Can radiation pressure be used for propulsion?

AI Thread Summary
Radiation pressure can theoretically be used for propulsion, with calculations showing that reflecting light between two mirrors could generate a small force. The discussion highlights that while one might expect to achieve significant force through repeated collisions of light on the mirrors, practical limitations arise. The need for extremely high reflectivity and the finite time required for electron transitions in the mirrors complicate the feasibility of this method. Additionally, as the distance between mirrors increases, the energy flux diminishes, reducing the overall force. Ultimately, while the concept is intriguing, current technological and physical constraints limit its practical application for spacecraft propulsion.
cells
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Pressure = energy flux / speed of light
Taking an energy flux of 1000 watts per meter sq (typical flux of sunlight on Earth's surface)

We gain, pressure = 1,000/300,000,000 = 1/300,000 Pascals.

If it is reflected, we gain twice that = 2/300,000 pascals


Now my question, if I had two flat mirrors of 1m^2 face to face one meter apart and put a beam of light in between them of energy 1000j (basically a beam of sunlight for 1 second). I would get my 2/300,000 Pascal’s of force per "collision" of the light on the mirrors. Now since they are bouncing back and fourth. I would get 300,000/2 collisions per second on each mirror. That gives me one Newton of force on each mirror?

Is that correct or have I done something wrong?

If it is correct, why isn’t this method used to propel spacecraft ? or even Earth craft? that is assuming we can get near perfect mirrors (which we have already). It would also not violate any physics laws I can see. It conserves momentum. It conserves energy (since the light will be red Doppler shifted, losing its energy and giving it to the KE of the mirrors).

So where have I gone wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If youre asking why don't we use two mirrors face to face its because as it hits mirror A you get motion in the positive direction and as it its mirror B it then negates that motion.

If youre asking why not use mirrored materials in solar sails due to the extra oompf from reflection, we already do.

Hope that's what you were askin
-G
 
FunkyDwarf said:
If youre asking why don't we use two mirrors face to face its because as it hits mirror A you get motion in the positive direction and as it its mirror B it then negates that motion.

Hope that's what you were askin
-G

Two independent mirrors not connected to each other! so both fly off in opposite directions.

Anyway I think I figured it out
Reflection requires promotion of electrons from one orbital to a higher one, then back again, this requires a finite time which is probably >> the flight time between the two mirrors. On top of that a mirror would need to be >99.9999% reflective which we can not make at the moment.
 
If one mirror were on a large mass (say a large, airless moon to minimize atmospheric issues), then the problem of both mirrors traveling in opposite directions could effectively be eliminated.

The more practical way to do this, used in a number of science fiction stories (viz. Niven & Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye"), is to use a high-powered laser aimed at a concave (parabolic?) mirror on the tail of a spacecraft . In trying to use the two-mirror method, even collimated laser beams spread out with distance. I'm not sure exactly what shaped mirror would be most efficient in imparting momentum to the spacecraft , but I suspect it's not the same shape that would reflect the tightest beam back toward the source.

ERW
 
cells said:
Two independent mirrors not connected to each other! so both fly off in opposite directions.

Anyway I think I figured it out
Reflection requires promotion of electrons from one orbital to a higher one, then back again, this requires a finite time which is probably >> the flight time between the two mirrors. On top of that a mirror would need to be >99.9999% reflective which we can not make at the moment.

This all sounds so familiar - even the 'orbital' nonsense. Maybe I've been here too long. The big error is trying to multiply the force by some sort of collision rate - just because it's coming from another mirror doesn't change the energy flux. The force is still tiny. And note as the mirrors get farther apart (even if they are ideal) the force will weaken since the flux will drop just because the volume between the mirrors is growing.
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top