Ion Engine Efficency: What Mass is Optimal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter flatmaster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Engine Ion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the efficiency of ion engines, specifically focusing on the optimal mass of propellant ions. Participants explore the relationship between ion mass, velocity change, and thrust in the context of ion propulsion systems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an equation for the change in velocity of a spacecraft based on the mass of the ion and the potential energy applied, questioning the need to express this change per unit mass.
  • Another participant confirms the equation's correctness but questions the utility of velocity change per unit mass, suggesting that the rate of ion generation could be more relevant for calculating acceleration.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the importance of minimizing propellant mass to achieve a higher change in velocity per unit mass, allowing for less propellant to be carried.
  • One participant proposes that the relevant quantity is the velocity change for a fixed mass of fuel, leading to a derived expression that relates the change in velocity to the mass of the fuel and the mass of the ions.
  • A later reply questions the choice of xenon as a propellant, noting its heavier mass and inquiring about its ionization properties and storage advantages.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the optimal mass of ions for efficiency, with some supporting lighter ions for greater thrust and others questioning the practicality of using heavier ions like xenon. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best choice of propellant mass.

Contextual Notes

There are assumptions regarding the ionization efficiency and practical considerations of propellant storage that are not fully explored. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of how to measure and optimize thrust in ion engines.

flatmaster
Messages
497
Reaction score
2
I was arguing with my NASA friend the other day about what would make a more efficent propellent for an ion engine. Is it a lighter ion or a heavier ion. THis was what I derived.

Assume a charge q of mass m is accelerated through a potential V. The mass of the ship is M. Working through the problem with the tools an intro physics student could comprehend, I arrived at an equation that gives you the change in velocity for the ship after consuming ONE available ion.

v = Sqrt[2qVm/(M^2)]



I'm pretty confident in this. The units work out and all variables are in the correct place intuitively.

i'm confused on one point. I already have velocity as a function of mass of one particle. Do I need to divide by mass of one particle to get to velocity change per unit mass?

I think I'm confusing particle mass with bulk mass somehow.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're equation is correct. Not sure why the velocity change per unit mass would be useful here. If we assume a certain number of ions are generated per unit time, then multiply your equation by the rate at which ions are generated to get the acceleration.
 
Well, you want to carry as little propellent to keep the weight down. A higher change in velocity per unit mass would allow you to carry less propellent to achieve the same change in velocity.
 
Thinking about this a little more, and I am thinking the quantity of interest is the velocity change due to burning a fixed mass of fuel, since the "energy budget" would include a certain amount of fuel by mass.

Multiplying your v expression times the number of particles in a total fuel mass mf would give Δv for that mass of fuel. This number of particles is simply mf/m, so we have

Δv = Sqrt[2qVmf2 / (m2M2)] = Sqrt[2qV] mf/(mM)​

I guess this is pretty much what you were getting at ... essentially divide by the mass m to get the velocity change per unit mass of fuel.

EDIT:
I posted this before reading your post #3. (Yes, I had this edit window open and in progress for nearly an hour.) I agree with what you said.

So it appears that a smaller particle mass results in a greater thrust.
 
Well, if that's the case, why are they using xenon? It's heavy. Is xenon particularly easy to ionize multiple times? I mean, all that you need this particle to do is get ionized and fly out the back. Other than ease of storage, all other properties are irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K