Timeline for Is it more expensive to send a chemical rocket from surface of Earth to an orbit or from this orbit to Mars?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 16, 2021 at 1:23 | comment | added | Christopher James Huff | @Ryan for such a small amount of delta-v, there may not even be any mass savings, and the ion thruster itself certainly isn't cheaper. You need a trip that's long enough that the ion thruster's performance outweighs the added dry mass of the thruster, its power systems, and the solar panels to power it, and you need a way to benefit from the reduction in mass: a cheaper launch vehicle, more spacecraft on the launch vehicle, etc. And for Earth escape, you need to consider things like the radiation impact of the slow spiral out through the radiation belts. In short, it's not that simple. | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 23:41 | comment | added | Aryaan | @ChristopherJamesHuff I suppose that the greater delta-v from ion engines can make an orbit maneuver to an escape trajectory much cheaper than chemical rockets even though the long transit time may increase costs | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 23:35 | comment | added | Aryaan | @OscarSmith are you considering the case for nuclear-electric rockets? | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 17:27 | comment | added | Christopher James Huff | @Ryan ion thrusters allow far more delta-v to be included in a given payload size, but with substantial tradeoffs. If you can get sufficient delta-v with chemical thrusters, they're just a very power-hungry system with limited thrust that will mean long transit times (during which you still have to pay your team members). If you can't get sufficient delta-v with chemical thrusters but can tolerate the low thrust of ion thrusters, they're a game changer, but they're not universally a better or cheaper approach. | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 17:00 | comment | added | Oscar Smith | @Ryan another part of the answer is that ion engines conceivably could be scaled up to have higher thrust without fundamental design changes. They likely won't ever be able to do liftoff or descent, but they totally could get 10x current thrust without hitting theoretical obstacles. | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 12:16 | comment | added | CuteKItty_pleaseStopBArking | @ryan ion drives do not reduce cost. What they do is increase total capability. You can go further, faster with an ion drive on a limited mass budget. Just need patience, a lot of it. and a good shovelful of money, because the ion drive and electrical systems and longterm DSN network coverage are all expensive. | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 10:19 | comment | added | SE - stop firing the good guys | Yes. And for other routes, their efficiency become much more apparent. The Dawn mission, for instance, would be very difficult to pull off without an ion engine. | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 10:07 | comment | added | Aryaan | Oh okay, that makes sense. But If ion engines do not reduce costs significantly due to their high efficiency and also produce a low thrust, why are they so popular as a propulsion system to the extent where people consider it as the future of propulsion? Is it because of the fact that it can provide acceleration throughout a space journey, which chemical rockets cannot? | |
| Dec 15, 2021 at 10:00 | vote | accept | Aryaan | ||
| Dec 15, 2021 at 9:36 | history | answered | SE - stop firing the good guys | CC BY-SA 4.0 |