VASIMR Plasma Engine ISS test plans

[PJay_A]

First, for those who are unfamiliar with the VASMR project.... VASIMR is a plasma rocket engine technology being developed by a private company. NASA has an agreement with that company to allow tests of this new technology aboard the International Space Station. If successful, VASIMR will remain attached to ISS permanently and keep the station from drifting to lower orbits, seriously keeping station operating costs down by eliminating the need to launch new fuel to ISS for routine reboosts.

According to what NASA says about VASIMR (on NASA's website), the engine is planned to be lifted to and installed on ISS in the 2011-2012 timeframe. My question is, with the shuttles retired by then, on what vehicle will carry it?

Also, I noticed that NASA added a new shuttle flight to the manifest (without Congressional approval). Apparently they had an emergency flight already paid for in the event that the then-scheduled last shuttle flight needed rescue. Well, NASA cut the crew size for that mission and got the Russians to agree to have two Soyuz' ready for launch in the event an emergency rescue is needed. The newly-added shuttle mission will carry an MPLM.

No word if this MPLM will be converted to a second Permanent Logisitics Module.

 

[Zipi]

No word if this MPLM will be converted to a second Permanent Logisitics Module.

I have red it somewhere that NASA has no plans for second PLM. Some journalist have asked this question after plans for STS-135 had been set. Unfortunately I don't have a link to the article.

And remember that STS-135 is only a plan. It is not yet a real shuttle mission, but it have pretty good odds to be one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:

Here you can check the confirmed shuttle missions: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shutt ... index.html

I made a quick search about the second PLM but didn't found what I was looking for. So at the moment this comment is based only my memory, but I'm rather sure that one PLM will be enough. NASA will need the downmass capacity of MPLM more than other PLM.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT2:

And what comes to VASIMR that plan to have one demonstration unit to ISS is true. However I'm not sure does it have the capacity to keep ISS "boosted". It might consume that much of power that they can only run it very brief moments.

If you wan to keep the hopes up there is as well some studies how to add not only one mission, but three. There are enough ET parts to get three extra shuttle missions flying until 2012, but it would need a decision and budget very soon. More than 3 extra shuttle missions seems to be impossible since production of new ET's would take too long and there is too much recertification pressures for the STS system itself.

 

[tadpoletriker]

Good to hear that STS-135 is a go!
A second Permanent Logisitics Module would be super!
The Plasma drive might keep the ISS on orbit for quite a while.

JohnB

 

[EarthlingX]

If you wan to keep the hopes up there is as well some studies how to add not only one mission, but three. There are enough ET parts to get three extra shuttle missions flying until 2012, but it would need a decision and budget very soon. More than 3 extra shuttle missions seems to be impossible since production of new ET's would take too long and there is too much recertification pressures for the STS system itself.

This is very interesting. I thought there were no more parts for the extra shuttle missions.
Here's some more info:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/ ... -manifest/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-135
NASA would probably need more $, and there are many candidates ...

As to the VASIMR, somebody has to carry it on his back if needed, it is the future heliosphere opener

 

[MeteorWayne]

There's VASIMR thread in Spac Business and Technology.

 

[Zipi]

There are two partly build tanks and one test article tank (which is not as light as current tanks and will slightly reduce upmass). Hurricane Katarina damaged ET-122 is currently assigned for STS-135.

More info: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/ ... -launcher/

Partly build tanks: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/ ... ommission/
(ET-139 & ET-140)

So basically there are tanks available for four added shuttle missions... Now only thing needed is money and decisions if somebody wants to extend the shuttle program as far as it is somehow feasible.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

If successful, VASIMR will remain attached to ISS permanently and keep the station from drifting to lower orbits, seriously keeping station operating costs down by eliminating the need to launch new fuel to ISS for routine reboosts.

Is that a typo? VASIMR still uses fuel.

 

[Astro_Robert]

VASIMR should still be more fuel efficient than the chemical engines they currently use, and should therefore reduce the amount of fuel (probably by a lot) that needs to be launched for station keeping.

 

[tadpoletriker]

VASIMR should still be more fuel efficient than the chemical engines they currently use, and should therefore reduce the amount of fuel (probably by a lot) that needs to be launched for station keeping.

Are my old gray cells correct that the hydrogen produced when making oxygen from water to be used for breathing can be used as fuel (propellant)?

JohnB

 

[HiGh_GuY]

VASIMR, shmashimr.... MAGBeam will blow that out of the sky. or any beamed propulsion. Bemed propulsion is faster, and more efficient that VASIMR. One set of "engines" could power a fleet of ships. where as with VASIMR and any other non beamed propulsion needs an "engine" in every ship.

The only downside to beamed propulsion is you need an "engine" at the departure and arrival point. But its not as big of a problem as it seems because once both the departure and arival "engines" are in place the cost will decrease exponentially. You could send the arrival "engine" with standard Chemical rockets, or make a specialized deployment ship that departs using beamed propulsion (for shorter travel time, and less fuel weight) and also has an onboard engine for stoping upon reaching the destination. Then it would unload the arival "engine" and head back to earth.

 

[Hogan314159]

This link claims a VASIMR rocket could take men to mars in 39 days, not 6 months.

Do you concur ?

The VASIMR (Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket) makes use of magnetic fields to force plasma out, and provide the required thrust for the engine. The tech uses light, and lighter and cheaper argon, neon and hydrogen as fuel. Ad Astra’s future plans include creating a more powerful engine, one that would generate 10 to 20 Megawatts of power, and would propel shuttles and manned missions to Mars. This journey would take just 39 days, as compared to the six months time conventional missions would take.


http://www.automotto.org/entry/plasma-r ... ay-affair/

 

[DarkenedOne]

If successful, VASIMR will remain attached to ISS permanently and keep the station from drifting to lower orbits, seriously keeping station operating costs down by eliminating the need to launch new fuel to ISS for routine reboosts.

Is that a typo? VASIMR still uses fuel.

It uses something like 5% of the fuel needed by chemical rockets.

 

[sroman]

Falcon9/Dragon will probably carry the plasma engine.The cargo hold is 12' in diameter,same as the Shuttle and about 1/4 in length.Mr. Gerstenmier said that it could carry any of the ORUs.Only one at a time,unlike the shuttle.

 

[Ruri]

Another option might be the OSC Cygnus vehicle which can carry items about the size of the MPLM.
The UCM carrier might be idea for this.

Since Cygnus it's self is basically a modified LEOstar satellite the VASIMR engine in theory can be integrated into the vehicle and installation pretty much be like any other ISS module.

Yet another option is the Japanese HII transfer vehicle which can carry large ORUs.
Though it's unpressurized cargo carrier I believe is less capable then Cygnus's and is limited to objects about 2.7 wide x 2.2 high x 4 meters long.
This should still be large enough for the engine.

 

[Usarian]

I kind of surprised there are so many people here interested in spaceflight that are just "discovering" VASIMR.. and I see alot of misunderstanding as well..

http://www.adastrarocket.com/

VASIMR is *the* technology that will take us where we want to go. It is a technology that, as it matures, will become the foundational technology of 21st century spaceflight, as the internal combustion engine was to everything else in the 20th. There are other technologies that will continue to be developed of course, but this one is more universally useful.. fewer limitations.. it'll become the workhorse.

It must be nuclear powered (which is the sticking point to some, but the Russians and the Chinese both just blew past this political hurdle.. methinks the rest of us will follow suit soon enough regardless of public opinion)
It must operate in a vaccuum. It will get us anywhere in the solar system in less than a year tho, and that's just for starters. Give it 50 years!

 

[GraemeH]

I kind of surprised there are so many people here interested in spaceflight that are just "discovering" VASIMR.. and I see alot of misunderstanding as well..

http://www.adastrarocket.com/

VASIMR is *the* technology that will take us where we want to go. It is a technology that, as it matures, will become the foundational technology of 21st century spaceflight, as the internal combustion engine was to everything else in the 20th. There are other technologies that will continue to be developed of course, but this one is more universally useful.. fewer limitations.. it'll become the workhorse.

It must be nuclear powered (which is the sticking point to some, but the Russians and the Chinese both just blew past this political hurdle.. methinks the rest of us will follow suit soon enough regardless of public opinion)
It must operate in a vaccuum. It will get us anywhere in the solar system in less than a year tho, and that's just for starters. Give it 50 years!

In fairness, the casual reader will be more familiar with the term "ion drive", which VASIMR is a natural extension of.

I also noted that VASIMR's use of radio frequency plasma heating mirrors a similar approach in tokamak fusion reactor design.

VASIMR only needs to be nuclear powered for sustained high thrust journeys, such as the proposed 39 day manned trip to Mars. For more mundane tug boat operations (low thrust over an extended time period) solar power is just fine.

 

[maliaki]

This is why we need a LARGE settlement on the moon. That way we can mine our nuclear material there without endangering the Earths inhabitants. It's also a much better place to launch MASSIVE ships from for these journeys to the outer solar system.

 

[Valcan]

Dude the amount of radioactive material in a small nuke reactor like they would use is tiny. It really wouldnt endanger that many. And if it fellin the ocean who knows i doubt the apocolypse considering all the toxins we dump daily.

But yea vasimr is a great technology. As it grows more powerful and smaller it will only get more so. I still think a large cargo ship ment soly for space flight and constructed in leo is a better alternative than the "lets just throw it really really fast" one. Nuke powered to vasimr and solar reserves. able to be manned or unmanned able to make many trips back and forth between places like the earth and moon or the earth and mars, the belts, outerplanets etc.

Personaly i think manned is better so you have someone there to repair it and perform maintanence....use contractors. Ill volunteer.

First send up a space tug to get things from leo to a higher orbit.

Just boost the peices up using launchers like falcon 9 and falcon heavy and such maybe for the biggest peices some government nasa launcher.

Assemble via robots/ drones and or astronouts from small work platforms like bigelows inflatable spacestation or the ISS.

Send up the cargo to destination afte a few test runs to the moon and back and go.

 

[orienteer]

Has anyone considered putting a centrifuge on the moon? Would the gravity help or hinder in the making of Plutonium? Would a heavy lift of natural uranium be any safer than processed material? This could be the first reasonable , economical reason to launch deep space flights from the moon.

I never liked the idea of lifting all of that material off of Earth and then having to lift it from the moon also, but, if it would be safer to send out nukes I could be sold.

 

[MeteorWayne]

orienteer, please stick to the subjects of the discussion, which is VASIMR Plasma Engine ISS test plans.

There are plenty of discussions in Space Business and Technlogy about the question you raised.

Thanx

Wayne

 

[Zipi]

More from: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMRISS