Wurm PhotonThruster

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission Analysis and

Performance Comparison for an
Advanced Solar Photon Thruster
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Bernd Dachwald1 and Patrick Wurm2

1 Faculty
of Aerospace Engineering,
FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Summary and
Conclusions
2 Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

RWTH Aachen University, Germany
2nd International Symposium on Solar Sailing, New York City

2022 July 2010
Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm
1 / 30
The Flat Solar Sail

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
The most extensively discussed solar sail

design concept is the flat solar sail (FSS)
Force acting on the ideal FSS:
FFSS = 2P(r )(A cos ) cos n

Flat solar sail is used for light-collection and
thrust-direction Coupling between
attitude and orbit control:
Effective light-collecting sail area A cos
decreases as the sail pitch angle increases
Changes of thrust direction require rotation
of the whole solar sail structure (very
demanding for the attitude control system
due to the sails huge moment of inertia and
the flexibility of its structure)
Ground deployment test of

20 m 20 m solar sail at
DLR/ESA in 1999 (image
courtesy DLR)
Ground deployment test of

20 m 20 m solar sail at NASA
in 2005 (image courtesy NASA)
2 / 30
The Simple Solar Photon Thruster

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Alternative solar sail design concept is the compound solar sail or

Solar Photon Thruster (SPT)
The SPT decouples light-collection and thrust-direction by using
two or three mirror elements
The Simple Solar Photon Thruster (SSPT) has two mirror elements
(Collector and Director)
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
3 / 30
The Solar Photon Thruster

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
The Dual Reflector Solar Photon Thruster (DR SPT) has three
mirror elements (Collector, Reflector, and Director)
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
Force acting on the ideal SPT
FSPT = 2P(r )AC cos n

4 / 30
Advantages of the Solar Photon Thruster

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
To maximize the change of orbital energy, it is usually desirable to

have a large transversal thrust component (perpendicular to the
Sun-spacecraft direction)
FSS: FFSS,t = 2P(r )(A cos ) cos sin
SPT: FSPT ,t = 2P(r )AC cos sin
Summary and
Conclusions
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Normalized transversal thrust FSS

Normalized transversal thrust SPT
Difference
Difference
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Normalized transversal thrust
Mission
Analysis
0
0
20
40
60
Pitch angle [deg]
80
5 / 30
Problems of the Solar Photon Thruster

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
According to previous theoretical studies, the SPT may excel the

performance of a flat solar sail . . . but . . . the previous investigated SPT
models have several intrinsic oversimplification problems that can not
be disregarded for a thorough performance comparison with the flat
solar sail
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
6 / 30
The ASPT (Advanced Solar Photon Thruster)

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
We have developed a new Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

(ASPT) design concept that avoids the problems of the SSPT and
the DR SPT
We have set the following requirements for the ASPT design:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Multiple reflections should be avoided

The thermo-optical properties of the sail surfaces should be
considered
Both the Collector and the Reflector are parabolic surfaces
To avoid undesired torques, the ASPTs center of mass should
coincide with the Directors center of surface
The finite size of the Director should be considered
Shadowing effects should be considered
7 / 30
The ASPT (Advanced Solar Photon Thruster)

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
Director is located behind the Collector Collector must have a center

clearance
Payload (S/C bus) is located behind the Director ASPTs center of mass
coincides with the Directors center of surface no unwanted torques
To avoid that the Director can reflect some light rays onto the back side of
the Collector, there is a minimum pitch angle min
8 / 30
ASPT SRP Force Model

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
The thermo-optical properties are described by the parameters

P = {, s, f , b , Bf , Bb }
Force acting on the ASPT comprises the force acting on the
Collector, the force acting on the Reflector, and the force acting on
the Director
FASPT = FC + FR + FD
(1)
Each force component was calculated with the method developed by

L. Rios-Reyes and D. L. Scheeres (L. Rios-Reyes and D. L. Scheeres:
Generalized Model for Solar Sails. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
42(1):182-185, 2005)
9 / 30
Force on the Collector

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
Force on the Collector:

"
FC = 2P(r )RC2 2a1,C
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
+ 2a2,C
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
1
ln
4+
4 +

+
#
a
p
1 p
3,C
4 + 4 + +
(1 ) r
P(r )
RC
RR
:
:
:
solar radiation pressure at distance r from the sun

radius of the Collector
radius of the Reflector , radius of the Collectors center clearing
f 2
R 2
A
inverse of the light concentration ratio, = fR
= RR
= AR
fC
fR
AC
AR
:
:
:
:
focal distance of the Collector

focal distance of the Reflector
effective Collector area, AC = RC2
effective Reflector area, AR = RR2
measure for design compactness, =
ai,C
derived thermo-optical properties of the Collector (i {1, 2, 3})

PC = {C , sC , f ,C , b,C , Bf ,C , Bb,C } {a1,C , a2,C , a3,C }
Sun-spacecraft unit vector
R 2
C
fC
R 2
R
fR
10 / 30
Force on the Reflector

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Force on the Reflector:

"
FR = 2P(r )RC2 a1,C a1,R
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
1
ln
4+
4 +

+
#
a a
p
1 p
1,C 3,R
4 + 4 + +
+ a1,C a2,R
(1 ) r
4
P(r )
RC
ai,j
r
:
:
:
:
:
:

radius of the Collector
inverse of the light concentration ratio
measure for design compactness
derived thermo-optical properties (i {1, 2, 3}, j {Collector, Reflector})
11 / 30
Force on the Director

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
Force on the Director:

"
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
FD = 2P(r )AD,i
P(r )
AD,i
ai,j
n
r
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

a1,C a1,R
(a1,D cos + a2,D )
n + a3,D r
8

effective light collecting area of the Director
inverse of the light concentration ratio
derived thermo-optical properties (i {1, 2, 3}, j {Collector, Reflector, Director})
Director pitch angle
Sail normal (unit) vector
For the computation of AD,i , three different cases have to be considered

(see paper).
Summary and
Conclusions
12 / 30
ASPT Engineering Challenges

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
4 [TeU]
0.5
1.1
1
3.5
ASPT Model
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
1.5
0.8
0.7
2.5
1.5
0.6
0.5
Although the light is

not concentrated in
one single point on
the Reflector surface
(as for the SSPT),
the Reflector and the
Director are exposed
to an enormous
radiation flux
0.5
0.4
1.5
1.5
0.3
2.5
0.2
0.1
Mission
Analysis
0.9
r [AU]
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
1.5
2.5
10
15
2.5
3.5
20
25
3.5
0.5
30
RC/RR = fC/fR = 1/1/2

=4
Radiator temperature as a function of light

concentration and solar distance
1 TeU , 933 K: Melting temperature of aluminum
13 / 30
ASPT Engineering Challenges

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
To avoid the destruction of the Reflector sail film, its temperature

must remain much below 1 TeU
At 1 AU solar distance, a light concentration ratio as small as 11.2
results in T > 0.5 TeU for = 4
For the Reflector of an ASPT with a reasonable light concentration
ratio, these results show that the commonly projected sail film
materials can not be used without having an active cooling system or
much better reflective properties
In any case, demanding thermal and/or structural requirements for
the Reflector and Director mirror elements (that we have considered
by a (moderate) mass penalty)
14 / 30
ASPT Parameters and Mass Calculation

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
We have used a complex model to calculate the ASPT mass for a

given characteristic acceleration (see paper)
The ASPT launch mass for a given characteristic acceleration is
obtained from the solution of a constrained non-linear optimization
problem
We have used the following input parameters (see paper):
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
Parameter
min
max
SA
R
D
CB
mPL
min
RR,max
Optical model
ac
Dimension
[deg]
[deg]
[g/m2 ]
[g/m2 ]
[g/m2 ]
[g/m]
[kg]
[m]
[mm/s2 ]
FSS
0
90
22.7
75
real
variable
ASPT
35
55
22.7
0.05
80
80
150
75
1/400
2.285
variable
variable
15 / 30
Comparison of the Solar Sail Launch Masses

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
260
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
220
Launch mass [kg]
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
real FSS
OCIRID ASPT
OCORID ASPT
OCOROD ASPT
240
ASPT Model
200
180
160
140
120
Summary and
Conclusions
100
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Characteristic acceleration [mm/s2]
Optical models: OCIRID stands for a (real) optical Collector, an ideal

Reflector, and an ideal Director (. . . and so on)
16 / 30
Earth-Venus Rendezvous:
Mission Description
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
The solar sails are launched from Earth onto an interplanetary

trajectory with zero hyperbolic excess energy (C3 = 0)
The solar sails have to spiral towards the Sun
Orbit-to-orbit rendezvous (to obtain the constellation-independent
absolute flight time minimum)
Final constraints for successful rendezvous:
Summary and
Conclusions
Distance to Venus 6.0 105 km (< mean SOI)

Relative velocity to Venus 0.5 km/s
17 / 30
Earth-Venus Rendezvous:
Results
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
1000
OCIRID:
74.7 - 78.3 %
OCORID: 83.3 - 87.4 %
OCOROD: 96.8 - 98.8 %
800
ASPT flight times w.r.t.

FSS flight times
600
Mission
Analysis
400
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
1400
real FSS
AkimaInt real FSS
OCIRID
AkimaInt OCIRID
OCORID
AkimaInt OCORID
OCOROD
AkimaInt OCOROD
1200
Flight time over

launch mass
Flight time [days]
Summary and
Conclusions
real FSS
AkimaInt real FSS
OCIRID
AkimaInt OCIRID
OCORID
AkimaInt OCORID
OCOROD
AkimaInt OCOROD
1200
Flight time over

characteristic
acceleration
Flight time [days]
ASPT Model
1400
1000
OCIRID:
92.0 - 97.8 %
OCORID: 111.4 - 117.2 %
OCOROD: 137.6 - 143.9 %
800

FSS flight times
600
400
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Launch mass [kg]
18 / 30
Earth-Mars Rendezvous:
Mission Description
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion

The solar sails have to spiral away from the Sun
Orbit-to-orbit rendezvous
Distance to Mars 5.5 105 km (< mean SOI)
Relative velocity to Mars 0.1 km/s
Summary and
Conclusions
19 / 30
Earth-Mars Rendezvous:
Results
Introduction
3500
FSS
SPT
ASPT
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Flight time over

characteristic
acceleration
Flight time [days]
ASPT Model
2500
OCIRID:
73.2 - 81.5 %
OCORID: 83.6 - 88.6 %
OCOROD: 96.3 - 99.6%
2000

FSS flight times
1500
Mission
Analysis
1000
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
3500
real FSS
AkimaInt real FSS
OCIRID
AkimaInt OCIRID
OCORID
AkimaInt OCORID
OCOROD
AkimaInt OCOROD
3000
Flight time over

launch mass
Flight time [days]
Summary and
Conclusions
real FSS
AkimaInt real FSS
OCIRID
AkimaInt OCIRID
OCORID
AkimaInt OCORID
OCOROD
AkimaInt OCOROD
3000
2500
OCIRID:
91.3 - 102.6%
OCORID: 112.2 - 121.3 %
OCOROD: 137.2 - 153.5 %
2000

FSS flight times
1500
1000
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Launch mass [kg]
20 / 30
Earth-1996FG3 Rendezvous:
Mission Description
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
1996FG3 is of great scientific interest and can be accessed relatively

easily
The solar sails have to perform a considerable change of orbital
eccentricity (eEarth = 0.0167 e1996FG 3 = 0.3499)
Orbit-to-orbit rendezvous
Summary and
Conclusions
Distance to 1996FG3 3.0 105 km

Relative velocity to 1996FG3 0.1 km/s
21 / 30
Results
Introduction
2400
FSS
SPT
ASPT
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
2000
Flight time over

characteristic
acceleration
Flight time [days]
ASPT Model
real FSS
AkimaInt real FSS
OCIRID
AkimaInt OCIRID
OCORID
AkimaInt OCORID
OCOROD
AkimaInt OCOROD
2200
1800
OCIRID:
87.6 - 89.0 %
OCORID: 95.8 - 98.5 %
OCOROD: 108.4 - 111.3 %
1600
1400

FSS flight times
1200
1000
Mission
Analysis
800
0.1
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
2400
real FSS
AkimaInt real FSS
OCIRID
AkimaInt OCIRID
OCORID
AkimaInt OCORID
OCOROD
AkimaInt OCOROD
2200
2000
Flight time over

launch mass
Flight time [days]
Summary and
Conclusions
0.12
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
1800
OCIRID: 101.1 - 114.0%

OCORID: 122.4 - 136.6 %
OCOROD: 149.4 - 165.8 %
1600
1400

FSS flight times
1200
1000
800
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
Launch mass [kg]
22 / 30
Trajectory and Steering Angles
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
Trajectory
Earth orbit
1996FG3 orbit
ASPT Model
300
0.02
Pitch angle [deg]
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
0.04
z [AU]
Mission
Analysis
0
0.02
0.04
2
250
60
200
40
150
2
1
1
0
0
1
FSS with
ac = 0.10 mm/s2
100
20
50
1
2 2
x [AU]
Summary and
Conclusions
350
80
Clock angle [deg]
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
y [AU]
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Flight time [days]
Steering angles
(black: pitch angle, blue: clock angle)
23 / 30
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
Trajectory
Earth orbit
1996FG3 orbit
ASPT Model
0
0.02
0.04
2
45
100
2
1
1
0
1
50
1
2 2
OCIRID with
ac = 0.10 mm/s2
40
x [AU]
Summary and
Conclusions
150
50
0.02
Pitch angle [deg]
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
0.04
z [AU]
Mission
Analysis
200
55
Clock angle [deg]
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
y [AU]
35
0
0
500
1000
1500
Flight time [days]
Steering angles
24 / 30
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
Trajectory
Earth orbit
1996FG3 orbit
ASPT Model
300
50
0.02
Pitch angle [deg]
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
0.04
z [AU]
Mission
Analysis
0
0.02
0.04
2
250
200
45
150
2
1
1
0
1
50
1
2 2
OCORID with
ac = 0.10 mm/s2
100
40
x [AU]
Summary and
Conclusions
350
55
Clock angle [deg]
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
y [AU]
35
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Flight time [days]
Steering angles
25 / 30
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
Trajectory
Earth orbit
1996FG3 orbit
ASPT Model
300
50
0.02
Pitch angle [deg]
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
0.04
z [AU]
Mission
Analysis
0
0.02
0.04
2
250
200
45
150
2
1
1
0
1
50
1
2 2
OCOROD with
ac = 0.10 mm/s2
100
40
x [AU]
Summary and
Conclusions
350
55
Clock angle [deg]
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
y [AU]
35
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Flight time [days]
Steering angles
26 / 30
Discussion of the Results

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
Mean ASPT flight time with respect to FSS flight time for the same
characteristic acceleration:
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
OCIRID
OCORID
OCOROD
Earth-Venus
76.6 %
85.7 %
97.8 %
Earth-Mars
78.3 %
85.9 %
98.4 %
Earth-1996FG3
88.4 %
97.3 %
109.2 %
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
For the same characteristic acceleration, the ASPT performs

generally better than the FSS
Worse ASPT performance for the Earth-1996FG3 rendezvous than for
the Earth-Venus and the Earth-Mars rendezvous
For the Earth-1996FG3 rendezvous, optimal solar sail steering requires
small and large pitch angles due to the large eccentricity change
Because of the constrained ASPT pitch angle
(35 deg 55 deg), the eccentricity can not be changed
effectively
27 / 30
Discussion of the Results

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mean ASPT flight time with respect to FSS flight time for the same
launch mass:
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
OCIRID
OCORID
OCOROD
Earth-Venus
94.4 %
115.1 %
141.6 %
Earth-Mars
97.1 %
117.7 %
145.1 %
Earth-1996FG3
108.8 %
131.6 %
160.3 %
For the same launch mass, the ASPT performs generally worse than
the FSS
28 / 30
Summary and Conclusions

Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Summary and
Conclusions
According to previous theoretical studies, the compound solar sail

may excel the performance of a flat solar sail
We have introduced a realistic design concept and simulation model
for a compound solar sail, termed Advanced Solar Photon Thruster,
or ASPT, that does not suffer from oversimplifications
To compare its performance with respect to the conventional flat
solar sail, we have calculated time-optimal transfer trajectories to
Venus, Mars, and a near-Earth asteroid
The ASPT typically achieves shorter flight times than a flat solar sail
with the same characteristic acceleration
However, it is not superior to the flat solar sail, if one compares the
launch masses when realistic optical properties and structural masses
are assumed
Our results show that the smart idea of a compound solar sail does
not withstand closer scrutiny. Based on technical complexity,
scalability, and performance, the flat solar sail seems to provide the
better design choice
29 / 30
Introduction
FSS
SPT
ASPT
ASPT Model
SRP Force
Model
Engineering
Challenges
Performance
Parameters
Mission Analysis and

Performance Comparison for an
Mission
Analysis
Earth-Venus
Rendezvous
Earth-Mars
Rendezvous
Earth-NEA
Rendezvous
Discussion
Bernd Dachwald1 and Patrick Wurm2

1 Faculty of Aerospace Engineering,
FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Germany
2 Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

RWTH Aachen University, Germany
Summary and
Conclusions
2nd International Symposium on Solar Sailing, New York City

2022 July 2010
30 / 30

Wurm PhotonThruster

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wurm PhotonThruster

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Mission Analysis and

Bernd Dachwald1 and Patrick Wurm2

of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

2nd International Symposium on Solar Sailing, New York City

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

The Flat Solar Sail

The most extensively discussed solar sail

FFSS = 2P(r )(A cos ) cos n

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Ground deployment test of

Ground deployment test of

The Simple Solar Photon Thruster

Alternative solar sail design concept is the compound solar sail or

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

The Solar Photon Thruster

Force acting on the ideal SPT

FSPT = 2P(r )AC cos n

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Advantages of the Solar Photon Thruster

To maximize the change of orbital energy, it is usually desirable to

Normalized transversal thrust FSS

Normalized transversal thrust

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Problems of the Solar Photon Thruster

According to previous theoretical studies, the SPT may excel the

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

The ASPT (Advanced Solar Photon Thruster)

We have developed a new Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Multiple reflections should be avoided

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

The ASPT (Advanced Solar Photon Thruster)

Director is located behind the Collector Collector must have a center

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

ASPT SRP Force Model

The thermo-optical properties are described by the parameters

Each force component was calculated with the method developed by

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Force on the Collector

Force on the Collector:

solar radiation pressure at distance r from the sun

focal distance of the Collector

measure for design compactness, =

derived thermo-optical properties of the Collector (i {1, 2, 3})

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Force on the Reflector

Force on the Reflector:

solar radiation pressure at distance r from the sun

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm

Advanced Solar Photon Thruster

Force on the Director

Force on the Director:

solar radiation pressure at distance r from the sun

For the computation of AD,i , three different cases have to be considered

Bernd Dachwald and Patrick Wurm