
Ion engine could one day power 39-day trips to Mars - habs
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17476-ion-engine-could-one-day-power-39day-trips-to-mars.html
======
Keyframe
How is this news - I have those videos in my favorites on youtube for a year
at least.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_FGqb0cr1k> (with awesome scifi sounds in the
background)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgSjm_vXg> (also a great sound)

I remember reading, when these engines were announced about 15+ years ago,
that theoretically they could get us to at least half of the light speed with
these engines - and they will. Trouble is that acceleration with them takes
time.

In the mean time we have stuff like this:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9m4d137N1Q> (since you made me go to my
favorites on youtube)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn5odETw3Yc>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZGjHeI_hj8>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjoY_cSmQ70>

~~~
scott_s
It's news because most people don't know about it. It probably bubbled it's
way back up because of this, though: _Scientists at Ad Astra began tests of
the engine's second stage - which heats the plasma - last week._

~~~
biohacker42
_It's news because most people don't know about it._

And because of that before long it will be news again, and again, and again.
Here's hoping the Ad Astra tests go well.

------
miracle
gives 100 times more thrust, but needs 1000 times more power...

~~~
IgorCarron
Yep,you need to go for nuclear on this one. Not that we have never done just
that ( the US has flown one reactor in space while the Russians have flown up
to thirty) rather, I don't see this option being exercised anytime soon as
part of any space exploration programs.

Igor.

~~~
stuff4ben
I don't see why this is such a big deal outside of the wacky
environmentalists. Nuclear power is a viable and powerful way to power
spacecraft, especially if we want to do more than robotic space exploration.

~~~
Afton
My naive concern has always been about the fallout of a spectacular launch
fail of the sort that involves fuel rods spread over a large area.

If this is a solved problem, then my fears are unfounded. Let me know.

~~~
evgen
You should really check out the safety features of RTGs. As one example, in
1970 the lunar module from the failed Apollo 13 mission (which had an RTG with
a plutonium dioxide core) was burnt up over Fiji and dropped into the Tonga
trench in the Pacific. The heat and stress of this event was far beyond
anything that would happen during the launch of a spacecraft. The area where
the RTG ended up is still tested for an increase in background radiation and
to date nothing has shown up that would indicate that the containment vessel
has leaked.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
But we are not talking about RTG:s here, we are talking about real reactors.

... Which are potentially even safer, because the fuel is not terribly
radioactive until it has actually _been_ in the reactor. Ship it up in parts,
assemble when safely in orbit.

