Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Launch Date for First Solar Sail due Monday 181

Posted by Zonk from the fwoosh dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Launch Date for First Solar Sail due Monday More

Launch Date for First Solar Sail due Monday

Comments Filter:

  • Woah! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Randy Wang ( 700248 )
    Unfortunately, the craft is not expected to leave Earth's orbit due to degradation of the mylar materials

    The materials have degraded before it's even left Earth? Damn outsourcing...

  • Awesome that private industry is funding it. I can't wait to see how it makes out!

    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)

      by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @08:55AM (#12461607)
      In the end, this kind of research will be vital to the survival of the race.

      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)

        by jarich ( 733129 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:01AM (#12461619) Homepage Journal
        solar sailing is a great thing, not to ship a few carcasses to another planet, but because it lets us do great science.

        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)

          by arose ( 644256 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:04AM (#12461625)
          Hiow is reserch for it's own sake different from survival of the species for it's own sake.
          • Hiow is reserch for it's own sake different from survival of the species for it's own sake.

            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!

            • Too bad we have no idea how to survive out there yet... Would researching that fall into pure research as long as you can't go anywhere and use the results? :-D

      • Re:Heartening news (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:28AM (#12461699)
        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 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)

        by rben ( 542324 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:56AM (#12461826) Homepage
        > if our planet becomes uninhabitable for humans, it will be self-inflicted and there are far simpler ways of preventing that than space flight.

        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.

        • The Earth is not naturally hospitable to human beings.

          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.
        • 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 wou
          • "A major asteroid impact or volcanic event would be a massive disaster and might result in the collapse of most societies, but it would be unlikely to jeopardize the long-term survival of humans as a species."

            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:2, Insightful)

        by toad3k ( 882007 )
        Refusing to sit back and let the inevitable happen is what separates us from animals.
        • Refusing to sit back and let the inevitable happen is what separates us from animals.

          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.
          • Why can't we do both? It's not an either/or situation.
            • You're right: it's not an either/or thing, it's only an "either" thing: colonization of space is simply not feasible in the foreseeable future.

              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.


      • 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?

        • When the Darwin Awards started offering a one million dollar prize.

          Oh, wait, they didn't? Uh oh.
        • Why all this lack of concern with survival of the race?

          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
          • We can help our survival with the things we can control: birth rates, the environment, war.

            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.
        • "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when exactly did lack of a survival instinct become hip?"

          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)

        by symbolset ( 646467 )

        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.

        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

      • 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.

        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

      • I don't follow your reasoning. Granted, we have seen other species go extinct, but we are the only species we know of with such a level of cognitive capacity. I think you underestimate what humans are capable of.
      • "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."

        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

  • Cost (Score:5, Informative)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @08:49AM (#12461579)
    There are many references to "low cost" when talking about the solar sail. For anyone curious, the price is about $4 million [howstuffworks.com] which relatively speaking, is low cost.

    I've only been a member of the Planetary Society for two years, but I'm proud that they're accomplishing this.

    • Don't forget the fuel cost with most other propulsion systems.
    • Notice that design and launch of this spacecraft was outsourced to Russia.

      • Re:Outsourced (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arivanov ( 12034 )
        First, I would not call subcontracting to a reasonably decent design bureau in one of the two most advanced space technology powers outsourcing.

        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

  • not the first (Score:4, Informative)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @08:51AM (#12461589)
    The first solar sail spacecraft was launched by the Japanese last year. See here [universetoday.com] for more info.

    • Mod down -5 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by william_w_bush ( 817571 )
      This post has been modded down -5(Not US-centric). Please read the posting rules and/or watch fox news to prevent this in the future.

      Thanks,
      Slashdot

    • Re:not the first (Score:3, Insightful)

      by stjobe ( 78285 )
      Well, if you call a test of the deployment system a spacecraft... From your linked article:

      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
      • Well, if you call a test of the deployment system a spacecraft...

        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.

  • Degradation? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by codesurfer ( 786910 )
    To combat this, and see how it performed out of orbit, could it not have been launched from orbit? In any case, this is pretty interesting...I'm keen to see the results.

    • NM (Score:3, Insightful)

      by codesurfer ( 786910 )
      I guess the degradation could not have been solved in this manner, as it's the sunlight itself that is causing it.

      • Re:NM (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:38AM (#12461733) Homepage
        Hmm... It's a kinda major design flaw when a solar sail gets degraded by sunlight.

        • Re:NM (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TTK Ciar ( 698795 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @12:28PM (#12462537) Homepage Journal

          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:Degradation? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by attonitus ( 533238 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:12AM (#12461654)
      To combat this, and see how it performed out of orbit, could it not have been launched from orbit?

      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)

    by kassemi ( 872456 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @08:57AM (#12461611) Homepage
    I'm curious to ask the guest of honor at the tonight's convention [mit.edu] says about how successful this will be :)

    • Re:Darn (Score:2)

      by algae ( 2196 )

      You've got your tenses wrong. You want to ask the attendee how successful this will have been.

  • Too bad it wont go anywhere, even for a proof of concept.

  • Looking forward to this (Score:3, Funny)

    by polysylabic psudonym ( 820466 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:10AM (#12461648) Journal
    There's been at least one physicist saying that solar sails won't work.

  • Why submarine launch? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djmurdoch ( 306849 ) on Saturday May 07, 2005 @09:12AM (#12461657)
    I RTFA'd, and didn't see the answer to this question: why launch from a submarine? Presumably all these old submarine-launched missiles would be less trouble to launch from land. What's the advantage of doing it at sea?
    • if the missile decides to blow up, would you rather have it over land or over sea?

      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.
      • if the missile decides to blow up, would you rather have it over land or over sea?

        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
    • My guess is that the submarine is the cheapest option.

    • Re:Why submarine launch? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pierre ( 6251 )
      cost

      guess the russian are looking for something to do with their old icbms

    • The closer to the equator you are, the easier it is to reach orbit.

      Of course, this mission is "planned to fail", so they might as well use an amatuer rocket in the Nevada desert...
      • The closer to the equator you are, the easier it is to reach orbit.

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 07, 2005 @11:22AM (#12462217)
      The benefits include ...

      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 ...
  • Beh. First the tree-huggers canned nuclear propulsion [wikipedia.org], and now they are trying to put down even conventional chemical rockets?

    Figures. Let's run to Alpha Centauri before they get voted into power!
    • The Orion project was canned for some good reasons.
    • Let's run to Alpha Centauri before they [the tree-huggers] get voted into power!

      I'm assuming, then, that you never experienced Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri...

  • ...when did you say that was again ?

    Just so I can ready my bombshelter in time...
  • Proof of concept that will increase Russian interplanetary launch capabilities, leaving the US behind in this strategic 21st Century tech. While we get stuck with their boondoggles in the ISS, hanging a fairly useless 20th Century albatross around our necks, and subsidizing them to leave us behind in space development.
    • How about stopping to think as "them" and "us" in these matters? Space offers hard problems even if we see all successful missions as a success and don't regard half of them as failures simply because another nation did them.

      • Re:Cosmos (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
        Because there really is a competition in the launch industry. And the ISS, sold to Americans as a way to mutually advance the tech. But, as I pointed out, the USA got stuck with the nearly-useless showpiece, dragged down by dependence on a Russian division that routinely misses deliveries and needs budget injections. Which cuts into the limited US space resources, resulting in less US R&D. While Russia turns around and races ahead in more promising R&D, like these lightsails. Which experience they d
  • Could an X scale solar flare tear it or perhaps accelerate it beyond orbit before degradation?

Slashdot Top Deals

Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky

Close