Slashdot Mirror


The Flight of the Solar Sail

N3wsByt3 writes "After months of uncertainty, the final verdict has fallen: The Planetary Society has reveiled that it will launch its Cosmos 1 on June 21. Cosmos 1 will be the first non-governmental spaceship that makes use of solar sails as main propulsion mechanism - it is pushed along by light particles from the Sun, instead of bringing its fuel along for the ride - which makes this a unique experiment in more then one way." This was supposed to have happened already, so here's hoping things get off the ground this time.

143 comments

  1. spelling police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    more THAN one way

    1. Re:spelling police! by rasafras · · Score: 1

      you forgot that goddamn reveiled. Sheesh.

    2. Re:spelling police! by DogsBollocks · · Score: 1

      Also the use of the word "bring" is incorrect.

      http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/bring.html/

      Learn to speak proper English like what I does.

  2. Uhm by Mr_Icon · · Score: 4, Funny

    "reveiled:" is that like the opposite of "unveiled?" So, are you saying that they have tried to cover up the news? And if so, then how are we finding out? Or is it from the French "reveil:" the awakening. Did they wake up to the news? Is that why they tried to cover it up?

    So confused.

    --
    If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    1. Re:Uhm by nxtr · · Score: 1

      It's a perfectly cromulent word. Jeez!

    2. Re:Uhm by mangu · · Score: 1
      "reveiled:" is that like the opposite of "unveiled?"


      Sort of. It started in the "veiled" state, then someone unveiled it. But after seeing it for the first time they decided it looked better with the veil on, so they "reveiled" it.

    3. Re:Uhm by jonskerr · · Score: 1

      Ooh, aren't you sesquipedalian.

      --
      O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
    4. Re:Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more worried about "a unique experiment in more then one way".

      Wtf is with this "than/then" substitution?

  3. Enya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/html/lyrics/o/orin oco_flow.txt

    "ORINOCO FLOW (SAIL AWAY)
    Enya

    Let me sail, let me sail, let the Orinoco flow,
    Let me reach, let me beach on the shores of Tripoli.
    Let me sail, let me sail, let me crash upon your shore,
    Let me reach, let me beach far beyond the Yellow Sea.

    From Bissau to Palau - in the shade of Avalon,
    From Fiji to Tiree and the Isles of Ebony,
    From Peru to Cebu hear the power of Babylon,
    From Bali to Cali - far beneath the Coral Sea.

    From the North to the South, Ebudae into Khartoum,
    From the deep sea of Clouds to the island of the moon,
    Carry me on the waves to the lands I've never been,
    Carry me on the waves to the lands I've never seen.

    We can sail, we can sail...
    We can steer, we can near with Rob Dickins at the wheel,
    We can sigh, say goodbye Ross and his dependencies
    We can sail, we can sail..."

    1. Re:Enya by October_30th · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Grandpa: I realized that the reason you won't kill me is because you don't understand how I feel, Billy. But now I found a way to show you what it feels like to be a grandpa.
      Stan: Hey, what are you doing?!?

      Grandpa loads a cassette into a tape player.

      Kyle: What are they doing in there?
      Cartman: I don't know.
      Grandpa: Now, you're about to see what it's like to be as old as me. Are you ready Billy?
      Stan: Uh, I guess.

      Grandpa starts the tape, it is a really distorted sounding version of Enya's 'Orinoco Flow(Sail Away)'

      Stan: Ok, you, you can let me out now.
      Grandpa: Not just yet.
      Stan: Let me out grandpa!
      Stan: I can't take it anymore, this music is terrible, it's, it's cheesy, but lame and eerily soothing at the same time.
      Grandpa: That's it, now you know what it feels like to be grandpa.

      Stan falls out of the room, looking very haggard.

      Stan: Eh, grandpa, I had no idea how bad it was for you. Now I understand.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:Enya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me, or is that show a complete rip-off of The Simpsons?

  4. As opposed to... by Vox+Humana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    all the governmental solar sail spacecraft? WTF?

    1. Re:As opposed to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TF.

    2. Re:As opposed to... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The principles of solar sails have been perfectly well understood for decades, and used in varying degrees for the entire time. Note the sails at the ends of the solar array tips on Mariner 4 (little blue squares) :

      http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/past/mariner3-4.h tml

      That was in 1964.

      The only unique thing about this flight is that it's the only purpose of the mission.

      Brett

    3. Re:As opposed to... by BlackStar · · Score: 3, Informative
      Perhaps if you actually looked into it rather than knee-jerk looking to prove it wrong, you'd find that Cosmos-1 is ONLY powered by the solar sails after orbit insertion. No hydrazine corrective thrusters, no other propellant capabilities. The tips on the Mariner series aided in studying the solar wind environment, but they did not assist in propulsion or stabilization to any measurable extent.

      This is the first spacecraft propelled completely by solar wind.

    4. Re:As opposed to... by Vox+Humana · · Score: 1

      Link seems to be about a test deployment of a sail only; nothing about it being used in a working spacecraft.

    5. Re:As opposed to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not by solar wind, but by solar photon pressure. The solar wind pressure is less than 1/100 of the photon pressure.

    6. Re:As opposed to... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Errm... I read the grandparent as sarcastic.
      As in "What Gov't Solar Sail craft???".

      Perhaps if you actually looked into it rather than knee-jerk looking to prove it wrong, you'd have seen that.

  5. The Google Slashdot effect (and solar sails) by moj0e · · Score: 1

    This article made me wonder when was the last time the .gov used solar sails... I couldn't remember any (I am not that much of a space guy). So I decided to look up "solar sail" on Google. The first link that came up... planetary.org I have never heard of the site before (almost makes me wonder if it is fake) so I got to thinking... could slashdot have upped the ranks of that website on google? Could this be a newly found slashdot effect?

    Please direct all flames to /dev/null

    1. Re:The Google Slashdot effect (and solar sails) by spune · · Score: 3, Informative

      planetary.org is the Planetary Society, the people who are, you know, launching the sail. As the sail the Society is launching will be the first solar sail, you won't find any government solar sails.

  6. My prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This solar sail is really going to blow.

  7. This seems silly by Albinofrenchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly the idea that because it doesn't carry fuel makes it easy to 'travel to the stars' is kinda stupid. For one thing, almost by definition you can't travel towards a star on this thing because as you approach it, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop.

    The idea of using the suns energy is good, but maybe they should find a way to harness that energy so one could move the direction one pleases.

    --
    "A man is but the product of his thoughts what he thinks, he becomes." -Mahatma Gandhi
    1. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO you suggest what, that you get to another star and want to carry on into it? Surely this braking is a good thing, as opposed to having to take fuel for deceleration as well!

    2. Re:This seems silly by spune · · Score: 5, Informative

      The sail ideally will reach 0.1c exiting the solar system. After that point, the sail does ditttysquat and can be removed from the craft the sail is bearing. Combining solar sails with conventional space manuvering systems isn't all that difficult; this would allow all the steering one would like.

      As the sail would approach another star, the sail would slow if both sides of the sail were mirrored. This would merely mean that were we traveling to another star, we could actually stop rather than keep on going. Doesn't that kinda sound handy at all?

    3. Re:This seems silly by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, isnt slowing down and stopping exactly the thing you WANT when approaching the destination star? :)

      But yes, its not that easy. And yeah, at least in earth orbit, solar wind dominates over photon pressure. Also, the interstellar medium would be a much too big drag factor.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:This seems silly by rsynnott · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, that's one of the nice things about it. Assuming the other star has the same solar wind as the original (which it probably won't) your spacecraft may actually come to a complete halt at the other star, which is what you want. A classic problem with interstellar travel is that not only do you need to carry fuel to accellerate you towards the objective, but to slow you once you get there as well.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    5. Re:This seems silly by ABCC · · Score: 1

      Another consideration to take into account is that the destination star also exerts a gravitional pull on the space craft, so you may not be able to stop at all (most likely to occur if your navigation system uses both S.I. and Imperial measurements)

    6. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing, almost by definition a bus can't travel towards a bus-stop because as you approach the next stop, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop.

    7. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 WRONG, RTFA and the FAQ

      The 8 sail panels are maneuverable. You can position them edge on to the light source to avoid slowing if desired. You can also do round trips within the solar system by using the light pressure to slow or increase orbital speed.

    8. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to be launched by The Planetary Society not NASA.

      PS. Mod parent Funny

    9. Re:This seems silly by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      You could easily move towards a start with solar sailing but it would require constant course corrections to be able to accurately reach your destination. This is a fairly basic sailing technique used since the 16th century by sailors to sail into the wind, you can read about it on wikipedia.

      <url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing#Runnin g_ Downwind>

      it really interesting how simple it is once you look at it.

    10. Re:This seems silly by simcop2387 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      whoops i foobard the link, here it is again

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing#Running_Downw ind

    11. Re:This seems silly by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say the most classic problem is interstellar travel itself; since our most far-out space craft are just now breaching what we know to be the end of our solar system, we have no idea about any of the dangers of interstellar travel. And my guess is that we won't for another two hundred or so years, once everything in our solar system has been "decently" explored and the technology exists to cheaply put things into space.

      Besides, slowing down isn't as difficult as speeding up; use the slingshot effect in reverse. Steer around the orbits of other, high-mass planets, using their gravity wells to slow your momentum until it's possible to chemically control. That in combination with shedding weight (mass driver would probably have to be installed in front of the craft to soak up radiation/protect against high speed collisions) should help a great deal. But who knows. Cross a bridge when we get to it.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    12. Re:This seems silly by tylernt · · Score: 2, Informative

      "as you approach it, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop"

      It may seem counterintuitive, but sailboats here on Earth can actually sail against the wind. Not directly -- most sailboats can point about 45 degrees into the wind (i.e., if the wind is blowing from north to south, a sailboat can travel northeast or northwest as well as anything more southerly than that). When sailing against the wind, the sails (which are allowed to curve) become airfoils and "pull" the boat upwind in exactly the same way that airplane wings pull a plane up despite gravity.

      That said, I don't think a photonfoil approach will work for solar sails since I don't think photons will develop a pressure differential like molecules do. You could should be able to tilt the sails to get a vectoring effect, though, and you could use this to slingshot around a few handy planets and get additional velocity to reach your destination even though it is "upwind".

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    13. Re:This seems silly by rsynnott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're willing to go there REALLY slowly, then yes, this would work. The slingshot effect won't help much for very high velocities. Basically, for sensible, remotely useful interstellar travel, we'll have to wait for either some magic source of energy, or a Bussard ramjet, or some other magic thing. I'll be a while :)

      --
      Me (Blog)
    14. Re:This seems silly by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think this approach would work with space sails for one single reason: you are neglecting the effect of a sailboat's keel or daggerboard in the mechanics of upwind sailing. Without a keel, you will slide sideways because there is nothing in the stationary medium of water to resist the pressure differential produced by the sails acting as airfoils.

      --

      Software piracy is victimless theft.

    15. Re:This seems silly by tylernt · · Score: 1

      Doh, you're absolutely correct.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    16. Re:This seems silly by 0WaitState · · Score: 1

      While sailing upwind by pointing into the solar wind is not feasible, what you can do is move up-orbit or down-orbit--changing your distance from the sun by either accelerating or decelerating. Remember, you start out with some pretty good speed due to the earth's orbital velocity.

      If you go faster, you move away from the sun. If you angle the solar sails to slow down, gravity pulls you back in. Thus, you can acutally make round trips within the solar system.

      For all the idjits posting in this thread: this isn't a freaking parachute, ok? It is a set of trimmable surfaces that may be individually rotated to achieve specific thrust vectors.

      --

      Remain calm! All is well!
    17. Re:This seems silly by RichardX · · Score: 3, Informative

      For one thing, almost by definition you can't travel towards a star on this thing because as you approach it, it will start to slow down, and eventually stop.

      From the Planetary.org solar sail FAQ

      9 . Can a solar sail only provide thrust away from the sun?

      No, thrust can be generated inward or outward with respect to the sun. By turning the sail at different angles, we can add or subtract velocity to the spacecraft. When we add velocity, the sail flies away from the Sun. When we subtract velocity, its orbit spirals inward.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    18. Re:This seems silly by RichardX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, replying to my own post, but there's another misconception a lot of people here seem to have that needs addressed.

      Also from the Planetary.org Solar Sail FAQ

      5. Does a solar sail fly on the solar wind?

      No! The solar wind is made up of ionized particles ejected by the Sun. These particles move much slower than light. A solar sail does not stop or reflect them, although they also may impart some of their momentum to the solar sail. However, the force from the solar wind is less than one percent of that from light pressure.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    19. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you don't aim directly for the other star. You aim to the side, use the sail to slow down, and end up in orbit. From there you can use the sail to alter your orbit to the desired distance from the star.

    20. Re:This seems silly by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      And you can't sail into the wind with a sailing ship.

      Oh. Wait......

    21. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tacking across the universe might work by using a solar sail AND a keel or daggerboard that can "dig into" the dark matter that supposedly makes up 80% of the universe. At a maximum of 0.1c speed, it would not be like a trip to the mini-mart.

      Patience, little grasshopper...

    22. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sailboats aren't in orbit. The comparison isn't perfect. Forget about sailboats, and think about solar sails - without the prejudice of your sailboating experience, you should see how it works.

    23. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember that this is using orbital mechanics, and in orbital mechanics if you slow down you "sink", which allows you to go into the wind. Also the wind should be always coming from one location while in the solar system.

    24. Re:This seems silly by Deadstick · · Score: 1
      The idea of using the suns energy is good, but maybe they should find a way to harness that energy so one could move the direction one pleases.

      They did, and it's called solar sailing. It may be slow, but you can quite easily maneuver a solar sail either toward or away from a star. Orbital mechanics keeps many secrets from the mathematically uninitiated, but it's vaguely analogous to tacking a sailboat into the wind.

      rj

    25. Re:This seems silly by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      when solar sailing you have gravity pulling you in and solar wind blowing you out manipulate this difference and given a suitable route you should be able to make a course to any point in the solar system (given sufficiant time).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    26. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't analagous, not even vaguely. Sailing into the wind on a boat requires a second force to play the the force of the wind against--the force of the water. That's why all boats have rudders, and small sailboats have those big fins at the bottom. A shallow draft boat with no keel fin won't get any sideways resistance from the water, so it can't go upwind at all. And if the water resistance is really low (the bottom of the boat is flat), then it can't even go across the wind (a reach)--it'll just get blown backwards, no matter how you angle the sail. If you release all pressure on the rudder, the boat will turn into the wind, its sails being blown behind it, and go slowly backwards; if the boat is flying a spinnaker (a big parachute, essentially) then the boat will be blown directly away from the wind. To go in any other direction, you need a rudder. And a rudder needs something to push against--but there's no water in space. The sail gets blown directly away from the wind. For that matter, think of a what happens to a kite when you let go of the string. Every form of wind propulsion on earth requires some other force to be present in order to go in any direction but downwind. Now, if you do keep a solar sail oriented the right way, the force will give you a sideways (perp. to direction to sun) force, but (A) would that loss of velocity be enough to allow you to move inward, given that the wind is at the same time also pushing you outward? and (B) how do you keep the sail oriented the right way to start with, since you don't have any other force to keep the craft and sail from swiveling in the wind (unless you keep firing your rocket thrusters)? A is a question for the orbital mechanics experts, but it's moot unless they can answer B. The only force I can think of is the inertia of the spacecraft body; can someone do math to show that that would be enough to impart substantial perpendicular accelleration? Since I've never seen any mention of perpendicular acceleration in solar sail discussion before this, I'm guessing that the math must rule it out as a significant force.

    27. Re:This seems silly by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Actually, I doubt you'd want to come to a complete stop near your destination star. Then you'd go into freefall as the star's gravity pulls you in. What you'd really want to do is establish an orbit around either the star or one of it's planets.

    28. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sail boat on earth can sail upwind (and I can get closer than 45 degrees) only because it has another force to play against the wind--the push of the water against the hull and rudder. Many sailboats even have a big fin (essentially another sail) on the bottom of the boat to maximize the effect. Even going at an angle with the wind--any direction but straight downwind--requires pressure on the rudder. A kite requires the force of your pull on the string to keep control, a land yacht the force of the tires on the ground, a hang glider or parachute the force of gravity. All wind propulsion on earth requires a second force--one that you won't find free-falling in a vacuum.

    29. Re:This seems silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well actually it is possible to cross against the wind when you are in a sail boat... silly - Oh I think not Mwhahahahahahahahaha

    30. Re:This seems silly by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      I've been meaning to ask: what does your sig refer to? It somehow reminds me of Eliza, but I'm probably just on weed.

    31. Re:This seems silly by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      Yep, obviously you'd at least have to give the thing a rocket.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    32. Re:This seems silly by Casca1 · · Score: 0

      Wow, so tacking into the wind, technology we have used for thousands of years, actually doesn't work? 8-)
      Solar sailing will work equivalantly; in order to approach a star, you would tack into the "Solar Breeze".

    33. Re:This seems silly by Noose+For+A+Neck · · Score: 1

      Nope... I'm not seeing it, and you haven't explained anything.

      --

      Software piracy is victimless theft.

  8. cosmic wind by TurboBling · · Score: 0, Funny

    generated by the beans of the universe

  9. So umm.. by thedak · · Score: 1

    So.. uhh.. speed? I haven't RTFA but I guess the question would be, why. What is the voyager probe propelled by, that's just rockets to correct trajectory and drift, no? Why solar sail, when a probe can reach the edge of our solar system the running out of fuel problem when reaching long distances is solved so.. is the solar sail fast? (over a very long time allowing acceleration like an ion drive that is).

    1. Re:So umm.. by spune · · Score: 2, Informative

      As the solar sail travels the solar system, it would slowly accellerate, reaching approximately 0.1c exiting the system, according to Carl Sagan's wife, who is funding the project.

    2. Re:So umm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Voyagers took advantadge of a very special and unfrequent planetary relative position that allowed to accelerate the probes by gravitational assistance "jumping" from planet to planet in a spiral path.

    3. Re:So umm.. by insert+cool+name · · Score: 1

      As long as it's traveling in one direction for long enough speed isn't going to be a problem (vacuum = no resistance). What it's going to lack is acceleration.

      --
      Never trust anyone with an id greater than 889388
    4. Re:So umm.. by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Solar sails are (in theory) the maximum way to effeciently propell yourself. They simply sit out in space, speeding you up, verses having to provide your own thrust, thus keeping more fuel onboard, thus building momentum faster.

      Voyager and the gang took a good twenty-thirty years getting to where they're going. A sailed ship could spend that same twenty years, get to the same place, and still have a full load of fuel left.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    5. Re:So umm.. by XchristX · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the momentum is not increasing monotonically. The radiation pressure is (1/3) the energy density, & as energy density depends on radiation intensity , and intensity falls off as (1/r^2), the radiation pressure will also fall off as you go away from the sun. The ship will escape if (but not iff) this fall off is slower than the inverse-squared fall off of gravity,else gravity will drag it back. Even if the engineers have taken care of that, if you write out the differential equation and plot the 1-d pseudopotential, you will see that the velocity will eventually saturate,just like it would with a rocket when it runs out of fuel. So, it is incorrect to say that it will gain momentum "faster". This is unlike a Bussard Ramjet (in theory,anyway) which has (ideally) a constant density meduim to draw from. So the solar sail offers only some advantages over rockets, but a Bussard ramjet is better and more efficient (provided you can surmount it's other problems).

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  10. Re:spelinh ploice~ by ArielMT · · Score: 1

    Spelign onluy cvoutsn ni commadns, config s,adn cod e,not inc hat. Adn nto inS lasdhot sotries iether, its eems. ~.^

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  11. Re:Fly With Me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lesbian Seagull...

    Uhhh... Would that be Johnathan Lesbian Seagull?

  12. thought police! by slobber · · Score: 1

    Spelling is fine, it should be "grammar police" instead!

    --
    "You mortals are so obtuse." -Q
    1. Re:thought police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you know he meant to put 'then'? maybe he meant than but spelled it with an 'a', in which case it is a spelling mistake.
      derka derka
      muhammed jihad

    2. Re:thought police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and of course i meant to say spelled it with an 'e' but i blame you for being an ass and messing me up with your psychic powers of eevviill

  13. Tacking by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative

    You could use a solar sail to go from Earth to Mercury if you wanted.

    Angle it so that thrust is opposite the orbital motion of the earth. You slow down relative to the sun. You fall to a lower orbit. Nifty, huh?

    If you're really in a hurry to slow down you detach a reflector, let it fly in front of you, and have a planet-based launching laser fire at the reflector, bounce back to you and slow you down.

    1. Re:Tacking by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Angle it so that thrust is opposite the orbital motion of the earth. You slow down relative to the sun. You fall to a lower orbit. Nifty, huh?

      How fast exactly would that be?

      The sun is 1.50x10^11m away from the earth. The mass of the sun is 1.99x10^30kg. Using the equation a = Gm/r^2, we get acceleration = 6.67x10^-11 x 1.99x10^30 / (1.5x10^11)^2, which means acceleration starts at 5.9x10^-3 ms^-2 towards the sun.

      I know that as you get closer to the sun the gravity and acceleration would increase, but I can't remember the equations to take that into account, but even at that starting acceleration, an object free-falling towards the sun from the Earth's orbit would take 46 days to get to Mercury's orbit. It would be a lot quicker when the sums are done by someone who actually knows about this sort of thing.

    2. Re:Tacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the plan above is standard orbital mechanics. almost no spacecraft fire towards/away from a the body it is orbiting. they fire towards or away from the direction they are moving and gravity do the rest.

  14. Re:Fly With Me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The second one: Johnathan Lesbian Sequel

  15. Solar Sails by DeadlyBanana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    so apparantly we have the technology to propel objects via sunlight... but we still cant make our cars to utilize a resource besides gasoline ( with a little hydrogen somestimes)?

    1. Re:Solar Sails by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      You could have a solar car, if you didn't mind it looking like a black pop-tart and other problems.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Solar Sails by mangu · · Score: 1
      we still cant make our cars to utilize a resource besides gasoline


      We have the technology, the only problem is that sunlight is too weak. To power a small car we would need a solar panel bigger than a tennis court. Our roads are too small for any practical solar powered car.


      A spacecraft can be big because space, well they don't call it "space" for nothing, right?

    3. Re:Solar Sails by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Sure we can - it's just that we have to find a well-lit (from one end), airless, frictionless, weightless highway to use them on.

      Seriously, what would make you think these problems are even distantly related? Last time I checked there wasn't a massive international rocket fuel infrastructure that has to be considered when developing new spacecraft propulsion methods. Inventing a clean-fuel car would be trivial if all politics were completely removed from the situation and you were given a fresh start.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  16. Hmmmmm by savage1r · · Score: 0

    Something tells me Styks could make a comeback off this launch: I'm Solar Sailing Away

    1. Re:Hmmmmm by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      More likely, they'd be making their debut performance as a parody band of Styx.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  17. Re:Fly With Me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fly with me, FLY!

    with MIND bullets! that's telekinesis, kyle.

  18. Re:Death to the Spelling Police! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ok, fine. i think it's crap and they should focus on nuclear propulsion rather than some crappy-ass crap sail that's gonna take a gillion years just to get to a point where it can send useful information because it goes so slow. crapping crap crap

  19. Are we there yet... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    We know the Voyager probes took 30 years to reach the edge of the solar, give or take a few stops to snap pictures at some of the more famous landmarks. But how long would it take the solar sails to reach the edge (assuming that it was making a beeline out of the system)?

    In laymen terms, please. For us dumb Americans. :P

    1. Re:Are we there yet... by braindead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This particular sail is not expected to escape from earth. From the article: " It is possible that by this time the spacecraft will have risen to a high enough orbit that it will remain there, forever orbiting the Earth. It is more likely, however, that the orbit will slowly decay, and Cosmos 1 will end its days as a fireball in the Earth's atmosphere."

      That's because the material of the sails is not very resistant and will break after about a month. I suppose that a stronger sail could eventually reach the edge of the solar system, but someone else will have to fill us in on how long that would take.

  20. Stationkeeping by PxM · · Score: 1

    Most discussions about solar sails tend to discuss things like interplanetary or interstellar travel. While this is cool, it is a rather long term goal. The more interesting uses would be orbital stationkeeping. Currently, if you want a geostationary orbit, you either have to set the satellite at 41,000km orbit. If you want it at a different altitude (this is a 200ms round trip lag for light signals) you have to constantly burn fuel to remain geostationary. Once we have viable solar sails, they would be useful to maintain geostationary orbits at various altitudes without burning extra fuel. You just have to make sure that the satellite doesn't fall down in the night.
    You could also use solar sails for other stationkeeping like the L1,L2, & L3 Lagrange points which is needed for certain telescopes.

    1. Re:Stationkeeping by smashin234 · · Score: 1

      You are close to what I would think would be interesting, the fact that satellites could position or reposition themselves with sails instead of rockets, and thus save costly refuel missions. This would apply for even geo-stationary orbits in case they get out of correct positions...

    2. Re:Stationkeeping by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      You could also use solar sails for other stationkeeping like the L1,L2, & L3 Lagrange points which is needed for certain telescopes.

      For those who don't know, L1 -L3 are the quasi-stable lagrange points.

      (L4 and L5 are far more stable)

      I believe the quote is 'It's a great idea.... it just won't work'. If you have ever seen an orbit of an L(1-3) point you would know why. *shudder*. The dynamics involved are pretty short term; which is to say, the tiny tiny tiny amounts of thrust you would get from a solar sail won't help you much. And the speed at which you would need to be able to re-orient the sail would be very high; high to the point of making the vehicle to which it was attached useless for pretty much any kind of space science (as it would be wobbling all over the place).

      There are some good examples of uses for solar sails and super conducting magnetic loops in the last chapter of 'Space Propulsion Analysis and Design' (curtesy link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0070 313202/103-2265602-2335000?v=glance). Including the station-keeping aspects, IIRC.

  21. Redundant ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF? Where is the other post that mentions a lesbian seagull? And how can the very first post be redundant?

  22. Short answer: a few days by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative
    how long would it take the solar sails to reach the edge


    A solar sail could, theoretically, pass the Voyagers in less than a week. That's the advantage of having continuous thrust along the way, rather than one impulse at the start and then coasting as the Voyagers did.


    The Voyagers are now at a distance of about 13 light-hours from the sun. A thin and lightweight solar sail would quickly accelerate to almost the speed of light, so it's possible to cover that distance in a few days at most.

    1. Re:Short answer: a few days by Chmarr · · Score: 2, Informative

      "quickly" is a highly subjective term :) Assuming no relativistic effects, a one earth-gravity acceleration would take almost a year to reach 1.0c. The solar sail is nowhere near 1 earth-gravity acceleration

      Relativistic effects means that once you start to approach 1.0c, time dialation reduces the 'real' effectiveness of such acceleration.

      As your speeds become higher and higher, interstellar gas, sparse as it is, gives you a SIGNIFICANT friction force, again reducing the effectiveness of acceleration, and possibly even overwhelming any acceleration from the solar sail.

      As you depart the solar system, light/ion/whatever pressure from the Sun becomes less effective, again reducing actual acceleration.

      Now... what would be REALLY effective is Ramjets :)

    2. Re:Short answer: a few days by david.given · · Score: 3, Informative
      what would be REALLY effective is Ramjets

      Alas, ramjets don't work in Sol's part of the galaxy --- the interstellar medium's not right. (I don't know the details, but I believe that you can't get enough thrust from a certain collector area to overcome the drag needed by your collector.)

      And you're quite right, it takes about a year's worth of 1g acceleration to reach relativistic velocities. Which is why Starwisp, the closest thing we've got to a decent design for an interstellar probe, will accelerate at 115g.

      The entire probe only weighs 16 grams. It is, in effect, a microwave-frequency light sail, a kilometre across, powered by a 10 gigawatt maser based in Earth orbit; the maser provides both propulsion and power for the probe to return data once it reaches its target.

      Starwisps should be mass producable, and only require a few days of thrust to launch, so you could use one maser to power practically any number of them. Since they cruise at 0.2c, we might also end up getting data back within our lifetimes...

    3. Re:Short answer: a few days by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Ramjets are no better than sails really.

      Ramjets, as they are currently designed, require input medium, a way to accellerate it (ala, adding energy), and a way to output it.

      In our solar system, there aren't too many fields of gas we can use to accellerate our device, so we end up carrying a good portion of it onboard, or saturating a field before hand in preperation. Then, we have to be able to add energy to the material as we pass through it, which requires us carrying the ability to produce massive quantities of it onboard (fusion would be nice, but fissables are all we've got now).

      Now, I'm not saying this wouldn't work on the best of circumstances, but ion engines are really the best alternative to Ramjets. Hell, you could probably build an ion engine with a collector for use like a Ramjet.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    4. Re:Short answer: a few days by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      AARGH!

      No. It can't: for one thing, the solar wind is *NOT* moving at the speed of light.

      For another, it would take YEARS or to accelerate to any significant velocity... like even a tenth of a percent of C (which is still hauling ass).

      Off the top of my head I recall seeing a decade brandied about. That would be via a number of trips into the inner solar system. Why inner? Because the solar flux is far more dense, and your acceleration higher (flux drops off with the square of distance; thus thrust decreases with the square of distance.

      By dipping into the inner system you can also do a number of flybys of Venus, Earth, Mars and eventually jupiter and saturn. Thus you leave the solar system in 10 to 20 years, depending on the number of flybys and what direction you wish to go, moving at MOST a 1/2 a percent of light speed.

      If you want to go much faster, you would have to do a nice, tight 'kiss the sun' flyby of our dear Sol. We don't have the materials that could survive this.

    5. Re:Short answer: a few days by bani · · Score: 1

      The other problem is that as you near 1.0c, that interstellar gas becomes cosmic rays. You'd quickly become fried.

      Though I suspect your sails would become eroded from friction long before you reached significant values of c anyway.

      Interesting thought though. Use sails to accelerate to where ramjets become effective.

    6. Re:Short answer: a few days by Teancum · · Score: 1

      It is not the solar wind that is captured by solar sails... it is sunlight.

      And last time I checked, sunlight was traveling at, you guessed it, the speed of light.

      While I would agree that it would take years to accelerate to a significant velocity, you still can't dismiss the constant acceleration that would be able to assist the propulsion of a spacecraft. And this is something "free" as well, as you don't need to bring any extra payload for fuel. Once you get to your destination, you can return to your origin without too much hassle.

      The only way that a "solar sail" is going to even get to a fraction of the speed of light, at least based on high quality SF stories regarding the subject, is to have an incredible space-based laser that projects the energy straight at the sail. There is a similar delta-vee that is pushed back on whatever the laser is sitting on, but that doesn't matter if it is some very large platform or on a plantary body (like an asteroid or Mercury). The question at that point would be how long could you maintain a 1 TW laser? 1 hour? 10 weeks? 1 year?

      Similar lasers used for fusion research only have to fire for 1/100th of a second, so this really would be new technology if developed.

      And would you want to be in the path of a 1 TW laser beam, even if the diameter of the light blast is several km across (at a distance)?

    7. Re:Short answer: a few days by Teancum · · Score: 1

      A very good moderator for radiation is ordinary H2O, water. There are multiple reasons why you find quite a bit of water in nuclear power plants, and the moderation effects of water are just one of them.

      Another good reason to have water is for life support on a spacecraft, as it is a very dense material to supply emergency oxygen if necessary. Or to drink with your Tang that you brought with you. :)

      Still, the radiation hazards for prolonged travel at even a minor fraction of the speed of light is going to be an issue, but there are practical engineering designs that could cope with those issues.

      The critical issues would be simply how could you get that much energy into a small spaceship?

    8. Re:Short answer: a few days by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      It is not the solar wind that is captured by solar sails... it is sunlight.

      Moments after I posted that I wanted to kick myself. I do recall that some portion of your acceleration comes from the solar wind as well; less than a few percent though.

      As to most of the rest, I was just really don't like seeing massively incorrect posts marked as '+5, Informative'. I am a big fan of solar sails, and think they have a strong future. I like mag-sails MORE, as they are easier to control (turn on and off, no stowing of flimsy material). But we can build massive solar sails NOW if we really wanted to, whereas we still have some development to do to get high-amp capability in high-temperature superconductors.

      The laser thing is fun, but I can't believe it will ever happen. Why? Because to power a laser that potent you would need a fusion reactor that can generate probably tens of times the energy that you put into the laser itself. Dump that same reactor on the ship itself and you can get a specific impulse of something like 2 million seconds. Todays best propulsion gives about 480 seconds.

      What that means in english (well, metric) is that for every kilogram of fuel you put in per second, you get (2 million * 9.806) newtons of thrust for 1 second. (F = Isp * mass/sec * gravity at sea level). So for 1kg of fuel you burn per second you get about 20 million newtons of force for that second.

      A better way to think about specific impulse is that Isp represnts the number of kilograms of mass you can accelerate at 1 gravity of acceleration. A specific impulse of 500 seconds, in space, would accelerate 500kg of mass at a rate of 9.806m/s^2. This ONLY works if you assume a burn rate of 1kg per second.

      So an Isp of 2E6 seconds lets you accelerate 2E6 kg of ship at one gravity, assuming a burn rate of 1kg per second.

      In reality, you won't be seeing a burn rate of 1kg per second for any fusion reactor, but the rest of the math is real. You would just accelerate more slowly over a longer period of time.

      Since fusion of He3 + Deterium is about 1% efficient (? memory, could have wrong path), 1kg/sec of fuel burn would mean:
      E = m*c^2 = 1_kg/s * c^2 * 1% = 8.99E14J/s = 899TW.

      So, maybe we burn a gram per second ;~)

    9. Re:Short answer: a few days by Xilman · · Score: 1
      Which is why Starwisp, the closest thing we've got to a decent design for an interstellar probe, will accelerate at 115g.

      Another design is now over 25 year old --- Daedalus. A Google search will tell you much more about it, but it's basically a very big rocket.

      The reference design accelerates a 500 tonne payload to around 0.12c using a two stage rocket. The acceleration is around 0.1g and the rocket runs continuously for something over a year. When the probe reaches the target star (the reference mission was to Barnard's star just under 6 light years away) the rocket nozzle is used as the comms antenna.

      Needless to say, this is a big rocket. It's a pulse fusion design, using 20 thousand tonnes of deuterium and 30 thousand tonnes of helium-3 for fuel. The only credible places to get that amount of He-3 is from the atmospheres of the gas giants. Assuming that the Daedalus probe was built in Jupiter orbit, the rocket exhaust would still be a spectacular sight even from earth.

      Paul

      --
      Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
  23. I call shennanegans! by Roland+Piguepaille · · Score: 1

    If this is true, why aren't we sending a probe to Pluto, or Alpha Centauri, for that matter?

    What's the secret drawback that you're not mentioning thats preventing this from being used?

    --
    To confirm you're not a script, please piss in my ear.
    1. Re:I call shennanegans! by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      It's obvious; surface area.

      A sail encompasses a LOT of surface area, which means that as the sail scales to larger sizes, it becomes a much more attractive target to whatever strikes it.

      Now, granted a sail in space with a hole doesn't "lose pressure" like it would here on earth, but after a while, the strikes would render the sail uneffective, and the sail would need to be replaced.

      Couple this with traditional space craft design and it means you have to do a lot of discarding along the way, which is something NASA and other Space Agencies should be against. Discarding material makes for more debris on the next launch, making solar sails an even less effective solution to the problem.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  24. Long answer: a few years. by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem with the parent's post is the sail itself. Our solar system is a rocky and dangerous space, and so far, we have no idea what the area outside of it is like either.

    The sail would quickly break apart as it gets struck by all kinds of space debris, some left by us, others by more natural occurances. Thus, for an effective craft, multiple sails would be kept on board, being deployed stratigically when the previous sails are no longer providing maximal thrust, and when the coast is clear.

    Next, between those times when the sails are not up, the ship will probably want to keep thrust, so it will have to carry onboard some propellant to keep its thrust up during the times it is without sails. Thus, the ship will lose a significant portion of weight during its travel.

    Lastly, unless we align everything like we did with the Voyager launches, gravity will not be so forth coming for this space craft. This will probably mean multiple near-sun passes to build up the speed nessicary to exit the solar system and continue on to the next star. This means some clever routing by computer simulations, along with a computer figuring when to discard and open new sails along the way.

    Not only will all of this cost a lot, it will likely make it take much longer to get out of the solar system. Lucky for us, as we can pile on the goodies like cameras, radio antenna, and do some exploration as it passes through the planets building up gravitational accelleration.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Long answer: a few years. by Krimszon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't all that stuff located in the same (sort of horizontal) plane. Couldn't we send the ship 'up'?

    2. Re:Long answer: a few years. by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      A sail probe to Pluto would probably be the easiest one to do since it's off the plane. Everything else would be a more interesting problem to solve. This is nothing new since they had this concern with the Pioneer probes and the asteroid belt.

    3. Re:Long answer: a few years. by 3)+profit!!! · · Score: 1

      Next, between those times when the sails are not up, the ship will probably want to keep thrust, so it will have to carry onboard some propellant to keep its thrust up during the times it is without sails. Thus, the ship will lose a significant portion of weight during its travel.


      What do you mean by "keep thrust?" It's not like it's going to start slowing down in the middle of space or anything...
    4. Re:Long answer: a few years. by wiggle.e · · Score: 1

      The problem with the parent's post is the sail itself. Our solar system is a rocky and dangerous space, and so far, we have no idea what the area outside of it is like either.

      news flash: space is fairly empty. the statistical chance of being hit by debri AWAY FROM EARTH is small.

      Next, between those times when the sails are not up, the ship will probably want to keep thrust, so it will have to carry onboard some propellant to keep its thrust up during the times it is without sails. Thus, the ship will lose a significant portion of weight during its travel.

      The craft will stay in motion until another force is applied to it. Once the craft gets to a given velocity the sail can be jettisoned. It is not necessary to thrust except possibly to slow down.

      Lastly, unless we align everything like we did with the Voyager launches, gravity will not be so forth coming for this space craft. This will probably mean multiple near-sun passes to build up the speed nessicary to exit the solar system and continue on to the next star. This means some clever routing by computer simulations, along with a computer figuring when to discard and open new sails along the way.

      The point of the solar sail is that it will be able to attain a much higher velocity then voyager due to the constant acceleration of the sail. And computer simulation is cheap. my $.02

    5. Re:Long answer: a few years. by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      The point of the solar sail is that it will be able to attain a much higher velocity then voyager due to the constant acceleration of the sail.

      MicroNewtons of force does not equate to much acceleration.

      You still have to do flybys if you want to get anywhere within a human lifetime. Plus, by going near the sun, you achieve much much higher acceleration on the outward legs. So long as you don't melt your sail ;~)

      This does require a storable/deployable sail for highest efficiency.

    6. Re:Long answer: a few years. by wiggle.e · · Score: 1

      small acceleration over a long time period still produces a large velocity. and from what i understand a earth based/orbiting laser could give an initial push to the craft.

    7. Re:Long answer: a few years. by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Assume 10Kg craft.

      F = (S*A*sin(theta) / c

      Theta = incident angle
      A = area
      S = solar flux

      Let theta = 0, A = 100m^2, S = 1.36KW/m^2

      F = 0.000454 N

      a = F/m = .000454N/(10kg) = 0.000045365 _m/_s^2

      22043.6 Seconds to reach 1 meter per second (6.12 hours)

      So about 6 hr/(m/s)*4500(m/s)(about that needed to get to mars on a nice, almost hohmann, orbit from earth orbit). = 1125 days.

      Presently we can get to mars in about 180 days.

      So, yes. Over a *LOOOOONNNG* time.

      I believe that one must achieve about 44km/sec delta V from earth to escape the solar system. That is almost a guess it is so tenuous a memory. Maybe that is Voyagers velocity relative to the sun.

      I don't have time to run through the math, but your value for S is squared every time you cut the distance between your sail and the sun is cut in half. Add to that the velocity gain you can get via gravity assist around mercury, venus mars and earth, and you can achieve real velocities fairly quickly.

      But you still use a booster to get on the initial orbit, or you will be waiting forever.

    8. Re:Long answer: a few years. by wiggle.e · · Score: 1

      Your arguement is elegant and well thought out but let me pose 2 questions. First, is there any reason a MUCH larger sail couldn't be used? the sail material is light and would be easy to get into orbit. Second, i wouldn't think that a solar sail would suit going to mars and i don't believe i ever asserted that. But it could be more effective then Voyager for long term missions?

    9. Re:Long answer: a few years. by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Oh yes! You are correct. I am very sorry if I sound like I am against solar sails!

      My arguement was actually rather inelegant in the regard that I certainly sounded like I was arguing against sails.

      For reference, I prefer the concept of mag-loops; but regarding sails:

      1.) Larger sails: Yes, we would use larger sails. But the force supplied only rises with direct proportion to the sail area. And it adds weight in tie-lines etc.

      2.) I only used mars as a reference. The use of a sail is indeed ideal for deep space missions. And ONLY for deep space missions, in my mind, in the 'near term'. In the long term, sails would be very nice for cyclic missions to mars, using 'free return' trajectories. A sail would allow for slowing the craft down some for 'catching it' at either end of the cycle, and speed it back up afterwords. It wouldn't be a true free return orbit at that point, but you get the idea. FAR future, for non-person cargo transportation.

      What I wanted to get across is that solar sails are SLOW. If you want to use them to get anywhere, you are still going to boost them out of Earths orbit and probably towards a flyby with Mercury. Mercury being at 0.387AU from the sun, you get 6.67 times the force on the sail area as you do at Earths orbit (F is proportional to 1/R^2, 1/0.387^2 = 6.67).

      You also get the bonus of a Mercury flyby. On the way back 'up' you can loop by venus, then earth, then mars gaining a few km/s depending on which of them you fly by and how many times. Stow the sail on the way back down towards the sun, and pull it out again at perihelion and start the process all over again.

      Do this three or four times and you will be hauling ass on your way out of the solar system.

    10. Re:Long answer: a few years. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The solar system is a pretty empty place. There was some "concern" that the asteroid belt may have large amounts of "dust", but most of the outer solar system missions (Pioneer, Voyager, Cassini, Magellan) have more than demonstrated that this is not the case.

      Yes, the asteroid belt has a lot of pieces, but you would be foolish to run into an asteroid, especially anything that would cause real problems to a solar sail.

      As to debris in LEO, yeah, there is a bunch of that right now, primarily due to space activities over 60 years and nearly weekly launches somewhere in the world. And even in LEO there it is mostly empty space.

      And as for added propellant, it isn't needed. When the sail is "folded up" or put to an inactive state, it would be no different than all current extra-terrestrial space travel: they would rely on pure kinetic energy to continue their momentum to wherever they are headed. Yeah, it would take some course corrections enroute, but again nothing new to even current spacecraft that tour the solar system. Even 17th century sailing ships back elsewhen had to deal with weird circumstances in order to travel across the ocean, and they seemed to have done fairly well, even without a computer.

    11. Re:Long answer: a few years. by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      If we want this thing to reach relevistic speeds, then every second it wastes not accellerating is a second you can't get back. Take that with the fact this thing is shedding weight (and therefore momentus potential) and you end up with a seriously inefficient vehicle.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  25. After years and years of travel... by ValiantSoul · · Score: 1

    So what happens when it gets close to another star? If the Sun will push it now, the next star will push it too I would assume - but which way? The sail could go backwards, wrap around what its pulling, and then due to momentum you have a giant missle.

    1. Re:After years and years of travel... by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
      I was wondering about that myself; someone caught it up-thread (here), though.

      -PS

      --
      "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
    2. Re:After years and years of travel... by kjs3 · · Score: 1

      Because the accelleration effect of the solar wind falls off over distance, and the effect becomes effectively zero looooooong before a space craft comes under the influence of another star (assuming you aren't in an area of space where the stars are really close together (galactic core, stellar nursery)). Of course, in such areas, you have bigger problems that getting blown around by stellar wind.

  26. Long answer: years by mangu · · Score: 1
    What's the secret drawback that you're not mentioning thats preventing this from being used?


    The fact that such a solar sail wouldn't be able to carry much of a payload.


    OK, here's the long answer: a solar sail made of a reflective membrane a few atoms thick would be able to accelerate very quickly to high speeds. But if you attach any sort of payload to that membrane, then you have to accelerate the mass of the payload as well as the solar sail itself.


    There's a technology limit here, the bigger and thinner we can make a sail with a given strength, the quicker we can send a load to anywhere. Since no one ever used a solar sail for propelling any payload, we do not have real data to answer precisely the question of how long it would take.


    Assuming a technology level we can reach within the next ten years, I would guess we could build a solar sail scientific spacecraft with roughly the same capacity of a Voyager, capable of reaching Pluto in a year of travel.


    For furhter reading, there's an interesting anthology about solar sails, published in 1990 with Arthur Clarke and David Brin as editors. The title is "Project Solar Sail" and it has both science fact articles and fiction short stories.

    1. Re:Long answer: years by anubi · · Score: 1
      I have a book of science fiction short stories containing the story "Sail 25" by Jack Vance.

      It's about the training of six space cadets aboard a solar-sail powered vessel. However, the instructor - ol' Henry Belt - sees to it that everything that can go wrong DOES go wrong! To make matters worse, he's drunk and tells 'em he thoroughly expects to die in space - so the cadets are basically on their own if they ever want to see home again. What they thought was just an interplanetary jant to Mars and back turns out to take them coursing through the solar system, as they face problems of computer failures, energies, gravitation, dwindling food and air supplies, velocity problems... the worst nightmares any space man could imagine.

      It looks to me Jack had really done his homework as he did a beautiful technical analysis of the forces and energies involved.

      I was unable to find the text of his story on the net, but Here's a link to a brief synopsis of the book. Its out of print from what I can tell, so you would probably have to check the library or used bookstores for a copy...

      Its a fascinating read if you are doing any research in solar sails.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  27. Solar wind propulsion, not sunlight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there are practical solar vehcles that run off of batteries charged by sunlight -- range is around 170 miles between charges, and a full charge takes 45 minutes to one hour (charging from the wall takes less time).

    http://www.solarvehicles.org/pages/1/index.htm

  28. Need explanation by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    Okay, I understand that something can be pushed by light. This makes sense. Yet I came up with what I consider to be a paradox. Can someone find the hole in my logic and help me understand things better?

    Okay... I have two solar sails with perfect reflecting ability. I place them so that they are facing away from each other. I turn on my handy-dandy perfectly unidirectional light source so it hits one of the sails square on.

    Bounce! The light pushes the sail a bit. Light reflects to other sail. Bounce. The light pushes the sail a bit. Light reflects to other sial. Bounce.

    I don't see how the light beam loses any energy in my model. Yet the sails definitely gain energy. Can someone show me the flaw in my logic?

    Thanks!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Need explanation by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      Because you can never have a materialthat will reflect absolutely 100% of the light that's going in. Pretty soon, the light source will have diminished, transferring it's energy to the sails. Incidentally, the absorption of light is what gives solar sails their 'push' (due to conservation of momentum, the light comes in with a certain amount of momentum, and that momentum is transferred to the sail when it gets absorbed)

      Hope that helps.

      --

      -Bucky
    2. Re:Need explanation by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      No. There is no "absorption". The reflection of the light is what give it the push. And, no there isn't a 100% perfect reflector. However, theorietical thought experiments do allow for such things (think about Einstein's theories). If, in theory, I have broken the laws of thermodyncamics, there must be some other fllacy in my logic.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Need explanation by kanweg · · Score: 1

      I think the light will go redder and redder.

      So now I have a question, does redder light have a lower impact strength (less oomph) to power the sail?

      Bert

    4. Re:Need explanation by MAdMaxOr · · Score: 1

      You hit it Bert. The a photon's momentum is equal to Planck's constant times the frequency. As the particle gives up momentum to the sails, the frequency becomes lower, the light becomes redder, and eventually the high energy UV light you started with becomes really low energy radio waves as the energy keeps dropping.

    5. Re:Need explanation by borg · · Score: 2, Informative

      first of all, there's no such thing as a perfect reflector, so there's always going to be be some loss. but there's a grand tradition of frictionless planes and other such things in these though experiments, so we'll give you that.

      second, unless you have perfectly coherent light (super laser), you'll have dissipation of the beam. we'll spot that, too (see above).

      once those have been taken care of, the dealbreaker is going to be that the reflected photons are red-shifted when they bounce off each sail.

      the energy of a photon (E) is equal to Plank's constant (h) times the frequency (f).

      the increase in kinetic energy of the sail is conserved conserved due to a lower frequency of the reflected photon.

      --
      Fermat's other theorem: "I have a simple proof, but I can't write it down as I fear it's a DMCA violation to discuss it"
    6. Re:Need explanation by RichardX · · Score: 1

      Err. This probably won't help much, but I've seen this exact question asked, and answered on Physlink which is an "ask the experts" type physics board
      .
      Unfortunately I can't seem to find it again, or remember what the answer was, so you'll just have to take my word for it - though if I can track it down I'll paste a link in here later.

      But I remember the answer basically stated that no, that scenario doesn't work. I think possibly it was because if the light is reflected perfectly, no energy is imparted into the mirror to push it, as photons have no mass, or something.. but I could just be pulling that outta my ass. It's ages since I read it, and I'm no physics expert.

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    7. Re:Need explanation by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. I am aware thre is no "perfect" reflector or "perfectly" coherent light. They only exist in thought experiments. However, thought experiments are useful in finding the limitations of understanding. This is how I figured out I didn't really understand the concept of the solar sail.

      Your explanation of the red-shift filled in the gap. What the problem boiled down to is "what energy decreases as the solar sail energy increases?"

      Thanks!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:Need explanation by UberGeekEdward · · Score: 0

      The one premise is that light scatters when it is reflected, eventually you will simply lose the particles. Plus your sails will absorb light that is not in the "reflective" frequency of your sails. There is also the issue or wear on the reflective surface.

      --
      Talking to geeks is like eating jello with a chainsaw, interesting, but painful.
    9. Re:Need explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You claim to be a geek. But you fail it. Read the other explanations that actually make sense.

    10. Re:Need explanation by knightri · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as a perfect mirror, and I would suppose red shifting of the light relative to each mirror would decrease energies.

      --
      'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'
    11. Re:Need explanation by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      The light will redshift on each bounce. Each red-shift is a little bit of energy lost. Red light is less energetic than blue light, and thus will provide less impulse over time due to the continuous red-shift.

    12. Re:Need explanation by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is absorption and reflection. Think of absorption and reflection analagous to inelastic and elastic colisions, respectively.

      Supposing that you did have a perfect reflector, I fail to see how you'd be violating laws of thermodynamics. You'd have light oscillating back and forth between two mirrors, which isn't a bad thing, per se. Since they are both connected, they would want to stretch apart, but would remain still.

      --

      -Bucky
    13. Re:Need explanation by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      It would be violating the rules of thermodynamics as energy would be being created if my original thought model were correct.

      As other have pointed out, with each reflection, the photons would be red shifted... that is the light itself loses a bit of energy with each reflection. The loss of energy equals the amount gained minus any "friction" in the system. If any "absorption" occurs, this would be part of the friction, not what drives the solar sail.

      If absorption is what drove the system, the engineers would be using black bodies, not reflectors to build their sail.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  29. Here's hoping! by VxJasonxV · · Score: 0

    This was supposed to have happened already, so here's hoping things get off the ground this time.

    And preferably the ship!
    /oblig

  30. they also organize a comet bash party. by hielenlikker · · Score: 0

    how ill is that???? look here to see what i'm saying: http://www.planetary.org/cometbash.html

  31. Re:MOD PARENT *DOWN* by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

    Second reply to this post. I did some math, to show how naive the parent post is:

    Assume 10Kg craft.

    F = (S*A*sin(theta) / c

    Theta = incident angle
    A = area
    S = solar flux

    Let theta = 0, A = 100m^2, S = 1.36KW/m^2

    F = 0.000454 N

    a = F/m = .000454N/(10kg) = 0.000045365 _m/_s^2

    22043.6 Seconds to reach 1 meter per second (6.12 hours)

    So about 6 hr/(m/s)*4500(m/s)(about that needed to get to mars on a nice, almost hohmann, orbit from earth orbit). = 1125 days.

    Presently we can get to mars in about 180 days.

    V_esc for sun at earths orbit:
    M_sol = 2E30 kg,
    R_eo = 1_Au = 1.496E8 km
    G = gravitational constant = 6.6726E-11m^3/(kg*s^2)
    V_esc = root(2G*M/R) = root(2*G*M_sol/R_eo) = 42.239 km/s

    Add to that the velocity to seperate the crafts orbit from earths: ~3km/s = ~45km/s

    Using a straight shot, which is completely 100% impossible, it would take 6.12hrs/(m/s) * 45000 m/s = 31 years, 315 days. Even.

    The reason a straight shot wouldn't work is that flux falls off as the square of distance. So you would need to integrate over time to obtain your velocity, with an inner equation dependant position, which is dependant on your velocity, which is dependant on your past acceleration, which is dependant on your past position... you get the idea.

  32. Re:oops by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

    dependent. Not dependant. sheesh. like 5 times too.

  33. All I ask is a tall spaceship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and a star to sail her by.

  34. Clarification... by epee1221 · · Score: 1

    Is this thing pushed by solar wind or photons?

    --
    "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
  35. Practical uses of Solar Sails by Teancum · · Score: 1

    While I think that solar sails are a neat technology, I would like to hear what some other people here think of their potential as manned spacecraft.

    My contention of what I've seen from all of the numbers that get used to describe velocities and transit times for solar sails, is that this will be used primarily for transfer of bulk goods between different places in space.

    A comparison would be how bulk goods are shipped today in industrial countries. Right now the most common methods are by barge (or equivalent ocean ships like oil tankers) or by rail, and slow-moving rail at that. It doesn't have to get there immediately, the stuff simply has to get there eventually, and as cheap as possible, at least on a price/kg basis.

    In space a bulk shipping service would be even more crucial. Passenger traffic would have to be done on much faster ships, and IMHO the only reliable energy source with the density needed to accomplish that sort of travel (i.e. Earth to Mars in 3-4 weeks) is nuclear propulsion. Chemical rockets simply don't have the energy needed to get us anywhere... at least in any sort of hurry.

    While a neat technology, and necessary to the opening of the solar system to mankind, this technology will be a more workhorse technology rather than something "sexy" that some cool people will want to get to put on their "space yacht". A 1 GW reactor that can push your ship at a continuous 2 G acceleration for 7 weeks on the other hand....