Launch Date for First Solar Sail due Monday 181
PGillingwater writes "The Planetary Society (home of SETI) is planning to launch the first Solar Sail Spacecraft, Cosmos 1, later this month. The exact launch date is scheduled to be announced on Monday, May 9. This event represents one of the first privately-funded space missions with the objective of pure research. It will be launched from a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea. The spacecraft consists of a body surrounded by 8 triangular sails, that will use the tiny force of reflected sunlight to (potentially) accelerate to tremendous speeds. Unfortunately, the craft is not expected to leave Earth's orbit due to degradation of the mylar materials, but should be a proof of concept for subsequent missions."
Woah! (Score:1, Funny)
The materials have degraded before it's even left Earth? Damn outsourcing...
Re:Woah! (Score:2)
Re:Woah! (Score:2)
The Sail is only supposed to boost it's orbit by about 500km.
Heartening news (Score:1)
In the end, this kind of research will be vital to the survival of the race. I mean, after all, "Deep Impact" (or "Lucifer's Hammer", or any number of other similar stories) is only a matter of 'when', not 'if'; and if you believe many scientists, we're overdue already. So everybody buy a tee shirt and wish 'em well!
Re:Heartening news (Score:5, Interesting)
Why all this concern with "survival of the race"? You have to face the inevitable fact that all things come to an end, even entire species, even if they are dispersed across the galaxy. We will invariably go extinct sooner or later, one way or another.
Serious impacts are a low enough probability event not to worry about at this point; if our planet becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will be self-inflicted and there are far simpler ways of preventing that than space flight.
In any case,solar sailing is a great thing, not to ship a few carcasses to another planet, but because it lets us do great science.
Re:Heartening news (Score:5, Insightful)
But if theren't any carcasses around to get the "great science" and do something with it, the value of "great science" is somewhat diminished. ;)
Unless you believe in pure research for it's own sake...
Re:Heartening news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
To me, pure research is pretty pointless if the planet gets smashed... but I'm one who believes that having the planet intact and few folks left on the planet is a Good Thing.
I guess I'm placing a higher priority (and even associating value with) the survival of the race. That will, after all, enable more pure research and great science!
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Re:Heartening news (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, there is just about no conceivable way for our planet to become less inhabitable to humans than any alternative in our solar system. Even after an impact the size of the one that killed off the dinosaurs, you'd be much better off in a bunker on earth than trying to survive in a tin can on dry, oxygenless Mars.
If we are concerned about the survival of the species in face of these kinds of events, we should build a few Dr. Strangelove-style shelters deep underground. It would be easily doable with current technology, and it would be far cheaper than trying to establish colonies on lifeless planets.
Re:Heartening news (Score:5, Interesting)
Resources in space might be necessary to meet the challenges we face over the next century or two. The resources available in just the Near Earth Asteroids are, if you'll pardon the pun, astronomical. A typical large type M asteroid might have as much as a 150 billion dollars worth of platinum and enough iron to replace all the mining done on Earth for five years. With the resources in the asteroids, we could build enormous structures in space without having to lift mass off the Earth. If fusion is ever to be a real power source, it's likely that we'll need the helium-three that is available in large quantities on the Moon, and almost non-existent on Earth.
Moving power production and dirty industries to space might be a way to continue to improve the standard of lving for humanity as a whole, without destroying our environment.
The threat of a catastophe that is purely natural is also real, even if the probability is low. Asteroid 2004 MN4 seems likely to come very close, if not actually hit, Earth in 2035 and 2036, depending on how it's course is affected by it's close pass in 2029. Though it's not a dinosaur killer, it's big enough to do serious damage. Many of the readers of slashdot will be alive when that happens. There is also a tiny, but real chance that a super-caldera, such as the one in yellowstone might erupt, which would be devistating for the entire planet. It's risky to have all our eggs in one basket.
You shouldn't discount what might be learned by moving into space. Being forced to create and maintain balanced ecologies will give us great insights into how the Earth works and how to better manage it.
The Earth is not naturally hospitable to human beings. There are plenty if records of dramatic changes that have taken place that would have wiped out human beings like they did most other species.
The knowledge we gain from science is itself worth the investment, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't constantly be looking for ways to use what we learn to deal with our current and future needs.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Yeah, as opposed to all those other perfectly hospitable places in our galaxy such as, uh, hmm...
On second thought, your comment made no sense.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Well, actually that would depend on the size of the comet or asteroid. For sure, a 100 meter asteroid would be of no concern to anyone; it probably would just burn up in the atmosphere. A 100 km one would completely destroy the human race with almost a near certitude.
Ofcourse, it is true that, the bi
Re:Heartening news (Score:3, Insightful)
But it is falling. I don't know if the estimate has been refined in the light of more recent data, but Earth has somewhere on the order of 100 tons of material falling on it every day and multikiloton explosions occur in the upper atmosphere quite frequently. It doesn't make sense to justify a space program on the basis of the few asteroid impacts that get through, but we will get hit by pretty large asteroids at some point unless we divert them.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Quite right. And the best way of ensuring our survival is to take care of the things we can take care: the environment and curbing population growth.
Human colonies that would continue to function and grow even if earth was hit by a global disaster, on the other hand, are not feasible using current or foreseeable technology.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
And it's dangerous to assume it is feasible because it causes people to neglect addressing the serious issues that we really could address if we only tried.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Why all this concern with "survival of the race"?
Why all this lack of concern with survival of the race?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when exactly did lack of a survival instinct become hip?
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Oh, wait, they didn't? Uh oh.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Well, that's the question you should ask of people who are claiming that space exploration will contribute anything to our survival: it won't. At this point, there is no conceivable way in which colonization will guard against the kinds of threats we face, even if we figure out manned interplanetary and interstellar space travel.
We can help our survival with the things we can control: birth rates, the environment, war. Beyond that, we simply have t
Isn't it a balanced world? (Score:2)
Problem #3 controls #1 quite well, while #1 (when it gets out of hand) causes #3...
And we can not really control either...
Paul B.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Well theres certainly evidence that lack of survival instinct was hip when cycling became popular...
'Look at me arnt I cool riding a bike on the road *splat*' sort of thing.
Re:Heartening news (Score:2, Insightful)
You are confused about probability.
The probability mankind will be wiped out by an object from space today is low enough almost no sane person would be concerned about it. The probability it might occur in your lifetime is low enough it causes you no concern.
However it's not j
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
But destroying the human race next Tuesday is a lot more wasteful and frankly stupid, than ending it in a billion years because being human is just too boring or unenlightening and nobody wants to do it any more.
Serious impacts are a low enough probabili
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Well, actually, that's an unsubstantiated claim. As yet we have no examples, nor experience with species that are multi-planetary, let alone galaxy-wide.
It is reasonable to assume that some branches of the human race on some solarsystems will die out, for sure, but whether all branches, in whatever form, will die out, remains open for debate.
One could think that, with t
Re:Heartening news (Score:2)
Simple: better quality of life, not quantity at any cost.
Isn't spending all that money on healtcare a waste of money given that it only serves in delaying the inevitable? Imagine how much governments would save each year if people could just accept that simple fact. No need for medical insurance or anything.
Substantially, that is true: a large part of medical spending is on end-of-life care that does
Cost (Score:5, Informative)
I've only been a member of the Planetary Society for two years, but I'm proud that they're accomplishing this.
Re:Cost (Score:2)
Outsourced (Score:2)
Re:Outsourced (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, as far as cost and POC design Russians are a better choice the Americans. They generally tend to do loads of POC work instead of at-desk design and modelling (just look how many different POCs were done for the Buran for example). As a result they are much better at understanding the concept of a POC and doing it cheap and cheerful without unnecessary over
Re:Aluminized Mylar ... propulsion from Wal-Mart : (Score:2)
The solar wind can only provide about one thousandth of the "push" that light from the sun will provide. This solar sail will get close to zero propulsion from the solar wind.
not the first (Score:4, Informative)
Mod down -5 (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks,
Slashdot
You know the end has come... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mod down -5 (Score:2)
Xenia (Score:2)
Re:not the first (Score:3, Insightful)
The S-310 rocket which was launched from Uchinoura Space Center at 15:15 of August 9, 2004, carried two kinds of deploying schemes of films with 7.5 micrometers thickness. A clover type deployment was started at 100 seconds after liftoff at 122 km altitude, and a fan type deployment was started at 169 km altitude at 230 seconds after liftoff, following the jettison of clover type system. Both experiments of two type
Re:not the first (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you? They tested a solar sail by launching it. And this soon-to-be-launched "spacecraft" will likely not leave Earth's orbit and is said to be more like a "proof of concept". Sort of like that one, in other words.
Re:not the first (Score:2)
Re:not the first (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they tested a solar sail deployment system. Read the OP's link or at least my quote from it, why don't you?
Not that I don't agree that it is a bit of a stretch to call Cosmos 1 a spacecraft, but it is surely more of a spacecraft than the Japanese deployment system, which is why I specifically said that Cosmos 1 might still get to be the first (solar sail-powered spacecraft).
Re:not the first (Score:5, Insightful)
Degradation? (Score:2, Interesting)
NM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NM (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah .. I was gnashing my teeth a little when I read they were making it from mylar (polyethylene terephthalate). Not only will it degrade quickly, but it is also heavier, weaker, and less resilient than other available materials (16% denser than polycarbonate, 33% denser than polyurethane, either of which would have been stronger + more resilient).
I'm guessing, though, that they went with an off-the-shelf solution for the material to lower costs and expedite production. DuPont already mass manufactures aluminized mylar at this thickness, and I don't know if anyone manufactures similarly thin polycarbonate films, aluminized or not. Optically clear polyurethane is probably too new for anyone to be manufacturing it in film.
-- TTK
Re:NM (Score:2)
Aluminized plastics laminate the aluminum layer inside the plastic, so that the aluminum is not exposed to the outside. Building a laminate with aluminum on one side and plastic on the other would be significantly weaker than a plastic/aluminum/plastic composite, and would expose the aluminum to chemical change during the part of its lifetime not spent in hard vacuum. Thus it is important, in this application, that the plastic have a high degree of optical clarity.
-- TTK
Re:Degradation? (Score:5, Insightful)
RTA. It is launched from orbit. A Volna rocket (plus some other bits and pieces) places the spaceship in orbit, where it will sit for a few days before the sail is deployed.
What's more, you might want to think about what being "out of orbit" actually means. The moon is in orbit around the earth. I expect that if they got it that far (or to the same gravitational potential), they'd be very pleased with themselves. Although given that it's an experimental craft it might be more useful to them if they kept it closer.
Darn (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Darn (Score:2)
You've got your tenses wrong. You want to ask the attendee how successful this will have been.
Short trip (Score:1)
Looking forward to this (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Looking forward to this (Score:4, Funny)
Why submarine launch? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:1)
and there's also the fact that they can load it onto the sub wherever they want and then just move it to where they want to launch it.
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
I'd like it to be over an uninhabited area, obviously. But the submarine presumably has a crew who aren't going to be in a bunker watching from a distance, and submarines are pretty expensive things to sit under a potential bomb.
and there's also the fact that they can load it onto the sub wherever they want and then just move it to where they want to launch it.
That would be a benefit if the Barents Sea was a particular
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:3, Interesting)
guess the russian are looking for something to do with their old icbms
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
Of course, this mission is "planned to fail", so they might as well use an amatuer rocket in the Nevada desert...
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
Wow, I guess you didn't RTFA. This launch will take place in the Barents Sea, not very close to the equator at all.
Numerous benefits (Score:5, Informative)
1. No extra launcher costs, since the subs with launch capability already exist.
2. No launchpad safety costs, since crew is already isolated from the launch tube for ejection.
3. No launch area safety costs, since the ocean provides a free barrier against rocket blast and against falling debris.
4. Extremely secure launch facility.
5. Impervious to weather while submerged waiting for launch window.
6. Mobility allows poor weather to be bypassed.
7. Mobility allows choice of launch coordinates to suit different injections paths.
There are downsides too though
Re:Numerous benefits (Score:2)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no, it isn't. Kofi Annan [acronym.org.uk] and 188 countries [fas.org] disagree with you.
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
they sign the treaty in return for a promise that signatories that already have nuclear weapons will never use them against them
No, the acknowledged nuclear weapons states promise not to help a non nuclear weapons state build nukes.
"The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also referred to as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), obligates the five acknowledged nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, a
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
And to what real purpose? Threatening the US (or S. Korea or Japan) with a nuke? That is a fight they could not hope to win. Trade Honolulu, Seattle, or LA (or Seoul or Tokyo) for their entire country. That's
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
Even when a treaty is signed, it is never absolute, and it does not imply that a country can not withdraw from it. The USA has done exactly that with several international treaties, so it should't complain about others when they act the same. No treaty, international, bilateral or multilateral, supercedes the sovereignity of a state. It makes them f- hypocrites ofcourse (just like in the case of the USA), but one can hardly f
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:2)
Re:Why the Barents Sea (Score:2)
Re:Why the Barents Sea (Score:2)
Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Figures. Let's run to Alpha Centauri before they get voted into power!
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Without doing the math, and assuming we actually want to take advantage of Orion's ability to literally put a significant size city in space, no rockets could be large enough, because "large enough" rockets wouldn't even be able to lift them
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Of course. That's why you build anything big in parts and combine them on the orbit.
The dangers have been seriously overstated because 50+ years into the nuclear age, even educated people still have fucking ignorant OMIGOSH RADIATI
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
Nuclear rockets will then be capable of being the primary power drive for actual spaceships... where the exaust will actually shield the occupants against some of the radiation hazards commonly found in interplanetary space. And it will allow tran
You can run, but-- (Score:2)
I'm assuming, then, that you never experienced Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri...
Re:Environmentally safe? (Score:2)
<span incendiary=1 excuse="they deserve it">
Can't these jerks do some basic math? If they would even attempt to compare the amount of chemicals used for currently used spacecraft propulsion to the amount of waste caused by automobiles, airplanes, "clean" coal power plants or factories, they would get some results that are lost in underflow.
</span>
These people are hurting
Launch..russian...submarine... (Score:2)
Just so I can ready my bombshelter in time...
Cosmos (Score:2)
Re:Cosmos (Score:2)
Re:Cosmos (Score:3, Interesting)
X flares? (Score:2)
Lets not have a repeat ... (Score:2)
Last attempt failed due to the third stage of the Volna rocket to separate from the spacecraft [spaceflightnow.com]
Re:These things can travel (Score:1)
theoretically
Re:These things can travel jst shy of 1/2 light sp (Score:2, Interesting)
How to calculate acceleration (Score:3, Interesting)
The calculated acceleration (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Launching from a Russian Nuke Sub! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it sounds like they're desperate for cash and have huge amounts of military hardware lying around. Selling launch capability to the highest bidder is preferable to selling ICBMs to the highest bidder.
Re:It will be launched while *submerged* ! (Score:2)
> further increased military funding, it should be
> embarassing to them, that the first test of a solar sail
> hast to come through private funding, be built in Russia
> and launched from a russian submarine.
I don't see why anyone should be embarrassed. The principle behind solar sails has been demonstrated repeatedly since the early space age. Most notably, the Echo communication reflector http://msl.jpl.nasa.gov/QuickLooks/echoQL.htm [nasa.gov]
Re:It will be launched while *submerged* ! (Score:2)
Here on the Earth, this is a major logistical issue, and one of the things that many transportation companies engage in regularly. Indeed, it has been argued that transporation of bulk goods
Re:Acceleration (Score:2)
PS: There is a lot of math but to this but once your in orbit you need to expend energy to change that orbit. Now if you push to or away from you can change the shape of your orbit but you need to speed up or slow down to change your orbital distance.