How Do Scientists Counteract Radiation Pressure on Artificial Satellites?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on how scientists counteract radiation pressure on artificial satellites, particularly in relation to sunlight affecting their trajectories and orientations. Participants explore various methods and considerations involved in maintaining satellite stability and correcting their orbits, touching on both theoretical and practical aspects of satellite operation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire whether radiation pressure from sunlight significantly shifts satellites and how this is managed, questioning the role of atmospheric drag as a more pressing concern.
  • One participant notes that radiation pressure can induce both rotations and translations in spacecraft, which can be compensated for using attitude control systems and corrective burns.
  • Another participant asks about the necessity of continuous corrective burns for larger space stations, suggesting that intermittent burns might suffice.
  • It is mentioned that the impact of sunlight pressure is generally minor except over extended periods, with the effectiveness of corrective measures depending on the satellite's size, mass, and thrust capabilities.
  • A historical example is provided regarding the Echo satellite, which experienced significant perturbations due to radiation pressure and atmospheric drag, while the Gravity Probe B satellite required continuous corrections for these forces due to its specific experimental needs.
  • Participants discuss the broader range of factors that can affect satellite orbits, including micrometeorite impacts and internal satellite dynamics, suggesting that planning for corrections should focus on robustness rather than specific perturbation causes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the significance of radiation pressure compared to other forces acting on satellites. There is no consensus on the necessity of continuous versus intermittent corrective measures, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approaches to counteract these forces.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the effectiveness of corrective measures may depend on specific satellite characteristics and operational contexts, but these factors are not fully resolved in the discussion.

varungreat
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
How do scientists counteract the radiation pressure of sunlight falling on artifical satellites for e.g. on solar panels? Do they use rockets or is the orbit self-correcting?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Do you mean the actual sunlight shifting the satellite itself? Because I’m not sure that would make much of a difference. Satellites have another more significant problem to deal with, and that’s the drag of the atmosphere which can extend out to 2000 km or so. (Not sure on those figures) But satellites do need to correct for atmospheric drag.
 
thank you, but i do mean the actual shifting of satellites due to radiation pressure by the sun light.
 
Can anyone help please?
Thank you
 
Radiation pressure is often liable to induce roations in spacecraft as well as translations. The rotations can be compensated for with the spacecraft 's attitude control system (e.g. reaction wheels). If the translations induce a significant deviation from the intended path, these can be compensated for with a corrective burn.
 
thanx. but in case of very big space station is continuous corrective burn necessary? Or can we use the impulses (of corrective burn) after regular periods??
please HELP!
 
In general the pressure of sunlight is insigificant except over long periods, so intermittent burns are all that are required.

However it does depend on the size and mass of the satellite, and the thrust of the thruster used. The large balloon like Echo satellite used in the early 1960's as the first experiment in satellite communications suffered considerable perturbation from its oscullating orbit because of radiation pressure and atmosphere drag, although it was actually quite high up, and was simply allowed to "go with the (sunlight) wind".

The Gravity Probe B satellite on the other hand is quite massive (3.1 tonnes) and relatively compact (~ 9 feet across) yet its orbit has to be kept free from all radiation pressure and atmospheric drag perturbations.

The central part of the experiment consisted of 4 accurate gyroscopes cooled to near Absolute zero by liquid helium in a giant dewar jar. The helium gradually evaporated away and escaped through a porous plug in the neck of the dewar.

This escaping helium vapour was then vented through a series of micro-thrusters that continuously corrected for the radiation and atmospheric forces on the satellite.

I hope this helps.

Garth
 
In terms of the OP, I think it's not so much correcting for a particular cause of perturbation/drifting/whatever, but rather the ability to make corrections whenever it is deemed necessary or important to do so.

Sunlight pressure and atmospheric drag are but two of the causes of change to planned/desired/intended orbit or orientation; other causes may be micrometeorite impacts, venting/outgassing (within the satellite itself, whether planned or not), balky gyros/reaction wheels, and gravitational or magnetic torques (maybe other folk can add further possible causes).

From an engineering perspective (Enigma may give us more 'coal-face' experience and feedback), I imagine it's less a particular cause that needs to be planned for than the robustness and likely lifetime of the ability to address any causes (within broad envelopes).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K