Accion Systems uses electrospray ion drive propulsion. The thrust-producing ions are supplied from their ionic liquid propellant — a safe, non-toxic liquid salt. This novel source of ions allows us to avoid the use of large ionization chambers, pressurized tanks, bulky valves, and external cathodes.
Technology is built around a thruster “chip” architecture. Each chip houses hundreds of microscopic emitters that produce beams of ions generated from our novel propellant source: ionic liquid.
They use electric fields to accelerate ions. Ions leave the thruster chips through small holes in the extractor grids over each chip, and propel the spacecraft in the opposite direction.
Benefits
* Smaller, simpler design. No need for an ionization chamber, valves, pipes, external neutralizing cathode, or active pumping or pressurization in Accion’s thrusters.
* Optimized for high thrust-to-power ratio. No external cathode or propellant heaters that draw additional power.
* Conversion efficiency. Up to 60 percent higher than plasma thrusters.
* Reduced lifecycle cost. Due to safety of propellants.
* Rideshare safe. The passive nature of our non-toxic, non-explosive ionic liquid propellant allows our thrusters to comply with all rideshare and launch regulations.
* Wide thermal stability. The thermal stability of ionic liquid ranges from roughly –100 to 400°C.
* Batch manufacturing techniques used to fabricate our thrusters allow for increased reliability and reduced cost.
When they scale up the number of emitters to about one for every square micron, then a square meter system would produce 10,000 newtons of thrust.
Other designs for electrospray ion drives suggested this technology could achieve up to 4000 ISP.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
From the pdf it appears that this tech is geared towards nano sats. The highest ISP ion engine could be the Dual-Stage 4-Grid (DS4G) (google it) with an ISP of 19000-21000.
From the pdf it appears that this tech is geared towards nano sats. The highest ISP ion engine could be the Dual-Stage 4-Grid (DS4G) (google it) with an ISP of 19000-21000.
This is an amazing leap forward! A huge amount of thrust like this could greatly improve the versatility of sat. maneuverability in addition to simple orbit stability. This could be used for really big sats including habs! When ICO!!! I must invest!!!
This is an amazing leap forward! A huge amount of thrust like this could greatly improve the versatility of sat. maneuverability in addition to simple orbit stability. This could be used for really big sats including habs! When ICO!!! I must invest!!!
Has anyone who commented below even analyzed the numbers? They suck!! Let me post a comment from NASA Spaceflight Forums Electrospray, best unit: total impulse = 200 000 Ns (this is the unit’s lifespan, basically) thrust = 10mN power = 280 W fuel efficiency, ISP = 1500 s Dry mass: 16 kg (motor and fuel container, but not counting fuel mass) ================== compared to: Russian Hall effect thruster: PPS-1350 total impulse = 3 400 000 Ns thrust = 90mN power = 1500 w isp = 1660 s dry mass = 5.3kg Verdict: Can deliver 17 times the work before dying better thrust per energy input (16.7w per mN vs 28w per mN for electrospray), better thrust per fuel usage. (1660s vs 1500s) ***much*** better dry mass (5.3kg vs 16kg) ================== NSTAR (like on Dawn probe, early experimental tech from 1990’s) total impulse = 2 650 000 Ns thrust = 92mN power = 2100 w isp = 3100 s dry mass = 20.5kg Verdict: Can deliver 13 times the work before dying better thrust per energy input (22.8w per mN vs 28w per mN for electrospray), *much* better thrust per fuel usage. (3100s vs 1500s) somewhat worse dry mass (20.5kg vs 16kg) ================== So, in summary: Unless there is some overwhelming advantage that is not listed in the spec sheet, something like the cost being 1/100th as much, or the engine being ok with many thousands of restarts, or the fuel being really ridiculously cheap and stabile…. The Electrospray is UTTER TRASH. Current off-the-shelf Russian Hall-effect thrusters, and even the 20-year-old test engine of NASA, outperforms the electrospray system in every single criteria. NO, these do not produce “thousands of times the thrust of existing ion drives”. They produce…. about one tenth as much.
Has anyone who commented below even analyzed the numbers? They suck!!Let me post a comment from NASA Spaceflight ForumsElectrospray best unit:total impulse = 200 000 Ns (this is the unit’s lifespan basically)thrust = 10mNpower = 280 Wfuel efficiency ISP = 1500 sDry mass: 16 kg (motor and fuel container but not counting fuel mass)==================compared to:Russian Hall effect thruster: PPS-1350total impulse = 3 400 000 Nsthrust = 90mNpower = 1500 wisp = 1660 sdry mass = 5.3kgVerdict: Can deliver 17 times the work before dyingbetter thrust per energy input (16.7w per mN vs 28w per mN for electrospray)better thrust per fuel usage. (1660s vs 1500s)***much*** better dry mass (5.3kg vs 16kg)==================NSTAR (like on Dawn probe early experimental tech from 1990’s)total impulse = 2 650 000 Nsthrust = 92mNpower = 2100 wisp = 3100 sdry mass = 20.5kgVerdict: Can deliver 13 times the work before dyingbetter thrust per energy input (22.8w per mN vs 28w per mN for electrospray)*much* better thrust per fuel usage. (3100s vs 1500s)somewhat worse dry mass (20.5kg vs 16kg)==================So in summary:Unless there is some overwhelming advantage that is not listed in the spec sheet something like the cost being 1/100th as much or the engine being ok with many thousands of restarts or the fuel being really ridiculously cheap and stabile….The Electrospray is UTTER TRASH.Current off-the-shelf Russian Hall-effect thrusters and even the 20-year-old test engine of NASA outperforms the electrospray system in every single criteria.NO these do not produce thousands of times the thrust of existing ion drives””.They produce…. about one tenth as much.”””
Has anyone who commented below even analyzed the numbers? They suck!!
Let me post a comment from NASA Spaceflight Forums
Electrospray, best unit:
total impulse = 200 000 Ns (this is the unit’s lifespan, basically)
thrust = 10mN
power = 280 W
fuel efficiency, ISP = 1500 s
Dry mass: 16 kg (motor and fuel container, but not counting fuel mass)
==================
compared to:
Russian Hall effect thruster: PPS-1350
total impulse = 3 400 000 Ns
thrust = 90mN
power = 1500 w
isp = 1660 s
dry mass = 5.3kg
Verdict: Can deliver 17 times the work before dying
better thrust per energy input (16.7w per mN vs 28w per mN for electrospray),
better thrust per fuel usage. (1660s vs 1500s)
***much*** better dry mass (5.3kg vs 16kg)
==================
NSTAR (like on Dawn probe, early experimental tech from 1990’s)
total impulse = 2 650 000 Ns
thrust = 92mN
power = 2100 w
isp = 3100 s
dry mass = 20.5kg
Verdict: Can deliver 13 times the work before dying
better thrust per energy input (22.8w per mN vs 28w per mN for electrospray),
*much* better thrust per fuel usage. (3100s vs 1500s)
somewhat worse dry mass (20.5kg vs 16kg)
==================
So, in summary:
Unless there is some overwhelming advantage that is not listed in the spec sheet, something like the cost being 1/100th as much, or the engine being ok with many thousands of restarts, or the fuel being really ridiculously cheap and stabile….
The Electrospray is UTTER TRASH.
Current off-the-shelf Russian Hall-effect thrusters, and even the 20-year-old test engine of NASA, outperforms the electrospray system in every single criteria.
NO, these do not produce “thousands of times the thrust of existing ion drives”.
They produce…. about one tenth as much.
That could lift 2 Hummer H2s (3900 kg each), with room to spare.
So 1 square meter of those emitters scaled up, could lift a car on earth surface ?
This is an amazing leap forward! A huge amount of thrust like this could greatly improve the versatility of sat. maneuverability in addition to simple orbit stability. This could be used for really big sats including habs! When ICO!!! I must invest!!!
From the pdf it appears that this tech is geared towards nano sats. The highest ISP ion engine could be the Dual-Stage 4-Grid (DS4G) (google it) with an ISP of 19000-21000.