Solar Super-Sail Could Reach Mars in a Month
ti-coune sent us a story running on newscientist describing
solar super sails and how they could one day get us to Mars in a month. The key is a special new paint. The cast of Trading Spaces is unavailable for comment.
It is very cost benefitial to not have to take fuel with you... or at least not as much.
My question is, what kind of payload is practical with this kind of thing? I've always read that to get any kind of larger payload, you cannot use solar sails. Do they get around this by using the microwave beam they talked about (ie higher energy per square meter)? I wish there were more numbers in the article...
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
So you're going faster than any interplanetary craft to date, and your only propulsion system requires you to be moving away from the sun (or the Earth, if they're using a laser to push you).
How do you slow down? Orbital insertion at that speed would be seriously difficult, if not impossible.
"The Benfords calculate a one-hour burst of microwaves could accelerate the craft to 60 kilometres per second" That's quite fast... :) With the trip only taking a month, I'd imagine it would make it much more manageable for whoever made the journey.
Although it may not be the most practical thing in the world, having people visit Mars gets me excited. It's just like something out of TV shows
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
If they could find a way to reflect or refract microwave radiation from the sun they could use a space based "microwave lens" to get the 60MW microwave beam. Probably would have to be a pretty big lense.
"The feat would require a 60-megawatt microwave beam with a similar diameter to the sail. It would also have to be capable of tracking the craft as it accelerated away. But this power level could not be delivered by any existing microwave transmission system. The deep-space communications network that NASA uses to communicate with Mars rovers and the Cassini probe now orbiting Saturn can only manage half a megawatt. The Benfords say the power could be ramped up in future and hope to persuade NASA to consider doing this as part of a future upgrade to the network.
So basically NASA's currently-used equipment is 1/120th of the power needed to get this sail to Mars. I would say this idea is not in our near future for sure.
leaving a micrometre-thin sail to continue the voyage to Mars.
I wonder how susceptible this sail would be to space dust, meteorites and space junk? Also, in response to an earlier comment made by someone about CO, I believe this technology would be used to send PROBES mostly and not people to Mars. Think about it... if they sent a person out there, how would they get back? They would need to use conventional means, which would defeat the whole purpose. Unless of course, they had another sail, AND a microwave transmitter on Mars.
This technology will be good for sending probes, but not for sending people, just yet.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
I don't expect to see it in reality anytime, though, due to the basic problems with a one-way propulsion system. How do they decelerate when they arrive? There won't be anybody waiting for them at Mars with a laser pointed the other way, after all.
Have you read my blog lately?
Wouldn't it be far wiser to build solar panels in orbit, use them to power Microwaves, and avoid the attenuation in the atmosphere?
Well, from TFA:
The feat would require a 60-megawatt microwave beam with a similar diameter to the sail.
Now, I'm no EE, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking that generating that much power from solar cells would be an undertaking in and of itself. You'd be hard pressed to generate that much energy in space.
Yeah, I thought of that after I'd posted. How's about sending a conventional rocket to mars with the microwave emitter as payload first, robots could deploy it and it could be activated by remote. Not sure what commercial benefits this would have though...
Solved years ago by Robert Forward in The Flight of the Dragonfly, a novel with a large appendix describing an interstellar craft using a laser pumped solar sail... and it decelerates and can come back.
Mostly random stuff.
... Putting a sail at the back of a ship is like pushing on a rope, since the sail won't be rigid.
Less is more.
I am EE, but I don't know what is the value of Sun's radiation. IIRC, it is about 400W/m^2 on Earth, so it is in worst case the same in orbit. With cell's efficiency of 25%, we get about 100W/m2, so for 60,000,000W we need only 600,000m2. It is sqare with side of 775m - not something too complicated to build even on our current technological level.
No sig today.
These guys are definitely on an interesting track, though. The problem with rocket engines in general is that they have a tradeoff between mass efficiency (you want to put as much momentum on each piece your propellant as possible, so that you get as much push from it as possible) and energy efficiency (it costs energy to push propellant, and you have to supply the energy).
Chemical rockets can't get much more efficient than the Space Shuttle Main Engines, because the amount of energy available for each molecule of exhaust gas is whatever you can get by chemically reacting your fuel to make the propellant molecule. The SSMEs use one of the most energetic-per-unit-mass chemical reactions around: hydrogen and oxygen (fuels) combining to make water (propellant).
Electric ion rockets do better because each molecule of propellant gets much more energy than would be available from chemical reactions. The problem there is that you still have to produce the energy. Nuclear electric propulsion uses plutonium to generate heat, which is converted to electricity and then used to run the ion rocket. Solar electric propulsion uses solar panels to generate electricity that runs the ion rocket. The problem is that both of those schemes are limited by the power available: it's hard to make energy rapidly with either a conventional radiothermal (noncritical) generator or solar panels, so while the rocket is extremely fuel efficient it is also quite slow.
Pure solar sails use the best/worst propellant in the Universe: photons. Best, because photons are disposable -- "use all you want, we'll make more!". Worst, because photons use the most energy per unit delivered momentum of any propellant in the universe. So a sail transduces huge amounts of power (at least in the inner solar system) but uses a very inefficient process to convert that energy to momentum.
Making the sail into a hybrid rocket is a Good thing, but using this paint scheme doesn't help, because the ejected molecules don't ever get much more energy than their own chemical binding energy into the paint -- that means they're being more or less wasted as propellant, because you want to put as much kinetic energy on the propellant as possible.
A better scheme is to use a curved solar sail as a concentrator to heat up a high power electrical generator, and then use the electricity to drive an ion rocket. In 2000 or 2001 I and a colleague worked up the numbers for such a scheme (there are technical problems with making high-power ion rockets; but we considered just energy flow). A smallish curved solar sail (say, 120m in diameter) can concentrate 10 megawatts of heat onto a heat collector. At 10% conversion efficiency to propellant power (15% for conversion to electricity, times 67% efficiency in the rocket engine) that would still be a megawatt of power, enough to provide hundreds or thousands of Newtons of thrust. In several scenarios we considered, the acceleration of the whole craft is higher than the unloaded self-acceleration of the sail, so it would be necessary to repel the sail electrostatically or something like that to keep its shape correct.
Ion rockets can be 100 to 1000 times more propellant-efficient than chemical rockets, provided that there is enough energy available.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't agree. In a rocket engine, the energy pushing your particles out the exhaust has to come from that chemical reaction, and so be stored in the molecules somehow. But here, the energy is coming from some external source, like a solar powered orbital maser. You only need enough bond strength in the paint to hold the mass there while you heat it, and chemical energy stored in the paint doesn't matter at all.