[HN Gopher] Neumann Drive: A Pulsed Cathodic Arc Thruster for Sp... ___________________________________________________________________ Neumann Drive: A Pulsed Cathodic Arc Thruster for Spacecrafts Author : LastNevadan Score : 55 points Date : 2023-12-19 10:33 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (neumannspace.com) (TXT) w3m dump (neumannspace.com) | dang wrote: | We changed the URL from https://ts2.space/en/australian-firm- | pioneers-molybdenum-fue..., which points to this. | tevon wrote: | This whole post excitingly reads like star wars. | | Can someone with an electrical or physics background help | translate what this means "Our propulsion system uses a cathodic | arc discharge powered by a capacitor bank"? | | I take it it uses capacitors to release larges amounts of | electricity on a given period, thus producing plasma which | creates propulsion? | blacksmith_tb wrote: | That looks like it, I take it the "solid state" aspect of using | a metal rod as the source of material to ionize is the main | claim to fame here. It does mean 'refueling' is easy, just pop | another rod in (easy if you happen to in orbit nearby, that | is). The suggestion that you could make new rods from asteroids | etc. is cool, but there's quite a gap between theory and | practice still... | imglorp wrote: | > make new rods from asteroids etc | | The Etc includes dead hardware in Earth orbit: that's a | smaller gap than mining asteroids. Maybe not molybdenum but | probably lots of magnesium, titanium and aluminum. | throwawaymaths wrote: | It's like an ion drive. Here's the steps: | | 1. Start with a metal rod. | | 2. Remove one atom from the rod. | | 3. Remove electron from atom. | | 4. Now that the atom is charged, shoot it out the back of the | engine really fast using electrical repulsion. | | 5. Shoot the electron out the back (using a different pipe) so | that the exhaust doesn't come back at you due to electrostatic | attraction. | | 6. Now you have the rod, with one less atom. Repeat. A whole | ton of times. | | Steps 2&3 might happen simultaneously, not entirely sure the | mechanism but generally an electrical arc is violent, it will | spallate and ionize a few atoms here and there. | | Not having a tank is huge, and the first ionization energy of | many metal ions is far far lower than noble gases, which are | what is commonly used in normal ion drives | throwup238 wrote: | That looks awesome! The photo of the plasma discharge from the | solid molybdenum fuel rod in the datasheet is worth looking at | [1], perfectly illustrating the "Centre-Triggered Pulsed Cathodic | Arc" that is the basis for this thruster. | | The ion and hall effect thrusters that this drive would replace | require a propellant tank to hold xenon, krypton, iodine, etc. so | integrating them is a bit of a pain in the ass. Anyone know how | the mass stacks up though? Hall effect thrusters from Busek have | a (much) higher power/mass ratio but that doesn't include the | propellant tank. | | [1] https://neumannspace.com/wp- | content/uploads/2023/09/Neumann-... | xoa wrote: | > _Anyone know how the mass stacks up though?_ | | I haven't been able to find that yet, but even if significantly | worse this may still have an important big upcoming space. In | the upcoming Starship era, economics is going to play a | historically huge new role in space, just as it does in | Starship itself where many of the design and material decisions | are optimized around cost and simplicity, even at some | performance penalty, vs the old space total focus on perf. A | drive that performs worse, but is much easier and cheap, could | be useful alongside the others in some roles when you can throw | 100+ tons at a problem at <$200/kg to LEO, or even <$100/kg. | axus wrote: | Good data sheet! | | I wonder where it fits on this table: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_propulsion#Table_of... | | Also looked at this table: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster#Comparisons | | The weight on this one looks really good, not even counting the | lack of propellant. I'm going to guess that has a downside, | that the total impulse is limited by how small the fuel rod is. | mikewarot wrote: | >the lack of propellant | | The molybdenum rod IS the propellant. It eventually ends up | out in space. | | I'm only aware of one propellantless thruster, and I'm | waiting to see if it works aboard Barry-1[1] It uses electric | power in an entirely closed drive, generating 1 milli-newton | of thrust. It should be switched on in a month or two. | | [1] https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/graph-orbit- | data.php?CA... | dmichulke wrote: | > That looks awesome! | | "Power overwhelming" comes to mind | deepfriedchokes wrote: | Plasma welders in space. | ortusdux wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_discharge_machining | vcg3rd wrote: | I read that as A Newman (John (Cardinal)) Drive: A Pulsed | Catholic...and had to click. | ortusdux wrote: | Would this be a viable option for maintaining extra low earth | orbits? | paulvnickerson wrote: | All hail the Holy Cathodic Arc Thruster! | | _Downvote me all you want, heathens, I don 't care!_ | HankB99 wrote: | I was looking for the Epstein drive. | jtriangle wrote: | I wonder why they're using Molybdenum instead of just lead. All | of the thrust comes from throwing atoms out of the thruster, so, | throwing something denser makes sense in my mind... surely | there's a reason? | kelnos wrote: | Maybe it's harder to strip atoms from a lead cathode, and/or | harder to strip one of its electrons? | dexwiz wrote: | Density doesn't mean anything at the ion level. Yes, lead has a | higher atomic mass, but at the end of the day it's about | momentum and energy. If they can shoot a Mo2+ out twice as fast | as Pb2+, it's about them same. | hgomersall wrote: | I'm sure they spent loads of time thinking about their website, | but I find these webpages that reveal information only when you | scroll to them really annoying. I find it such a distraction from | trying to digest the content I generally give up, like I just | did. | robin_reala wrote: | Hit the reader mode button in the address bar? All the info's | there in Firefox at least. Safari seems to have trouble with | it. | jamiek88 wrote: | Wow this could be a real game changer in the new / commercial | space paradigm. | | Perhaps lower ultimate performance but much easier logistics and | reuse. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | Notice that this is not the Newman Drive which is A Pulsed | Catholic Arc Thruster | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman | p1mrx wrote: | > We have found that refractory metals such as molybdenum make | excellent propellants, and recycled aluminium alloys can also be | used. Exceptions include mercury and gallium, tin, bismuth and | lithium (due to their low melting points), cadmium and | technetium. | | Oh darn, I was hoping they'd found a use for all my spare | technetium. | dallas wrote: | I'm a little out of touch with the space-related investment right | now in Adelaide, so I hadn't heard of these guys, but as soon as | I saw that airport photo on the main page I knew where they were | based! :) | linker3000 wrote: | First thing that came to mind was how much rf noise as does this | thing generate, and might it be an issue for comms? | | Nothing I could see in the docs or FAQ. | api_or_ipa wrote: | Very cool. I love seeing development in commercial non-chemical- | propellant technologies. | | Question about the total impulse. For ND-500+, they claim up to | 250kNs of total impulse and a wet mass of 10-20kg. Assuming a | spacecraft mass of about 100kg, and a fuel payload of 10kg, | that's only about 2000m/s dV. Not enough to go to Mars, but | enough to extend an LEO mission or to send a tug to deorbit space | junk. | | Anyone know how much one of these might cost? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-20 23:00 UTC)