Which one of these Isp's for the Dawn spacecraft is wrong?Why we don't use cyclotron for ion thrusters?Does...
Connecting circles clockwise in TikZ
Circuit construction for execution of conditional statements using least significant bit
Does the Aboleth have expertise in History and Perception?
How to play vs. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6?
Is being an extrovert a necessary condition to be a manager?
Does the fact that we can only measure the two-way speed of light undermine the axiom of invariance?
What is this dime sized black bug with white on the segments near Loveland Colorodao?
Expand a hexagon
Hotel booking: Why is Agoda much cheaper than booking.com?
Why does an injection from a set to a countable set imply that set is countable?
Germany rejected my entry to Schengen countries
Was Tyrion always a poor strategist?
What should I wear to go and sign an employment contract?
How do we explain the use of a software on a math paper?
Good examples of "two is easy, three is hard" in computational sciences
Simple Arithmetic Puzzle 7. Or is it?
How could Dwarves prevent sand from filling up their settlements
If the Charles SSL Proxy shows me sensitive data, is that data insecure/exposed?
Is there any mention of ghosts who live outside the Hogwarts castle?
Way of refund if scammed?
Filter a file list against an integer array?
How is dynamic resistance of a diode modeled for large voltage variations?
What does it mean for a program to be 32 or 64 bit?
Farthing / Riding
Which one of these Isp's for the Dawn spacecraft is wrong?
Why we don't use cyclotron for ion thrusters?Does the Dawn spacecraft have the potential for an extended mission?How will the ion thruster powered Dawn spacecraft enter orbit around Ceres?Why does the Dawn spacecraft have three ion engines at different angles?How does one spacecraft best visit multiple asteroids?Dawn Spacecraft: Why are the orbits so high?If the Dawn probe visits a third asteroid after Ceres and Vesta, which asteroid could it visit?Xenon vs Hydrazine, “Should I Stay or Should I go?” Dawn mission decisionsWhich way will the Neumann drive (on the ISS) point, what will be its maximum possible thrust?Ceres gravity from spherical harmonics from Dawn, how to get the coefficients, definitions and potential?Why was Dawn placed into an orbit that would only be stable for “decades”
$begingroup$
The Wikipedia article NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness says:
The ions are accelerated through two fine grids with roughly a 1300 V difference between them for 2.3 kW operation, with a thrust of 20-92 mN, a specific impulse of 1950-3100 N·s/kg and a total impulse capability of 2.65 x106 Ns.
and the Wikipedia article subsection Dawn (spacecraft); Propulsion system says:
The Dawn spacecraft was propelled by three xenon ion thrusters derived from NSTAR technology used by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft, using one at a time. They have a specific impulse of 3,100 s and produce a thrust of 90 mN.
Both numerical values are about 3,000.
But Isp in seconds is obtained by dividing Isp in N·s/kg (which has units of velocity) by Earth's standard gravity of 9.80665 m/s^2, so one of those numbers is off by roughly a factor of 10.
- Which one is wrong, or are they both wrong?
- If so, then what's the right number?
ion-thruster dawn-mission
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Wikipedia article NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness says:
The ions are accelerated through two fine grids with roughly a 1300 V difference between them for 2.3 kW operation, with a thrust of 20-92 mN, a specific impulse of 1950-3100 N·s/kg and a total impulse capability of 2.65 x106 Ns.
and the Wikipedia article subsection Dawn (spacecraft); Propulsion system says:
The Dawn spacecraft was propelled by three xenon ion thrusters derived from NSTAR technology used by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft, using one at a time. They have a specific impulse of 3,100 s and produce a thrust of 90 mN.
Both numerical values are about 3,000.
But Isp in seconds is obtained by dividing Isp in N·s/kg (which has units of velocity) by Earth's standard gravity of 9.80665 m/s^2, so one of those numbers is off by roughly a factor of 10.
- Which one is wrong, or are they both wrong?
- If so, then what's the right number?
ion-thruster dawn-mission
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thought tempting,identify-this-erroris probably a bad idea for a tag
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's possible that some future person will be searching for the correct Isp for Dawn. Such a person is more likely to come here if the question title asks for the correct answer, rather than disputing the wrong answer.
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Maybe that's how they nearly missed their initial target...
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DrSheldon I understand the concept, but in this case I think it's most appropriate to leave it as-is. This is exactly the question I needed answering, and it is exactly the question that has been addressed in the posted and accepted answer. If a future person queries a search engine, they will now get the right number in either article in Wikipedia. People don't usually come to Stack Exchange to get a specific numerical value like an engine's Isp, and this question will serve as a warning that even if they do move on to a more encyclopedic website like Wikipedia, numbers there can be wrong!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Wikipedia article NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness says:
The ions are accelerated through two fine grids with roughly a 1300 V difference between them for 2.3 kW operation, with a thrust of 20-92 mN, a specific impulse of 1950-3100 N·s/kg and a total impulse capability of 2.65 x106 Ns.
and the Wikipedia article subsection Dawn (spacecraft); Propulsion system says:
The Dawn spacecraft was propelled by three xenon ion thrusters derived from NSTAR technology used by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft, using one at a time. They have a specific impulse of 3,100 s and produce a thrust of 90 mN.
Both numerical values are about 3,000.
But Isp in seconds is obtained by dividing Isp in N·s/kg (which has units of velocity) by Earth's standard gravity of 9.80665 m/s^2, so one of those numbers is off by roughly a factor of 10.
- Which one is wrong, or are they both wrong?
- If so, then what's the right number?
ion-thruster dawn-mission
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
$endgroup$
The Wikipedia article NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness says:
The ions are accelerated through two fine grids with roughly a 1300 V difference between them for 2.3 kW operation, with a thrust of 20-92 mN, a specific impulse of 1950-3100 N·s/kg and a total impulse capability of 2.65 x106 Ns.
and the Wikipedia article subsection Dawn (spacecraft); Propulsion system says:
The Dawn spacecraft was propelled by three xenon ion thrusters derived from NSTAR technology used by the Deep Space 1 spacecraft, using one at a time. They have a specific impulse of 3,100 s and produce a thrust of 90 mN.
Both numerical values are about 3,000.
But Isp in seconds is obtained by dividing Isp in N·s/kg (which has units of velocity) by Earth's standard gravity of 9.80665 m/s^2, so one of those numbers is off by roughly a factor of 10.
- Which one is wrong, or are they both wrong?
- If so, then what's the right number?
ion-thruster dawn-mission
ion-thruster dawn-mission
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
edited 8 hours ago
uhoh
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
asked 8 hours ago
uhohuhoh
43.6k19166544
43.6k19166544
$begingroup$
thought tempting,identify-this-erroris probably a bad idea for a tag
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's possible that some future person will be searching for the correct Isp for Dawn. Such a person is more likely to come here if the question title asks for the correct answer, rather than disputing the wrong answer.
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Maybe that's how they nearly missed their initial target...
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DrSheldon I understand the concept, but in this case I think it's most appropriate to leave it as-is. This is exactly the question I needed answering, and it is exactly the question that has been addressed in the posted and accepted answer. If a future person queries a search engine, they will now get the right number in either article in Wikipedia. People don't usually come to Stack Exchange to get a specific numerical value like an engine's Isp, and this question will serve as a warning that even if they do move on to a more encyclopedic website like Wikipedia, numbers there can be wrong!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
thought tempting,identify-this-erroris probably a bad idea for a tag
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's possible that some future person will be searching for the correct Isp for Dawn. Such a person is more likely to come here if the question title asks for the correct answer, rather than disputing the wrong answer.
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Maybe that's how they nearly missed their initial target...
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DrSheldon I understand the concept, but in this case I think it's most appropriate to leave it as-is. This is exactly the question I needed answering, and it is exactly the question that has been addressed in the posted and accepted answer. If a future person queries a search engine, they will now get the right number in either article in Wikipedia. People don't usually come to Stack Exchange to get a specific numerical value like an engine's Isp, and this question will serve as a warning that even if they do move on to a more encyclopedic website like Wikipedia, numbers there can be wrong!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
thought tempting,
identify-this-error is probably a bad idea for a tag$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
thought tempting,
identify-this-error is probably a bad idea for a tag$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It's possible that some future person will be searching for the correct Isp for Dawn. Such a person is more likely to come here if the question title asks for the correct answer, rather than disputing the wrong answer.
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's possible that some future person will be searching for the correct Isp for Dawn. Such a person is more likely to come here if the question title asks for the correct answer, rather than disputing the wrong answer.
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Maybe that's how they nearly missed their initial target...
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Maybe that's how they nearly missed their initial target...
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DrSheldon I understand the concept, but in this case I think it's most appropriate to leave it as-is. This is exactly the question I needed answering, and it is exactly the question that has been addressed in the posted and accepted answer. If a future person queries a search engine, they will now get the right number in either article in Wikipedia. People don't usually come to Stack Exchange to get a specific numerical value like an engine's Isp, and this question will serve as a warning that even if they do move on to a more encyclopedic website like Wikipedia, numbers there can be wrong!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DrSheldon I understand the concept, but in this case I think it's most appropriate to leave it as-is. This is exactly the question I needed answering, and it is exactly the question that has been addressed in the posted and accepted answer. If a future person queries a search engine, they will now get the right number in either article in Wikipedia. People don't usually come to Stack Exchange to get a specific numerical value like an engine's Isp, and this question will serve as a warning that even if they do move on to a more encyclopedic website like Wikipedia, numbers there can be wrong!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The 3100 s figure is the correct one. Note that a little further along in the same article it says "the engine achieves a specific impulse of one to three thousand seconds."
The N·s/kg unit is equivalent to meters/sec of exhaust velocity, and ~3000 m/s (or ~300 s) is typical for small, pressure fed, chemical bipropellant rockets. If you weren't getting 10 times better specific impulse out of the deal, there would be nothing attractive about complex, power-hungry electric thrusters with thrust levels measured in milliNewtons.
In fact, the citation on the NSTAR wikipedia article goes to a paper titled Performance of the NSTAR ion propulsion system on the Deep Space One mission, which says 1950-3100 s rather than 1950-3100 N·s/kg. The edit history of the Wikipedia article shows a well-meaning attempt to correct an error in unit conversion. The mis-corrected conversion has now been corrected, for the time being.
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36249%2fwhich-one-of-these-isps-for-the-dawn-spacecraft-is-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The 3100 s figure is the correct one. Note that a little further along in the same article it says "the engine achieves a specific impulse of one to three thousand seconds."
The N·s/kg unit is equivalent to meters/sec of exhaust velocity, and ~3000 m/s (or ~300 s) is typical for small, pressure fed, chemical bipropellant rockets. If you weren't getting 10 times better specific impulse out of the deal, there would be nothing attractive about complex, power-hungry electric thrusters with thrust levels measured in milliNewtons.
In fact, the citation on the NSTAR wikipedia article goes to a paper titled Performance of the NSTAR ion propulsion system on the Deep Space One mission, which says 1950-3100 s rather than 1950-3100 N·s/kg. The edit history of the Wikipedia article shows a well-meaning attempt to correct an error in unit conversion. The mis-corrected conversion has now been corrected, for the time being.
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The 3100 s figure is the correct one. Note that a little further along in the same article it says "the engine achieves a specific impulse of one to three thousand seconds."
The N·s/kg unit is equivalent to meters/sec of exhaust velocity, and ~3000 m/s (or ~300 s) is typical for small, pressure fed, chemical bipropellant rockets. If you weren't getting 10 times better specific impulse out of the deal, there would be nothing attractive about complex, power-hungry electric thrusters with thrust levels measured in milliNewtons.
In fact, the citation on the NSTAR wikipedia article goes to a paper titled Performance of the NSTAR ion propulsion system on the Deep Space One mission, which says 1950-3100 s rather than 1950-3100 N·s/kg. The edit history of the Wikipedia article shows a well-meaning attempt to correct an error in unit conversion. The mis-corrected conversion has now been corrected, for the time being.
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The 3100 s figure is the correct one. Note that a little further along in the same article it says "the engine achieves a specific impulse of one to three thousand seconds."
The N·s/kg unit is equivalent to meters/sec of exhaust velocity, and ~3000 m/s (or ~300 s) is typical for small, pressure fed, chemical bipropellant rockets. If you weren't getting 10 times better specific impulse out of the deal, there would be nothing attractive about complex, power-hungry electric thrusters with thrust levels measured in milliNewtons.
In fact, the citation on the NSTAR wikipedia article goes to a paper titled Performance of the NSTAR ion propulsion system on the Deep Space One mission, which says 1950-3100 s rather than 1950-3100 N·s/kg. The edit history of the Wikipedia article shows a well-meaning attempt to correct an error in unit conversion. The mis-corrected conversion has now been corrected, for the time being.
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
$endgroup$
The 3100 s figure is the correct one. Note that a little further along in the same article it says "the engine achieves a specific impulse of one to three thousand seconds."
The N·s/kg unit is equivalent to meters/sec of exhaust velocity, and ~3000 m/s (or ~300 s) is typical for small, pressure fed, chemical bipropellant rockets. If you weren't getting 10 times better specific impulse out of the deal, there would be nothing attractive about complex, power-hungry electric thrusters with thrust levels measured in milliNewtons.
In fact, the citation on the NSTAR wikipedia article goes to a paper titled Performance of the NSTAR ion propulsion system on the Deep Space One mission, which says 1950-3100 s rather than 1950-3100 N·s/kg. The edit history of the Wikipedia article shows a well-meaning attempt to correct an error in unit conversion. The mis-corrected conversion has now been corrected, for the time being.
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
answered 8 hours ago
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
92.5k3309394
92.5k3309394
1
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Excellent! Wikipedia is now a tiny bit better.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
It would be even better if the article read the way it did before user 2A00:1028:8388:586E:3990:D513:9FA8:2CF defaced the article back in November, 2015. Before that, the article claimed "a specific impulse of 1950-3100 s". The 's' there is rather naked; it would have been better to use 'seconds'. But not N·s/kg.
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36249%2fwhich-one-of-these-isps-for-the-dawn-spacecraft-is-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
thought tempting,
identify-this-erroris probably a bad idea for a tag$endgroup$
– uhoh
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's possible that some future person will be searching for the correct Isp for Dawn. Such a person is more likely to come here if the question title asks for the correct answer, rather than disputing the wrong answer.
$endgroup$
– Dr Sheldon
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Maybe that's how they nearly missed their initial target...
$endgroup$
– AtmosphericPrisonEscape
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@DrSheldon I understand the concept, but in this case I think it's most appropriate to leave it as-is. This is exactly the question I needed answering, and it is exactly the question that has been addressed in the posted and accepted answer. If a future person queries a search engine, they will now get the right number in either article in Wikipedia. People don't usually come to Stack Exchange to get a specific numerical value like an engine's Isp, and this question will serve as a warning that even if they do move on to a more encyclopedic website like Wikipedia, numbers there can be wrong!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
2 hours ago