Harnessing Light for Spacecraft Propulsion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of using light, specifically lasers, for spacecraft propulsion. Participants explore various methods, including on-board lasers, stationary lasers, and solar sails, while considering the practicality and efficiency of these approaches for interplanetary travel and high-speed propulsion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that on-board lasers could be used for propulsion, questioning the need for external reflective surfaces.
  • Others argue that using an on-board laser is impractical and inefficient, likening it to traditional rocket propulsion.
  • A participant mentions the potential of photonic laser thrusters (PLT) to achieve high thrust-to-power ratios, suggesting they could be suitable for various space applications.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of integrating fusion or fission reactors on spacecraft to generate sufficient energy for photon production.
  • Some participants suggest that while stationary lasers may be viable, on-board lasers face significant practical hurdles.
  • There is a discussion about the weight implications of using nuclear reactors for propulsion, highlighting the need for radiation shielding and its impact on overall spacecraft mass.
  • One participant introduces the idea of photoelectric energy capture as a potentially more successful method for propulsion than direct momentum transfer from photons.
  • Another participant critiques the practicality of using a massive laser system, emphasizing the immense energy requirements and the resulting thrust limitations.
  • Some participants note that while ion thrusters provide low thrust, they can achieve significant speeds over time due to continuous acceleration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the practicality of on-board lasers versus stationary lasers for propulsion. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives on the feasibility and efficiency of various propulsion methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions of energy production, the practicality of integrating reactors, and the implications of spacecraft mass on propulsion efficiency. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties in the field of laser propulsion technology.

  • #31
D H said:
This? http://pdf.aiaa.org/jaPreview/JSR/2008/PVJA32284.pdf ? A more detailed description: http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1047Bae.pdf.

Bae does identify yet another problem that I did not list in post #25: The "Laser Elevator: Momentum Transfer Using an Optical Resonator" paper by Meyer et al. has a fatal flaw: destructive interference. Bae's solution to this problem: Don't use a laser to power the back-and-forth reflections between the source and the target vehicle. Instead make the space between the light source and vehicle the resonant cavity of the laser. To quote the ads for Guinness, "Brilliant!"

This does solve the destructive interference problem, but only at the cost of immensely upping the ante on the alignment problem. He barely addresses the alignment problem. He hints at a solution, he doesn't specify the accuracy requirements, and he doesn't address the fact that the alignment issue needs to be addressed on both ends of the laser.

Regarding the use of this for as a launch platform as opposed to a solution for the precision spacecraft formation problem, he calls out for a mirror with a reflectivity of 99.9998%. "Brilliant!"
destination coordinates instantaneous teleportation. Even a monkey could slay a god with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
flashprogram said:
if perfect mirrors do indeed exist

They don't.
provided an infinite source of energy were found

No such thing.
it is hypothetically possible at least that such instructions could mysteriously result in progress.

Based on the above, this is a futile statement.

It's the equivalent of saying "if a warp engine did exist, star trek ship designs could prove ideal for interstellar travel".

Any 'if' qualifying statements such as those above would allow for the possibility of the latter. But the 'if' statement itself is non-sensical and so doesn't prove / allow for anything. It certainly doesn't provide a valid basis for arguing the latter is possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
the problem is people will tend to obsess over the truth of hypothetical mythologies and ramblings of philosophers. In fact such knowledge would be so dangerous, that it is conceivable that at the first sign of progress individuals are so entralled by the marvel of truth that further progress becomes fundamentally impossible. thus it is that you get philosopher ramblings for eternity and doing nothing about anything because it is fundamentally pointless and hopeless at the same time.

move one philosopher just one bit and it is instant game over.
 
  • #34
flashprogram said:
destination coordinates instantaneous teleportation.

And where in your little snippet did you pull those four 'lovely' words? Or even the concept?
flashprogram said:
the problem is people will tend to obsess over the truth of hypothetical mythologies and ramblings of philosophers. In fact such knowledge would be so dangerous, that it is conceivable that at the first sign of progress individuals are so entralled by the marvel of truth that further progress becomes fundamentally impossible. thus it is that you get philosopher ramblings for eternity and doing nothing about anything because it is fundamentally pointless and hopeless at the same time.

move one philosopher just one bit and it is instant game over.

What exactly does this have to do with the thread? Philosophical ramblings are best left in the philosophy forums, and given the new rules I don't see this being acceptable even there.

You can give all the 'what if' questions you like, as I pointed out above, but we need to stick to facts and not hypothesise based on non-sensical statements such as those above.
 
  • #35
jarednjames said:
And where in your little snippet did you pull those four 'lovely' words? Or even the concept?

it has been used in mythology since the time of zeno, fundamentally impossible and dismissed as entirely irrelevant and useless... look where that got the greeks going? LET ALONE THE PHILOSOPHERS, perhaps the greatest failure in existence.

An axis to the dimension of time
 
  • #36
flashprogram said:
it has been used in mythology since the time of zeno, fundamentally impossible and dismissed as entirely irrelevant and useless... look where that got the greeks going? LET ALONE THE PHILOSOPHERS, perhaps the greatest failure in existence.

An axis to the dimension of time

Your saying that "destination coordinates instantaneous teleportation" is used in mythology? Care to back that up?

I'm honestly not sure what your ramblings are about and I certainly don't see how they apply to this thread.
 
  • #37
Thread closed.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K