Solar sail using radioactive decay

In summary: So if you could just model the solar sail as a bunch of particles all flying around then the radiation pressure from the alpha particles would push them in the direction of the sail. So you would end up with the same result as the first way, but this way is a lot simpler and doesn't require any calculations.In summary, a solar sail that derives it's energy from the decay of a radioactive element could theoretically be created, but it would not be very efficient and would require a large amount of radioactive material.
  • #1
udtsith
54
1
Could you make a solar sail that derives it's energy from the decay of a radioactive element such as plutonium, uranium, or palonium? I understand that such elements radiate in all directions but if you had a 1 kg sphere of it attached to a boon which was attached to a reflective sail (e.g. aluminum) would you not be able to harness the total momentum generated by the alpha, beta, or gamma particles? If the alpha particles are absorbed rather than reflected then...couldn't you encase the radioactive element in a lead casing, allowing it to heat and emit it's energy via infrared to the solar sail? I understand that gamma will likely sail on through but most of the energy released in decay is from alpha particles which are easily blocked. My estimate is that you could get up to 1/1000th the speed of light from the energy that is released over a 100 day decay of palonium (140 W/gram). This wouldn't be worthwhile for interstellar travel but you could zip around the solar system quite nicely
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Will the amount of thrust produced by this overcome any of the gravitational fields of the plantets and sun?
 
  • #3
The problem is that you've got the radioactive source chained to you.

I'd like to see your calculations that you can get to 0.001c, since I don't see how that would work.
 
  • #4
twofish-quant said:
The problem is that you've got the radioactive source chained to you.

I'd like to see your calculations that you can get to 0.001c, since I don't see how that would work.

Why would that be a problem? If the source is behind the sail then most of the particles either get emitted directly aft of the ship or get reflected off the sail.
 
  • #5
Newton three will stop you in your tracks - draw a diagram of the energy emitter with an arrow in the direction of the momentum change cause by the emission; then do the same for the reflector and see if you can get any net momentum.

What you could conceivably do is have a shielded radioactive source with a hole at the back to let radiation out, but if that were practical it would have been done.

Take a look at the Pioneer anomaly and see if you can work out what's going on.
 
  • #6
I don't see the difference in this and a standard rocket engine. Both involve expelling mass (or momentum) and channeling it in one direction.
 
  • #7
If you mount a fan on a boat blowing into a sail on the boat, the boat will not be propelled. The vacuum pressure behind the fan will counteract the propulsive force of the air directed into the sail.
 
  • #8
I could be missing your point but the use of a fan on Earth and the decay of a radioactive element are entirely different. The emission of radioactive particles in space doesn't create a vaccuum. I do agree that if you simply had a radioactive sphere sitting in space that it would not move because the omni-directional emission of the particles would cancel out. However, now imagine that a solar sail is attached as described. If the particles are absorbed (reflectivity = 1) then the net force would be in the direction of the sail. This means that of the total energy or momentum emitted you would retrieve half of it back. This really isn't that different than how a rocket works with mass being propelled away. Radioactive decay has been used as a form of energy for batteries in space for some time. Nasa is even testing an ion propulsion system that uses radioactive decay as a source of energy.

There are 2 different ways I use to calculate the velocity (disregarding drag from planets and sun). If that causes problems of thrust then we could simply scale the amount of radioactive material up from 1kg to 1000kg or more. This wouldn't increase the velocity because you are adding mass but it would make the drag insignificant.

The first way is to simply calculate how much energy is emitted by a radioactive element over it's life-time. With the understanding that it decreases over time. For 1kg of palonium this is roughly 1.0 * 10^12 Joules/kg (wiki palonium and calculation is straight forward). So you lose half of the energy and you are at 5.0 *10^11 Joules/kg. If you do a simply .5mv^2 equation you wind up with a 1 kg mass traveling at .003c. But of course nothing is entirely effecient and you have to add in the mass of the sale and boon etc so I figure you end up going about .001c.

Another way to calculate it is to use the radiation pressure. The emission of alpha particles from a radioactive source is akin to the solar wind solar winds (which have rest mass). The average velocity of a solar wind particle is 500km/sec. The average velocity of a 5 MeV alpha particle is 15000km/sec. So using the radiation pressure equation of
atomic mass * particle density * (Velocity^2)/2 yields a much higher speed of .05c. I don't know why, perhaps because this is more complicated with Curies and number of atoms etc.

But I think if there is any weakness to it, it is in the way to calculate radiation pressure of mass particles (versus light).

Or perhaps another way to ask the question- if you could attach a gigantic solar sail to the sun...how much could you make it move?
 
  • #9
Chronos said:
If you mount a fan on a boat blowing into a sail on the boat, the boat will not be propelled. The vacuum pressure behind the fan will counteract the propulsive force of the air directed into the sail.
Wind doesn't bounce off a sail, but em radiation does bounce off a solar sail, so they aren't the same issue[caveat: I don't know how well particle radiation or high energy em radiation bounces]. Similar to the OP's idea, a flashlight with a parabolic reflector is basically a light rocket.

The OP's proposal would work, but I'd be shocked if it worked well.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
In the end all I am proposing is to increase the radiation pressure on a solar sail. The extra bonus (minus a slight increase in mass) is that the emitter gets to travel with you. This means that unlike the Sun the pressure remains high over time/distance. After fusion and fission, radioactive decay has the highest energy density gram for gram of any energy storage system. Also the emission process won't break or falter. I tend to think that the high velocity of the alpha particles would spald a reflector so it might be better to put a casing of lead (add another couple of kilograms) around the emitter and use the radiant light generated from the hot lead. With space being a near vacuum you don't lose any significant energy as the alpha particles total kinetic energy is transferred into thermal energy which is then emitted via light.
 
  • #11
Drakkith said:
Why would that be a problem? If the source is behind the sail then most of the particles either get emitted directly aft of the ship or get reflected off the sail.

The reason solar sails work is that you can make them light since they aren't accelerating their own "fuel." If you chain the sail to a radioactive source then you add inertia to the spacecraft which is bad.

The fact that you are carrying your fuel with you is a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Can some one show me why the math of using 1000 kg of Palonium-210 doesn't doesnt produce a solar sail (mass of 1010 kg) with a velocity near .001c? Or if it doesn't work well, why does it not work well? I just can't help but think that a radioactive element emitting 140,000 Watts/kg wouldn't be an ideal way to propel a solar sail. What am I missing?
 
  • #13
udtsith said:
Can some one show me why the math of using 1000 kg of Palonium-210 doesn't doesnt produce a solar sail (mass of 1010 kg) with a velocity near .001c?

I'm running through the numbers, but I think the main the problem is that very little of the energy will get converted to momentum. The problem is not energy. It's momentum. If the energy gets scattered in different directions, it's not going to help you, and most of the energy in radioactive decay is going to be emitted as thermal radiation.

My suspicion is that if you had 1000 kg of Polonium, that there are more efficient ways of converting energy into momentum, than solar sails, and you could use it to drive an ion engine.

Or if it doesn't work well, why does it not work well? I just can't help but think that a radioactive element emitting 140,000 Watts/kg wouldn't be an ideal way to propel a solar sail. What am I missing?

It's really not. The thing about solar sails is that you can make them arbitararily big and arbritrarily light.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Nothing in your post makes any sense to me josh.
 
  • #15
Drakkith said:
Nothing in your post makes any sense to me josh.

Whereas udtsith is asking some very good questions.

I *think* the problem is that radioactive decay produces a lot of energy, but there is no obvious way of turning that decay into momentum. In particular, the problem with simply "sailing" with the block of polonium, is that most of the radioactive particles are going to get reabsorbed by the polonium so they turn into useless heat before hitting the sail.
 
  • #16
Drakkith said:
Will the amount of thrust produced by this overcome any of the gravitational fields of the plantets and sun?

No, but once you get into interplanetary space, it doesn't matter. Once you get out of the gravity well, then your enemy is inertial and not gravity. So you can end up with rocket engines that produce small amounts of thrust for a long time.
 
  • #17
Thank you all for your posts and insights.

About the heat that would be generated from the alpha particles smashing into other palonium atoms. First, because the palonium is in space (a near vaccuum), any thermal energy generated (heat) would be reradiated back.

I thought what was so telling about the gold foil experiment was that any alpha particles actually came back to the detector at all (were reflected). This is because most of matter is in the nucleus and speeding alpha particles are bowling balls. Now if the particle is highly charged (e.g. 5 MeV) I would expect it to smash into a "reflector" the result is that some momentum will be transferred by the collision but most will go to heating the reflector up. If you drive a billiard ball into a scattering of billiard balls, most of the kinetic energy of the first ball will go into scattering the balls in all direction (heat) rather than forward momentum of the entire mass of balls. This is why I think it would be better to have a casing of some metal like lead. Now all the energy is thermal and you can use the radiant pressure equation (stephan boltzman * T^4)/c. The energy doesn't disappear it simply is radiated back out as light. Since space is a near vacuum very little heat will be transferred by conduction to it's surrounding environment. This radiant energy (from infrared to x-ray) will then be used in the normal fashion for the solar sail. So I think you still recover your total energy.

Or...you could make the palonium into a sheet and that way the "inner" palonium decay wouldn't be blocked by the radius of spherical/block shaped palonium. But you still have the problem of heating the reflector versus transferring momentum.

Palonium might be too hard to work with (obtain/assemble/lift off). Plutonium has a much longer half life, history of being used aboard satellites, and wouldn't cause as much problem transferring it's heat. For greater speeds maybe you could use palonium as well as uranium. Once the palonium decays significantly (about a year) you let it go and get the energy from uranium which contains more energy than palonium but has a much longer half life (approx. 80 years).
 
  • #18
There are a few problems with using alpha decay. First, since decay is isotropic, you can only harness half the momentum (the half in the direction of the sail that reflects off the sail). Actually, you can harness even less. Decays that are normal to the surface of the sail provide forward momentum, but since momentum is a vector quantity, those decays at very oblique angles to the normal provide very little momentum.

Second, increasing the half life means you have to increase the amount of radioactive material in order to get the same activity.

Third, Po-210 is very difficult to both synthesize and isolate. Due to its radiotoxicity, it is also extremely difficult to handle. Only 1 microgram killed Litvenenko. Imagine if the launch vehicle exploded, spreading 1 kilograms of this over an area (thats 9 orders of magnitude!), especially a population center or water source.

Finally, 14kW/s (assuming you could trasnfer all the energy into kinetic) isn't a lot when trying to accelerate something that massive. True, if you want to do it slowly, once it's out of the influence of Earth's gravity it might work. But getting it to that point is a pain.
 
  • #19
udtsith, you fail to comprehend the action-reaction principle of Newtonian physics.
 
  • #20
udtsith said:
Could you make a solar sail that derives it's energy from the decay of a radioactive element such as plutonium, uranium, or palonium? I understand that such elements radiate in all directions but if you had a 1 kg sphere of it attached to a boon which was attached to a reflective sail (e.g. aluminum) would you not be able to harness the total momentum generated by the alpha, beta, or gamma particles? If the alpha particles are absorbed rather than reflected then...couldn't you encase the radioactive element in a lead casing, allowing it to heat and emit it's energy via infrared to the solar sail? I understand that gamma will likely sail on through but most of the energy released in decay is from alpha particles which are easily blocked. My estimate is that you could get up to 1/1000th the speed of light from the energy that is released over a 100 day decay of palonium (140 W/gram). This wouldn't be worthwhile for interstellar travel but you could zip around the solar system quite nicely

You can do such and such a concept has been seriously examined by space propulsion researchers. What's needed are alpha and beta particle emitting radioactives - gamma rays would find the sail too transparent. Standard fission fuels aren't radioactive enough, so you need the fast decaying isotopes, probably transuranic elements.

A related concept is the fission fragment rocket which minimizes waste heat and maximizes exhaust velocity by venting fission products directly. Does require some very tricky design and I am not sure all the bugs have been eliminated from the concept, but it does hold promise as an interstellar propulsion system.
 
  • #21
Chronos said:
udtsith, you fail to comprehend the action-reaction principle of Newtonian physics.

How does ve misunderstand it Chronos?
 
  • #22
udtsith said:
Thank you all for your posts and insights.

About the heat that would be generated from the alpha particles smashing into other palonium atoms. First, because the palonium is in space (a near vaccuum), any thermal energy generated (heat) would be reradiated back.

I thought what was so telling about the gold foil experiment was that any alpha particles actually came back to the detector at all (were reflected). This is because most of matter is in the nucleus and speeding alpha particles are bowling balls. Now if the particle is highly charged (e.g. 5 MeV) I would expect it to smash into a "reflector" the result is that some momentum will be transferred by the collision but most will go to heating the reflector up. If you drive a billiard ball into a scattering of billiard balls, most of the kinetic energy of the first ball will go into scattering the balls in all direction (heat) rather than forward momentum of the entire mass of balls. This is why I think it would be better to have a casing of some metal like lead. Now all the energy is thermal and you can use the radiant pressure equation (stephan boltzman * T^4)/c. The energy doesn't disappear it simply is radiated back out as light. Since space is a near vacuum very little heat will be transferred by conduction to it's surrounding environment. This radiant energy (from infrared to x-ray) will then be used in the normal fashion for the solar sail. So I think you still recover your total energy.

Or...you could make the palonium into a sheet and that way the "inner" palonium decay wouldn't be blocked by the radius of spherical/block shaped palonium. But you still have the problem of heating the reflector versus transferring momentum.

Palonium might be too hard to work with (obtain/assemble/lift off). Plutonium has a much longer half life, history of being used aboard satellites, and wouldn't cause as much problem transferring it's heat. For greater speeds maybe you could use palonium as well as uranium. Once the palonium decays significantly (about a year) you let it go and get the energy from uranium which contains more energy than palonium but has a much longer half life (approx. 80 years).

A sheet can radiate waste heat easier than any other configuration, but best to use a decay chain that minimizes heating.

Polonium probably isn't the fuel of choice. Plutonium-238 has some merits, but I've seen curium and americium suggested also. Been a while since I looked at the designs, so I might've missed a better isotope.
 
  • #23
Thank you for your patience. This something that I have been curious about and it's good to see where it might or might not work. I'll propose this one last thing and then leave it alone. What if instead of a solar reflector (used for traditional radiant reflection) you used a magnetosail (wiki magnetosail). As I understand it, magnetosails are designed to reflect the solar wind (charged massed particles). Alpha particles are +2 charged. Isn't the decay from an alpha emitter pretty much the same thing as the material from the solar wind emitted by the sun (although no electrons).
 
  • #25
qraal said:
How does ve misunderstand it Chronos?
This reminds me of the "self propelled sailboat". You have a large sail on a boat (or on a little cart with wheels) and a fan at the end of the boat. The fan blows the sail which moves the boat!

Wrong. When the "wind" first comes out of the fan, it produces a push backwards (which is what makes an airboat go) and then when it hits the sail, exactly the opposite push is produced.

Almost the same thing would happen here. The particles going backwards would move the ship to varying degrees, depending on the angle. The particles that hit the sail would have no affect upon the motion.

However, here, that is a good thing! If we just had some radioactive material on a boom at the end of the ship, the emitted particles, going in all directions, would cancel each other and there would be no forward motion. However, if the particles moving forward were "caught" by the sail, that would nullify the backward momentum originally imparted and so the ship would move forward!
 
  • #26
udtsith said:
Thank you for your patience. This something that I have been curious about and it's good to see where it might or might not work. I'll propose this one last thing and then leave it alone. What if instead of a solar reflector (used for traditional radiant reflection) you used a magnetosail (wiki magnetosail). As I understand it, magnetosails are designed to reflect the solar wind (charged massed particles). Alpha particles are +2 charged. Isn't the decay from an alpha emitter pretty much the same thing as the material from the solar wind emitted by the sun (although no electrons).

If an atom spits out an alpha particle then two electrons have to go with it eventually to balance charge. But I don't think they stick to the alpha as it's emitted.
 
  • #27
Ivy, doesn't something similar happen in a Rocket engine? The combustion would normally throw out material in a random direction, however the engine is designed to funnel them all in one direction resulting in thrust.
 

1. What is a solar sail and how does it use radioactive decay?

A solar sail is a spacecraft propulsion system that uses the pressure of sunlight to propel the spacecraft forward. It works by reflecting sunlight off a large, lightweight mirror-like surface, which exerts a small but constant force on the sail. In the case of a solar sail using radioactive decay, the sail is coated with a layer of radioactive material, which decays and emits particles that create a small amount of thrust to propel the sail.

2. What advantages does using radioactive decay have over traditional solar sails?

One advantage is that radioactive decay produces a constant, predictable thrust, whereas traditional solar sails rely on the variability of sunlight. This allows for more precise control and navigation of the spacecraft. Additionally, radioactive materials have a longer lifespan than traditional solar sails, which can degrade over time due to exposure to sunlight and other environmental factors.

3. Is using radioactive decay safe for space exploration?

Yes, using radioactive decay in a solar sail is generally considered safe for space exploration. The amount of radioactive material used is small and is typically encapsulated in a protective coating. In the vacuum of space, the radiation from the decay is not harmful to humans or other living organisms. However, proper precautions must be taken to ensure the safe handling and disposal of the radioactive material on Earth.

4. What are the potential applications of a solar sail using radioactive decay?

A solar sail using radioactive decay could potentially be used for long-distance space travel, as it provides a constant source of thrust that can gradually accelerate the spacecraft over time. This could greatly reduce travel time and open up new possibilities for exploring deep space. It could also be used for satellite propulsion, as it is more efficient and reliable than traditional rocket propulsion systems.

5. What are the challenges and limitations of using a solar sail with radioactive decay?

One challenge is the limited amount of thrust that can be produced by radioactive decay, which may not be enough for larger spacecraft or missions that require high speeds. Another limitation is the availability of suitable radioactive materials, as some may have short half-lives and decay too quickly to be useful for propulsion. Additionally, the cost of producing and handling radioactive materials must also be taken into consideration.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
20
Views
366
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
313
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top