←back to thread

A solar gravitational lens will be humanity's most powerful telescope (2022)

(phys.org)
197 points amichail | 1 comments | 15 Oct 24 11:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
consumer451 ◴[16 Oct 24 23:56 UTC] No.41865107[source]▶
The most complete plan for this was proposed by JPL's Slava Turyshev and team. It has been selected for Phase III of NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts. [0]

> In 2020, Turyshev presented his idea of Direct Multi-pixel Imaging and Spectroscopy of an Exoplanet with a Solar Gravitational Lens Mission. The lens could reconstruct the exoplanet image with ~25 km-scale surface resolution in 6 months of integration time, enough to see surface features and signs of habitability. His proposal was selected for the Phase III of the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts. Turyshev proposes to use realistic-sized solar sails (~16 vanes of 10^3 m^2) to achieve the needed high velocity at perihelion (~150 km/sec), reaching 547 AU in 17 years.

> In 2023, a team of scientists led by Turychev proposed the Sundiver concept,[1] whereby a solar sail craft can serve as a modular platform for various instruments and missions, including rendezvous with other Sundivers for resupply, in a variety of different self-sustaining orbits reaching velocities of ~5-10 AU/yr.

Here is an interview with him laying out the entire plan.[2] It is the most interesting interview that I have seen in years, possibly ever.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slava_Turyshev#Work

[1] https://www2.mpia-hd.mpg.de/~calj/sundiver.pdf

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqzJewjZUkk

replies(6): >>41865368 #>>41866873 #>>41867659 #>>41870451 #>>41871463 #>>41874418 #
mapt ◴[17 Oct 24 22:24 UTC] No.41874418[source]▶
Introducing BLEO rendezvous elements for "resupply" into a mission with such wild dV scope and no landers, imposes some extreme constraints. I don't understand why you would do that unless solar sails as he understands them are extremely scale-dependent (like atmospheric flight is scale-dependent).

I learned this doing engineering trades on the Aldrin cycler idea; Ultimately it doesn't add much to a mission because getting there and getting back into the transfer sacrifices more than you could really hope to gain. You're likely better off just launching what you need attached to everything else at the Earth escape burn.

replies(1): >>41875933 #
Valgrim ◴[18 Oct 24 02:46 UTC] No.41875933[source]▶
I'm curious about the Aldrin Cycler analysis. Isn't the whole point of the "castle" to house travelers and life support system in a larger habitable space during the long travel, independently of the cargo required for mars that's carried on a different, cheaper trajectory?
replies(1): >>41878598 #
1. mapt ◴[18 Oct 24 12:03 UTC] No.41878598[source]▶
It's been a few years, and my memory isn't perfect, but...

Life support for a manned Mars missions runs maybe ten tons per person on the low end. That's mostly in shelf-stable packaged food; I used 6 tons in my estimate. Metabolizing food generates excess CO2 + H2O; elaborate ECLSS systems can crack this for extra oxygen and filter the water for further consumption and sanitation. This food dominates mission payload mass. It's heavier than the rest of the habitat put together. You have to put it to good use - line the interior of the hull with it and it serves as radiation shielding for the journey. You could try getting the CO2 + H2O back into hydrocarbon-lox fuel if you like, but that's going to make a fragile critical path for getting home.

The base hardware for Mars and the people for Mars are going on basically the same Hohmann transfer, and they're using it because it's the cheapest way. There are faster ways involving the help of Venus' gravity well, but they're only SLIGHTLY faster, they burn a lot more fuel, and more importantly they only occur briefly every few years. A more rapid direct transfer is possible at the cost of enormous amounts of fuel, but the purpose of that transfer is a 'flags and footprints' mission where you save about a third of your 3-year mission time at the cost of reducing your exploration and ISRU time window from a year to weeks. "Opposition class mission" vs "Conjunction class mission".