Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I assumed that if I did out the math on this, it would be clear why we don't, but then I did and I now share your confusion.

The Parker Solar Probe mass is 555kg. An achievable amount of ion thrust is around 0.5N. Thus, running that thruster would accelerate the craft at 0.0009m/s2.

Getting such a craft to 30km/s of delta-v would therefore take about 33.3 million seconds of thruster time, or about 13 months.

I don't know what the duty cycle is on ion thrusters. Maybe they aren't robust enough to fire for over a year straight?



>The Parker Solar Probe mass is 555kg. An achievable amount of ion thrust is around 0.5N. Thus, running that thruster would accelerate the craft at 0.0009m/s2.

To be precise for 555kg probe you'd need additional 600-800kg of propellant mass and thus run the thruster(s) at about 1.5N thrust using 40-60KW - 250m2 of solar panels - everything is available at the current state of tech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

"A test of the NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) electrostatic ion thruster resulted in 30,472 hours (roughly 3.5 years) of continuous thrust at maximum power. Post-test examination indicated the engine was not approaching failure.[75][3][4] NSTAR operated for years on Dawn."


Ah, fair point.

In that case I have a theory. The extra propellant mass, extra solar panel mass, etc, are all more mass against a small amount of thrust. Every bit of additional mass extends that 1-year timeline, and all the extra stuff is extra things that might go wrong.

So instead of a 7 year mission being reduced to 18 months, we have a 7 year mission reduced to maybe 4 years, but then there's possibly a higher chance of failure.

Balancing three years against failure risk, I could see that falling on one side for some missions, and the other side for others. I'm not surprised that they pick the extra time for some missions. I am surprised that they don't pick the faster option more frequently.


The numbers i mentioned give 30km/s in less than 1 year. As far as i see the ion thruster makes sense even for the trips to/from Mars.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: