GREAT question !!!
A web-search using the terms "ion propulsion" will yield web pages describing functioning
prototypes. In other words, it's a done deal, the propulsion part.
Basic concept ... negatively charged particles in an electric field will experience
a force. In the diagram shown, the particles experience a force moving them
to the right.
The tube uses alternating bands of conductive materials to create the electric field.
<==
TUBEooo-oooooo+oooooo-oooooo+oooooo-oooooo+oooooo-oooooo+oooooo-
IONSSoooooo-oooooooooooooo-ooooooooooooo-ooooooooooooo-ooooooooo - - - - - ==>
TUBEooo-oooooo+oooooo-oooooo+oooooo-oooooo+oooooo-oooooo+oooooo-
<==
The tube - which is part of the object being propelled - experiences a force moving it
to the left.
Bingo. Propulsion.
Conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, help to determine the limitations
of this method of propulsion.
Somewhat similar, for example the 2 mile long linear accelerator at Stanford, the
particles "surf" on electromagnetic fields generated by klystrons, high-power microwave
devices.
Of course, the laboratory ion propulsion prototypes, and the particles at SLAC,
have earth-bound power sources. And a practically unlimited supply of ions,
positively or negatively charged.
So the propulsion system has 2 parts -- power source, and the ion propulsion device itself.
My 2 cents - why wait for the power source to be developed, before beginning the
serious design work on the propulsion device ?
If it takes 50 years to develop the power source, and 50 years to develop the
propulsion system, why not just develop the propulsion system now ? Why wait till
2054 to start work on the propulsion system ?
The power source(s) may - or may not - be developed. Good R & D involves calculated
risks anyway.
I just wish we could find something to motivate this kind of technology development
besides "killing people" (military purposes). But, when you study the history of
technology, the '60's "Space Race" etc., military purposes provided a lot of the
motivation. So be it.
Of course, who's going to ride the result ? Volunteer to never see their family again,
and risk a head on collision at 10,000 or 100,000 miles per hour with a piece of debris ?
Land on a rock, plant an American flag, then chomp down on that cyanide pill they
give all astronauts, when the food supply runs out ?
Oh well. At least you'd be able to check your email.
My background ... BS '79, a junior college near Palo Alto. Spent the last 8 years
working in R&D for TRW & Northrop Grumman, and various defense and other
electronics companies in Silicon Valley before that.
Mighty interesting stuff. I am grateful to the tax-payers for the opportunity to work
on a little slice of this kind of stuff. One of my co-workers used to refer to our little
campus as a "social welfare program for engineers". Keeps us off the streets.
Which is probably a good idea. I still haven't learned how to stop on roller-blades.
I don't have the security clearance at present to see "the Real Kahuna". My understanding
is that prototypes exist which make one of our current "little projects", the Joint Strike Fighter,
look like a rubber-band powered balsa airplane. But, no stewardesses. :-(
My final suggestion -- most of the people that I know that have succeeded in this field
of endeavour "just started." In other words, if you're interested, "just do it". And don't
get discouraged if you spend a few thousand $ for a pile of scrap. Yes, you might be
limited to balsa wood instead of beryllium - but who wants to breathe beryllium dust
anyway ?
The government just spend a few billion $ on another pile of scrap. I won't name the
program cause I don't want to get in trouble. But it kept us engineers busy and a lot
of what we learned will be applied on other programs.
As for the rest -- well, hey. Someone's got to keep the scrap dealers supplied with good junk.
As far as "most efficient" ? Shoot, give me $5 Million and 5 years and I'll have a better answer.
And probably come back asking for more money.
Roger
equity@tns.com
Actually, it's tns.net