data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/45312/45312586e56896ecddfaf6fac7501192c5412537" alt="Space Space"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fccd1/fccd117fc491c2630cb87fac4abcef24e2bfb6e6" alt="Science Science"
Solar Sail Fails Again 109
LtFiend writes: "It seems that they've failed at sending up the solar sail prototype again. This time the unit crashed to earth after the final separation of the rocket didn't execute. What a shame. I really hope this project can get back on track quickly."
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
It would be like developing a new car engine and then driving it off a cliff. There's a difference between meaningful and meaningless failures.
Re:For the record (Score:1)
Re:Theory (Score:1)
Re:Try ABM (Score:1)
And, by briefcase nukes, I don't literally mean a conventional briefcase-sized nukes, but something a bit bigger and still managable by one person--like the ones Russia has 'misplaced'.
Spinning (Score:1)
Re:What if this had been a manned rocket? (Score:2)
Don Negro
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:3)
The idea of using geosynchronous satellites has been around at least since Clarke back around WWII, but if there had never been the government funded Soviet and U.S. space programs, do you really think that the companies who make money uplinking to and downlinking from those satellites would have financed and developed a way to get them into orbit all by themselves as quickly as it happened with all that previous government funded work to piggyback on?
Institutions whose function is to earn a return on investment will usually spend a lot more on applied science research than "pure" science research.
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
Agreed. It would be interesting to know what can be learned from this particular failure, since it was a failure of the rocket, not of the sail.
After 50 years of messing around with rockets, you'd think we'd know how to build them to be cheap and reliable. That we're still struggling with this means that it's probably a very difficult problem.
Makes me wonder what the actual launch success rate of modern rockets is...
--
Re:Theory (Score:1)
Re:Better that everyone die? (Score:1)
Yes, if it's not going to work, and it *can't* work. It simply can't defend against the most likely nuclear attack by a terrorist group or "rogue nation" - a smuggled weapon. Not to mention the many possibilities for countermeasures that can never be properly tested agsinst.
It's possible, but unlikely. As I understand it, the research involves building expendable rockets that are precisely guided by computers and radar. None of those seem particularly promising areas for civilian application. In any case, aren't most of of the interesting technologies are likely to be classified and take many years to reach civilian applications?
Research projects are cool. The US would be wise to spend even more on them. There are plenty, however, that are more pressing and more interesting than trying to shoot down ICBMs. Fusion power, fuel cells, technologies related orbiting solar power stations, AIDS vaccines, malaria vaccines, and so on, are more likely to produce things that contribute positively to peace and security for US citizens than a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that won't work and is pissing off both your allies and the two countries that actually *do* have the ability to turn America's cities into smouldering ruins, missile shield or no missile shield.
Go you big red fire engine!
Oh, come on... (Score:1)
Geek != Physics Geek
OUCH! Frankly, you should read a Physic book (Score:1)
Oh BTW polarisation and momentum are quite different things
Misleading Title (Score:3)
The solar sail did not fail, the system for getting it to orbit did. The title should read "Conventional Rocketry Fails Again".
--
Re:Try ABM (Score:1)
Re:Try ABM (Score:1)
Re:Try ABM (Score:1)
--Gfunk
Re:Better that everyone die? (Score:1)
I'd argue against an ABM shield being destabilizing in the way that you think. What if it starts a competition to see who can build the most effective missile shield? I'd rather see multiple contries frutilessly expending efforts in ABM research than in productive weapons research.
Besides, if an ABM shiled truly cannot work then how can it bring any instability? Either aargue that it will be effective and thus make everyone distrust us, or it will not work and everyone will just laugh at us. You can't have it both ways.
Re:Better that everyone die? (Score:1)
As I said in my other reply I'd rather see countries fruitlessly expending efforts racing to build missile shields than missiles. The way I figure it, you can have one or the other - saying you can divert all funds from programs like this to other more peacefuul research is a nice idea but simply not practical due to huamn nature. If the money were not being spent here, it would be spent on exotic weapons research or something along those lines.
Personally, I don't see that other contries would get pissed off enough to actually fire nukes at us. And there are plenty of other things they are more pissed about already.
As for side benefits, it might take a while for something to trickle down to us but you never know. What about advanced collision detection in cars (or better yet, airplanes), or more advanced missile defense systems for combat ships? How about super advanced insect killing machines that can dispatch mosquitos at a distance of ten feet with carefully controlled jets of water? Or for a more practical angle, electronics that can resist heavy G's or much better rocket engines. I have no idea, but look forward to the results. Besides, it seems like an interesting problem to solve.
Better that everyone die? (Score:3)
But take the other side of that argument, what if the ABM stopped the single nuke that was targeting some out of the way place (like somewhere in Montana or Wyoming). Would you say it's a waste of time to try and protect at least some people? Perhaps you just want to be offed in the first round of an exchange, but there might be a few people who would actually want to live. Rather cold of you just to kill them all with numbers. Would you really rather kill everyone in the US than leave 5000 people alive?
One last side argument - from space research, we get unrelated spinoff technologies that help us in our everyday lives (like frozen ice-cream). Might there not be some side benefits from ABM research as well? Or are you also for shutting down NASA and all space research.
I myself am not sure how effective such a system would be, but in general I'm all for research projects. I don't understand why people feel it to be such a waste of money when it could lead to other interesting results and possbily to a useful missile shield. I agree with the orignal poster that people shouting about ABM test failures look to me like the same sort of people that laughed at the Wright Brothers and held up every failed test as absolute proof of the impossibility to succeed.
Re:Theory (Score:1)
Using energy from the star which you're approaching is no problem. Your approach will take decades, so you turn the sail to drag your speed down during that time -- and the closer you get, the stronger the deceleration.
And if "simple thrusters" could reach the expected high speeds, they would be used during launch as well. The advantage of a solar sail ship is that it does not have to include the mass of rocket fuel for deceleration, fuel for accelerating that fuel, fuel for accelerating the fuel for deceleration, fuel for accelerating that fuel...
Re:Try ABM (Score:1)
Re:Not another MasterHard ad:) (Score:1)
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
Re:Better that everyone die? (Score:1)
and if a doomsday exchange happens, and if an ABM system just happens to save 5000 people in wyoming from direct nuclear annihilation, they'll have the pleasure of either dying of radiation poisoning, or slowly starving to death in their bunkers. Fun!
--
"HORSE."
star to star (Score:2)
what happens if we need to approach a star that has a higher strength solar wind than the one propelling the craft? It seems to me it wouldn't matter what color, etc., the reverse side was, you'd still get a pressure front pushing you away
That's actually exactly what you WANT if you're trying to approach another star.
These things depend on acceleration, not velocity. That is, they don't move very fast at all at first, but each new photon bumps the speed up a little. By the time this craft is halfway between two stars, it's moving at a respectable clip.
Now, as the craft is closer to the target sunthan it is to the source sun, it might be time to put on the "brakes" as it were. How would you do that with a rocket? Turn around and THRUST back toward home. How do you do it with a sail? Turn around and let the target sun push against you. If the target sun is larger, you just fold the wings in a little bit to regulate the effectiveness of the thrust.
When the craft is slowed to a safe approach speed, fold the wings to reduce their effectiveness. Let the sun's gravity pull the craft in more, and regulate the speed with the wings so you don't just get sucked all the way in.
Now it's time to start taking pictures or finding something to orbit safely.
Take It From Somebody Who Had A Q Clearance... (Score:2)
Take a hint guys! (Score:3)
Re:Crash and burn (Score:2)
rights are only "taken away" from people who do not know how to demand them (and I don't use "demand" in a "protester in front of the capital building with a sign" sorta way, but rather knowing how to respond when some terrorist burreacrat shows up making demands of you). "the feds" are like the wizard of oz - big and scarry until toto draws back the curtain.
---
Re:Crash and burn (Score:2)
If you "bend and stretch [the rules] to your will", you are certainly breaking the intent of the rule. So in canada, you're breaking the legislature's intent to steal 30% or 40% or 80% (whatever the rate may be) of your "income", but having learned the rules, you've "done it properly."
The Dalai Lama's Instructions for Life
- Respect for self.
- Respect for others.
- Responsibility for all of your actions.
---
Not another MasterHard ad:) (Score:2)
Cost of clean up mission - $never revealed;
Trusting Russian Space Technology - WTF?
The Planetary Society Page [planetary.org]
More info on Solar Sails [caltech.edu]
Re:Suborbital Flight (Score:1)
I think the more precise way to say it is, the upper stage of the rocket did not separate correctly. From what I'm reading, this is a launch vehicle failure, not a solar sail failure. Launch vehicles fail from time to time. The public should not read this news item and say "Solar sails don't work."
Travis
Solar sails and Navigation (Score:1)
Yes you can. Solar sails can provide lateral thrust. This enables you to do swingby maneuvers and decelerate.
Magnetic sails instead (Score:3)
Recent research [washington.edu] shows that a small amount of plasma can extend a magnetic field tremendously.
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
However, I WOULD like to point out that the first two or three attempts by the US to launch an artificial earth satellite were failures too, not to mention Apollo 13 and Challenger.
Space exploration is dangerous, and it really DOES take rocket science to get there.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
About the same amount the Planetary Society did
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
Re:Try ABM (Score:1)
If the ABM system was
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
I agree with the AC before me ... (Score:1)
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
Re:Try ABM (Score:2)
Better be one HELL of a nuke then
and its FAR easier to transport it in a briefcase anyway.
Briefcase nukes are an urban legend on a par with alligators in the sewers of New York. Nukes are HEAVY
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
Re:Not another MasterHard ad:) (Score:1)
planetary society (Score:3)
"The Planetary Society was founded in 1980 by Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray, and Louis Friedman to encourage the exploration of our solar system and the search for extraterrestrial life.
The Society is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization, funded by dues and donations from individuals around the world. With more than 100,000 members from over 140 countries, we are the largest space interest group on Earth. Membership is open to all people interested in our mission."
so go to their site [planetary.org] and apply [planetary.org] for a membership. it costs only 40$ (30$ for students) for us in europe. its even cheaper for north americans. most of the money goes to various space related projects. as a member you will also recieve their magazine planetary report which is really educational and entertaining to read.
well, some good news from this (Score:3)
Derek
Re:Russian Technology (Score:1)
I think that shuttle is now somewhere posing as an attraction.
Re:Theory (Score:1)
Re:well, some good news from this (Score:2)
How nice/ironic (Score:1)
failing.
because of old technology that we used to have working 30 years ago but can no longer manage.
Perhaps youve never heard of Einstein (Score:2)
So then if photons have energy (obvious), then they have mass.
And it is well demonstrated that reflecting a photon tranfers momentum. Convert electron volts to grams in your equations and it'll all work out :)
Suborbital Flight (Score:1)
On track? (Score:1)
When exactly was it on track? They've failed everytime they've sent it haven't they?
Re:Interstellar? (Score:1)
It is an interesting idea -- if it can be made to work...
Re:Misleading Title (Score:1)
Re:Interstellar? (Score:3)
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:5)
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
It is from an address given at Rice University in Houston (where Mission Control is located) on September 12, 1962. This is also the speech that contains the phrase "We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people."
I look up to Kennedy because he was so truly enthusiastic about the space program like no President since has had the guts to be.
The True Importance of the Solar Sail (Score:5)
First, it helps to bring the concept of the solar sail as a valid idea to the public eye. Solar sails have been something of a mainstay in some science fiction series as a way of getting to other planets and have even shown up in some popular sci-fi series (one episode of Deep Space Nine, for instance, showed an old Bajoran solar sail vessel, albeit with far too little sail area to accelerate as "fast" as more serious concepts would). However, other more conventional systems (by far the chemical rocket, but followed to a lesser extent by nuclear rockets (does anyone recall the NERVA program that might have sent humans to Mars by the 1980s?) and ion propulsion: how many of you knew that the term TIE Fighter from Star Wars stands for "Twin Ion Engine"? Star Wars never stated what gas was used in those systems, but the gas that has been used in the Deep Space 1 mission and in the Artemis [spaceflightnow.com] commercial spacecraft. Now that the Planetary Society, which is a well-respected organization, has attempted to actually fly a solar sail, the public will become aware of the possibility.
It helps to bring the existence of such organizations into the spotlight as well. The Planetary Society has been active for decades -- it was founded by Carl Sagan -- and there are others, including what is perhaps the best-known of these groups: the National Space Society. Others, far less well known, exist, ranging from fan clubs for shows like Babylon 5 (which I applaud for showing what space exploration will be like in perhaps a few decades once we've gotten the hang of building spacecraft with rotating gravity sections to avoid the problems that long stays in microgravity cause) to other grassroots groups that give more or less anonymously (that is, they don't get press coverage) to serious efforts.
And it also helps to give people like us the idea that we might eventually actually get to go to space ourselves. If someone can spend $20 million for a ride on a Soyuz capsule, and if a non-profit organization can launch a solar sail, then what could happen in fifty years?
This was, like Apollo 13, a "successful failure".
Re:Theory (Score:2)
To move into a farther away orbit, they just tilt the sails more towards the sun. To move closer, they just tilt the sails away and let gravity take over for a bit. A way to travel large distances would be to just remain in a very close orbit with the sun, gaining speed, and then suddenly tilt the sail at the desired angle to propel the craft in the right direction.
After reaching another star, the speed will be very fast, and it can be slowed down by just tilting the sail towards the other star and entering into its orbit, perhaps.
At least it shows we dont need missle defence... (Score:1)
I knew I should have kept my mind shut
err!
jak.
---
"I have gravel rash..." Rachael Howard, c1999
Project Orion (Score:1)
Solar sails aren't all that good anyway. Sure, you don't need to bring any fuel, but they'd take forever to accelerate, and wouldn't work as well when they're farther from the sun! If you want a real efficient drive, nuclear pulse propulsion is the way to go. Exploding nuclear bombs behind the spaceship to push it forward, basically.
Too bad it's illegal.
Re:For the record (Score:1)
Radiometers can operate either using light pressure or thermal transpiration, depending on the construction. However, every radiometer you are likely to see operates on thermal transpiration.
If you actually had a clue and could recall playing with one of these, you would know that they turn AWAY from the black side, which is opposite what you describe.
Had you ever played with a true solar-sail type that turns TOWARD the black side, you would have broken it, as they are extremely delicate.
Please refer to the URL below for a more in depth discussion.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/light-mil
Re:Not another MasterHard ad:) (Score:1)
Re:Not another MasterHard ad:) (Score:1)
So that's what I said.
Re:Crash and burn (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:For the record (Score:2)
Using lasers to boost it would be wildly inefficient
No, the theoretical maximum would be close to the speed of light, since your propulsion source is traveling at light speed. A laser can actually provide quite a bit of thrust and can be powered by more efficient means than a reaction-based spacecraft. For example, you could set up a solar array on the moon to power the laser. You can then add thrust to the spacecraft without it having to carry fuel. You could use the same solar array to power a mass driver to launch minerals (and perhaps water) out of the moon's gravity well. We need to start prospecting the moon and asteroid belt and quit tearing the earth apart.
Enigma
Look on the bright side... (Score:2)
Re:For the record (Score:1)
Re:Interstellar? (Score:2)
Imagine having the sail at an angle to the sun, the craft placed in orbit around the sun, and the solar wind coming out radially. The path of the spacecraft would be perpendicular to the solar wind, so with the sail angled correctly, you'd accelerate in orbit.
Or something.
Crash and burn (Score:4)
We take it as a loss and move on to try again. $4 million can be raised again and could be raised many times over for the amount of money spent on many other space related projects.
Something like solar sails, which can have an immediate return when demonstrated as a proof of concept, should have higher priority over things like missions to Mars, which can not only benefit from the solar sails, but which also provide a return much later. Giving it that type of priority, it could be ready in a couple of months.
In 400 years someone will be sitting on Mars sipping wine in a city and not even remember that a solar sail project in 2001 failed.
Re:Crash and burn (Score:1)
It should be "Learn the rules so you know how to bend and stretch them to your will, without fear of liability."
(While in Canada I spent a few weeks studying the federal and provincial, B.C., tax laws. As a result, I paid less than 1% - that IS a one - of my income in tax; that went on for about seven years. ABSOLUTELY 100% above board, not one law broken. Really.)
Re:Crash and burn (Score:1)
Last I checked there was nothing in the criminal code about the "spirit of the law", you have to follow the "letter of the law."
Fair? Perhaps not, but I have long accepted that life wasn't fair, in this case I help make things a bit "fairer" for me. (I help the less fortunate "in exchange" - that way I KNOW my money/time/etc makes a direct impact.)
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
How much government funding did Edison receive?
How much government funding did ARPANET receive?
power generation (Score:1)
Use two counter-rotating windmills, one on the generator's armature, the other on the rotor.
On the other hand, you could use solar cells. For either one to work, you'd still need sufficient numbers of photons, leaving you powerless between stars.
I wonder if the original intent for the windmill design was to provide propulsionless spin for keeping the sails taunt. After sufficent RPMs have been achieved, the pitch on the "blades" could be flattened out to stabalize the spin rate.
Re:FYI (Score:1)
Brings back memories of myself in gradeschool trying to work out the physics of solar sails...Remember well my dad explaining that the thrust would be extremely low, otherwise "Whenever you turn on a flashlight it would blow your ass out the window" (Yes he is twisted also)
Re:Interstellar? (Score:4)
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
Windmill? (Score:1)
IANARS, (I am not a rocker scientest) but since there isnt much in deep space to push off of, how would a windmill help?
Unless, they plan on spinning some sort of generator, to power other parts of the ship (Lights, air scrubbers, ion thrusters, whatever floats your boat). Damn. that would be a good idea. leme go patent that.
Re:Windmill? (Score:1)
Re:Not another MasterHard ad:) (Score:1)
Theory (Score:4)
This is perfectly alright and all, except what happens if we need to approach a star that has a higher strength solar wind than the one propelling the craft? It seems to me it wouldn't matter what color, etc., the reverse side was, you'd still get a pressure front pushing you away. Thus, wouldn't some stars be impossible to approach with this technology? Kinda like a one way ticket to the moon; you can get there rather elegantly, but you just can't come back using the solar sail. I realize that I'm not an expert, and perhaps someone can clarify.
I did see an article, I'm not sure whether it was a magazine article or on Slashdot (or both), about a similar idea and application being used as a method to get to the moon. In essence, you make a space craft with a mirror on the bottom. Then you construct a really friggin' powerful laser, aim it at the bottom of the spacesraft (the mirror), and off you go. Darwin award, anyone?To hope, though, there is my favorite engineering saying: It works in reality, but will it work in theory? Just my two cents.Re:Theory (Score:1)
My understanding is that you use the solar sail to accelerate. Since there isn't much friction in space, you don't have to worry about slowing down - so you accelerate (using force derived from the sail) until you hit the velocity you want - and then you unfurl/hide/rotate the sail. At this point, you'll keep going in a straight line at your established speed (subject to gravitational bodies, etc.). The great news about using a sail to approach a body with a star is that you have a ready source of energy when you want to come back! (Subject to rotation of planets, etc.)
Re:For the record (Score:2)
Why don't you suggest that we make our sun go nova instead?
you should find something more esoteric to plagarize in this arena.. I'm just shocked that nobody has commented on this yet.
Brant
eh (Score:1)
Alcohol doesn't affect your judgement as much if you know exactly where you stand.
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:1)
I'm paraphrasing, but I'm reminded of JFK's quote:
We do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
(something close to that).
I wish more people would adopt that attitude.
This will probably get bad press... (Score:4)
Re:If laser propulsion weren't wildly inefficient. (Score:1)
In any case, the sail would be not 1 metre, but more like 1-10 km across. And course would be fairly easy to predict; virtually no forces acting except the laser, once you're outside the solar system.
What goes up... (Score:2)
Re:For the record (Score:2)
Although photons do carry the electropmagnetic force, light is made up of randomly polarized photons and therefore cannot provide propulsive force. Also, since photons have no mass, they cannot have momentum, because momentum=mass*velocity^2 Only particles with mass can propel a solar sail.
Hmmm...you might want to explain that to the folks over at the Interplanetary Society [planetary.org] before they send up another one of these things, as they seem to have different ideas [planetary.org]:
JPL and NASA seem to be under similar delusions.Re:Theory (Score:3)
Just reef the sails. Or if they're too fragile to retract, effectively do so by turning the craft perpendicular to the photons for a bit, until it's close enough into the star that the increased deceleration is adjusted for. (I know some wag will ask: why not just go at night? ;-)
BTW, it's photons powering the craft, i.e., sunlight, not protons, i.e., solar wind or whatever. That was a typo in the CNN article; they got it right a couple articles ago, but got it wrong in the last two.
Speaking of lasers, check out some interesting solar sail material [space.com], thicker than previously used, and able to withstand laser temperatures, so you could accelerate with lasers and sunlight close to home, for an added boost.
It's nice to see peaceful use of an SSBN (Score:1)
--
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:2)
How many space missions did Edison accomplish with his private funding?
Sail info (Score:3)
---
Re:Interstellar? (Score:1)
Re:w00t (Score:1)
What if this had been a manned rocket? (Score:3)
Russian Rocket (Score:2)
Ok... enough of that. Just a little joke to relax the people (including me) who are infuriated with the Sklyarov thing.
Hrmmm (Score:2)
How come they don't just give this sail to some guy who's about to visit the ISS and just have him toss if overboard from ISS?
Re:Crash and burn (Score:2)
Re:This will probably get bad press... (Score:4)
My hat's off to the folks at the Planetary Society for having the gumption to attempt this.
Re:Interstellar? (Score:1)
The problem is, it would have to stay close to the sun to get much thrust. To stay close to the sun, it would have to maintain a low speed. It could never get going fast enough to travel interstellar distances any faster than the rockets we already have.
If laser propulsion weren't wildly inefficient... (Score:2)
The propulsive force of light is only a tiny fraction of the energy carried by it. Therefore, using an orbital laser to push the solar sail once it got out of the sun's range would be wildly inefficient.
It would also be extremely difficult to develop the proper targeting mechanism. Do you haver any idea how hard it is to hit a 1 meter cross section from a light year away?
tan^-1(1/(9.46*10^12))= 1.057*10^-13
The laser would have to be accurate to within a ten trillionth of a degree. The earth's own gravitational field bends light more than that. And, since it would take a year for its image to reach us, and another year+ for the laser to reach it, the course would have to be extrapolated 2+ years ahead. That could create major problems.
Re:Windmill? (Score:2)