Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Dawn Spacecraft


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 411
Date:
Dawn Spacecraft


Dawn Spacecraft Ready To Turn Science Fiction into Reality

Aviation Week & Space Technology, 07/02/2007, page 56

Craig Covault, Cape Canaveral

Dawn ready to turn science fiction into reality on mission to orbit two infant planets


In the classic television series Star Trek, the Starship Enterprise speeds around the galaxy on blue light propulsion beams, then maneuvers into orbit around many different worlds before zooming off again to do more exploration.

Such science fiction becomes fact here as the $446-million NASA Dawn mission is readied for liftoff on an eight-year, 3-billion-mi. journey to the protoplanets Vesta and Ceres (see cover).

Powered by glowing blue beams from its own revolutionary solar electric ion propulsion system (IPS), Dawn is to fly to, then orbit, these two separate bodies hundreds of millions of miles apart. Only science fiction spacecraft have done such things before; Star Treks Enterprise did it using antimatter propulsion.

With 935 lb. of xenon fuel, the 2,696-lb. Dawn spacecraft has far more propulsion capability than any previous real spacecraft.Dawns solar electric propulsion system has the ability to accelerate the spacecraft by nearly 7 mi. per sec. over the course of its mission. This is as much velocity change in deep space as it will receive from its entire Delta launch vehicle to reach space, then depart Earth orbit.

AW_07_02_2007_115_L.jpg

Like Star Trek come true, the NASA Dawn spacecraft and its Dutch Space solar arrays spanning nearly 65 ft. (left) will accelerate by about 7 mi. per sec. on blue beams of ion propulsion to orbit two different bodies.Credit: (LEFT SIDE OF SPREAD) NASA/JPL, (RIGHT) STAR TREK BETHSOFT.COM


"That is huge for a planetary mission, it is really incredible velocity capability," says Mike Mook, the Dawn Orbital Sciences project manager.

A conventional interplanetary spacecraft may burn roughly 660 lb. of propellants during a total of 20 min. of operation in an entire mission, achieving a velocity change of perhaps 3,300 fps. This compares with Dawns far greater solar electric capability to increase velocity-to nearly 7 mi. per sec.-over its longer mission life.

Before it powers up its IPS, Dawn must first use a United Launch Alliance Delta II Heavy booster to power out of Earth orbit at 6.8 mi. per sec. Liftoff from Pad17B is set for July 7 at 4:09 p.m. EDT at the start of a 27-min. launch window.

Managers will decide July 3 if the flight can hold to the July 7 target. Dawn must launch by July 11 or stand down until September so preparations can proceed on Pad 17A for the Mars Phoenix Delta II launch set for Aug. 3 with a window through August. Shuttle mission STS-118 is also scheduled for liftoff Aug. 9.

The three ion engines that power the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Orbital Sciences Dawn spacecraft were developed by JPL in connection with Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices Inc. and L-3 Communications. Dutch Space, an EADS Astrium company, developed the 10,000-watt solar arrays that span nearly 65 ft. and feed the engines energy. Dawn has the largest solar array span of any U.S. planetary spacecraft launched.

The spacecraft is a high-risk mission that already has had a brush with disaster when it was first canceled, then reinstated by NASA after a 20% cost overrun and hardware concerns (AW&ST Apr. 3, 2006, p. 15). The initial cancellation was not just peripheral to the NASA budget, it caused a major space science policy flap.

Dawn is the first planetary spacecraft built by Orbital Sciences Corp. and the second recent planetary space technology development from the Washington area, following the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratorys New Horizons mission to Pluto.

Dawn also owes its survival for a 2007 launch attempt to the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), which sits directly across from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on the Potomac River. When Dawns schedule was delayed by several weeks during the cancellation controversy, it lost its reservation to use the Goddard Space Flight Center altitude chamber for critical ion engine tests. This almost forced another launch slip. "But the NRL in Washington saved us," JPL Dawn Project Manager Keyur C. Patel tells Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Dawns ion engines were fired in NRLs massive altitude chamber normally used for secret military spacecraft testing. The final integration of Dawn and its shipment to Cape Canaveral also took place out of NRL, not Orbital Sciences, Patel says.

The Dawn mission has taken 15 years for approval and development, says Christopher T. Russell, the mission principal investigator from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Like the international crew on Star Trek, Dawn carries advanced hardware from different countries-in this case the U.S., the Netherlands, Germany and Italy.

The mission is to study how such different bodies formed out of the planetary nebula orbiting the Sun at the "dawn" of the Solar System. The flight will also be the first mission to stay within and explore the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

Since the 1960s, planetary spacecraft have flown by multiple bodies or orbited the Moon and individual planets. But no spacecraft except Dawn has ever had the propulsion capability to fly into orbit around one body, study it, then blaze out of orbit to fly a billion miles to another body and drop into orbit around it for more analysis. The operational use of solar electric ion propulsion now makes that possible (see p. 59).

Five years of IPS thrusting across the eight-year mission will involve:

March 2009, Mars Gravity assist toward Vesta.

September 2011, Vesta orbit arrival after 1.9 billion miles curving trajectory.

April 2010, Vesta orbit departure.

February 2015, Ceres orbit arrival after 1 billion miles curving trajectory from Vesta.

July 2015, end of primary mission in Ceres orbit.


Vesta is somewhat misshapen, with a diameter of 326 mi. It has the physical characteristics of inner planets, whereas Ceres is round, with a nearly 600-mi. diameter, and resembles the icy moons of the outer planets (see p. 60). By comparing these two protoplanets, scientists hope to develop a better understanding of the transition from Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, which have somewhat similar solid surfaces, to the gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, which have icy moons unlike anything in the inner Solar System. The area between the inner and outer planets is the asteroid belt, where Vesta has a terrestrial-like surface and Ceres is more like the icy moons of the outer Solar System. Dawn can study them both on the same flight to see why they are different-and hopefully find out new information on how the Solar System formed.

AW_07_02_2007_117_L.jpg

The Naval Research Laboratory came to the rescue of Dawns solar electric propulsion firing tests.Credit: NASA/JPL


While Vesta has dry basaltic rock and is the source of many meteorites found on Earth, Ceres has a more differentiated surface including perhaps a 60-mi. deep outer shell of water ice, maybe even flowing water or seas underneath the ice. If Dawn finds suitable water evidence, Ceres could become another candidate for primitive life-form development.

The three primary instruments on the Dawn spacecraft are: twin German framing cameras that will be used to map the surfaces; an Italian Space Agency visible/infrared spectrometer to map mineral distribution; and Los Alamos National Laboratory gamma ray and neutron detectors to help map mineralogy.

At both Vesta and Ceres, Dawn will first be placed in about a 1,550-mi. orbit to survey the surface. This will then be reduced to a 500-mi. mapping altitude, then to under 125 mi. for precise gravity measurements, Russell says.

Both objects are only about 300 million miles from Earth, but with ion propulsion Dawn can trade time and travel distance for the launch of a much larger spacecraft with dual-orbit injection capability.

First, the powerful new Delta II Heavy will thunder aloft on 1.1 million pounds of thrust-equal to the initial Atlas V and Delta IV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles. This will be only the fourth flight to use such a launcher.

AW_07_02_2007_118_L.jpg

Each solar electric propulsion (SEP) engine on Dawn will combine xenon with electricity to create a 78,000-mph. flow of ions to propel the spacecraft.Credit: CARLETON BAILIE/AW&ST


The Delta II Heavy uses nine Alliant graphite epoxy solid rocket boosters that are 4 ft. longer and 6 in. wider than the normal Delta II solids. Each provides about 140,000 lb. of thrust, compared with 97,000 lb. for the more traditional individual Delta solid motor. Each also carries 37,500 lb. of propellant-enough for each solid to provide this higher thrust for 13 sec. longer than normal Delta motors.

Overall, this is 18 tons more solid propellant than the standard Delta II usually carries, an increase that will push the liftoff weight of the vehicle to 50 tons more than a standard Delta II.

The vehicle will lift off on six of its nine solids and 200,000 lb. of thrust from its RS-27 oxygen/kerosene engine. Its 1.1 million pounds lb.of thrust will be 318,000 lb. more than a standard Delta II. Three additional solids will be ignited at Mach 3 as the first six burn out. This will place the second and third stages and Dawn in an initial 102-naut.-mi. parking orbit.

After another second stage firing, the Thiokol Star 48 solid upper stage with 15,000 lb. thrust will be fired to accelerate Dawn to Earth escape velocity.

AW_07_02_2007_119_L.jpg

Three ion engines (arrows) will be used separately. The center tank holds 937 lb. of xenon fuel for solar electric propulsion.Credit: NASA/JPL

Dawn will use its ion propulsion system most of the way to Vesta, very gradually adding energy to spiral away from the Sun. This gentle reshaping of the orbit, in contrast to the more abrupt changes typical of chemical propulsion, is a characteristic of ion propulsion.

The JPL Deep Space 1, launched in 1998 and operational through 2000, tested ion propulsion on a technology mission that flew by the comet Borrelly. DS1 will be "dwarfed by Dawns flight plan," says Marc Rayman, Dawn project systems engineer at JPL. "DS1 accomplished 688 days of thrusting. Dawn will thrust for more than 2,000 days."

The total delta-v from the IPS will be nearly 11 km. per sec., comparable to the entire Delta II and well above DS1s record of 4.3 km. per sec., Rayman says. "Typically, we will thrust for 95% or more of the time, as we did on DS1."

That will allow enough time to stop once each week to turn to point the high-gain antenna to Earth for a communications session and also to conduct engineering activities where the ion propulsion must be turned off. Attitude control is by hydrazine thrusters.

AW_07_02_2007_120_L.jpg

Dawns orbit of Vesta could be perturbed by the asteroids different gravity fields.Credit: ORBITAL SCIENCES CORP.


"To initiate thrusting, the xenon feed system has to be pressurized. The flow rates are so low that the team built its own sophisticated pressure regulation system (again using the same design as DS1s) in which the main tank feeds two smaller plenum tanks. "One plenum supplies xenon for thrust and the other supplies xenon for cathodes that produce electrons to ionize the xenon or to keep the spacecraft neutral," says Rayman (see p. 59).

Software controls the process and Dawn often will not even be communicating with Earth when it powers up the propulsion system. However, he says, "Engineering telemetry on the currents and voltages required to sustain thrusting and on the number of recycles-events in which the thruster shorts out and restarts itself-will be monitored."

Rayman adds, "We have the capability to tune it by changing the rate at which xenon flows through the thruster and by adjusting electrical parameters. We do not expect to have to do that, although we are prepared to do so."

AW_07_02_2007_121_L.jpg

Dawn is folded at Astrotech for launch on Delta II Heavy. Sensors sprout from behind the 5-ft.-dia. Earth communications dish.Credit: CARLETON BAILIE/AW&ST



-- Edited by 10kBq Jaro at 20:03, 2007-07-07

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

Do I correctly understand that they want to do an interstellar mission?

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

I don't think an interstellar mission is yet in the works, however, Dawn will be demonstrating technologies (long duration ion propulsion) that will be crucial to such a future mission.


__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 8
Date:

So, how fast could we actually make an ion drive with our current technology if we were to invest, say, a couple billion dollars in developing it?  What is the theoretical maximum for an ion drive?  Could we actually come close to that with current technology?

They say this ion engine can get up to 7mi/sec but that is insignificant for interstellar trips since a trip to the nearest star (4 lyr) would take it just over 100,000 years.



__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

This current technology has a Isp of about 3600 sec. If you carried more xenon propellant you could go faster. It is stated in the article that the Dawn weighs 2,696 lbs total and has 935 lbs of propellant. The exhust velocity is about 22 miles/sec so the delta velocity = 22 mi/sec * ln((2,696/(2696-935)) = 9.3 mi/sec if has a ratio of fully fueled to empty of e (like a typical rocket stage) the delta v would equal 22 mi/sec. This probably close to what the current ion technolgy can do. I say about 20 to 30 mi/sec. You could send something to a neighboring star but it would take a long time to get there!

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 400
Date:

I've seen the Boeing IT engine that flew on DS1.
Didn't find power requirements with this SEP mission 300-400kw?
I imagine there's improved emission interference (EMI) this usually robs power
from IT's. So far high profile IT and Hall-effect thrusters (ESA lunar SMART HET) have flown in recent (arc thruster flew ) space history publicly [AEROJET EP on Sats total:180]. Magneto-plasma dynamic thrusters (MPD), no MW-class has flown or the VASMIR (RF thruster). SEPs can't venture to far from sun or they lose power to run EP. 



__________________
Bruce Behrhorst


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

At least it's a start. In the long run we will need nuclear power but it would be good to develop and fly the thrusters in subscale with solar power first. The we can make the case for nuclear.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 400
Date:

...At least it's a start.
I would initially agree with you (when younger).
 
Now, I know better than to trust Clinton or both Bush junior/senior. These presidents have waved untold political platitudes before the US public with regard to using NASA as a election tool, never really matching the advocacy energy JFK embraced the agency with. The house, senate & white house all three branches of gov. lit-up the political stage for a robust space program and you had a US public engaged, tuned-in to see the action. Whether this period will ever be duplicated or surpassed remains to be seen. 

Political parties remain just the people that run them have changed. 

Personally, they could not match the leadership to provide NASA funding and a space nuclear program. Currently you still have a public that is more apt to believe in pseudoscience than space funding despite what 'paid polls' palpitate or the next timid 'new' space millionaire wishes to impress a gullible public with.

There are big flaws politically with regard to both private and public space funding not to mention technical timidity with regard to powering spacecraft currently. This is not rocket science and it doesn't take a scientist or engineer to figure out that you can pick-out any object in our solar system to essentially fly-by under powered 'kites' with.There are hundreds of men and women engineers and scientists and companies that have developed or are developing advanced propulsion schemes some of them are nuclear. I Don't expect any high end density energy system to be tapped to mission publicly.

Power and propulsion in space dictate clearly what sort of mission to expect.
It's quite clear to expect low public relevancy for a space program that consistently elects to anemically fund 'sub par' space missions that resonate with a 'wacky' public. 

We have an adequate space program, it's just not the one that's relevant !        


__________________
Bruce Behrhorst


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

I am inclined to agree with you Bruce. We've seen 50 years (yep, this October 1957-2007, hard to believe!) of '...just beginning.' It will be another ten years before we get to the Moon, and thirty to fifty years before we get to Mars. Precisely the same schedule we were on fifty years ago!

What has changed? Technologically a great deal; politically a great deal; the politicians themselves--essentially the same, laxidasical attitude. If we really want to lead the world in technological achievement, then we must lead--so we need a leader! But we have managed to cut off our own nose to spite our face at every turn!

If we tryuly wish to explore the solar system and physically send human beings there, then nuclear power systems are necessary. As long as we blind ourselves to the physic realities of the necessities of human space travel, then we aren't going to go anywhere...

The Dawn mission is really an exciting spacecraft--and we will for the first time be looking at large asteroids with instruments that are capable of performing a mineralogical survey of surface minerals--and that is an essential precursor to mining the bodies for minerals we will need.



-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 14:46, 2007-07-12

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 400
Date:

Yes, I concur with you GoogleNaut. Nuclear space power is necessary and as long as we keep putting off this technology to mission in space we will see a space program with less relevancy toward the public.

I just find it hard to understand the logic in SEP. If you know this class of mission is proven then... fine use the EP class legacy technology sooner. Not wait 10 years to plan the mission and another 10 years to transit the mission. This type project management is just silly.

Why not prove the concept of applying serious 'in-space delta V' with a scaled NTR to transit and still have plenty of power to supply your science platform.

The problem is not with the NASA director, he has no choice. When he takes a walk up the hill to sell missions to GAO and other quasi-tech institutions they 'filter' his shopping list. You could have an Einstein as director selling missions to Washington - it won't make a difference.

Essentially you have an bureaucratic environment that isn't too keen on space, a constituency that's in denial and an unsettled conflict that seem to absorb a considerable amount of people, money and material unnecessarily. 



__________________
Bruce Behrhorst


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

I'm not advocating a postponement on nuclear space systems. NASA was ready to go forward with Prometheus until the Columbia disater. On issue is nuclear power and that is a must...we all agree on that. But the other problem is that we are stuck with low specific impulse propulsion systems. At least the Dawn spacecraft will be pushing us into a much higher specific impulse rannge. I would really like to see a VASIMR system flight too. Even if they are small and solar powered we will prove and perfect the technology. We obviously need to push for a nuclear power system to support these engines.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 400
Date:

I believe eliminating project JIMO-Europa which was the centre piece of Prometheus killed Prometheus. It was argued that for all the NEP infrastructure required to mission, the sheer mass of the spacecraft made it no different than other gravity assist missions (Galileo,Cassini) toward a lengthy period of transit. 
I feel NTR advocates didn't step in to advise and provide the necessary thrust to position the spacecraft for effective NEP use and ultimately the right balance of EP thrusters this would have shortened transit periods to Europa.
As it was the agency was not going to spend money on another Cassini class mission and the U.S. State dept. would not allow ESA-Italians to defray costs of a JIMO due to the sensitive propriety nature of space reactor technology.
So rather than maintain some facets of Prometheus NEP and NTR there was a vane attempt a tapping into some 'mil' money by having USN-NR take a stab at space reactors but this was short lived before GAO and NASA decided to kill Prometheus once and for all.
If you want to look at advanced EP power concepts look at PIT (Pulse Inductive Thrusters)  rated Isp at 2300-8000 sec and a wide range of thrust levels at nearly constant efficiency of about 50%. Propellants e.g.,NH3 used with NTR you could double launch pad thrust velocity in a snap and not wait 6 years to double launch pad thrust. NEXT is another.

As an aside since I'm on EP technology apart from well known figures in rocket science like Goddard, Tsiolkovsky, Von Braun check out the strange life of 
rocket scientist Yuri Kondratyuk .     

__________________
Bruce Behrhorst


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Well, I think that what Congress needs to do is give NASA the money, and then let NASA do it's "NASA-thing" so to speak. Congress has little or almost no pull in how Black Budgets are spent. And the Defense Department keeps a tight reign on its own programs so there is little interference from the politicians. Sometimes it's a good call, sometimes not. Sometimes programs are cancelled, sometimes not. But usually the most important programs are "Red Ball Express"ed to the front of the line...

I think that Congressional "budget stipulations" is definately a double edged sword. Sure, the money should be allocated for R&D. However, should Congress (an arguably non-technical entity, overall) really have as much say so over exactly how each dollar is spent at NASA, or should they give NASA their budget, and then let NASA best decide how to spend their money. In otherwise, Congress, sign the checks, and then get out of the way. Ask questions if you want, but don't mess with the process..

The success or failure of individual projects will then only depend upon the technical apects of the R&D process, and much less on the individual whims and desires of people only looking forward enough to get re-elected.

I of course make the disclaimer that this does not apply to all members of Congress--there are probably a few decent, well meaning individuals, maybe even ten, who have the vision and intelligence to help such programs along and worry much less about the political consequences of such support!

As an attorney friend of mine once jokingly told me while I rang up his groceries: "...99% of all attorneries give the rest a bad name!"



__________________


Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 8
Date:

Actually, I kind of think our government is intentionally slowing our progress into space. I think they want us all here in one place where they can keep their thumbs on us. Just my opinion here but the whole space program seems to have been too efficiently mismanaged since Apollo to be just because of the bad decisions of morons.

-- Edited by Positronium at 04:23, 2007-07-15

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 400
Date:

Congress has little or almost no pull in how Black Budgets are spent. And the Defence Department keeps a tight reign on its own programs so there is little interference from the politicians. Sometimes it's a good call, sometimes not.I tend to agree with this, but black or white projects that provide support for lets say, a European anti-ballistic shield is a central policy of the Bush administration. How best to defend Europe against an incoming terror rouge n-tipped missile has been for the better part of the current administration's period in instalment of the shield. Some suggest that project Prometheus was discontinued as a bargaining chip to allay Russian fears the technology might have applications linked to the anti-ballistic shield. I doubt it was ever on the table. If it was it didn't help. Russia is still slightly peeved at the missile hardware placement. Besides Prometheus has no military application other than a nuked powered tracking and recon sat. And that would just be redundant since both sides already have plenty of sats monitoring Europe. If Russians pull out of treaty it might have to be left up to the next administration to patch things up between US/Russia anti-ballistic shield for europe.

__________________
Bruce Behrhorst


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 199
Date:

I think that Congressional "budget stipulations" is definately a double edged sword. Sure, the money should be allocated for R&D. However, should Congress (an arguably non-technical entity, overall) really have as much say so over exactly how each dollar is spent at NASA, or should they give NASA their budget, and then let NASA best decide how to spend their money. In otherwise, Congress, sign the checks, and then get out of the way. Ask questions if you want, but don't mess with the process..

I sincerely believe that is the way it should be done, NASA being a collection of engineers doing their thing, and not the chewtoy for politics. The current way is ridiculous.

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 366
Date:

I think that Congressional "budget stipulations" is definately a double edged sword.

Congress wants control so that they can direct the money to NASA sites or contractor sites that are in their district. Science has little to do with their motives. As we say the best Congress money can buy!


I tend to agree with this, but black or white projects that provide support for lets say, a European anti-ballistic shield is a central policy of the Bush administration. How best to defend Europe against an incoming terror rouge n-tipped missile has been for the better part of the current administration's period in instalment of the shield. Some suggest that project Prometheus was discontinued as a bargaining chip to allay Russian fears the technology might have applications linked to the anti-ballistic shield.

I agree that the Russian nothing to do with the fall of Prometheus. I think that it was just that the Columbia disaster scared NASA and the administration in general away from anything precevied as risky and to the mass public nuclear is always risky. The are afraid that something will happen during launch or in some other way we will drop some radioactive materials on someone.

On the defending Europe against nuclear threats it is intesting to note that on a capabilities basis Israel is the only Middle East country that has a nuclear ballistic missile capability that could strike Europe. So while our efforts are no doubt directed against Iran we will actually be reducing Israel's influence over Europe while doing nothing to decrease the influence of the Arab "oil weapon". This may seem a bit "out there" but remember that it was development of Israel nuclear capability coincided with the "peace process" and to bilateral peace treaties.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 606
Date:

Positronium wrote:

Actually, I kind of think our government is intentionally slowing our progress into space. I think they want us all here in one place where they can keep their thumbs on us. Just my opinion here but the whole space program seems to have been too efficiently mismanaged since Apollo to be just because of the bad decisions of morons.



Posi, I tend to agree with you...however, I tend to think that the mismanagement is more of a phenomenological process of Congress: the budget problems create problems at NASA. The problems at NASA are observed as conceptual problems of the programs themselves, and not because NASA did not have the money to muster the resources needed to execute the program. Incompatence is a word often used by Congress to describe others, but never themselves...however the sheer magnitude of chaos generated by faulty congressional decisions is staggering...

This is why a policy--leadership--shift is needed that encourages funding programs and less immediate oversight. Project evaluation is much more efficient at the end of a project: success or failure is more dependent upon the actual techincal merits of the program and less on the budget stipulations. Progress is more efficient when well funded programs cycle through more permutations of success and failure--eventually success will heappen. True, there is waste in government spending. However, that is the nature of R&D. So much of what is done fails, but that is the only way we can learn things...If we don't try something new, and fail a few times along the way, we learn nothing...In otherwords, failure is not necessarily a bad thing. It is a Darwinian process that needs to be embraced. It is expensive--true--but doing absolutely nothing will cost us much more in the long run...



-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 22:42, 2007-07-15

__________________


Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 411
Date:

Easy On The Ion Comparison


Aviation Week & Space Technology, 07/16/2007, page 6


Rick Sternbach, Valley Village, Calif.


While it may be a romantic notion to compare the Dawn spacecrafts ion engine to the warp propulsion of Star Treks USS Enterprise, the similarity ends at the blue glow. In the fictional world of the NCC-1701-D pictured (AW&ST July 2, p. 57), the glow emanates from sets of coils in the long nacelles, energized by a furious matter-antimatter plasma. Ions dont push the ship in the least. Now, of course, we dont know how to make those coils just yet or how they operate to bend the continuum for faster-than-light travel, but thank goodness we do know how to make ion engines for Solar System exploration.



-- Edited by 10kBq Jaro at 01:42, 2007-07-16

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard