Photonic Laser Thruster Promises Earth to Mars in a Week 413
serutan writes "Using lasers to drive spaceships has been a subject of interest for many years, but making a photonic engine powerful enough for practical use has been elusive. Dr. Young Bae, a California physicist, has built a demonstration photonic laser thruster that produces enough thrust to micro-maneuver a satellite. This would be useful in high-precision formation flying, such as using a fleet of satellites to form a space telescope with a large virtual aperture. Scaled up, a similar engine could speed a spacecraft to Mars in less than a week."
Re:Star Trek anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:acceleration? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Solar system escape velocity! (Score:5, Informative)
The article calls this a "Photon Thruster". What that means is that the device would be mounted on the vehicle as a thruster rather than the vehicle "riding" a laser-beam like in Beam-powered propulsion [wikipedia.org]. So as long as the laser restarts after you flip the ship, you're good to go.
Note that this is a separate issue from powering a laser cluster large enough to reach Mars in a week...
Re:acceleration? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:acceleration? (Score:3, Informative)
The important thing is that it'll accelerate all the way there. With continuous acceleration it doesn't take much to get going really fast.
According to the article Mars is 100 Million km away and a big version of this will travel that in a week. We'll assume that you want to stop when you get there so just figure half the trip in half the time (since the second half will be braking):
50,000,000 Km = a * (302400 sec) ^ 2
a =
Acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s^2, or 0.00981 Km/s^2. So he's talking about 1/18th G acceleration. Speed at turnover will be:
Whee!
Of course it's more complicated than that since that low of an acceleration won't get you off the ground. So you'll be starting your trip in orbit. Which means you've got to take some time to get to a high enough orbit that you can accelerate away from the earth without having to do lots of high thrust maneuvers. Still, you can probably plan on Mars in a month.
Re: Metric Joke (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to make a lame joke, at least include a cite so there's a chance of getting modded up as "informative."
The Mars Climate Orbiter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter [wikipedia.org]
"The Mars Climate Orbiter was intended to enter orbit at an altitude of 140-150 km above Mars. However, a navigation error caused the spacecraft to reach as low as 57 km. The spacecraft was destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude. The navigation error arose because a NASA subcontractor (Lockheed Martin) used Imperial units (pound-seconds) instead of the metric units (newton-seconds) as specified by NASA."
Re:I smell bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I guess I don't get... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:acceleration? (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't mind going through the Sun, that 1/2 G will get you Earth to Jupiter, in the worst geometry possible, in seven days and one hour and thirty minutes.
Re:I smell bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Minor correction (Score:2, Informative)
Call me when it's 1:1 thrust:weight (Score:3, Informative)
Did I mention that 45 years ago the USAF tested a nuclear thruster that almost reached 1:1? And how fifty-five years ago they drew up plans for an 8 million ton nuclear-driven starship as part of Project Orion?
Re:acceleration? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Energy source? (Score:3, Informative)
Yours Yazeran
Plan: To go to Mars one day with a hammer.
Re:acceleration? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How "scaled up" is this? (Score:3, Informative)
It's worse, much worse. Burning coal releases copious quantities of radioactive isotopes into the air [ornl.gov].
Re:Energy source? (Score:5, Informative)
They never did get enough funding for a test with a nuke, but they did build 1-meter scale models powered by RDX charges. Powered by I believe 6 explosive charges, one of these reached 100 meters in a controlled test flight, proving that the concept worked (at least with lower energy pulses). As for whether or not it would work with nukes, their numerical modeling strongly indicated that it would.
You mentioned that the blast wave might be moving too fast to be useful, but actually that's the whole point - the impulse of the blast wave impacting against and then rebounding off the back of the spaceship is what provides thrust, so the faster the blast wave is moving, the greater the impulse and thrust.
Of course, the spaceship would have to be stupidly large to survive the instantaneous acceleration, but that was why it was so attractive. A ship around 10000 tons could've made it to Pluto and back within a year. Plus, it had a very high thrust-weight ratio, which meant that the fraction of the weight that was useful payload was stupidly high as well.
So then if NPP is so good, why was the project killed? It wasn't because it didn't work
1) NASA had thrown its support behind the competing NERVA rocket.
2) Fallout was problematic.
3) There was no mandate from Congress for missions that would require such performance, and NASA had no desire to dictate policy.
4) Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 banned all above-ground nuclear testing.
Re: Minor correction (Score:1, Informative)
Re:acceleration? (Score:1, Informative)
So, going up from the earth surface, every force will add 1 G, but once escape the earth, it becomes just the force alone. Assume that 1/2 G is what we can do here, then up there, we can do 1.5 G. Great isn't it? To Mar and back in 4 days!
Does this limit us accelerate faster than any G at all? Not really. If we can device a machine that works on us similarly to the G force, we can go at any acceleration, as long as we can turn that off at the end.
Re:acceleration? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:acceleration? (Score:3, Informative)
It's only slow if there is a small temperature differential between your source and your sink. Pointing the radiating fins out toward dark space would let them dissipate it pretty quickly.
Re:acceleration? (Score:4, Informative)
At closest approach, Mars is about 56 million km away.Iif we switch the d=½at^2/ equation around, we get t=sqrt(2d/a). 'd' would be ½ the 56 million km distance, to allow for turnover, giving t/2, so..
So between 2½ days and a week to get to Mars. Not bad..
Re:acceleration? (Score:4, Informative)
1) If you're talking about the point when Mars is farthest from Earth, it's presumably on the other side of the sun. Going in a straight line would lead you through the sun, which probably would cause a few issues.
2) There's this thing called gravity...while you could, for the most part, ignore the gravity of the planets, the sun is another issue. It's going to cause you to travel in an arc, unless you're moving directly to/from the sun (which incidentally you would be doing in the first case).
Re:acceleration? (Score:4, Informative)
where = 5.670 400(40)×108 Wm-2K-4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_constant [wikipedia.org] So, the hotter your radiator, it increases output by a power of 4 and since space is very near absolute zero, for emissivity and absorption considerations, it's really dumping energy. You'd be surprised at how fast a simple radiation cooling scheme will operate.
I had to run a themo-vacc qualification test for some ISS hardware (on the mobile transporter). In a chanber with a very hard vaccum, even under a shroud made from a 1/8" skin aluminum box, painted with high emmissivity paint, we had good performance using a cooler lining the chamber, chilled with LN2, aprox -375F IIRC. I forget the cooling rate, but it wasn't bad. We had to modulate the cooler to get our cooling/heating profile, so we could have gone faster.
From TFA, it wasn't clear how they were pumping the photon source, I assume it'll be electric. So it's either batteries(Ha!) or some sort of nuke plant - thermionic orf some sort of (sterling ?) heat engine, either of which will be rejecting a bunch of heat, to generate - what, someone said like 370MWatt? So ya, big radiators of some sort. Plus, the photon source might also be generating it's own heat, aside from the photons, depending on the efficiency.
This'll basically be a big flashlight, just don't stand behind it or you're looking at one heck of sunburn, at least until you're vaporized. But the really cool thing is you don't need to schlep along tons of reaction mass, the photons do it for you, as they have a (very small) momentum. You just need a nice compact high power energy source.
Just turning around does not work. (Score:2, Informative)
You either have to first deploy the receiving laser array and power system.
Or bring an alternative drive for breaking.
Here is my desciption of how to perform this in more detail
http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/03/putting-brakes-on-laser-mirror-systems.html [blogspot.com]
Re:acceleration? (Score:3, Informative)
only at ludicrous speeds (Score:1, Informative)
Unfortunately it isn't clear how the technology described would be applied to a Mars type of mission (e.g. any non-formation-flying mission where the photon engine would be used to provide significant and arbitrary velocity delta for solo ships. The "thrust" appears to occur between the mirrors, which the good doctor apparently plans to place on different spacecraft for stationkeeping. Perhaps one of the mirrors could be mounted on the moon or something. Dunno. The details seem to be absent. You would think this could be explained in a way that we geeks could understand. "Amplifying" chambers. Yeah. Right. Zero mass. Amplify that all you want and you still get zero thrust.