Is this feasable?

[raburgeson]

If you take a arc ion engine and fuel it with nano particulate Thermite. Any pyrotechnical group will tell you thermite is a good rocket fuel. It burns to fast uncontrolled the way it has been used. Also I would like to point out the the first ion rocket was launched from the ground in 1936. Most of the information surrounding ion engines is bogus and the plans for the 1936 engine are not available. How would a screen type ion engine respond to nano particulate rust for fuel? Why send a vehicle with solar panels when the nuclear battery developed by the Japanese is a far better choice. Once lit by the arc the thermite would need no further ignition or supporting electrical power anyway.

Any reply that comes is welcome

[jadaro2600]

If the information regarding Ion engines is bogus, then the screen is probably unnecessary.

Give rust for a fuel, it would probably corrode that screen.

[Judges]

The Ion rocket  has evolved into this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket#Testing_on_the_space_station

Joe in Texas

[mscoffman]

The Ion rocket  has evolved into this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket#Testing_on_the_space_station

Joe in Texas

Link to VASMIR engine being test fired and additional info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrc-fP_EqF8

They didn't have digital radio technology in 1936. The V2 rocket and
magnetron tube were several years away. Don't forget electrostatic
ion engines have already have proved successful in DeepSpace One
mission. I saw reference to a new NASA mission to Jupiter using Solar
Panels.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[raburgeson]

Rust is magnetic and can be controlled, (carbureted). A very large problem with the ion engine is controlling the fuel. Many stainless alloys are magnetic solving the corrosion problems. Nano rust would flow better than water. That might be a problem. I'm not sure where the model is now, it's being handed around the state. We had a ring on the bottom with 3 struts attaching a model jet engine to the top above the center of the ring. We could grasp the ring and throw it spinning of the top of a building and fire the engine. The model would just right itself and hover. It was hard to adjust the engine we had to land it nicely but we feel that is the way to approach a large field of gravity. With the brakes on before you enter the atmosphere. Well I suppose we could make another one, it didn't cost to much to build. Might give us a chance to put a much more controllable engine on it. Of course we could go all out and put small engines on the struts to make it able to navigate. Thanks a lot for the link to the video. I am well aware they they made the ion engine into a whimpy thing with no thrust. That's why I want information on the original that launched a rocket from the ground. A lot of the things they spend a fortune on to develop aren't worth a dime. In this particular case I think they took a viable engine and turned it into scrap. The point of the model was that a stable craft can be designed. One that uses it's own center of gravity to stabilize it. The second step is to find an engine that provides the fuel efficiency to make a trip without stages of waisted fuel and enormous fuel payload. The third is naturally keep it simply low tech and fool proof. If it's an unmanned flight there should be no need of a launch window or time restriction. No need to go into orbit either, go to the destination. Leave it to scientists to make it complicated.

Look, if you have enough fuel and power you can go to Mars 50 miles an hour. You wouldn't want to wait that long but, it's possible. 1 G acceleration is enough strain on equipment. Why shake your craft apart trying to reach the mythical escape velocity? As the gravity of the Earth decreases and the 1 G becomes quickly a high rate of acceleration you'll get your speed up to snuff.

90% of the Universe is plasma and it's amazing what type of price tag is running for us to create enough plasma for space travel isn't it?