Slashdot Mirror
Solar Sail Will Work, says Planetary Society
degauss writes "In response to Cornell Physicist Thomas Gold's paper declaring the theroy behind solar sails flawed (previously mentioned in this Slashdot article), Louis Freedman, executive director of the Planetary Society (the organization behind the COSMOS project), has written a brief rebuttal to the claims in Dr. Gold's paper regarding the feasibility of solar sails for use as a method of transportation in space. He does not go in to detail with equations and such, but does give an overview of the reasons he believes Gold's hypothesis is incorrect."
This reminds me of some of the most common last words:
"Check this out! - It's gonna work!"
The interesting thing is that the Mercury orbiter that NASA launched (one of the pioneer series) used the pressure of sunlight on its solar panels, just like a solar sail would on the sail material, to give it a spin. That, IMO, gives the theory supporting solar sails working a whole lot more credibility.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
It was obvious from the original story that the guy was wrong. He made fundamental errors that you could spot after a freshman level course in physics 101. The rebuttal doesn't really address the specific flaws in the original paper- it has the character of "ahh this is nonsense" which it is. But the original paper has some obvious conceptual errors:
But what will be the performance of the mirror as a heat engine? If the mirror receives heat energy from the Sun and converts some of this into free energy, namely the kinetic energy of its motion, it falls into the strict definition of a heat engine, and Carnot's rule defining the maximum efficiency for this energy conversion must apply. We can determine the incoming temperature of the radiation by measuring the temperature an absorbing (black) body would reach when exposed to the radiation being sent to the mirror, and the temperature a black body would reach exposed to the outgoing radiation from the mirror, both measurements carried out in common motion with the mirror. Carnot's rule would then give the maximum efficiency as that fraction of the heat flow trough the mirror, given by the difference of the two temperatures, divided by the input temperature. It would be that fraction of the heat flow that could maximally appear as kinetic energy gained by the mass of the mirror. If this was a perfect mirror, the two temperatures will be the same, and it follows that the mirror cannot act as a heat engine at all: no free energy can be obtained from the light. The proposed solar sail cannot be accelerated by sunlight.
The two temperatures are NOT the same. They are slightly different. The mirror is not infinitely massive, so in the mirror's own reference frame the photons reflecting from the mirror have a lower energy / longer wavelength after their elastic collision with it- the mirror receives a small bit of momentum from each photon in the collision. And in the sun's frame, the mirror is receding and the reflected photons are doppler shifted. He can't assume that the incident and reflected energy are the same and run off making derivations from that. They are extremely close, but the difference between them is not zero like he assumes.
Would it be better to place a black sheet there instead of a mirror-faced one? Unlike the mirror, this could absorb energy and the momentum associated with that. But it would do this only from the moment of its exposure until it reached thermal equilibrium with the available radiation. Then energy absorption would cease, and with that the delivery of momentum to the sheet would also cease. For any lightweight sheet, this time would be only seconds.
Does he even realize the sun is a point source? The sun shines on one side of the sail, not both sides! One side is exposed to radiation with a temperature of 300K. The other side sees only 3K radiation. The sail temperature will rise to some intermediate temperature between 3 and 300K and reach thermal equilibrium with all available radiation. So what? This means nothing for momentum transfer! Once it reaches thermal equilibrium, the sail is receiving X watts of radiation coming from one direction, and radiating X watts thermally in all directions! While the wattages are the same for both, the radiated energy has no overall momentum, while the incoming energy has a very definite momentum. The point isn't to heat the sail, it's to move it. He seems to be confusing the sail's kinetic energy of motion with its internal thermal energy.
The rebuttal is very sparing. I think it would probably have been more vicious if its author didn't "know Prof. Gold well" and didn't have any reservations about embarrassing him.
I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
A Rebuttal by Geoffery Landis.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
this alone calls into question Dr. Gold's ability
Depends on when he did this "seminal work on the steady-state theory". I'm in my 40s, and I remember when it was still considered acceptable to have some reasonable doubt about the big bang. If he's in his 70s, and did this work, say, 50 years ago, it's possible that the work was considered completely solid at the time. And the word "seminal" does imply that it was a while back.
I'm reminded of Stephen J. Gould's defense of the Bishop of Usher (the one who determined that the universe was created in 4004BC). Looking at that date based on what we know now, it's easy to assume that he was a religious fanatic, but if you look at what was known at the time he did the work, it turns out that he actually did some pretty solid scientific research to come up with that date. The fact that he was working from a set of bad assumptions was not really his fault.
So, back to Gold, if he's still a proponent of the steady-state, then he can probably be dismissed as a quack, but the fact that he once worked on the theory doesn't really say anything one way or the other.
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. - In this case, all sorts of different light experiments
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. - In this case, Maxwell's theory, and then the Quantum Mechanical changes it suffered
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. - In this case, there are 2 predictions in consideration: Solar Sails work because of [read the article for info], Solar Sails don't work because of [read the older article for info].
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. - In this case, build it and try it.
You are suppose to argue beforehand,that is step 3. That is the way you really understand your theory and its implications. The arguing beforehand is a very important step to clarify what someone is really saying with his/her theory. After observing a phenomena it is very easy to come up with hundreds of explainaitions, but the only good ones are the ones that predict new stuff, and clarifying the theory allows us to make more precise experiments that really show light into the important issues. Arguing the different theories is what makes them more specific that just betting for the outcome of an experiment.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Sweet!
My career as a Solar Pirate is looking more promising everyday
Yarrr!
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
a presigious US astronomer, wrote a paper in 1902 in which he concluded:
p 16 7y1977-78.pdf
"Flight by machines heavier than air," Simon Newcomb declared one day in 1902, "is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible."
His arguments were quite reasonable on the surface - Imagine a bird as a model. If you increase the size of the bird, the mass increases proportionally to the third power of its wingspan. But the surface area of the wings only increases proportionally to the square of its wingspan. Thus something much larger than a bird would never be able to fly, and all attempts to build heavier than air flying machines capable of carrying a human would prove futile.
Fortunately, the Wright brothers never read his paper, or at least never took him seriously.
About 40 years later it was argued by learned men that manned supersonic flight would never be achievable.
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v3
Marconi wasn't formally educated, and he was laughed at for spending vast sums of money to send a radio signal across the Atlantic ocean. Any fool knows that radio waves couldn't penetrate the earth, and was limited to line of sight communication! Yet despite all logic, the damned fool contraption eventually worked. It was only later that they discovered the ionosphere could reflect certain frequencies back to earth.
Even great men of science make mistakes sometimes.
My rights don't need management.
Tommy Gold and others quoted in the article about solar sails really should consult some real spacecraft engineers. For us, solar radiation pressure is an everyday reality. Solar radiation pressure is a major perturbing force on GPS satellite orbits, for example.
AMSAT, a group of radio hams that builds its own satellites, has for decades used radiation pressure to impart slow spins to its satellites with "blade turnstile" antennas. Paint one side of each blade black and the other white, and the spacecraft slowly spins like a Crooke radiometer -- but in the opposite direction, away from the white surface.
A Crooke radiometer is a very different beast. The glass bulb is not evactuated, so thermal heating on the black side of the vanes heats and expands air, pushing the vane away from the black surface. This force overwhelms the much smaller photon pressure, but in the vacuum of space only the radiation pressure exists.
Gold's thermodynamic argument is silly and wrong. A solar sail is not a heat engine, so the second law doesn't apply. The first law (energy conservation) does apply in a very simple way: the photons reflecting off the sail are red-shifted by the sail's motion, removing energy from the photons and imparting it to the sail by accelerating it.
There is no such thing as centfugal force. The two forces in effect with orbit are momentum, and gravity.
If you want to get pedantic about it, there's no such thing as gravity. It's just inertia/momentum acting on a curved space-time.
(at least if you buy general relativity)