The European Space Agency & Australian National University just announced a new type of ion engine that has four times the efficiency of previous engines. That's pretty cool, but the part of the story that really impressed me was this:
The new experimental engine, called the Dual-Stage 4-Grid (DS4G) ion thruster, was designed and built under a contract with ESA in the extremely short time of four months by a dedicated team at the Australian National University. "The success of the DS4G prototype shows what can be achieved with the passion and drive of a capable and committed team. It was an incredible experience to work with ESA to transform such an elegant idea into a record-breaking reality", says Dr. Orson Sutherland, the engine's designer and head of the development team at the ANU.
I don't know how much technology they were able to leverage or really what's involved, but 4 months sounds really fast to go from idea to working prototype. Wow.
(Thanks to Nerfduck for the link!)
Posted by bug to Science at January 19, 2006 8:14 PM | TrackBackNote that the phrase "four times the efficiency" means something completely different when you are talking about an ion engine (or any rocket).
For a conventional engine or generator like a solar cell or an internal combustion engine, 'efficiency' means what fraction of energy in the fuel gets converted to the desired form -- e.g. conversion of chemical energy in the fuel to electrical or mechanical energy.
In the case of the ion engine or rocket, the 'fuel' is the mass that gets propelled the opposite direction that you want the rocket to go -- In a canoe full of cowpies, one can propel the canoe by throwing the cowpies backwards -- A rocket scientist refers to the cowpies in this case as 'fuel', even though they aren't the source of the energy making the canoe move.
Not to denigrate the engineering acheivement, but the person who wrote the article exudes all the gee-whizziness that makes typical science journalism so hard to find.
Posted by: Olof at January 19, 2006 1:56 PMThat's a very interesting article.
So, hmm, that's maybe ten, twenty years to achieve practical development, tops. Which leaves us with good ways to get around the system, but still having serious issues getting up out of the gravity wells.
Verrryyy interesting.
Posted by: RichardT at January 21, 2006 2:26 PM