Talk:Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster

I really strongly feel that this technology will advance the future of deep space exploration. Ionocraft plus MPD plus nuclear or fusion reactors solves a lot of problems. Of course, the main hurdle here is sociopolitical, the START treaties prevent nuclear weapons in orbit and it would be pretty tough to define this craft as anything but. Besides who wants nuclear accidents in orbit? Only hope is relatively clean fusion Zalgo 07:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Advantages[edit]

What does this mean: In theory, MPD thrusters could produce extremely high specific impulses (I_sp) of up to and beyond 11,000 s (110 km/s exhaust velocity)...? 11,000 seconds? Should it be m/s? But that's 11 km/s. Ehn 19:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See specific impulse - for some reasons the specific impulse is traditionally given as (real specific impulse, i. e. the exhaust velocity)/(gravitational acceleration at earth's surface). So you've to multiply by a factor of about 9.8 to get the exhaust velocity in m/s from I_sp in s. 193.171.121.30 10:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MPD thrusters should make a good second stage engine when launching satellites into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) from a Space Elevator. The electric motors that lift 20 metric ton climbers will need about 1.8 MW of electrical power, this is similar to a MPD thruster. For a 400 km LEO orbit climb the Space Elevator to 23 804 km release the satellite and circularise the orbit with a delta-v of -2.132 km/s. A MPD thruster supplying 200 Newtons will take about 7.5 days to circularise the orbit.

Nice. Now your satellite is additionally carrying at least 1-ton nuclear reactor to power your MPD? And why do you want LEO satellites anyway - they are dangerous for the Space elevator.

Using Newton's Laws of Motion Force F is mass m time acceleration a, F = m a and final velocity v equals initial velocity u plus constant acceleration a times time t, v = u + a t then t = delta-v * m / F = -2.132 km/s * 20 000 kg / 200 N = 213 200 seconds (about 2.5 days)

In a highly eccentric Hohmann transfer orbit the space craft can only use its engine to slow down at the bottom near the periapsis, say a third of the time. (Change of inclination burns are performed near the apoapsis.) If the climber climbs at 200 km/h the journey time becomes T = (23 804 km / 200 km/h) / 24 h + 2.5 days * 3 = 12.5 days

With high-Isp, low thrust engines you don't fly Hohmann transfer orbits. You calculate a curve on which you can thrust continuously.

Andrew Swallow 19:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear reactors are not needed for LEO orbits. Space Elevator climbers will probably be powered by large photovoltaic panels. After releasing the payload only a quarter of the electrical power is needed so three quarters of the panels can go with the satellite and MPD thruster.

Earth monitoring satellites need to be in low orbits to get a detailed view of the Earth. The Space Elevator operators will just have to allow for this.

Objects leaving the Space Elevator below GEO automatically fall into a Hohmann orbit rather than a circular orbit. The simplest option is pick the drop height that produces a Hohmann orbit whose periapsis is the same as the required final orbit. Under these conditions a continuous burn has a large Delta-V taking longer than assumed unless heavy chemical thrusters are used.

Andrew Swallow 08:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Propulsion Classifications[edit]

So are PPTs and PITs classified as forms of MPD? They both harness the Lorentz force ina plasma propellant.

no they are not classified forms of MPD. In fact, MPD, PPT and PIT, all belong the electromagnetic class of electric propulsion, as opposed to the electrothermal class (using electrical power to increase temperature of propellant), e. g. Arcjet, VASIMR, and to the electrostatic class comprising the Hall Effect Thrusters, Gridded Ion thruster and FEEP, which accelerate the plasma ions by applying a static axial electric field to the plasma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guioseppe.rojma (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section on VASIMR. As stated in the removed text, VASIMR is "totally different". There a numerous forms of electric propulsion, and VASIMR isn't similar enough to MPD to merit a special mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.228.225 (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Performance metrics[edit]

The citations from Edgar Choueiri are great (100-500 kW, Ve 15-60 km/s, thrust 2.5-25 N, efficiency 40-60 %), but we really need a specific point of operation, not a range, in order to accurately compare with other electric-powered rockets. The sources don't give a point either, just the ranges. We cannot safely assume to take the low or high end of them all, because, for example, the upper measure of power may result in lower measure of efficiency. In short, we have no idea what a specific point of operation is, so can anyone track this down? DrZygote214 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]