
Of course, the effectiveness will dwindle when every "mee too" company gives themselves a suggestive name, with the end result of people thinking that a bunch of adult industry enterprises suddenly appeared.
Re: ThrustMe?! (Score:2)
Here's a prior example:
I saw a billboard that was posted upside down several years ago. It made me stop and wonder how they could've screwed up on this scale and not notice. Then more and more billboards were posted this way. People caught on to why they were doing this, and no longer took notice of the ads. Now there are no upside down billboards.
and electrons? (Score:2)
Electrons accumulate on the spaceship. Does it matter? Maybe not as long as they are distributed evenly?
Re: and electrons? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see so what leaves the engine is again Iodine atoms not ions. Thanks!
Oh great. (Score:3)
I've been putting rocket fuel on my wounds this whole time?
Re:Oh great. (Score:4, Funny)
Well, the obvious solution is to use hydrogen peroxide instead of iodine ;)
Two together (Score:1)
"Dmytro Rafalskyi at ThrustMe" (Score:2)
Goodnight everybody!
Well one thing is certain (Score:3)
How long can it be held as plasma? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ten minutes is a long time to wait to move, but if you can contain the plasma indefinitely it won't matter. So, how long can they hold it?
The whole point of an ion engine, of course, is that you want to not hold onto the plasma, but eject it as rapidly as possible...
I see (Score:2)
They are sterilizing the vacuum of space.
"powered by" (Score:2)
it really annoys me when people misuse that term. If the cited thing isn't being used to store energy, then it's not powering anything. For that you need to be using "driven by"
In the case of rocket fuel, the hydrogen and lox are both the power and the propellant. But in the case of these sorts of engines, they're almost all "powered" by the sun, and use electricity to accelerate xenon as the "propellant". That doesn't make them "powered by xenon". Powered by solar, driven by xenon. "Driven by" could
Re: (Score:2)
it really annoys me when people misuse that term. If the cited thing isn't being used to store energy, then it's not powering anything. For that you need to be using "driven by"
Turns out that headline writers don't use technical terminology in a way that's technically correct.
Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
My car is powered by wheels. Or maybe friction?
Re: "powered by" (Score:2)
If the cited thing isn't being used to store energy, then it's not powering anything⦠Like old locomotives, they aren't "powered by" steam. They're POWERED by oil, coal, or wood.
Significant energy is stored in the steam and furnace (stored energy as heat), and the locomotive still can move for a long time after running out of fuel (coal etc). But I take your point.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get more specific about "powered with" by limiting it to "the form of the external energy being added to the device".
There will often be many intermediate forms the energy takes, including electrical rotational, radiation, pressure, chemical, tension, etc, before the power does the "work" it was intended for. That's what makes up the "energy drive train" of the device. ie a car with solar panels on it is powered by solar, but is driven by battery, electricity, motor, tires, etc. (in that case I
Very Interesting Link, SD (Score:1)
From TFA.
"Given the rapid growth of small satellites in low Earth orbit, a miniaturized propulsion system enabled by the use of iodine will provide such satellites with the capability to avoid potential collisions and to deor