Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
TDM Technical Objectives
Science Objective
Studying the Heliosphere
Zodiacal Background and Interplanetary Dust
Cosmic Background and the Reionization Epoch
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Engineering
Aerospace Engineering

Science opportunities with solar sailing smallsats

Profile image of Pete WordenPete Worden

2023, Planetary and Space Science

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PSS.2023.105744
visibility

…

description

35 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Recently, we witnessed how the synergy of small satellite technology and solar sailing propulsion enables new missions. Together, small satellites with lightweight instruments and solar sails offer affordable access to deep regions of the solar system, also making it possible to realize hard-to-reach trajectories that are not constrained to the ecliptic plane. Combining these two technologies can drastically reduce travel times within the solar system, while delivering robust science. With solar sailing propulsion capable of reaching the velocities of ∼5-10 AU/yr, missions using a rideshare launch may reach the Jovian system in two years, Saturn in three. The same technologies could allow reaching solar polar orbits in less than two years. Fast, cost-effective, and maneuverable sailcraft that may travel outside the ecliptic plane open new opportunities for affordable solar system exploration, with great promise for heliophysics, planetary science, and astrophysics. Such missions could be modularized to reach different destinations with different sets of instruments. Benefiting from this progress, we present the "Sundiver" concept, offering novel possibilities for the science community. We discuss some of the key technologies, the current design of the Sundiver sailcraft vehicle and innovative instruments, along with unique science opportunities that these technologies enable, especially as this exploration paradigm evolves. We formulate policy recommendations to allow national space agencies, industry, and other stakeholders to establish a strong scientific, programmatic, and commercial focus, enrich and deepen the space enterprise and broaden its advocacy base by including the Sundiver paradigm as a part of broader space exploration efforts.

Related papers

NanoSail-D: A solar sail demonstration mission
Andrew Heaton

Acta Astronautica, 2011

QJ^.^aa qw INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ASTRONAUTICS ^^fNic° °pro°g y m Missions to the outer solar system and beyond a':^^'^o sb ^y SIXTH IAA SYMPOSIUM ON REALISTIC NEAR-TERM ^s qo 'o^^eNO^yd^^ ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC SPACE MISSIONS

View PDFchevron_right
Preliminary Design of a High Performance Solar Sailing Mission
Dan Cohen

2002

The Team Encounter participants, Team Encounter, LLC, AeroAstro Inc., and L'Garde, Inc. have recently completed the preliminary design of the Team Encounter spacecraft, Humanity's First Starship™. The spacecraft, intended to be launched as a secondary payload on an Ariane 5 launcher in the first or second quarter of 2004, consists of two parts: the Carrier, which transports the Sailcraft beyond Earth's gravity well and the Sailcraft which transports its payload of 3 kg out of the solar system. The Carrier must provide a stable platform for deployment and separation of the 4900 m 2 solar sail, and will provide for video streaming of the Sailcraft as it begins its journey. The Team Encounter Sailcraft is the first spacecraft with the capability to self propel itself out of the solar system with a combination of performance-enhancing tacking maneuvers and an areal density of 3.4 g/m 2 including payload. The mission analysis made use of an innovative unified Matlab / Satellite Tool Kit model developed by AeroAstro that simulates geometry, attitude and trajectory concurrently. This model was used to optimize motor firing, Sailcraft deployment and mission phasing. The Sailcraft ADCS control scheme was validated via stability analysis and simulation, and the results will be presented in this paper.

View PDFchevron_right
Solar sailing technology challenges
Alexandra Long

Aerospace Science and Technology, 2019

Solar sailing technology has been demonstrated in the space environment over the past decade, in Earth orbit and on an interplanetary trajectory. These technology demonstration missions, along with a forty-year history of conceptual studies and laboratory development, have provided a foundation for a new era of missions where solar sailing provides the necessary propulsion to achieve space science and infrastructure goals. Numerous challenges remain on the path to flagship-class missions utilizing solar sails. This paper provides a survey of the current state of the art in solar sailing technology, including a taxonomy of solar sail design. A summary of solar sailing missions is provided, along with description of the larger-scale ground test programs. A set of representative next-generation solar sailing mission concepts is then presented, to establish driving requirements for future applications. To meet the objectives for these future missions, sail areas must increase by a factor of 50-500 relative to the largest solar sail flown to date. Sail loading, sailcraft areal density, characteristic acceleration and lightness number must improve by one to two orders of magnitude. Technology advancements required to meet the future solar sailing performance needs are described, providing a technology roadmap for solar sailing capability.

View PDFchevron_right
NanoSail-D: The First Flight Demonstration of Solar Sails for Nanosatellites
Andrew Heaton

2008

The "NanoSail-D" mission is currently scheduled for launch onboard a Falcon Launch Vehicle in the late June 2008 timeframe. The NanoSail-D, a CubeSat-class satellite, will consist of a sail subsystem stowed in a Cubesat 2U volume integrated with a CubeSat 1U volume bus provided by the NASA Ames Research Center (ARC). Shortly after deployment of the NanoSail-D from a Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD) ejection system, the solar sail will deploy and mission operations will commence. This demonstration flight has two primary mission objectives: 1) to successfully stow and deploy the sail and 2) to demonstrate de-orbit functionality. Given a nearterm opportunity for launch, the project was met with the challenge of delivering the flight hardware in approximately six months, which required a significant constraint on flight system functionality. As a consequence, passive attitude stabilization will be achieved using permanent magnets to de-tumble and orient the body with the magnetic field lines and then rely on atmospheric drag to passively stabilize the sailcraft in an essentially maximum drag attitude. This paper will present an introduction to solar sail propulsion systems, overview the NanoSail-D spacecraft, describe the performance analysis for the passive attitude stabilization, and present a prediction of flight data results from the mission.

View PDFchevron_right
Solar Sails for Planetary Defense & High-Energy Missions
Nicole Schmitz

2019 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Heliogyro Solar Sail Research at NASA
Andrew Heaton

Advances in Solar Sailing, 2014

The recent successful flight of the JAXA IKAROS solar sail has renewed interest within NASA in spinning solar sail concepts for high-performance solar sailing. The heliogyro solar sail, in particular, is being reexamined as a potential game-changing architecture for future solar sailing missions. In this paper, we present an overview of ongoing heliogyro technology development and feasibility assessment activities within NASA. In particular, a small-scale heliogyro solar sail technology demonstration concept will be described. We will also discuss ongoing analytical and experimental heliogyro structural dynamics and controls investigations and provide an outline of future heliogyro development work directed toward enabling a lowcost heliogyro technology demonstration mission ca. 2020.

View PDFchevron_right
HD-AY-Aerotech-A Parametric Study of Interplanetary Mission Using Solar Sail-21 May 2014-HD-ff
Harijono Djojodihardjo

Solar sailing has been an attractive concept and possibly an alternative mean of space propulsion for decades to come, since solar sail spacecrafts can generate thrust without requiring any propellant. While the resulting acceleration is small the continuous thrust would lead to high speeds. The present work serves to demonstrate the potential of solar sail by analyzing the dynamics of a spacecraft utilizing solar sail and carrying out a parametric study for an interplanetary mission exemplified by specific trajectory to Mars.

View PDFchevron_right
CubeSail: A low cost CubeSat based solar sail demonstration mission
Herman Steyn

2011

CubeSail is a nano-solar sail mission based on the 3U CubeSat standard, which is currently being designed and built at the Surrey Space Centre, University of Surrey. CubeSail will have a total mass of around 3 kg and will deploy a 5 Â 5 m sail in low Earth orbit. The primary aim of the mission is to demonstrate the concept of solar sailing and end-of-life de-orbiting using the sail membrane as a dragsail. The spacecraft will have a compact 3-axis stabilised attitude control system, which uses three magnetic torquers aligned with the spacecraft principle axis as well as a novel two-dimensional translation stage separating the spacecraft bus from the sail. CubeSail's deployment mechanism consists of four novel booms and four-quadrant sail membranes. The proposed booms are made from tapespring blades and will deploy the sail membrane from a 2U CubeSat standard structure. This paper presents a systems level overview of the CubeSat mission, focusing on the mission orbit and de-orbiting, in addition to the deployment, attitude control and the satellite bus.

View PDFchevron_right
Solar sailing: Concepts, technology, and missions
Roman Kezerashvili

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.

View PDFchevron_right
Solar Sail Roadmap Mission GN&C Challenges
Andrew Heaton

AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2005

The NASA In-Space Propulsion program is funding development work for solar sails to enhance future scientific opportunities. Key to this effort are solar sail scientific roadmap missions identified by peer review. Two near-term missions of interest are L1 Diamond and Solar Polar Imager. Additionally, the New Millennium Program is sponsoring the Space Technology 9 (ST9) demonstration mission. Solar sails are one of five technologies competing for the ST9 flight demonstration. Two candidate solar sail missions have been identified for a potential ST9 flight. All the roadmap missions and candidate flight demonstration missions face various GN&C challenges. A number of efforts are underway to address these challenges, including control actuator design and testing, low thrust optimization studies, attitude control system design and modeling, control-structure interaction studies, trajectory control design, and solar radiation pressure model development. Here we survey the various efforts underway and identify a few of specific recent interest and focus.

View PDFchevron_right

References (132)

  1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strat- egy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032 (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2022), ISBN 978-0-309-47578-5, URL https:// nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26522/ origins-worlds-and-life-a-decadal-strategy- for-planetary-science.
  2. J. Hao, C. R. Glein, F. Huang, N. Yee, D. C. Catling, F. Postberg, J. K. Hillier, and R. M. Hazen, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 119, e2201388119 (2022).
  3. R. L. Staehle, D. Blaney, H. Hemmati, D. Jones, A. Klesh, P. Liewer, J. Lazio, M. W.-Y. Lo, P. Mouroulis, N. Murphy, et al., Interplanetary cubesats: Some missions feasible sooner than ex- pected (2012), first Interplanetary CubeSat Workshop, 58 In addition, relevant light sail material developments are cur- rently conducted at Caltech and UCLA, in part to support the Breakthrough Initiatives' StarShot program, for details see https://breakthroughinitiatives. org/news/4. May 29, 2012, Massachusetts Institute of Technol- ogy, Cambridge, MA, URL https://icubesat.org/ 2012/06/23/icubesat-2012-a-1-1-interplanetary- cubesats-some-missions-feasible-sooner-than- expected-robert-staehle/.
  4. R. L. Staehle, D. Blaney, H. Hemmati, D. Jones, A. Klesh, P. Liewer, J. Lazio, M. W.-Y. Lo, P. Mouroulis, N. Murphy, et al., JoSS 2, 161 (2013).
  5. C. D. Norton, S. Pellegrino, M. Johnson, and et al., Small satellites:a revolution in space science (2014), study report prepared for the Keck Institute for Space Studies, URL https://kiss.caltech.edu/ final_reports/SmallSat_final_report.pdf.
  6. S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, V. T. Toth, L. D. Friedman, L. Alkalai, D. Mawet, J. Shen, M. R. Swain, H. Zhou, H. Helvajian, et al., Direct multipixel imaging and spec- troscopy of an exoplanet with a solar gravity lens mis- sion (2020), arXiv:2002.11871 [gr-qc].
  7. S. G. Turyshev, M. Shao, D. Mawet, M. R. Swain, H. Helvajian, T. Heinsheimer, J. McVey, D. Gar- ber, A. Davoyan, S. Redfield, et al., Direct mul- tipixel imaging and spectroscopy of an exoplanet with a solar gravity lens mission (2020), NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Phase III Award, URL https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/ spacetech/niac/2020_Phase_I_Phase_II/.
  8. D. Garber, L. D. Friedman, A. Davoyan, S. G. Tury- shev, N. Melamed, J. McVey, and T. F. Sheerin, Exper- imental Astronomy 53, 945 (2022).
  9. A. R. Davoyan, J. N. Munday, N. Tabiryan, G. A. Swartzlander, and L. Johnson, Optica 8, 722 (2021).
  10. D. Garber, D. Conway, J. McVey, N. Barnes, L. Bolisay, S. Schick, and J. Hanson, SGLF Technology Demonstra- tion Mission (2022), the PDR meeting package for the 2020 NIAC Phase III review on July 18, 2022.
  11. H. Helvajian, A. Rosenthal, J. Poklemba, T. A. Battista, M. D. DiPrinzio, J. M. Neff, J. P. McVey, V. T. Toth, and S. G. Turyshev, J. Spacecraft & Rockets 60, 829 (2023).
  12. E. Stone and et al., Science and enabling technologies for the exploration of the interstellar medium (2015), study report prepared for the Keck Institute for Space Studies, URL https://www.kiss.caltech.edu/final_ reports/ISM_final_report.pdf.
  13. R. L. Staehle, A. Babuscia, Y. Beregovski, N. Chahat, S. Chien, C. Cochrane, C. Duncan, H. Garrett, D. Lan- dau, P. Liewer, et al., NIAC Phase I Final Report: "Final Report on NIAC task to define an architecture for Outer Solar System SmallSats (OS4) (2020), URL https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/ files/niac_2019_phi_staehle_os4_tagged.pdf.
  14. G. Swartzlander, J. Br. Interplanet. Soc. 17, 130 (2018).
  15. G. Swartzlander, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. B 34, C25 (2017).
  16. G. Swartzlander, J. Opt. Soc. Amer. B 39, 2556 (2022).
  17. G. Swartzlander, L. Johnson, and et al., NIAC Phase II Final Report: "Diffractive Lightsails" (2019-2022) (2022), Internal NASA report.
  18. A. L. Dubill and G. A. Swartzlander, Acta Astronautica 187, 190 (2021).
  19. A. L. Dubill, Attitude control for circumnavigating the sun with diffractive solar sails (2020), (Thesis) Rochester Institute of Technology.
  20. C. A. L. Bailer-Jones, Am. J. Phys. 89, 235 (2021).
  21. S. E. Gibson, A. Vourlidas, D. M. Hassler, L. A. Rach- meler, M. J. Thompson, J. Newmark, M. Velli, A. Title, and S. W. McIntosh, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 5, 32 (2018).
  22. W. Denig, R. Redmon, and P. Mulligan, NOAA Operational Space Environmental Monitoring -Cur- rent Capabilities and Future Directions (2014), EGU General Assembly 2014 (27 April -2 May), Vienna, Austria, id.4525, URL https://www.ngdc.noaa. gov/stp/space-weather/online-publications/ stp_division/stp_presentations/2014/egu_2014/ wdenig_egu_2014_4525.pdf.
  23. National Research Council, Space Radiation Haz- ards and the Vision for Space Exploration: Report of a Workshop (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2006), ISBN 978-0-309-10264-3, URL https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/ 11760/space-radiation-hazards-and-the-vision- for-space-exploration-report.
  24. M. MacDonald, G. W. Hughes, C. McInnes, A. Lyngvi, P. Falkner, and A. Atzei, J. Spacecraft and Rockets 44, 784 (2007).
  25. K. Kobayashi, L. Johnson, H. D. Thomas, S. W. McIn- tosh, D. E. McKenzie, J. S. Newmark, J. Wright, K. H., Q. Bean, L. Fabisinski, P. D. Capizzo, et al., in AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts (2020), vol. 2020, pp. SH011- 0004.
  26. P. C. Liewer, J. Ayon, D. Alexander, A. Kosovichev, R. A. Mewaldt, D. G. Socker, and A. Vourlidas, in NASA Space Science Vision Missions, edited by M. S. Allen (2008), vol. 224, p. 1.
  27. M. Ceriotti and C. R. McInnes, Adv. Space Res. 48, 1754 (2011).
  28. D. M. Hassler, J. Newmark, S. Gibson, L. Harra, T. Ap- pourchaux, F. Auchere, D. Berghmans, R. Colaninno, S. Fineschi, L. Gizon, et al., in EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts (2020), EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts, p. 17703.
  29. D. M. Hassler, S. E. Gibson, J. T. Hoeksema, J. New- mark, and A. Vourlidas, The Science Case for a Polar Perspective: Discovery Space (2021), URL https:// www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/helio2050/pdf/4076. pdf.
  30. D. M. Hassler, S. Gosain, J.-P. Wuelser, J. Harvey, T. N. Woods, J. Alexander, D. Braun, S. Gibson, V. Klein, A. Flores, et al., in Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2022: Optical, Infrared, and Millime- ter Wave, edited by L. E. Coyle, S. Matsuura, and M. D. Perrin, Int. Soc. Opt. Photonics (SPIE, 2022), vol. 12180, p. 121800K, URL https://doi.org/10.1117/ 12.2630663.
  31. M. Opher, A. Loeb, J. Drake, and G. Toth, Nature As- tronomy 4, 675 (2020).
  32. K. Dialynas, S. M. Krimigis, D. G. Mitchell, R. B. Decker, and E. C. Roelof, Nature Astronomy 1, 0115 (2017).
  33. M. Gruntman, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68, 3617 (1997).
  34. S. A. Fuselier, F. Allegrini, H. O. Funsten, A. G. Ghiel- metti, D. Heirtzler, H. Kucharek, O. W. Lennartsson, D. J. McComas, E. Möbius, T. E. Moore, et al., Science 326, 962 (2009).
  35. N. A. Schwadron and D. J. McComas, Astrophys. J. 887, 247 (2019).
  36. E. J. Zirnstein, P. Swaczyna, D. J. McComas, and J. Heerikhuisen, Astrophys. J. 879, 106 (2019).
  37. P. Swaczyna, M. Bzowski, E. R. Christian, H. O. Fun- sten, D. J. McComas, and N. A. Schwadron, Astrophys. J. 823, 119 (2016).
  38. A. Galli, I. I. Baliukin, M. Bzowski, V. V. Izmodenov, M. Kornbleuth, H. Kucharek, E. Möbius, M. Opher, D. Reisenfeld, N. A. Schwadron, et al., Space Sci. Rev. 218, 31 (2022).
  39. T. Okada, T. Iwata, J. Matsumoto, T. Chujo, Y. Ke- bukawa, M. Ito, J. Aoki, Y. Kawai, S. Yokota, S. Saito, et al., in 50th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Con- ference (2019), Lunar and Planetary Science Confer- ence, p. 1305.
  40. M. Connors, P. Wiegert, and C. Veillet, Nature (Lon- don) 475, 481 (2011).
  41. M.-T. Hui, D. Jewitt, L.-L. Yu, and M. J. Mutchler, Astrophys. J. Lett. 929, L12 (2022).
  42. L. Campbell, J. C. McDow, J. W. Moffat, and D. Vin- cent, Nature (London) 305, 508 (1983).
  43. I. I. Shapiro, W. B. Smith, M. E. Ash, and S. Herrick, Astron. J. 76, 588 (1971).
  44. B. T. Bolin, T. Ahumada, P. van Dokkum, C. Frem- ling, M. Granvik, K. K. Hardegree-Ullman, Y. Harikane, J. N. Purdum, E. Serabyn, J. Southworth, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, L49 (2022).
  45. P. H. Bernardinelli, G. M. Bernstein, B. T. Mon- tet, R. Weryk, R. Wainscoat, M. Aguena, S. Allam, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, S. Avila, et al., Astro- phys. J. Lett. 921, L37 (2021).
  46. P. Thomas, R. Tajeddine, M. Tiscareno, J. Burns, J. Joseph, T. Loredo, P. Helfenstein, and C. Porco, Icarus 264, 37 (2016).
  47. J. Fuller, J. Luan, and E. Quataert, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 458, 3867 (2016).
  48. V. Lainey, R. A. Jacobson, R. Tajeddine, N. J. Cooper, C. Murray, V. Robert, G. Tobie, T. Guillot, S. Mathis, F. Remus, et al., Icarus 281, 286 (2017).
  49. C. Porco, D. DiNino, and F. Nimmo, Astron. J. 148, 45 (2014).
  50. B. D. Teolis, M. E. Perry, C. J. Hansen, J. H. Waite, C. C. Porco, J. R. Spencer, and C. J. A. Howett, Astro- biology 17, 926 (2017).
  51. F. Nimmo, C. Porco, and C. Mitchell, Astron. J. 148, 46 (2014).
  52. F. Postberg, S. Kempf, J. Schmidt, N. Brilliantov, A. Beinsen, B. Abel, U. Buck, and R. Srama, Nature 459, 1098 (2009), ISSN 0028-0836.
  53. J. Waite, J. H., W. S. Lewis, B. A. Magee, J. I. Lu- nine, W. B. McKinnon, C. R. Glein, O. Mousis, D. T. Young, T. Brockwell, J. Westlake, et al., Nature 460, 487 (2009).
  54. P. Kopparla, V. Natraj, R. Spurr, R.-L. Shia, D. Crisp, and Y. L. Yung, J. of Quant. Spectroscopy and Radia- tive Transfer 173, 65 (2016).
  55. J. H. Waite, C. R. Glein, R. S. Perryman, B. D. Teolis, B. A. Magee, G. Miller, J. Grimes, M. E. Perry, K. E. Miller, A. Bouquet, et al., Science 356, 155 (2017).
  56. F. Postberg, N. Khawaja, B. Abel, G. Choblet, C. R. Glein, M. S. Gudipati, B. L. Henderson, H.-W. Hsu, S. Kempf, F. Klenner, et al., Nature 558, 564 (2018).
  57. H.-W. Hsu, F. Postberg, Y. Sekine, T. Shibuya, S. Kempf, M. Horányi, A. Juhász, N. Altobelli, K. Suzuki, Y. Masaki, et al., Nature 519, 207 (2015).
  58. F. Postberg, F. Klenner, Z. Zou, J. K. Hillier, N. Khawaja, L. Nölle, and J. Schmidt, in European Planetary Science Congress (2022), pp. EPSC2022-639.
  59. F. Postberg, Y. Sekine, F. Klenner, C. R. Glein, Z. Zou, B. Abel, K. Furuya, J. K. Hillier, N. Khawaja, S. Kempf, et al., Nature 618, 489 (2023).
  60. A. Sharma, D. Czégel, M. Lachmann, C. P. Kempes, S. I. Walker, and L. Cronin, Assembly theory explains and quantifies the emergence of selection and evolution (2022), arXiv:2206.02279 [physics.bio-ph].
  61. Schrödinger E., What is life? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944).
  62. S. A. Benner, Astrobiology 17, 840 (2017).
  63. S. M. MacKenzie, M. Neveu, A. F. Davila, J. I. Lunine, K. L. Craft, M. L. Cable, C. M. Phillips-Lander, J. D. Hofgartner, J. L. Eigenbrode, J. H. Waite, Jr., et al., Planetary Sci. J. 2, 77 (2021).
  64. S. M. Marshall, C. Mathis, E. Carrick, G. Keenan, G. J. T. Cooper, H. Graham, M. Craven, P. S. Gromski, D. G. Moore, S. I. Walker, et al., Nature Communica- tions 12, 3033 (2021).
  65. Y. Liu, C. Mathis, M. D. Bajczyk, S. M. Marshall, L. Wilbraham, and L. Cronin, Science Advances 7, eabj2465 (2021).
  66. A. Grubisic, M. G. Trainer, X. Li, W. B. Brincker- hoff, F. H. van Amerom, R. M. Danell, J. T. Costa, M. Castillo, D. Kaplan, and K. Zacny, Int. J. Mass Spec- trometry 470, 116707 (2021).
  67. T. Guillot, Experimental Astronomy 54, 1027 (2022).
  68. A. R. Hendrix, T. A. Hurford, L. M. Barge, M. T. Bland, J. S. Bowman, W. Brinckerhoff, B. J. Buratti, M. L. Ca- ble, J. Castillo-Rogez, G. C. Collins, et al., Astrobiology 19, 1 (2019).
  69. C. J. Cochrane, R. R. Persinger, S. D. Vance, E. L. Midkiff, J. Castillo-Rogez, A. Luspay-Kuti, L. Liuzzo, C. Paty, K. L. Mitchell, and L. M. Prockter, Earth and Space Science 9, e02034 (2022).
  70. M. Sultana and et al., SCOPE: ScienceCraft for Outer Planet Exploration (2022), NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Phase I Award, URL https:// www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2022/ SCOPE/.
  71. K. Arimatsu, R. Ohsawa, G. L. Hashimoto, S. Urakawa, J. Takahashi, M. Tozuka, Y. Itoh, M. Yamashita, F. Usui, T. Aoki, et al., Astron. J. 158, 236 (2019).
  72. K. Batygin, F. C. Adams, M. E. Brown, and J. C. Becker, Phys. Rep. 805, 1 (2019).
  73. M. E. Brown and K. Batygin, Astron. J. 162, 219 (2021).
  74. E. Witten (2020), arXiv:2004.14192.
  75. P. Christian and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett. 834, L20 (2017).
  76. A. Loeb, SciTech Europa Quarterly 31 (2019), URL https://www.scitecheuropa.eu/alpha-centauri/ 93771/.
  77. R. Heller, G. Anglada-Escudé, M. Hippke, and P. Kervella, Astron. & Astrophys. 641, A45 (2020).
  78. S. Lawrence and Z. Rogoszinski (2020), arXiv:2004.14980.
  79. A. Hibberd, M. Lingam, and A. M. Hein, arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.10207 (2022).
  80. S. Seager, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, 12634 (2014).
  81. J. Green, T. Hoehler, M. Neveu, S. Domagal-Goldman, D. Scalice, and M. Voytek, Nature (London) 598, 575 (2021).
  82. L. C. Mayorga, J. Lustig-Yaeger, E. M. May, K. S. Sotzen, J. Gonzalez-Quiles, B. M. Kilpatrick, E. C. Mar- tin, K. Mandt, K. B. Stevenson, and N. R. Izenberg, The Planetary Science Journal 2, 140 (2021).
  83. J. Coppin, D. Caldwell, M. Turnbull, S. Kane, W. Sparks, and J. Grunsfeld, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts (2021), vol. 53 of AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Ab- stracts, p. 412.09.
  84. J. Y. Coppin and D. A. Caldwell, in 53rd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2022), vol. 2678 of LPI Contributions, p. 2055.
  85. A. Siraj and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett. 872, L10 (2019).
  86. D. J. Hoover, D. Z. Seligman, and M. J. Payne, The Planetary Science Journal 3, 71 (2022).
  87. J. de León, J. Licandro, M. Serra-Ricart, A. Cabrera- Lavers, J. Font Serra, R. Scarpa, C. de la Fuente Mar- cos, and R. de la Fuente Marcos, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society 3, 131 (2019).
  88. M. T. Bannister, A. Bhandare, P. A. Dybczyński, A. Fitzsimmons, A. Guilbert-Lepoutre, R. Jedicke, M. M. Knight, K. J. Meech, A. McNeill, S. Pfalzner, et al., Nature Astronomy 3, 594 (2019).
  89. T. M. Eubanks, A. M. Hein, M. Lingam, A. Hib- berd, D. Fries, N. Perakis, R. Kennedy, W. Blase, and J. Schneider, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03289 (2021).
  90. D. Jewitt, J. Luu, J. Rajagopal, R. Kotulla, S. Ridgway, W. Liu, and T. Augusteijn, Astrophys. J. Lett. 850, L36 (2017).
  91. C. de la Fuente Marcos, R. de la Fuente Marcos, and S. J. Aarseth, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, L1 (2018).
  92. A. M. Hein, T. M. Eubanks, M. Lingam, A. Hibberd, D. Fries, J. Schneider, P. Kervella, R. Kennedy, N. Per- akis, and B. Dachwald, Adv. Space Res. 69, 402 (2022).
  93. D. Miller, F. Duvigneaud, W. Menken, D. Landau, and R. Linares, Acta Astronautica 200, 242 (2022).
  94. J. Bock, C. Beichman, A. Cooray, W. Reach, R.-R. Chary, M. Werner, and M. Zemcov, SPIE Newsroom 4144 (2012).
  95. S. R. Kulkarni, PASP 134, 084302 (2022).
  96. C. Leinert, S. Bowyer, L. K. Haikala, M. S. Han- ner, M. G. Hauser, A. C. Levasseur-Regourd, I. Mann, K. Mattila, W. T. Reach, W. Schlosser, et al., A&A Supp. Ser. 127, 1 (1998).
  97. T. Carleton, R. A. Windhorst, R. O'Brien, S. H. Co- hen, D. Carter, R. Jansen, S. Tompkins, R. G. Arendt, S. Caddy, N. Grogin, et al., Astron. J. 164, 170 (2022).
  98. J. L. Jorgensen, M. Benn, J. E. P. Connerney, T. Den- ver, P. S. Jorgensen, A. C. Andersen, and S. J. Bolton, J. Geophys. Res. (Planets) 126, e06509 (2021).
  99. M. Benn, J. L. Jorgensen, T. Denver, P. Brauer, P. S. Jorgensen, A. C. Andersen, J. E. P. Connerney, R. Oli- versen, S. J. Bolton, and S. Levin, Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4701 (2017).
  100. M. G. Hauser and E. Dwek, Annual Rev. Astron. As- trophys. 39, 249 (2001).
  101. A. Cooray, Royal Soc. Open Science 3, 150555 (2016).
  102. G. N. Toller, Astrophys. J. Lett. 266, L79 (1983).
  103. Y. Matsuoka, N. Ienaka, K. Kawara, and S. Oyabu, As- trophys. J. 736, 119 (2011).
  104. T. Matsumoto, K. Tsumura, Y. Matsuoka, and J. Pyo, Astron. J. 156, 86 (2018).
  105. M. Zemcov, P. Immel, C. Nguyen, A. Cooray, C. M. Lisse, and A. R. Poppe, Nature Comm. 8, 15003 (2017).
  106. T. R. Lauer, M. Postman, H. A. Weaver, J. R. Spencer, S. A. Stern, M. W. Buie, D. D. Durda, C. M. Lisse, A. R. Poppe, R. P. Binzel, et al., Astrophys. J. 906, 77 (2021).
  107. T. R. Lauer, M. Postman, J. R. Spencer, H. A. Weaver, S. A. Stern, G. R. Gladstone, R. P. Binzel, D. T. Britt, M. W. Buie, B. J. Buratti, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 927, L8 (2022).
  108. R. A. Windhorst, T. Carleton, R. O'Brien, S. H. Co- hen, D. Carter, R. Jansen, S. Tompkins, R. G. Arendt, S. Caddy, N. Grogin, et al., Astron. J. 164, 141 (2022).
  109. T. R. Lauer, M. Postman, H. A. Weaver, J. R. Spencer, S. A. Stern, M. W. Buie, D. D. Durda, C. M. Lisse, A. R. Poppe, R. P. Binzel, et al., Astrophys. J. 906, 77 (2021).
  110. P. E. Clark, B. Malphrus, K. Brown, N. Fite, J. Sch- abert, S. McNeil, C. Brambora, J. Young, D. Patel, T. Hurford, et al., in CubeSats and SmallSats for Re- mote Sensing III, edited by T. S. Pagano, C. D. Norton, and S. R. Babu (2019), vol. 11131 of Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, p. 1113108.
  111. J. R. Primack, R. C. Gilmore, and R. S. Somerville, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, edited by F. A. Aharonian, W. Hofmann, and F. Rieger (2008), vol. 1085 of American Institute of Physics Conference Series, pp. 71-82, 0811.3230.
  112. J. D. Anderson, P. A. Laing, E. L. Lau, A. S. Liu, M. M. Nieto, and S. G. Turyshev, Phys. Rev. D 65, 082004 (2002).
  113. M. M. Nieto and S. G. Turyshev, CQG 25, 4005 (2004).
  114. S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Living Reviews in Rel- ativity 13, 4 (2010).
  115. S. G. Turyshev, V. T. Toth, G. Kinsella, S.-C. Lee, S. M. Lok, and J. Ellis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 241101 (2012).
  116. S. G. Turyshev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 58, 207 (2008).
  117. L. Blanchet and J. Novak, MNRAS 412, 2530 (2011).
  118. M. Milgrom, Scholarpedia 9, 31410 (2014).
  119. J. Bekenstein and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. D 73, 103513 (2006).
  120. J. Magueijo and A. Mozaffari, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043527 (2012).
  121. I. Banik and P. Kroupa, MNRAS 487, 2665 (2019).
  122. E. Belbruno and J. Green, MNRAS 510, 5154 (2022).
  123. S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024038 (2020).
  124. S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 515, 6122 (2022).
  125. S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024008 (2017).
  126. S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104063 (2023).
  127. S. G. Turyshev and V. T. Toth, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044059 (2022).
  128. P. C. Liewer, A. Klesh, M. Lo, N. Murphy, R. L. Staehle, A. Vourlidas, J. W. Cutler, and G. Lightsey, in AAS/Solar Physics Division Abstracts #44 (2013), vol. 44 of AAS/Solar Phys. Div. Meeting, p. 100.151.
  129. A. Vourlidas, Space Weather 13, 197 (2015).
  130. X. Pan, M. Xu, and R. Santos, Aerospace Science and Technology 70, 559 (2017), ISSN 1270-9638, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S1270963816312809.
  131. R. M. Ewart, E. Plotke, and P. C. Lai, in Pro- ceedings of "2022 Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS)" (2022), URL https://amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2022/ Space-Based-Assets/Ewart.pdf.
  132. A. Davoyan, H. Helvajian, L. Johnson, and M. Velli, Extreme Solar Sailing for Breakthrough Space Explo- ration (2021), NIAC Phase II Award, URL https:// www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2021_

Related papers

Stretching Every Kilogram: Using Small Satellites to Support Solar Sailing Missions
Jennifer Kalmanson

2007

One competing technology proposed for the New Millennium Program Space Technology 9 (ST9) mission demonstrates controlled propulsion using a solar sail deployed from Orbital's MicroStar TM spacecraft bus platform. The ST9 Solar Sail Mission's (ST9-SSM) proposed solar sail allowed nearly 1,000 m 2 of reflective area by extending four gossamer sail quadrants along inflatable, thermally rigidized 24.2 m booms. To measure sail performance from the ground, a 1250 km circular, sun-synchronous dawn-dusk orbit was selected to maximize available sunlight on the sail and minimize the atmospheric drag and radiation effects. Several performance challenges drove the ST9-SSM spacecraft bus design: minimum mass, stable attitude control, high-capacity image processing, and a propulsion subsystem capable of achieving the starting mission orbit, as well as successful end of life disposal, all while minimizing mass and maintaining compatibility with both of the two NASA-directed launch vehicles. Additionally, ST9-SSM also posed programmatic challenges in the areas of risk management and cost control. The ST9 Solar Sail mission concept not only demonstrates solar sail technology as a feasible means of propulsion, but it also illustrates how a microsatellite platform can be used to deploy and execute such a mission for a low cost with relatively low risk.

View PDFchevron_right
Solar sail propulsion: enabling new capabilities for heliophysics
Rodney Burton

Arxiv preprint arXiv: …, 2010

Solar sails can play a critical role in enabling solar and heliophysics missions. Solar sail technology within NASA is currently at 80% of TRL-6, suitable for an in-flight technology demonstration. It is conceivable that an initial demonstration could carry scientific payloads that, depending on the type of mission, are commensurate with the goals of the three study panels of the 2010 Heliophysics Survey. Follow-on solar sail missions, leveraging advances in solar sail technology to support Heliophysics Survey goals, would then be feasible. This white paper reports on a sampling of missions enabled by solar sails, the current state of the technology, and what funding is required to advance the current state of technology such that solar sails can enable these missions.

View PDFchevron_right
Exploration of the outer solar system with fast and small sailcraft
Pete Worden

arXiv: Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics, 2020

Two new interplanetary technologies have advanced in the past decade to the point where they may enable exciting, affordable missions that reach further and faster deep into the outer regions of our solar system: (i) small and capable interplanetary spacecraft and (ii) light-driven sails. Combination of these two technologies could drastically reduce travel times within the solar system. We discuss a new paradigm that involves small and fast moving sailcraft that could enable exploration of distant regions of the solar system much sooner and faster than previously considered. We present some of the exciting science objectives for these miniaturized intelligent space systems that could lead to transformational advancements in the space sciences in the coming decade.

View PDFchevron_right
Innovative Solar Sail Earth-Trailing Trajectories Enabling Sustainable Heliophysics Missions
Andrew Heaton

The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, 2020

The presented trajectory design study demonstrates that near-future solar sails can reach and maintain innovative science orbits about non-traditional Earth-trailing equilibrium points. The proposed configurations can enable long duration stereoscopic solar imaging while potentially alleviating telemetry requirements constraining current solar sail studies. Initial guesses for controlled periodic orbits about equilibrium points that trail the Sun-Earth line by 1.5 •-15 • are constructed from a linearized solar sail circular restricted three body problem equations of motion. Orbits are then converged in the full nonlinear model using a high order direct collocation method. Transfers to Earth-trailing orbits are then constructed under the assumption that the solar sail is a secondary payload on a larger spacecraft en-route to the Sun-Earth L 1 Lagrange point. Naturally occurring gravitational manifolds flowing towards the Lagrange point, as well as navigation data from previous Lagrange point missions, are used to generate a set of baseline trajectories for the primary spacecraft. End-to-end trajectory design and optimization is then carried out to construct time optimal solar sail transfers to each target science orbit from initial conditions constrained to lie on the carrier spacecraft's Lagrange point trajectory. Additionally, trade studies are performed to assess how sail performance and Earth-trailing orbit selection affect transfer time of flight and instrument pointing accuracy. Results indicate that, based on current technological developments, near future solar sails are capable of station keeping about periodic Earth-trailing orbits while maintaining near-constant solar observation. Moreover, time of flights on the order of 1 year are observed for most combinations of sail performance and feasible initial conditions. Keywords Solar sail • Lagrange point • Low thrust trajectory design • Circular restricted three body problem A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2019 AAS/AIAA Space Flight Mechanics Meeting (AAS 19-541).

View PDFchevron_right
Preface. Solar sailing: Concepts, technology, and missions
Roman Kezerashvili

Advances in Space Research, 2011

This special topical issue of Advances in Space Research entitled "Solar sailing: Concepts, technology, missions" compiles contributions on our current knowledge of solar sailing and focuses on recent advancements in solar sailing technologies, near-term solar sailing missions and the physics of solar sailing. Areas of particular interest include dynamics analysis and testing of solar sails, advanced materials and structural concepts of solar sails, hardware and enabling technologies, mission architectures and programs, navigation, control, and modeling. Scientists and engineers from NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the aerospace industry and academic institutions from different countries demonstrate the high quality research they are conducting, as well as present the results of their research and future advancement of solar sailing. In addition to general submissions, this issue also includes papers presented by the participants of the Second International Symposium on Solar Sailing (ISSS 2010) that was held at the New York City College of Technology of the City University of New York in July 2010. All manuscripts were fully refereed in accordance with the journal policy. Interestingly enough the year when ISSS 2010 was held and when papers were invited for a special topical issue of Advances in Space Research was marked by the successful launch and deployment of the first solar sail IKAROS (Interplanetary Kite-craft Accelerated by Radiation Of the Sun) in early June by the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. In June 2010 JAXA issued the formal announcement: they successfully deployed IKAROS' about 200 m 2 square sail! Not only that, but the sail's thin-film solar cells are generating power! They have demonstrated actual solar sailing and they have achieved their stated minimum success goals for the mission, so it is definitely time to celebrate! JAXA is planning the second mission that will take place in 2011. It will involve a medium-sized (about 2000 m 2) solar power sail that can generate over 10 kW power even at distance of 5 AU from the sun. The destinations of the spacecraft will be Jupiter and the Trojan asteroids.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Aerospace Engineering
  • Planetary Space Science
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved