Can a spaceship be powered solely by solar energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mayed Al-Tunaiji
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rocket Ship
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Powering a spaceship solely with solar energy is impractical due to the immense energy requirements for lunar travel, estimated at around 1 terajoule (TJ). The solar constant provides approximately 1 kilowatt per square meter (kW/m²), necessitating vast areas of solar panels that would add significant weight and energy demands for launch. While solar-powered spacecraft like NASA's Dawn exist, they are not viable for short trips like those to the moon due to low power-to-weight ratios. Alternative propulsion methods, such as nuclear reactors, are more feasible for space travel.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of energy requirements for space travel
  • Knowledge of solar energy conversion and efficiency
  • Familiarity with spacecraft propulsion systems
  • Awareness of current space exploration technologies
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the energy requirements for lunar missions
  • Explore solar panel technology and its limitations in space applications
  • Investigate alternative propulsion methods, including nuclear thermal propulsion
  • Study existing solar-powered spacecraft and their operational parameters
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, space exploration enthusiasts, and researchers interested in renewable energy applications in space travel.

Mayed Al-Tunaiji
Messages
6
Reaction score
2
Hello, PF. So I was wondering if it's possible to power a spaceship by solar power only. If so how big will the solar panels be? Where would they be installed? How long will it take for them to fully charge in order to travel a certain distance? between Earth and the moon for instance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mayed Al-Tunaiji said:
Building such a rocket could revolutionize space exploration since the mass will be reduced significantly along with the cost of building a spacecraft .

That's an unfounded claim.

A moon shot takes in the ballpark of 1 TJ of energy. The solar constant is in the ballpark of 1 kW/m2. So you need acres upon acres of solar panels. Which you then have to lift, which requires more energy, which requires more solar panels, and so on and so on.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
That's an unfounded claim.

A moon shot takes in the ballpark of 1 TJ of energy. The solar constant is in the ballpark of 1 kW/m2. So you need acres upon acres of solar panels. Which you then have to lift, which requires more energy, which requires more solar panels, and so on and so on.
Sorry but I thought that using renewable energy is going to increase the efficiency of the rocket.
 
Mayed Al-Tunaiji said:
Sorry but I thought that using renewable energy is going to increase the efficiency of the rocket.
No, "efficiency" is not a relevant concept when discussing different energy sources and wasn't what you posited anyway: you speculated about COST, making the classic solar energy mistake that assuming since the source energy is free that the total lifetime cost of the system will be lower. It doesn't follow...and the cost follows the weight issue. So you're basically assuming that solar panels are approximately free and weigh approximately nothing.

In any case, such spacecraft do exist on a weaker scale: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_( spacecraft )

They have high propulsive efficiency, but low power to weight ratios, so they are never going to be viable for a trip to the moon. For very long trips they collect a lot of energy, which is where they provide a lot of benefit.
 
First you would need some form of electrical propulsion which currently isn't very practical. You would also still need fuel to get into orbit. A nuclear reactor would probably be more practical given you have a good source of propulsion that only uses electricity.
 
Proposals like in the Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study by Keck Institute for Space Studies are based on solar powered propulsion but it sounds like a case of "if or when someone else does the development work".
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
831
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K