Basics of Space Flight is a tutorial designed primarily to help operations people identify the range of concepts associated with deep space missions, and grasp the relationships among them.
Theoretized 80 years ago was Breit-Wheeler pair production in which two photons result in an electron-positron pair (via a virtual electron). It is a relatively simple Feynmann diagram, but the problem is/was how to produce in practice a high energy photon-photon collider...
The collider experiment that the scientists have proposed involves two key steps. First, the scientists would use an extremely powerful high-intensity laser to speed up electrons to just below the speed of light. They would then fire these electrons into a slab of gold to create a beam of photons a billion times more energetic than visible light. The next stage of the experiment involves a tiny gold can called a hohlraum (German for 'empty room'). Scientists would fire a high-energy laser at the inner surface of this gold can, to create a thermal radiation field, generating light similar to the light emitted by stars. They would then direct the photon beam from the first stage of the experiment through the centre of the can, causing the photons from the two sources to collide and form electrons and positrons. It would then be possible to detect the formation of the electrons and positrons when they exited the can.
Now this is a good experiment... :)
Thrusting until your fuel runs out is solved, in this way one can produce mass from, among others, solar/star energy directly.
What I like about this experiment is that we have the technology already to do it, many parts have been designed for inertial confinement fusion.
I am quite certain that it would be more efficient to use the photons directly for thrust instead of converting them into matter.
Also, I am a bit puzzled at the asymmetric layout for photon creation. Typically, colliders use two beam of particle with equal but opposite momentum. Because the total momentum for two colliding particles is zero the reaction products are produced more efficiently as a minimum of collision energy is waisted on accelerating the products. I guess in this case the thermal radiation in the cavity is chosen instead of an opposing gamma ray beam to increase the photon density and increase the number of collisions (even if the efficiency decreases because of the asymmetry). However, a danger from using a high temperature cavity might be that a lot of thermionic emission creates lots of free electrons with the cavity. This could reduce the positron yield through recombination and would allow the high energetic photons to loose energy through Compton scattering instead of the Breit-Wheeler pair production.
Well, the main benefit from e-p pair creation might be that one can accelerate these subsequently to higher energies again. I think the photon-photon cross-section is extremely low, such that direct beam-beam interactions are basically not happening (below 1/20.. so basically 0 according to quantum probability :P), in this way, the central line of the hohlraum actually has a very high photon density and if timed correctly maximizes the reaction yield such that it could be measured.
I agree about the reason for the hohlraum - but I also keep my reservations about the drawbacks.
About the pair production as fuel: I pretty sure that your energy would be used smarter in using photon (not necessarily high energy photons) for thrust directly instead of putting tons of energy in creating a rest-mass and then accelerating that. If you look at E² = (p c)²+(m0 c)² then putting energy into the mass term will always reduce your maximum value of p.
True, but isnt it E2=(pc)^2 + (m0c^2)^2 such that for photons E\propto{pc} and for mass E\propto{mc^2}. I agree it will take a lot of energy, but this assumes that that wont be the problem at least. The question therefore is whether the mass flow of the photon rocket (fuel consumed to create photons, eg fission/fusion) is higher/lower than the mass flow for e-p creation. You are probably right that the low e-p cross-section will favour direct use of photons to create low thrust for long periods of time, but with significant power available the ISP might be higher for e-p pair creation.
In essence the equation tells you that for photons with zero rest mass m0 all the energy will be converted to momentum of the particles. If you want to accelerate e-p then you first spend part of the energy on creating them (~511 keV each) and you can only use the remaining energy to accelerate them. In this case the equation gives you a lower particle momentum which leads to lower thrust (even when assuming 100% acceleration efficiency). ISP is a tricky concept in this case because there are different definitions which clash in the relativistic context (due to the concept of mass flow). R. Tinder gets to a I_SP = c (speed of light) for a photon rocket (using the relativistic mass of the photons) which is the maximum possible relativistic I_SP:
http://goo.gl/Zz5gyC .
Towing an iceberg from Newfoundland to the Canary Islands: how 3D computer simulations are used to study iceberg melting and fuel consumption in this concept.
An exhaustive overview of all possible advanced rocket concepts, eg..
"As an example, consider a photon rocket with its launching mass, say, 1000 ton moving with a constant acceleration a =0.1 g=0.98 m/s2. The flux of photons with E γ=0.5 MeV needed to produce this acceleration is ~1027/s, which corresponds to the efflux power of 1014 W and the rate of annihilation events N'a~5×1026 s−1 [47]. This annihilation rate in ambiplasma l -l ann corresponds to the value of current ~108 A and linear density N ~2×1018 m−1 thus any hope for non-relativistic relative velocity of electrons and positrons in ambiplasma is groundless."
And also, even if it would work, then one of the major issues is going to be heat dispersal:
"For example, if the temperature of radiator is chosen T=1500 K, the emitting area should be not less than 1000 m2 for Pb=1 GW, not less than 1 km2 for Pb=1 TW, and ~100 km2 for Pb=100 TW, assuming ε=0.5 and δ=0.2. Lower temperature would require even larger radiator area to maintain the outer temperature of the engine section stable for a given thermal power of the reactor."
We were also discussing a while ago a propulsion system using the relativistic fragments from nuclear fission. That would also produce an extremely high ISP (>100000) with a fairly high thrust.
Never really got any traction though.
I absolutely do not see the point in a photon rocket. Certainly, the high energy releasing nulcear processes (annihilation, fusion, ...) should rather be used to heat up some fluid to plasma state and accelerate it via magnetic nozzle. This would surely work as door-opener to our solar system...and by the way minimize the heat disposal problem if regenerative cooling is used.
The problem is not achieving a high energy density, that we can already do with nuclear fission, the question however is how to confine or harness this power with relatively high efficiency, low waste heat and at not too crazy specific mass. I see magnetic confinement as a possibility, yet still decades away and also an all-or-nothing method as we cannot easily scale this up from a test experiment to a full-scale system. It might be possible to extract power from such a plasma, but definitely well below breakeven so an additional power supply is needed. The fission fragments circumvent these issues by a more brute force approach, thereby wasting a lot of energy for sure but at the end probably providing more ISP and thrust.
Sure. However, the annihilation based photon rocket concept unifies almost all relevant drawbacks if we speak about solar system scales, making itself obsolete...it is just an academic testcase.
A nice study on the soon cancelled-before-it-began hit TV show "MarsOne" (or, how it should be called, "How to make someone else rich while slowly dying on Mars").
This concept for a "soft-robotic rover with electrodynamic power scavenging" comes from Cornell University, and NASA has awarded it a grant under the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program to hoist itself up from TRL 1 to TRL 2.
The material the team used in these initial proof-of-concept experiments did make use of one biological component - chloroplasts, the light-harnessing components within plant cells, which the researchers obtained from spinach leaves.
Bartolomé call's workshop paper ... with some nice words also for the ACT
"I want to congratulate the Advanced Concepts Team of the ESA and the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics of Ljubljana for this initiative."
congrats Sante and Pacome again!
Let's all start up some crazy space companies together: harvest hydrogen on Jupiter, trap black holes as unlimited energy supplies, use high temperatures close to the sun to bake bread!
Apparently it is really easy to do just about anything and Deep Space Industries is really good at it. Plus: in their video they show Mars One concepts while referring to ESA and NASA.
Well they want to avoid having to send resources into space and rather make it all in space. The first mission is just to find possible asteroids worth mining and bring some asteroid rocks to Earth for analysis. In 2020 they want to start mining for precious metals (e.g. nickel), water and such.They also want to put up a 3D printer in space so that it would extract, separate and/or fuse asteroidal resources together and then print the needed structures already in space.
And even though on earth it's just rocks, in space a tonne of them has an estimated value of 1 million dollars (as opposed to 4000 USD on Earth).
Although I like the idea, I would put DSI in the same basket as those Mars One nutters 'cause it's not gonna happen.
I will get excited once they demonstrate they can put a random rock into their machine and out comes a bicycle (then the obvious next step is a space station).
hmm aside from the technological feasibility, their approach still should be taken as an example, and deserve a little support. By tackling such difficult problems, they will devise innovative stuffs. Plus, even if this doom-to-fail endeavour may still seem you useless, it creates jobs and make people think... it is already a positive!
Final word: how is that different from what Planetary Resources plan to do? It is founded by a bunch of so-called "nuts" ... (http://www.planetaryresources.com/team/) !
a little thought: "We must never be afraid to go too far, for success lies just beyond" - Proust
I don't think that this proposal is very different from the one by Planetary Resources. My scepticism is rooted in the fact that - at least to my knowledge - fully autonomous mining technology has not even been demonstrated on Earth. I am sure that their proposition is in principle (technically) feasible but at the same time I do not believe that a privately funded company will find enough people to finance a multi-billion dollar R&D project that may or may not lead to an economically sensible outcome, i.e. generate profit (not income - you have to pay back the R&D cost first) within the next 25 years. And on that timescale anything can happen - for all we know we will all be slaves to the singularity by the time they start mining.
I do think that people who tackle difficult problems deserve support - and lots of it. It seems however that up till now they have only tackled making a promotional video...
About job creation (sorry for the sarcasm): if usefulness is not so important my proposal would be to give shovels to two people - person A digs a hole and person B fills up the same hole at the same time. The good thing about this is that you can increase the number of jobs created simply by handing out more shovels.