Slashdot Mirror
Launch Date for First Solar Sail due Monday
PGillingwater writes "The Planetary Society (home of SETI) is planning to launch the first Solar Sail Spacecraft, Cosmos 1, later this month. The exact launch date is scheduled to be announced on Monday, May 9. This event represents one of the first privately-funded space missions with the objective of pure research. It will be launched from a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea. The spacecraft consists of a body surrounded by 8 triangular sails, that will use the tiny force of reflected sunlight to (potentially) accelerate to tremendous speeds. Unfortunately, the craft is not expected to leave Earth's orbit due to degradation of the mylar materials, but should be a proof of concept for subsequent missions."
There are many references to "low cost" when talking about the solar sail. For anyone curious, the price is about $4 million which relatively speaking, is low cost.
I've only been a member of the Planetary Society for two years, but I'm proud that they're accomplishing this.
I'm a big tall mofo.
The first solar sail spacecraft was launched by the Japanese last year. See here for more info.
To combat this, and see how it performed out of orbit, could it not have been launched from orbit? In any case, this is pretty interesting...I'm keen to see the results.
I guess the degradation could not have been solved in this manner, as it's the sunlight itself that is causing it.
In the end, this kind of research will be vital to the survival of the race.
Why all this concern with "survival of the race"? You have to face the inevitable fact that all things come to an end, even entire species, even if they are dispersed across the galaxy. We will invariably go extinct sooner or later, one way or another.
Serious impacts are a low enough probability event not to worry about at this point; if our planet becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will be self-inflicted and there are far simpler ways of preventing that than space flight.
In any case,solar sailing is a great thing, not to ship a few carcasses to another planet, but because it lets us do great science.
I'm curious to ask the guest of honor at the tonight's convention says about how successful this will be :)
What the hell's a "gewie?"
This post has been modded down -5(Not US-centric). Please read the posting rules and/or watch fox news to prevent this in the future.
Thanks,
Slashdot
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
But if theren't any carcasses around to get the "great science" and do something with it, the value of "great science" is somewhat diminished. ;)
Unless you believe in pure research for it's own sake...
Agile Artisans
Hiow is reserch for it's own sake different from survival of the species for it's own sake.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Well, the max speed is 99.99% of the speed that particles are being ejected, or, in terms of solar sails, 99.99% of the speed of the solar wind that pushes the craft along. This is jolly and dandy, until you take into account that accelleration virtually stops once you hit heliopause.
There's been at least one physicist saying that solar sails won't work.
I RTFA'd, and didn't see the answer to this question: why launch from a submarine? Presumably all these old submarine-launched missiles would be less trouble to launch from land. What's the advantage of doing it at sea?
Seriously, this sounds like the Russians are developing a "stealth" satellite launch capability.
No, it sounds like they're desperate for cash and have huge amounts of military hardware lying around. Selling launch capability to the highest bidder is preferable to selling ICBMs to the highest bidder.
In fact, there is just about no conceivable way for our planet to become less inhabitable to humans than any alternative in our solar system. Even after an impact the size of the one that killed off the dinosaurs, you'd be much better off in a bunker on earth than trying to survive in a tin can on dry, oxygenless Mars.
If we are concerned about the survival of the species in face of these kinds of events, we should build a few Dr. Strangelove-style shelters deep underground. It would be easily doable with current technology, and it would be far cheaper than trying to establish colonies on lifeless planets.
Acceleration = (2*Intensity*Area of the sails)/(speed of light * mass) The intensity of sunlight at earth's orbit is 1400.0 Wm^-2 If anyone can find the weight and size of the sails it should give you a pretty good estimate on how fast this thing is gonna go (ignoring effects due to orbital motion).
Resources in space might be necessary to meet the challenges we face over the next century or two. The resources available in just the Near Earth Asteroids are, if you'll pardon the pun, astronomical. A typical large type M asteroid might have as much as a 150 billion dollars worth of platinum and enough iron to replace all the mining done on Earth for five years. With the resources in the asteroids, we could build enormous structures in space without having to lift mass off the Earth. If fusion is ever to be a real power source, it's likely that we'll need the helium-three that is available in large quantities on the Moon, and almost non-existent on Earth.
Moving power production and dirty industries to space might be a way to continue to improve the standard of lving for humanity as a whole, without destroying our environment.
The threat of a catastophe that is purely natural is also real, even if the probability is low. Asteroid 2004 MN4 seems likely to come very close, if not actually hit, Earth in 2035 and 2036, depending on how it's course is affected by it's close pass in 2029. Though it's not a dinosaur killer, it's big enough to do serious damage. Many of the readers of slashdot will be alive when that happens. There is also a tiny, but real chance that a super-caldera, such as the one in yellowstone might erupt, which would be devistating for the entire planet. It's risky to have all our eggs in one basket.
You shouldn't discount what might be learned by moving into space. Being forced to create and maintain balanced ecologies will give us great insights into how the Earth works and how to better manage it.
The Earth is not naturally hospitable to human beings. There are plenty if records of dramatic changes that have taken place that would have wiped out human beings like they did most other species.
The knowledge we gain from science is itself worth the investment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly be looking for ways to use what we learn to deal with our current and future needs.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
when the above post gets +5 insightful on slashdot!
...pssst... hint: it was a joke!
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
Refusing to sit back and let the inevitable happen is what separates us from animals.
The benefits include ...
...
1. No extra launcher costs, since the subs with launch capability already exist.
2. No launchpad safety costs, since crew is already isolated from the launch tube for ejection.
3. No launch area safety costs, since the ocean provides a free barrier against rocket blast and against falling debris.
4. Extremely secure launch facility.
5. Impervious to weather while submerged waiting for launch window.
6. Mobility allows poor weather to be bypassed.
7. Mobility allows choice of launch coordinates to suit different injections paths.
There are downsides too though
... which is (9.3 x 10^-6 m/s^2kg/m^2) * A/m. With m = 100 kg and A = 600 m^2 (see the FAQ, that works out to be an acceleration of 6 x 10^-5 m/s^2, or 6 microgees.
Because there really is a competition in the launch industry. And the ISS, sold to Americans as a way to mutually advance the tech. But, as I pointed out, the USA got stuck with the nearly-useless showpiece, dragged down by dependence on a Russian division that routinely misses deliveries and needs budget injections. Which cuts into the limited US space resources, resulting in less US R&D. While Russia turns around and races ahead in more promising R&D, like these lightsails. Which experience they don't really share with the USA - they can report results, but proficiency is an actual experience in person, by real teams.
So I don't regard foreign missions as failures - nor did I ever say so (nice strawman fallacy). I do regard subsidizing a Russian mission which strategically hands us an anvil, rather than the baton, in our relay to space proficiency, as a failure of US policy, and the partnership. And I regard foreigners portraying that actual situation as some kind of American arrogance, when it is exactly the opposite, as a selfserving con game consistent with the rest of the ISS boondoggle.
--
make install -not war
But it is falling. I don't know if the estimate has been refined in the light of more recent data, but Earth has somewhere on the order of 100 tons of material falling on it every day and multikiloton explosions occur in the upper atmosphere quite frequently. It doesn't make sense to justify a space program on the basis of the few asteroid impacts that get through, but we will get hit by pretty large asteroids at some point unless we divert them.
You are confused about probability.
The probability mankind will be wiped out by an object from space today is low enough almost no sane person would be concerned about it. The probability it might occur in your lifetime is low enough it causes you no concern.
However it's not just likely the earth will be struck by an object large enough to cause mass extinctions -- in the fullness of time it is a certainty. We don't all need to worry about this but if mankind is to survive to reach the galactic diaspora you wrote of someone must.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
First, I would not call subcontracting to a reasonably decent design bureau in one of the two most advanced space technology powers outsourcing.
Second, as far as cost and POC design Russians are a better choice the Americans. They generally tend to do loads of POC work instead of at-desk design and modelling (just look how many different POCs were done for the Buran for example). As a result they are much better at understanding the concept of a POC and doing it cheap and cheerful without unnecessary overengineering. If it has to fly for real first time and money is (nearly) unlimited it makes sense to hire Boeing or someone similar. But not for a POC. Russians do it better. It is the way they do stuff.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/