My Assistant
![]() ![]() |
Photonic Laser Thrusters to Mars |
Sep 14 2007, 08:43 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 257 Joined: 18-December 04 Member No.: 123 |
Interesting article, the 1-week to mars claim seems dramatic. It would be interesting to see some the basis for this though.
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/09/13/2328233.shtml -------------------- Turn the middle side topwise....TOPWISE!!
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 01:24 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Newbie ![]() Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 29-June 07 From: Toronto Member No.: 2601 |
It's the magic of constant acceleration. Using the Space Math calculator at http://www.cthreepo.com/cp_html/math1.htm, if we assume a constant acceleration of 1G for the first half of the trip and constant deceleration of 1G for the second half, it would take about 1.7 days at closest approach (55.75 million km) or 2.85 days at 1AU. Mars hardly moves relative to the Earth in only a few days, so with this kind of speed you can follow a straight line path instead of worrying about messy orbits.
With constant 1G acceleration/deceleration you can visit Jupiter in less than 6 days, Saturn in less than 10, and even Pluto in less than 3 weeks. The 4.22 light year trip to Proxima Centauri would take only 4.8 years (3.5 years to the people onboard, due to time dilation). Of course, there is a minor tradeoff due to Newton's second law: it takes energy to generate that constant acceleration. In the real world, the Dawn spacecraft's ion drive will produce an acceration a million times less than 1G, and it takes years to get anywhere nearby. We're still waiting for antimatter drives, negative-mass generator, or the ever-handy space warp. |
|
|
|
Sep 14 2007, 03:10 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Merciless Robot ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 8789 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
I don't know...kind of skeptical based on the context. If you drill back into the article, you'll see the source is a press release by the guy who made this thing, so this could be yet another publicity grab attempt.
Happy to be wrong, though; God knows we need as many propulsion breakthroughs as we can get! -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 05:01 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 688 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Sweden Member No.: 273 |
I wouldn't like the Earth to get in the way of the "exhaust" of a laser powerful enough to give a 1 g acceleration to a spacecraft. That's an awful lot of photons.....
|
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 05:05 PM
Post
#5
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
Right, tty. My first thought about this concept was "this will be a weapon first". I'm also very skeptical about the whole thing. Where do you get the energy for such a push?
-------------------- |
|
|
|
Sep 15 2007, 07:40 PM
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Dublin Correspondent ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
The claims referenced by the article talk about a very low thrust in this demo - 35 micro newtons. Compare this to Dawn's 12x 0.9 Newton Ion thrusters to get some idea of how far this will have to be scaled before it can be used in similar situations to an ion drive let alone the scaling needed to accelerate anything worthwhile at anything close to 1g.
What's with the name by the way? What would a non-Photonic Laser Thruster be ? Or does this do something neat with optical logic circuitry as well as lasers to achieve its magic? Seems neat and it seems a promising area of research despite my scepticism with regard to its imminent use in actual spacecraft but I'm not buying any shares just yet either. |
|
|
|
Sep 16 2007, 12:07 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Merciless Robot ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 8789 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Yeah. For one thing, I have to wonder what sort of power source would be required to provide enough energy to achieve 1g for a practical spacecraft, even if some evolute of this thing was capable of doing so. If you'd have to fly a nuclear reactor, then why not just use a NERVA derivative?
-------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
|
Sep 21 2007, 05:40 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 16-March 05 From: Clay County, Indiana, USA Member No.: 199 |
Bae Institute & Photonic Laser Thrust (PLT)
And Bae Institute article it's Interesting stuff. I am looking forward to updates concerning this technology. I haven't, yet, found an article that compares ion propulsion to plt. |
|
|
|
Sep 21 2007, 08:34 PM
Post
#9
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 267 Joined: 5-February 06 Member No.: 675 |
The "Laser Thrusters to Mars" claim seems like a PR extensionof a modest claim to use lasers to microposition satellite constellations. The details are in this paper (I'm not certain if it's a published peer-reviewed paper or only a conference presentation). Additional similar presentations at the Bae webpage.
The system described generates thrust between two spacecraft separated by "maximum estimated distances in the order of tens of km." As such, it wouldn't be applicable to a trip to the Moon, to say nothing of Mars. Steve |
|
|
|
Sep 22 2007, 06:20 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Junior Member ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 16-March 05 From: Clay County, Indiana, USA Member No.: 199 |
For what it's worth, the Mars statement is coming from Dr. Bae himself:
QUOTE Bae, looking forward with anticipation, observes, "This is the tip of the iceberg. PLT has immense potential for the aerospace industry. For example, PLT powered spacecraft could transit the 100 million km to Mars in less than a week."
|
|
|
|
Sep 22 2007, 04:15 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 688 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Sweden Member No.: 273 |
I was wondering what anyone might want a laser thruster for, but for position holding spacecraft in interferometric arrays precisely controllable micronewton thrusters does make sense. It's a rather big step to main drives for planetary missions though.....
|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th October 2024 - 12:23 AM |
|
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |
|