Photonic Laser Thruster Promises Earth to Mars in a Week
serutan writes "Using lasers to drive spaceships has been a subject of interest for many years, but making a photonic engine powerful enough for practical use has been elusive. Dr. Young Bae, a California physicist, has built a demonstration photonic laser thruster that produces enough thrust to micro-maneuver a satellite. This would be useful in high-precision formation flying, such as using a fleet of satellites to form a space telescope with a large virtual aperture. Scaled up, a similar engine could speed a spacecraft to Mars in less than a week."
What sort of acceleration would that be? Would it be multi G-force worth, that might be impractical for humans.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And if scaled up, cockroaches run at 800mph and fleas could jump over a mile. However, the increase in mass and energy requirements would make it impossible.
Small scale thrusters using only lasers is a good start, but we'll have to see what else gets bigger with scale, other than just the thrust.
Where is the energy coming from to create those photons?
Since you're dealing with a photon drive, the reaction mass usage (as determined by the classic rocket equation) is going to be negligible for the speeds required for interplanetary travel.
In fact, I'm not sure what the reaction mass would be in this case.
But in any case, you're going to need a lot of energy to create that photon thrust. Great phrigging big reactors, which means great, great, phrigging big radiators since you don't have the luxury of a river to carry away your waste heat.
Antimatter might be a compact way to store the required energy, but converting the gamma rays from matter/antimatter reactions to electricity is going to require heat exchangers and great big radiators as well.
Well, anyway, scaling this up is going to involve several bears of a problem.
Also, please note that this "article" is a press release from the guy who made the invention.
To send a ship to Mars in a week, Thrust should be roughly 10m/s^2 times the ship's weight, which we'll say is only ten metric tons. (Because we're getting there in a week, we can pack light... pack light, get it? I slay me.) That gives us 10^5 Newtons of thrust.
Exhaust Velocity is the speed of light, or about 3*10^8 m/s.
So our power consumption is 3*10^13 Watts.
By comparison, the USA is currently consuming less than 1*10^13 Watts on average.
In other words, if think you think it costs too much to refuel an RV now...
It's not completely implausible to use light to propel a spacecraft, but either that propulsion will be ridiculously slow (e.g. solar sails, laser sails, or the "precisely tweak your satellite's orbit a tiny bit" applications mentioned in the article), or it's going to require ridiculous "cheap antimatter" amounts of energy.
> Republicans, you mean.
Anybody who's read my posting history knows I'm a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I don't think we can singularly blame the GOP for this one. There's resistance to nuclear power coming from both extreme ends of the spectrum. Environmental activists who don't understand the science on the left, and oil industry lobbyists on the right.
I'm constantly frustrated with people who I know are well-intentioned and genuinely concerned, who are so afraid of nuclear power. I mean I agree, solar and wind power are great ideas, but right now we're generating power using f'ing COAL.
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll