Slashdot Mirror


NASA to Launch Solar Sail

arbitraryaardvark writes "Physorg reports that NASA will launch a solar sail around the end of July. It'll be the first of its kind; a previous attempt blew up. It's a small proof-of-concept gizmo, not a full-on spaceyacht. Solar sails operate on photon pressure from sunlight. They are well known to science fiction readers, otherwise not so much." C-net has coverage, too.

147 comments

  1. Ah, sigh by Gewalt · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sadly, my kids think a solar sail is something you put on a wooden ship to power the ion thrusters. Stupid disney and their stupid wooden ships in outer space...

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    1. Re:Ah, sigh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah well, Hollywood and science haven't ever mixed well, for the most part.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Ah, sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Yeah well, Hollywood and {science, art, engineering, law, philosophy, history, fantasy, ...} haven't ever mixed well, for the most part."

      There. Fixed it for you.

      I'll give you a hint. Hollywood is like a marketing department at an engineering firm. They have learned very well that they don't need to understand the product to sell it. Package a movie with a couple of hunks and babes as well as some explosions and dramatic music, and nobody is going to care about its accuracy.

    3. Re:Ah, sigh by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Package a movie with a couple of hunks and babes as well as some explosions and dramatic music, and nobody is going to care about its accuracy.

      Well, except sad bastards like us.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:Ah, sigh by BeerCur · · Score: 1

      Is there anything wrong with the idea of combining solar sails WITH Ion thrusters? Both should be light weight, not require a large energy source, and theoretical light speed acceleration. I mean besides what type of space craft would benefit from this concept? Interstellar travel maybe? Spend half the trip speeding up and the other half slowing down? Okay, maybe not. What other type of vehicle could a solar sail and Ion thruster be used for?

      --
      It's not what your Sig can do for you, but what you can do for your for your Sig.
    5. Re:Ah, sigh by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Stupid disney and their stupid wooden ships in outer space.

      And stupid children too dumb to even think about questioning any of it.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    6. Re:Ah, sigh by Plazmid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What do you mean? Wood has strength to weight ratio similar to that of carbon fiber, however wood is much cheap than carbon fiber. The main reason wood isn't used to build spacecraft is that wood is porous, but this might be solved by vacuum coating the wood with aluminum.

    7. Re:Ah, sigh by Iron+Condor · · Score: 5, Informative

      Is there anything wrong with the idea of combining solar sails WITH Ion thrusters? Both should be light weight, not require a large energy source, and theoretical light speed acceleration.

      Ion engines still need fuel. Ions, to be precise. Just because they use electricity to accelerate them (instead of some kind of combustion process) doesn't mean that the energy doesn't have to come from somewhere, so now you need an energy source. Which is either solar (cutting into your available area for a sail and becoming increasingly infeasible when you get away from the sun) or nuclear (which means enormously heavy: RTGs are many kg per Watt and a full-blown reactor weighs tons before you've generated the first Watt).

      --
      We're all born with nothing.
      If you die in debt, you're ahead.
    8. Re:Ah, sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Funny, that's how you get from Bajor to Cardassia as well.

    9. Re:Ah, sigh by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Joke, right? Because know a lot of science fiction movies that contain some very rotten science, doesn't mean they're bad films only that you shouldn't take it as a science class. I'd rather have entertaining entertainment than accurate yet extremely boring movies. Yes, I know that in space noone can hear you scream but I don't care when the star destroyer comes "whooshing" by. And that most things don't blow up like they were packed with dynamite. If you didn't learn that outside the movies, maybe the problem is that you take all your learning from movies rather than the movie...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Ah, sigh by ricegf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the book "The Trouble with Tribbles", David Gerrold mentioned that an early Star Trek script included three pages of technically accurate dialog between the Good Captain and his crew to get the Enterprise turned to head to the newest monster-of-the-week. Gene Roddenberry scratched out all three pages and replaced it with a single Captain Kirk command: "Turn around!"

    11. Re:Ah, sigh by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Which is either solar (cutting into your available area for a sail and becoming increasingly infeasible when you get away from the sun) or nuclear (which means enormously heavy: RTGs are many kg per Watt and a full-blown reactor weighs tons before you've generated the first Watt).

      Or you can make the solar sail out of a flexible solar panel and kill two birds with one stone.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    12. Re:Ah, sigh by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      First time I've had mod points and a story accepted at the same time. But I might want to comment, so I'll just say mod parent up.

      What other type of vehicle could a solar sail and Ion thruster be used for?

      Robot ninja asteroid pirates?
      The 2024 Honda hybrid?
      Adding an ion thruster adds some weight, and solar sails tend to work better with low payload vehicles, but yeah, that seems to work.
      Maybe the ion drive could be jettisoned once it runs out of fuel, if it's still close enough to the sun/a star that the sails are effective.

    13. Re:Ah, sigh by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1

      Hollywood is like a marketing department at an engineering firm.
      A unicorn is what's left of the engineer's rhinoceros after marketing gets done with it.

    14. Re:Ah, sigh by CptNerd · · Score: 1

      Hollywood is like a marketing department at an engineering firm.
      A unicorn is what's left of the engineer's rhinoceros after marketing gets done with it.

      I always thought it was the other way around...

      Oh wait, that's after upper management gets done with it.

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    15. Re:Ah, sigh by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Almost right. The revised version of 3 pages of technobabble became "Reverse Course!", not "Turn around!'

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    16. Re:Ah, sigh by Falstius · · Score: 1

      Anywhere with enough solar energy to use a solar cell or solar sail probably has enough particle density (from the solar wind) to use an ion thruster. You don't need a lot of mass to make a thruster, just accelerate each particle to really high velocities. There are engineering problems, but you can't dismiss it out of hand.

    17. Re:Ah, sigh by sconeu · · Score: 3, Informative

      At the risk of replying to myself, I believe that story was first related in Whitfield's "The Making of Star Trek".

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    18. Re:Ah, sigh by Falstius · · Score: 1

      Makes sense .. no one would believe Kirk was up on that much of the technical details and that the crew wasn't. If my captain had to explain to the crew how to turn the ship around, I'd be looking for the life boat.

    19. Re:Ah, sigh by bit01 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have entertaining entertainment than accurate yet extremely boring movies.

      I'd rather have entertaining entertainment with accurate science movies.

      The two are not mutually incompatible like many people like to imply. e.g. 2001. The basic problem is that most Hollywood types are scientifically illiterate, are actively proud of it and don't care that they're not very entertaining to people who are scientifically literate. Many movies are like fingers on a blackboard. e.g. The tilting helicopter in Tomorrow Never Dies. Ridiculous and it spoiled the whole movie.

      ---

      DRM dilutes ownership. It reduces the value and that means the vendor gets less for it.

    20. Re:Ah, sigh by slashtivus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solar sails are nothing but gossamer (light weight) sails. If it was that easy to get something like that to generate electricity with something as thin as standard garbage-bag plastic I'm sure we would have done it before. Solar panels are pretty much a similar process related to CPU/microchip fab == silicon chip == expensive and heavy.

    21. Re:Ah, sigh by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Solar sails are nothing but gossamer (light weight) sails. If it was that easy to get something like that to generate electricity with something as thin as standard garbage-bag plastic I'm sure we would have done it before. Solar panels are pretty much a similar process related to CPU/microchip fab == silicon chip == expensive and heavy.

      Every time I read something like this ("but that's impossible!"), I think about 1900. Amazing the number of things that were "impossible" in 1900 that we do routinely now....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    22. Re:Ah, sigh by Mike610544 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, I know that in space noone can hear you scream but I don't care when the star destroyer comes "whooshing" by.

      This always seemed like a weird pedantic objection to me. If your ears were exposed to the vacuum of space you'd have bigger problems than not hearing spaceships. Why not question the fact that there's an all-seeing camera fraudulently providing the visuals?

      --
      ... also, I can kill you with my brain.
    23. Re:Ah, sigh by khallow · · Score: 1

      You lose some with the overlap. An absorbed photon transfers half the momentum that a reflected photon does. And as another replier noted, currently such combo sails are made of unobtainium.

    24. Re:Ah, sigh by renoX · · Score: 1

      Obviously the photons absorbed gives you only half the momentum of the photon reflected, but as solar cells absorbs photon only on some frequency range, the other could be reflected, so you'd loose less than half of the momentum.

      But the weight of the solar cells is probably much higher than the weight of a normal solair sail..

    25. Re:Ah, sigh by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      [...] Which is either solar (cutting into your available area for a sail and becoming increasingly infeasible when you get away from the sun) or nuclear (which means enormously heavy: RTGs are many kg per Watt and a full-blown reactor weighs tons before you've generated the first Watt).



      .... unless, of course, you are using a bussard reactor. not all kids get science from movies, i got mine from sci fi books. they can be imprecise to the point of criminal, or incredibly visionary. bussard reactors are beyond our technical capability now, but try reading up Jules Vernes remembering when he wrote his books. describing a moon landing when all the population used horse drawn carts is no different from what sci fi does now.

      P.S.: bussard reactors were described, in different configurations, by Larry Niven in his book Protector.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    26. Re:Ah, sigh by TheLink · · Score: 1

      So when are we going to have breakfast at Milliways?

      --
    27. Re:Ah, sigh by rathaven · · Score: 1

      Except that companies like nanosolar are starting to use printing technology to put down the cells...

    28. Re:Ah, sigh by Gearoid_Murphy · · Score: 1

      a focused laser beam from earth or LEO could power a spacecraft through efficient, wavelength specific solar cells or thermoelectric conversion.

      --
      prepare the survey weasels.
    29. Re:Ah, sigh by J05H · · Score: 1

      cork has been used for the heatshield of several reentry capsules. Wooden components have seen limited use in space- but wood is also becoming a hitech (composite) material in many ways so expect more in future perhaps. In the deeper future when plants are grown in open space (bamboo seeded asteroids, baby) then we will build entire hulls from plant fiber and epoxy.

      --
      gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
    30. Re:Ah, sigh by Zanzibar+Q.+Tarquin · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that, whilst everyone knows you can't hear in space, not to be able to hear a huge rocket or explosions nearby goes against all of our personal experience, so whilst we know the sound in movies isn't right, it feels right; more so than if these films used silence.

    31. Re:Ah, sigh by kesuki · · Score: 1

      except, they're primarily marketing the technology as a 'power' solution for RFID, they haven't got approval to sell the product for use as home solar power, and they have a lot of plans, and no customers. that's never a good business model, especially since you switched from an in house, proprietary manufacturing to some untested system using inkjet printer hardware... how long will these devices last, even if they can be printed on plastic... if they're targeting RFID devices, i got a feeling they don't even know this themselves, and are uncertain about 'long term' power providing solutions....

      what kind of yields are they going to get? inkjet nozzles may be commodity, but they wear out, is that the problem they ran into with their 'proprietary' system and then they decide "hey let's use discardable inkjet printer heads instead of fixing the problem!"

      if each head can only make reliable products for one production run, how environmentally friendly is it really? especially if the plastic media it's printed on cause wear and tear every time it flexes, and makes the product wear out in weeks, instead of the 'years to decades' conventional PV can last...

      if the product is really solid, and doesn't get killed off by energy moguls afraid of cheap energy, it could be everywhere in a few years, but what are the odds that this company doesn't get bought out, the product marketed only for RFID where they don't give a damn if solar replaces batteries, and the tech never makes it to uses where it would compete with conventional energy company profits...

    32. Re:Ah, sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly call that a risk :)

    33. Re:Ah, sigh by slashtivus · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your comment and did not mean to come off like that. I'm pretty much a dreamer whenever possible, but given the laws of physics I can't see this one being true within any reasonable time frame (several lifetimes) which I presumed the OP was talking about.

    34. Re:Ah, sigh by slashtivus · · Score: 1

      Good point, but I would have concerns about how anything like that would hold up under the hard radiation and magnetic fields of space. I'd love to see it, but I'd think it would have a tendency to rip / short with material as thin as solar sails. Cheers.

    35. Re:Ah, sigh by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      Sadly, my kids think a solar sail is something you put on a wooden ship to power the ion thrusters. Stupid disney and their stupid wooden ships in outer space...

      The annoying part is that other than that, it was actually a fun movie, but that was a little much. I actually much preferred Titan A.E., which wile not exactly super-realistic, did at least have action-reaction in space.

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    36. Re:Ah, sigh by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      but given the laws of physics I can't see this one being true within any reasonable time frame (several lifetimes)

      Didn't they say that about flight to the moon in the early 1900's? My grandfather was born in the year of the Wright Brothers' first flight. He died ten years or so after Apollo. Less than one lifetime from "no powered flight" to "flight to the moon".

      Note: Actually, what "they" said about flight to the moon in the early 1900's was that it was completely impossible.

      Note that in 1947, Arthur Clarke wrote Prelude to Space. He set his first moon landing in 1978, as I recall. In later interviews, he said that he didn't really believe that flight to the moon would be possible in his lifetime. He picked a date in his own lifetime just to be optimistic. And we got there nine years earlier than his "optimistic" date, only 22 years after he thought "not in my lifetime".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. What a stupid generalisation! by neokushan · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are well known to science fiction readers, otherwise not so much

    Excuse ME, I'm MORE than aware of what they are and I DON'T read science fiction.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Star trek ftw!

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    1. Re:What a stupid generalisation! by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously they weren't aware that one data point nullifies a generalization. Stupid indeed.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:What a stupid generalisation! by Gewalt · · Score: 0
      SSSSHHHH! You're going to blow the minds of the anti-discrimination leaders everywhere! OF COURSE one data point nullifies an entire generalization.

      (no, I'm not racist, yes, that was a joke)

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    3. Re:What a stupid generalisation! by djcinsb · · Score: 1

      It is covered in many first year college physics courses. While that does not cover the hoards of science ignorant in the populous, it is certainly a larger sample than the science fiction reading population (though there is significant overlap) -- or that group plus one.

      --
      A signature always reveals a man's character - and sometimes even his name. -- Evan Esar
  3. Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    And in 50 years, the US Post Office will still be using said technology, while FedEx is traversing through worm holes.

    1. Re:Let me guess... by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      while FedEx is traversing through worm holes

      Oh great! So FedEx will now tell me that my package was delivered. The bad news: it was delivered to me in an alternate reality. With my signature to prove it no doubt. Never mind the fact that "I" didn't get the damn package.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Meanwhile, UPS will just launch the damn thing into a black hole and say customer service is 'working on it.'

    3. Re:Let me guess... by canuck57 · · Score: 2, Funny

      while FedEx is traversing through worm holes

      Oh great! So FedEx will now tell me that my package was delivered. The bad news: it was delivered to me in an alternate reality. With my signature to prove it no doubt. Never mind the fact that "I" didn't get the damn package.

      No, it will deliver the package back in the future. Why does everything have to be Trek?

    4. Re:Let me guess... by st1d · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, walk outside tomorrow, and get a crapload of packages from yourself from the future, with a note "store these for me, k?" Maybe some UPS discount if they can deliver the package "anytime", cutting down on the number of stops they have to make. You know, saving money and all. Meanwhile, you're getting all these random packages for yourself 20 years from now.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    5. Re:Let me guess... by aplusjimages · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do you think your alternate reality self feels? Now he's stuck with the "Hungry Bitches" DVD you ordered.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    6. Re:Let me guess... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      All while DHL keeps screwing up and sending your package directly to me, and when I send it back they boomerang it right back to me again!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or worse yet, because of relativistic effects of wormhole travel, the package could arrive on your doorstep before it was even sent!

    8. Re:Let me guess... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      No, it will deliver the package back in the future. Why does everything have to be Trek?


      I thought it Fedex would be forced to turn the package over to the frelling Peacekeepers and Chriton would have to go in with Moia to recover it. Shows to go what I know, doesn't it?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:Let me guess... by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      That's FedEx where I live. They dropped someone else's package on my front doorstep, and I called them to come get it three times over two months before I took it back myself. By the time I got home, their truck is in my driveway trying to drop that same damn package on my doorstep again!

    10. Re:Let me guess... by kesuki · · Score: 1

      and then the kids will all start saying 'that's so next week' when they get 1,239 packages that they ordered over 56.4 years, and they come in a courtesy semi trailer, ordered by date of opening them!

      but what happens, when a scientist takes advantage of this service, and sends himself everything he patented over his 120 year life span ,courtesy of his life extension drugs he sent himself before he patented them, marketed them and became the first googlbillionaire for having every technology advance for the next 120 years patented!

      yeah, that's just great and when everyone does it we'll wind up with 1.7 trillion years of scientific progress compressed into 7 weeks, and then people realize the drugs that make you live 6,789 years also makes you incredibly stupid, and then we all become hapless homer simpsons, for the next 6,789 years, because everyone took the drugs the sent themselves and everyone else, before anyone tested the long term results.

  4. Its the first of its kind. by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yet a previous attempt blew up.

    You use this phrase Its the first of its kind. I do not think you know what it means.

    And yes .. welcome to /. etc etc

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Its the first of its kind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They mean the first of the kind that doesn't blow up, this one is invincible to explosions.

    2. Re:Its the first of its kind. by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      the first of its kind that hasn't exploded yet

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:Its the first of its kind. by hvm2hvm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well thanks captain obvious. But if they meant that they should have said that. "The first of its kind"<>"The first of its kind that didn't blew up". Also, might I add that it didn't blew up because it hasn't been launched yet? And yeah, it could have meant that its the first kind (like in model) of its kind or something like that. Yeah, this is slashdot so I'm kinda used to that.

      --
      ics
    4. Re:Its the first of its kind. by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 1


      Yet a previous attempt blew up.
      You use this phrase Its the first of its kind. I do not think you know what it means.
      And yes .. welcome to /. etc etc

      When writing a slashdot post, I try to be succinct.
      I figure those (few) who rtfas will sort it out.
      It would be the first solar sail successfully deployed. The planetary society one did not blow up; the rocket that would have deployed it blew up, so it never launched.
      I'm using these terms somewhat arbitrarily, what would expect from an aardvark?
      I'm new here: arbitraryaardvark (845916) high number.

    5. Re:Its the first of its kind. by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      "The first of its kind that hasn't failed already"

  5. Name suggestion by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Bajoran-One (ST:DS9 reference).

    1. Re:Name suggestion by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      That was one of the worst episodes of any Star Trek, ever. "If the sails get blown on hard enough, the ship'll go faster than light!" This was one of the few episodes of any of the series that I actively hated. I can respect JMS for his "at the speed of plot" quips about how fast Star Furies in B5 go, but in this episode of DS9 they sacrificed suspension of disbelief on the part many of their viewers for the sake of allegory.

      I'm still in therapy over it.

  6. I wonder... by muttoj · · Score: 1

    What velocity can it reach?

    1. Re:I wonder... by bob.appleyard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Says it uses "photon pressure," so just under c would be the cut-off, I reckon. It would probably leave the solar system long before it reached that velocity, though.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    2. Re:I wonder... by Orange+Crush · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A solar sail craft's maximum speed will be considerably less than c. Mass-to-sail ratio and diminishing radiation pressure as the craft travels further from its star will be the biggest limiting factors.

    3. Re:I wonder... by solitas · · Score: 1

      Any idea what solar radiation pressure is at, say, 1 AU? I would imagine that it does an inverse-square drop-off as the distance increases, neglecting CME's and other transients.

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    4. Re:I wonder... by bob.appleyard · · Score: 1

      You're right, I neglected the mass of the spacecraft. Silly me.

      --
      How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
    5. Re:I wonder... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if falling inwards might be a good idea with a solar sail? Not like Icarus, just get close enough so that the extra boost from the solar radiation helps -- perhaps an elliptical curve falling inwards, and grabbing extra delta v on the way out? Perhaps, don't deploy the sail until you're starting to fall outwards? IMNARS though.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  7. cool cool by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

    hopefully it will accelerate to a reasonable speed of a million miles a second and then aim it at the moon.. observing the impact for scientific data and whatever else.

    1. Re:cool cool by st1d · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably interesting to watch, but something of a waste. The moon's close enough we could study an area carefully (for minerals and features and other details), then when we know it's composition well, we put a nuke up there, and we'll get much more helpful information about it, as well as be able to select the damage threshold more exactly. Less variation in the results is better, correct?

      Roughly speaking, a 220lb spacecraft at a million miles an hour would be 6-1/2 kilotons, about 1/2 the energy of Hiroshima, except of course, it would distribute that energy directly into the ground, not in an air burst. It wouldn't even make the news, from an earthquake point of view, they're measured in thousands of megatons. To eyeball it, take a look at "Minor Scale", it's a little smaller, 4.8 ktons, but wikipedias got a decent picture of the detonation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale

      My guess is the moon probably still gets impacts like this on occasion, so wasting a spacecraft might be redundant.

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    2. Re:cool cool by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Informative

      hopefully it will accelerate to a reasonable speed of a million miles a second

      Only problem with that being that a million miles a second is roughly five times the speed of light. Last time I heard, it's not possible go that fast.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    3. Re:cool cool by Sethumme · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that solar sails would take far more distance than exists between the earth and the moon to accelerate to any significant speed.

    4. Re:cool cool by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      It wouldn't even make the news, from an earthquake point of view, they're measured in thousands of megatons.


      That's what I would have thought, but according to Wikipedia, when the wreck of the Kielce was being salvaged in the English Channel near Folkestone, the roughly 3,000 tones of HE it was carrying detonated, causing an earthquake measured at 4.5 on the Richter scale.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:cool cool by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      I have to take exception with that statement. They never measured anything from the explosion of the Kielce - they merely guess NOW that it was roughly equivalent to an earthquake measuring 4.5. Who knows how accurate that guess is. Second, the Richter scale is a log10 scale, so every step up the ladder is 10 times the force.

    6. Re:cool cool by khallow · · Score: 1

      As the other replier noted, a lot of earthquakes have energies below that energy level. A magnitude 9 earthquake (of which there have been 5 in the last century) is roughly 10 gigatons (Richter scale is a bit higher than the modern moment magnitude scale. A 6.5 kiloton energy release in an earthquake would be around 5.5 magnitude.

    7. Re:cool cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I heard, it's not possible go that fast.

      That's because light goes so much faster than sound.

    8. Re:cool cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ben Johnson gets unlimited Chee-tah energy beverages and is going to prove you wrong sir.

    9. Re:cool cool by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I won't argue with you on that. After all I only have Wikipedia's word on it, and we all know it's not always completely accurate.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    10. Re:cool cool by Zanzibar+Q.+Tarquin · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you launch it towards the Sun & then deploy the sail? ...though I would imagine even that would not be far enough...

    11. Re:cool cool by kesuki · · Score: 1

      give the man a break, google calculator defaults to saying "299 792 458 m / s" the m being 'meters' but miles is also designated with an m.

    12. Re:cool cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably Einstein divided by zero somewhere. His original relativity equations had more terms in them. Found a copy of his 1905 book in a garage sale 2 years ago. Our army uses a branch of physics called 'Davis mechanics' in its operation of its main gun. Davis mechanics uses extra terms in the dF=m[(da)+a taylor series of progressively higher derivatives of acceleration)...the reason that straws go through utility poles in tornadoes, etc. The same is true of the related energy equation which depends on the reworked force equations. Light goes at characteristic speed according to the medium through which it travels. Through Bose-Einstein condensates it virtually stands still. I read that to mean it will prove to be like sound. So called 'scientists' swore for decades on end that sound would not be exceeded either. We already see light booms akin to sonic booms. They are called Cerenkov radiation. Also to be considered is the fact that space is not empty, and we cannot generate a perfect vacuum no matter how hard we have tried. Therefore the so called 'light speed in a vacuum' may only be its speed in a tenuous medium. All of our so called 'proof of speed of gravity' work is also suspect as it somewhere in its test uses light or electricity. The awful truth may be that light travels much faster in true vacuums, and gravitic speed may be literally infinite, like propagation of sound in relatively incompressible/elastic mediums is much higher. We already have seen the outlines of other shortcuts such as quantum entanglements of large amounts of matter at once and its instant teleportation. The actual data is likely classified, just like Davis mechanics likely has since the 1970's

    13. Re:cool cool by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      IRC, the quantum entanglement phenomenon has been shown not to transfer information faster than the speed of light. There's no teleportation of matter occurring at all, simply matter here and matter there whose state is coupled. Not at all the same thing.

      Einstein showed that there is no need for a static background. Your arguments suggest that light propagates only as a wave, which again, Einstein showed to be false in those same 1905 papers (quanta of light). He didn't write the book until a few years later. The notion of photon which Einstein proposed has lead to one of the most spectacularly successful models of the universe we've yet seen: quantum mechanics, A.K.A. the Standard Model.

      Davis Mechanics are modifications to Newton's mechanics. They're simply easier to deal with when you're not working with velocities close to the speed of light, or stellar scales. Calculations for firing a gun can easily use cleaned up Newtonian mechanics for a reasonable approximation. Just like NASA still uses Newtonian Mechanics (tweaked) to do most of its calculations.

      As for the propagation of light in mediums like water, the speed of photons is constant, the propagation of the wave slows down as the photons interact with matter, getting absorbed or emitted as the case may be. Cerenkov radiation happens when energetic particles move faster than the propagation of the wave (not faster than the photons) and cause additional emission of photons (more than would've come from the wave itself). The analogy to sonic booms should not be stretched beyond its purpose to impute mechanisms.

  8. Interesting by KasperMeerts · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hope my grandkids can one day go outside to take a spin around Mars with their solar sails.
    Still, the idea of a science-fiction object being realized in the real world is mighty interesting.
    Maybe tomorrow they will think about warp drives.

    --
    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
    1. Re:Interesting by ijakings · · Score: 0

      Im sure that they have thought about warp before.

      One problem amongst many many others is the storage of the antimatter. What do you store antimatter in if it explodes on contact with matter?

      It sure isnt an empty jam jar.

    2. Re:Interesting by KasperMeerts · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the easy part. A couple of electric and magnetic fields and it'll work out.

      The hard part is creating the antimatter. By the way, for warp drives we need something more exotic than antimatter. Matter with negative mass or something.

      --
      As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
    3. Re:Interesting by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if we could make antimatter cheaply and on a large scale it still isn't very practical for interstellar travel. The distances are just so unimaginably immense. There isn't yet even a theoretical substance that could propel us to the stars within a human lifetime and then have enough "fuel" to slow down again. Surely everyone has read that NASA "warp drive when" link by now. I'm getting tired of posting it. The idea is that we really need a true "space drive" for practical interstellar travel. Rocket technology regardless of the fuel just isn't going to do it.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:Interesting by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      What do you store antimatter in if it explodes on contact with matter?


      Actually, it doesn't. I remember a program item back at LACon II in '84 where Dr. Forward had something to say about exactly that. He said that recent calculations had shown that if you dropped a lump of anti-matter on the floor it would sizzle like a drop of water in a hot frying pan taking several minutes to vanish. You see, the reaction only takes place on the surface and, of course, the bigger the piece, the less of it is surface. Also, the reaction heats the surroundings, creating a buffer of hot (think thin) gas between the anti-matter and the floor. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    5. Re:Interesting by soliptic · · Score: 1

      What do you store antimatter in if it explodes on contact with matter?

      Antimatter containment fields... DUH!

      Sheesh, it's like Geordie taught you NOTHING.

    6. Re:Interesting by Sethumme · · Score: 1

      I hope my grandkids can one day go outside to take a spin around Mars with their solar sails. Still, the idea of a science-fiction object being realized in the real world is mighty interesting. Maybe tomorrow they will think about warp drives.

      I think the source of momentum in spaceships powered by solar sails means that it can only use that momentum to travel directly away from the photon source (i.e., the sun). So no round trips.

    7. Re:Interesting by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      Very good point. Another is that modern containment of antimatter is often done by freezing. The closer you get it to absolute zero, the less interaction there is with normal matter.

    8. Re:Interesting by KasperMeerts · · Score: 1

      Yes you can. Don't forget the sun still has an enormous gravity, many times stronger than its radiation pressure. If you decrease your orbital speed by aiming you sail a bit off, your orbital speed decreases and you'll slowly spiral into the sun.

      It's somewhere in the Wikipedia article about solar sails under 'Limitations'

      --
      As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
    9. Re:Interesting by Zanzibar+Q.+Tarquin · · Score: 1

      Surely the point of sails is that they can be rigged so that they can go across & against the "wind"... e.g. tacking?

    10. Re:Interesting by Zanzibar+Q.+Tarquin · · Score: 1

      Oops...

    11. Re:Interesting by Zanzibar+Q.+Tarquin · · Score: 1

      ...I'll get my coat...

    12. Re:Interesting by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Duh, you just build a machine that creates a complete copy of yourself at the destination in 10 million years from now when it gets there. the plus side, is you don't even need enough fuel except to decelerate the device when it gets there.

      as long as you can make a reliable computing device, capable of cloning yourself at the destination, complete with memories, oh an maybe give it enough fuel to come back, make a third clone of you with both the original memories, and the memories of visiting there, and then you can stand by the crumbling remains of the world where apes rule the planet and humans are slaves to them
      and you can scream "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

      as for power, as long as the navigation and time keeping computer uses a low enough power requirement, a nice, atomic battery based on the decay of radioactive waste can keep the system ready to start of the main generator to start up the cloning machine/ etc...

    13. Re:Interesting by kesuki · · Score: 1

      oh wait, i just thought of a problem...

      the exponential gravity well problem.

      the problem is that while attemting to hit the 'event horizion' of the gravitational effects of the next solar system, you're faces with exponential gravity drag. eg: for every meter you travel, your distance is slowed, based on your toal distance from the sun, and the percentage of gravity well pulling you back, since gravity wells extend to infinity and the next neared gravity well is 2 light years away, you need continuous thrust or else in ~150 years (it really depends on the speed you got to, i was basing this on comets, which have iirc 100-150 year orbits) the exponential effect of gravity will not only have completely slowed your craft to 0 (the first 75 years maybe) then it reverses your speed at an accelerating pace until you reach the terminal velocity of your craft directly back towards your own solar system.

      so you need at the minimum some soret of propulsion ssytem that activates every 25-50 years to accelerate you back to a reasonable escape velocity, until you hit the next gravity well, and if you're not going to the next closest solar system waits until you slingshot away from the next solar well, to the next one rinse repeat...

      based on this voyager 1 should come back into our solar system within the next 150-200 or so years, it will never be able to escape our own solar system, with only a 'final' slingshot from one of the larger outer planets...

      man i which i had a super computer to do the exponential gravity based on real data from comet (escape speed, return velocity everything we know of comets) data so i could pinpoint the exact year voyager 1 comes back to 1 AU.

      silly star trek got it wrong voyager 1 is coming home, because gravity has an infinite distance, or at least far enough to bring comets back, no space vessel without a significant propulsion system is ever going inter planetary.

      Well, at least, without destroying the sun in a mater/anti matter conversion process to allow the gravity of the next solar system to attract them.

      destroying the sun and all the planets to go interstellar is a bit to far, in my book.

    14. Re:Interesting by Sethumme · · Score: 1
      You are correct, the sun's gravity could be used to draw the interplanetary craft back towards Earth's orbit. But, based on very little information, I doubt the sun's gravity alone would allow for an expedient return trip, assuming the flight away the sun under power of solar sails was of any useful speed to begin with.

      If solar sails could provide faster-than-rocket travel between Earth and the outer planets, I believe the only way to utilize that propulsion (and it's higher speed) to return home would be to slingshot around a farther planet and then to collapse the sails.

  9. Beating against the solar wind? by DerMatsi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA: "And like a marine sail, a solar sail could also bring you home. You could use the solar sail to tack your vessel, making it travel "against the wind," back to Earth." I don't see how this would be possible.. sailboats can do this because of a keel which exerts force on the water, which cannot be done in the near vacuum of space. Or am i missing something?

    --
    v4sw4+6CShw4ln4pr3/4OPck3ma6u6Lw4Xm1l5DiNe4+7t4/5MRWb8HTen5a2Xs6MSr1p-5.75/-5.33g5/6GT hackerkey.com
    1. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by amorsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or am i missing something?

      Gravity.

      Disclaimer: Won't work if you accelerate beyond escape velocity.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by 3.1415926535 · · Score: 1

      Unlike a sailboat, in a solar sail vehicle, you can fold up the sail and fall.

    3. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Yeah I thought that was a bit odd as well. A keel gives a boat directional stability, not just sailing against the wind, but in every direction except straight downwind. You could put a sail on flat bottomed raft and the only direction you could move under sail power would be directly with the wind. Lacking a space keel would seem to limit any solar sail to going directly away from the sun. It could still be useful to any space craft, but only as a secondary system. If this works I'd like to see one in the ISS, deployed only a few minutes per orbit to maintain or improve ISS's orbital position.

      --
      We are all just people.
    4. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gravity.

      No, that's incorrect. In space travel, the vehicle is in some orbit, and in the absence of a force other than gravity, it's just going to continue in that (typically elliptical) orbit forever. Say you're going to Mars, for instance. You needed to match orbits with Mars, which means you're in the same nearly circualr orbit around the sun that Mars is in. (Of course you also have to insert yourself into orbit around Mars, and get yourself out of that orbit as well, but let's not worry about that for now.) Once you're ready to leave, you don't just wait for the sun's gravity to pull you downhill back to Earth. You're in a circular orbit whose radius is greater than that of the Earth's orbit, so you're not coming back toward the sun unless you can reduce your velocity.

      To understand how you'd really use a solar sail, let's start with the case where you just want to increase your distance from the sun. Intuitively, you'd think that you'd just orient the sail perpendicular to the sun's rays, and let it thrust you outward. However, that doesn't work, because the thrust from the sunlight is orders of magnitude less than the sun's gravitational force. Doing that would be sort of like dialing down the strength of the sun's gravity by some tiny percentage, which would alter your orbit for a given velocity vector, but only by a tiny amount.

      What you actually do is to point your sail at an angle. The sunlight's thrust then has both a radial component and a tangential component. The tangential component does mechanical work, because it operates in the same direction as the motion of the vehicle. That means it increases the vehicle's kinetic energy. The higher-energy orbit takes you farther out away from the sun.

      When you want to come back, you do something similar, but you tilt the sail the opposite way. The tangential component is now in the opposite direction compared to your motion, so it does negative work, reducing your kinetic energy.

      This web page has an example that calculates the optimal angle to tilt the sail at.

    5. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have brought up that same point in previous articles. What amazed me is that ppl would point out hoby cats but ignore the fact that the pontoon is designed to act as a sideboard. All in all, I think that you can broad reach if the sail force is smaller than the gravity pull, but I do not think that a beat is possible. Obviously, this is very useful for a run, or for slowing down.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2, Informative


      Tilt the sail. In one direction, it will increase your tangential velocity, and raise your orbit. In another direction, it will decrease your tangential velocity, and lower your orbit.

    7. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      So the sailing analogy breaks down pretty fast. Too bad we can't just stick some kind of fin into the aether.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    8. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gravity.

      No, that's incorrect.


      When you want to come back, you do something similar, but you
      tilt the sail the opposite way. The tangential component is now
      in the opposite direction compared to your motion, so it does
      negative work, reducing your kinetic energy.

      OK, so if it's not gravity that makes you move towards the sun
      as you reduce your velocity (and kenetic energy), what is it?

    9. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope still not convinced. Trying to put a solar sail at any angle and go against the solar wind will do nothing but serve as drag and the sail will end up behind the craft much like a comet's tail. With a boat you have the water pushing back against the hull to counteract that lateral component of the wind, the keel plays a part in this also. With the rigging AND the rudder you keep the sail at optimum angle to the wind. In space there is nothing pushing back on the craft. Your craft will not be massive enough to give you any usable gravity. And if these sails are still not stronger than gravity... uh what's the breakthrough? So basically there is nothing to keep your whole craft from always blowing away from the source of the solar wind. No rudder, no keel, no hull. Great Spinnaker, terrible Genoa.

    10. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Learned to sail in a HobieCat. They have daggerboards that can be dropped but, in truth, they're not all that good at sailing close to the wind.

      They can be tricky to tack, too--you have to make great, wide turns or do what's called wear, when you make a sort of loop at each tack in order to keep the wind astern. If you make the same sort of quick turn you would make in a monohulled boat, you might find yourself dead in the water.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    11. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Interesting

      AIUI, wearing and tacking are two separate ways to change course across the wind. In tacking, you turn your ship across the wind, using the ship's momentum to keep you going until your sails can catch the wind. (If you fail, your ship is said to be "in irons," pointing directly into the wind with no forward motion.) Wearing ship is much easier but, as you note, takes more room. You turn away from the wind going all the way around in a big turn and emd up with the wind on the other side of your ship. Although it's slower, it does have the advantage of avoiding any chance of getting stuck.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    12. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I grew up racing melges c-scows. They have side boards. I have sailed a couple of cats as well, but they were 20-25' and all had dagger boards.
      As to the hobies, take a look at the smaller older ones. They had no dagger boards. Their outer edge was straight down and the inner edge curve to meet it. Think of the bottom of the "d". It worked well for them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For as brief as the previous response was, it is correct, albeit unsatisfying. By reducing your kinetic energy, the orbit decays, owing to the central force. You can also think of it as reducing orbital angular momentum, allowing you to penetrate further through the centrifugal barrier. You could of course pick up kinetic energy and still move inward for a meeting with some body by creating an orbit with greater eccentricity, but then you would probably end up wizzing by the intended target.

    14. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by khallow · · Score: 0

      There's two things that allow you to do this when orbiting the Sun. First, you can fix the orientation of your solar sail with respect to the Sun. Second, you are in an orbit. That means you are traveling with a certain velocity in a mostly elliptical path. If you wish to move closer to the Sunb what you angle the sail so that light is reflected in the direction of your trajectory and your vehicle decelerates. Then the vehicle heads in closer to the Sun "against" the solar wind.

    15. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      I think you're the closest so far. In any system where you're you're depending on the incidence and reflection of particles for thrust, be they photons, ions or whoknowswhatsitrons, you can change the thrust vector by changing the direction of the plane of reflection. If you like, you can have multiple reflective surfaces and direct the reflection pretty much wherever you like. You'll end up with thrust in any direction you want, as long as the amount of energy impacting and reflecting is asymmetrical. That is, you don't get any thrust if you double-reflect back in the original direction of the particle flow (you emit as much as you soak up) but any other direction is cool, you'll get a push. Parabolic surfaces are useful when you have incidence at random angles, because the net reflection ends up all in one direction (think "rocket nozzles"). Flat plates are good for single angle systems, such as where you have a point source (the sun from some distance away).

      I'd think that because of this a large parabolic shape for a solar sail would be best near terrestrial orbits, because the sun is so much bigger than the sail you'll get multiply-incident paths for the solar wind. Unless you have Pak protectors building it, of course, in which case all bets are off.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    16. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could put a sail on flat bottomed raft and the only direction you could move under sail power would be directly with the wind.

      That's not true. While you couldn't tack and move upwind, you could move at angles under 45 degrees off downwind. Think of your hand out the window of a car. You can get upward and downward forces that don't match the wind force, because you're deflecting the wind, not just being hit by it.

    17. Re:Beating against the solar wind? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      and mount lasers on it. you forgot the lasers, that was a shark fin right, you didn't specify!

  10. Rail Sail by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to see a maglev train on an Andean mountain firing a ship into Earth orbit, which then deploys solar sails to catch the much more plentiful direct solar radiation to accelerate it away from the Earth. That seems like a better way to use the infrastructure we have on Earth, where at least 25-30% of the solar power is lost in the atmosphere and the air creates drag on the accelerated ship, and to use the microgravity and vacuum of space where it's easier to deploy light, flimsy solar collectors in the full sunlight.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Rail Sail by njh · · Score: 1

      How about one of these:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

      It seems plausible. Especially if you look at using Al or CU loops in dyneema as diamagnets rather than iron as a ferromagnet.

    2. Re:Rail Sail by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A launch loop would be held up at this altitude by momentum of the belt as it circulates around the structure, in effect it transfers the weight of the structure onto magnetic bearings at each end which support it.

      I don't really get that. What exactly keeps the heavy rail track lifted 80Km in the air across 1500 Km?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Rail Sail by njh · · Score: 1

      Momentum. Think of a lasso.

    4. Re:Rail Sail by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      A lasso has a lot of energy put into it with every turn the tail end is pulled. Enough to push the whole lasso up. The lasso stays in place because of the gyroscopic motion around a center of gravity. That rail hump shows neither of those dynamics.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Rail Sail by njh · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about what allows it to support its weight vertically (like a lasso, accelerated by linear motors at the base), or what stops it tipping over sideways (guy cables from the ground)?

    6. Re:Rail Sail by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Vertically. What keeps it hanging up there 80Km above the ground?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Rail Sail by njh · · Score: 1

      I don't think I can help you understand. Why does a projectile travel in an arc when it is fired upwards?

    8. Re:Rail Sail by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't weigh very much, and doesn't go that far, so the fairly small energy that impulsed it in that parabola converts most of its reaction momentum into velocity.

      That conveyor belt reaches 80Km high, so it would have to be moving quite fast, and is "fired" over 2000 Km, and is made of material that stretches that whole way, has loadbearing strength requiring quite a bit of matter stretching across and along as a belt, and runs continuously. The energy to keep it up would be like launching over a thousand rockets every few days, if that long. Why not just convert that energy into rocket fuel and blast it off?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    9. Re:Rail Sail by njh · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      I don't see how there is a difference between an impulse projectile and a continuously accelerated projectile (heck, that was your proposal that started this discussion). The proposal was going quite fast - 14km/s. That's fast. In fact, it's nearly orbital velocity.

      Regarding energy, back of the envelop says that the proposed 35 * 5tonnes per day @ 500MW (43TJ) is about 7 space shuttle launches a day in payload (22TJ). So I agree that the current design is underwhelming. Pity. Perhaps there is an advantage that you could power it directly from electricity (though solar thermoelectrochemical production of hydrogen has an electrical efficiency of over 100%, so perhaps not).

      What are the economics of the maglev launcher?

    10. Re:Rail Sail by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't know exactly the economics of a maglev launcher. But they've got to be better than the energy we expend in a long shotgun blast launching rockets, since the energy can be expended over a longer time, with more precise controlled release, which means it can be a lot more efficient. And the resistance from the Earth to the propelling mechanics can offer half the reaction, rather than just spent fuel as a reaction mass, with a lot of the energy released as a vast amount of heated gas. Maglev instead of traditional rail reduces the friction, as does starting up in the Andes' thin air, and already 26 miles further (plus a a few miles of mountain) further from the Earth's gravitational center than the poles, or other higher elevations.

      There might be a case to make for launching by rail in an evacuated tunnel, accelerated by stationary electromagnets (railgun), so the payload has no air resistance or any mass useful only in that initial launch stage, then some kind of scramjet that requires low air density and high speed, perhaps with short wings for lift, until it's high enough in a parabolic orbit that solar sails can be deployed to power it into higher orbit before it comes fallign parabolicly back to Earth. Different lifting techs for different conditions through the launch orbits.

      I think that those different conditions throughout a launch that are exploited by only a single tech means that at least some of the phases aren't the most efficient way to get through them. The ways I'm proposing each use the available conditions to get lift, with the minimum mass (and its drag) accelerated to get there.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  11. Planetary Society's solar sail by imipak · · Score: 3, Informative

    Still time to chip in your contribution towards the Planetary Society's second attempt to do a working solar sail.

  12. Skip it by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Go to the moon. I have never been that big of a fan of going to the moon until japan showed that there is a lot of uranium up there. That makes it very different. That gives us power to build and launch nuke ships. Combine these with sails that can use a laser from the moon. Not a bad way to get high speeds.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Skip it by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "until japan showed that there is a lot of uranium up there. That makes it very different. That gives us power to build and launch Giant Robotic mecha"

      fixed that for you, there is also a lot of titanium, to make the giant robots out of.

  13. Boost laser time by CBob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yep, we'd best start working on the boost lasers, they'd be handy for the 1st Kzin war too.

  14. Where's the keel on a solar sail-powered ship? by davidkhuffman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Physorg article notes: "And like a marine sail, a solar sail could also bring you home. You could use the solar sail to tack your vessel, making it travel "against the wind," back to Earth." But, I thought that do sail across the wind you need something to provide "lift" to counter the lateral force of the sail, which is provided in boats by a keel, or centerboard, or daggerboard, or a fin and rail on a windsurfer, or a skeg, etc. etc. Where's the counterforce in a solar sail in space?

    1. Re:Where's the keel on a solar sail-powered ship? by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Attitude control gyros...

  15. my parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    My parents were married, you insensitive clod!

    1. Re:my parents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine weren't you doubly insensitive clod!

  16. The Probe by TheJerbear79 · · Score: 1

    "Our chief engineer has high hopes that this will... if successful... generate power, to keep us alive." Oh and um... save the whales.

  17. Next up.... by belligerent0001 · · Score: 1

    Maybe once they get the "Solar Sail" working they can focus their attention on getting that damn Dysan Sphere under construction. I would suggest getting a couple space elevators running to assist with construction.

    --
    "...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
  18. Cue Light Sailor by Wendy Carlos by AtariKee · · Score: 1

    30-56-99 are correct. Limited 4 and 8 are missing.

    And now you'll have two renegade programs running all over the system in a stolen simulation.

    End of line.

    --
    "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
    "Thank you, Master Control"
    -Sark and the MCP
  19. My eyes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh sweet Jesus, for crying out loud, STOP SAYING "not so much".

  20. Sure. Next article by heroine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > It will travel to space onboard a SpaceX Falcon 1 rocket

    Good luck with that one. They can't even get any time on the island because they have to beg & steal for government launch facilities.

    A bit disappointing that the space station isn't being used for breathrough research like this. Instead it's busy enough keeping itself alive & selling Buzz lightyear promos.

  21. Voyage To Infinity? by opencity · · Score: 1

    On the cruise you will have peace of mind with a garden reeked of love.
    For the sake of earnest unity on this voyage to infinity.
    On the voyage to infinity, can't forget to take your soul.
    Cause at the port you'll find no double sign.

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  22. Maybe it's not just bad car analogies... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    The sail is never really pointed 'against' the solar wind, only with or against the current orbital vector. In both cases, the ship is moving from left to right at this point in its orbit.

    Sail_______/

    Velocity___}

    Force_____}

    Sun_______*

    In this example, the force on the sail from the solar wind continually increases the velocity of the ship, slowly increasing its orbital radius.

    Sail_______\

    Velocity____}

    Force______{

    Sun_______*

    In this case, the force on the sail is working against the vector of the ship - its velocity, and therefore its orbital radius, will be continually decreasing.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  23. Tip: use lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a tip for NASA: use lasers to launch a ship with a lightsail in the direction of the Coalsack, giving it added thrust. We've simply got to beat those Moaties to it!

    Extra points if those lasers are mounted on sharks of course...

  24. Not science fiction in origin by jamrock · · Score: 1

    Still, the idea of a science-fiction object being realized in the real world is mighty interesting.

    Actually, the idea was first proposed by Johannes Kepler in the 17th century. And there are still a lot of basic misconceptions about solar sails and light sails, no doubt because of the word "sail".

    Simply put, they don't derive their thrust from the solar wind, the stream of charged particles emitted by the sun, but from the radiation pressure of sunlight (as stated in the summary), which provides vastly greater thrust than the solar wind. They don't tack, or "run before the wind", or perform maneuvers that wind-powered vessels do, they change from one orbit to another (solar or planetary) by using light pressure for minute accelerations or decelerations, doing so by changing the attitude of the main sail with smaller vanes.

  25. Solar Sailing by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    "They are well known to science fiction readers, otherwise not so much."

    They are well known to those familiar with space history. We learned how to build these sails from Echo 1A and Echo 2, launched back in the 60s. Both were aluminized mylar balloons, used as passive microwave reflecting communications satellites. Both were "blown" off orbit by solar pressure. Analysis of the orbital data told us the why and the how much, so now we can do it accurately.

    As for "a previous attempt blew up", the same thing happened to Echo 1. Echo 1A was a backup. Luckily the design was dirt cheap, making that possible. Sadly, then as now, the failures were in the expensive parts -- the boosters.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  26. Better Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a Donation Specify Project: Solar Sailing

  27. Photon Pressure by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    What's worse is they could read slashdot and believe that they work by photon pressure rather than solar winds. What next? Does reentry burn you up because of friction (rather than rapid pressure change)?

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  28. Re:Sure. Next article by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    They must be doing something right, cause apparently, the rocket is on the pad right now going through dress rehearsals.

    clickenzie here.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  29. no really. by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

    I am speaking here as an experienced sailor, you can only sail a direction other than directly with the wind be exploiting the directional stability of the boat. While most of the directional stability of modern sailboat comes from the keel, there is a great degree of resistance to lateral movement caused by hull shape, and that affords you a fair amount of directional stability, which could be used by racing dingys and other sailboats with removable daggerboards and the like to sail in most directions down wind. However in outer space it is impossible to deflect the solar wind at an angle because you lack the grounding to be able to provide any resistance to that wind. The reason that your hand can generate up and down forces when you hang it out of the car window is because of the resistance your arm provides against the wind. Hold a birds feather in front of a fan, as long as you hold on to it you can make it generate up and down forces by changing the angle, but as soon as you remove the resistance provided by your hand and let the feather go, it will move directly with the airflow regardless of the angle of the feather.

    --
    We are all just people.