If I understand this technology correctly,  it cannot be used to power a vehicle in atmosphere.  It can only operate in a vacuum, or at least a very low pressure environment.
fyi, R.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object’s mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors; in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Thus, you have reaction mass. Not fuel.

For everyone who is arguing on the “fuel” subject, I believe the author of the topic was speaking in laymans terms. I think this technology is amazing, and is the next logical step towards achieving interstellar travel. I’m sure as hell not an engineer, technician, mechanic, etc. . . what I am is a stoner, and I SURE AS HELL UNDERSTAND THE ARTICLE unlike some dorks here. As for my responces. . .

Michael – you are absolutely correct, and thanks for putting it in understandable terms for the dorks.

John Smith and Joe – you guys are just too NARROW MINDED and can’t wrap your brains around the subject. Go back and finish grade school.

Jay Mak – I’m in the same boat bro. I tend to be the “mediator” for lots of people.

Cody – That comparison is genious. Gasoline fuels the car and provides the energy, but the tires provide traction which is essential for movement. In space there is no “traction”, so you have to rely on Newtons laws of motion. The ejected gas from the ion engines gives that required “traction” so to speak.

me2 – It is sad that people can’t view this as an astonishing breakthrough in technology. When their grandkids decide to move to mars and they want to go visit for a reunion, maybe then they’ll appreciate it. lmao

CARSON 44 – I was wondering the same things. Judging by the image posted, the bright light indicates that there is indeed heat that is generated as a by-product. That’s my theory. Light has temperature, and is measured by it’s brightness. That heat is expressed in a measurement using kelvin(K). Just look at the HID lamps you buy from Walmart for your car. So. . . . judging by the hue of the output I’d guess that the color temp is approx. 10,000 kelvin. I could be wrong.

DH – Judging by you’re aversion to “geeks”, you must be some football jock that just happened to stumble upon this page. If the ion thrusters are facing out the BACK of the craft, then the opposite direction IS FORWARD!!! Yay, just the direction we need to go!! Also, our planets aren’t alligned in a straight line so depending on where the planets are in their orbit, you can reach ANY OF THEM by going any direction. It so happens that our friends at NASA are smart and tend to do their thing when the planets swing over closer to us. Duh. . .

James – There is a little thing called gravity, and another one called friction. Combined, these nasty little creatures would never allow for feasable use of the ion engine with the auto. Now flying cars like in the movie, “The Fifth Element”, that may be possible in the near future if they can get a substantial ammount of thrust to counteract gravity. Doubtful though. Cool but doubtful. Now the use of magnets in a car and embeded in roads. . .that may give you the necessary lift, and the ion drive your propulsion. EURIKA!! Who says stoners are stupid?????

It wouldn’t be feasable for mass transit, but what about a Trans-Atlantic monorail type transport system or something that only needs to travel in a direct line for long distances?

The deal with this engine is that you deploy a spaceship using the ion engine in space using a conventional spaceship (like a Space Shuttle), because the ion engine can’t escape the Earth’s gravitational force from Earth’s surface.
Once it’s in space, it turns on the ion engine and it slowly but steadily accelerates to speeds much higher than a conventional spaceship ever could, be it over a relatively long time. The instantaneous thrust an ion engine generates is very low, but once it used up the entire 450 or so kilogrammes after several years, it has produced a much higher total thrust (thus the higher speed) than a conventional engine, which has very high instantaneous thrust, but uses up it’s fuel (several tonnes!) in a few hours, and so, in the end, has less total thrust.

You do realise that if you go the other way, there’s basically the same thing? The solar system is circular, planets circle around the sun. So, if you go the other way, there’s just the same (orbits of the) planets.

I’m excited about this. It’s bringing to life the creations of science-fiction writers. It’s an exciting time to be alive.

The term “fuel” was incorrectly used indeed, but this word was chosen because more people can comprehend what the general idea is by using it. People know that the Xenon is entering the engine, being processed in some way, and then exiting the engine. Reaction mass is indeed the correct term for this, but the majority of common society cannot comprehend what this term means. They will think something magical is happening here instead of a simple concept used in an advanced application. Besides, whether fuel was the correct word or not, you still knew what was meant by it.

This is all, stop arguing about dumb things, and go do something productive.

DH are you serious about the opposite direction part?????????.

Because if you are ……………..