A Linear Photonic Thrust Model

and its Application to the LGarde Solar Sail Surface

Gyula Greschik

TentGuild Engineering Co., Boulder, CO

Some representative options for solar radiation force modeling are reviewed. Chosen as preferred is one
achieving a good compromise of accuracy and engineering convenience. Namely, the contributions of diffuse
reectance and of thermal emittance (the former augmenting, the latter normally counteracting the thrust)
are dropped from the standard model. The resulting law, referred to here as the linear photonic thrust model,
is governed by two complementary optical parameters that, for common surfaces, are trivially interdependent
with a simple linear relationship. This model is subsequently used to solve the contour geometry of the surface
troughs of the LGarde solar sail architecture. In the special case when, simplistically, photonic pressure is
assumed to be normal to the surface, the trough contour is shown to take the classic catenary (cosh) shape. In
the general case when a surface tangential thrust component also arises, the solution which still remains very
close to the hyperbolic cosine curve is given in a polynomial form.
Nomenclature
A Parameter characterizing trough contour shape (2+
t
/
n
).
B
f
, B
b
Coefcients quantifying the sail surface front and back face non-Lambertian radiation characteristics.
c
1
, c
2
, ... Integration constants.
l Length, distance.
N Film tension [force/length].
P Photon ow radiation pressure;
p Photonic thrust pressure on a surface.
p
max
Maximum thrust pressure on an ideally reecting surface; p
max
=2P=9.126 Pa at 1 AU from the Sun.
R Radius of curvature.
r, s Fraction of irradiation reected, and the fraction thereof reected specularly.
s Trough contour arc length, from the shape apex.
t
f
Film thickness.
u,v,w Trough contour frame of reference aligned with the direction of illumination.
u(v) Trough contour shape.
0 Contour shape apex (illuminated in the normal direction).
n, t The surface normal and tangent directions.
s Sagging lm (along trough contour).
w Trough width (distance between sheet support cords).
Symbols
...

Prime: differentiation with respect to a Cartesian variable.

Irradiation angular offset from the surface normal.

z
Contour slope angle in the trough coordinate system.
... Dot: differentiation with respect to the contour arc length s.

n
,
t
Photonic thrust coefcients in the lm surface normal and tangent directions.
Curvature (

=1/R).

President and Design Engineer, Senior Member AIAA.

1 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
April 8-11, 2013, Boston, Massachusetts
AIAA 2013-1803
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Film skin stress.

f
,
b
Front and back lm surface emissivities.
, Sail surface frame with perpendicular, parallel to the cords.
I. Introduction
D
ESPITE widespread awareness of some of the simplifying assumptions behind various solar radiation force formu-
lations, the choice of photonic thrust models in many solar sail system, structural, and trajectory studies generally
reects a pragmatic approach. Often, a formulation to streamline calculations is selected. Even if such a choice is
made without the acknowledgment of the associated errors, the practice should be criticized with prudence because
the numerical errors associated with a somewhat (or, in some cases perhaps even grossly) inappropriate photonic thrust
model very often fade in comparison to other, sometimes implicit, approximations.
The simplications underlying the state of the art of solar sail engineering are way more signicant than those
associated with other aerospace and mechanical engineering applications. This statement holds both in the context of
structural response which is out of the reliable reach of most engineering tools [1], and in that of optical performance
which is grossly affected by a number of conditions [2, 3, 4] which are barely understood. Attention during the engi-
neering of solar sails for more than technological demonstration purposes, therefore, has to be paid to the development
of very robust and exible navigation and control strategies, in order to permit the progressive and adaptive correction
of a variety of unforseen differences between modeling and reality. If this is done then minor approximations, whether
structural or optical, can be chosen with relative freedom.
The review of optical thrust models in the present work is performed with the above context in mind. Some
representative methods to estimate photonic pressure are reviewed, and a rather simple model that still reects key
aspects of optical performance is selected as the middle ground between the extremes of the overly simplistic and the
unwieldy. This model, here termed linear because of the nature of the interdependence of its two material parameters,
captures both surface-normal and in-plane thrust while ignoring the less signicant thrust contributions of thermal
radiation and diffuse reection.
The linear model selected, and its commonly used degenerate form with no in-plane thrust component, are then
applied to the trough contour problem of the LGarde solar sail architecture. The model with photonic pressure in the
surface normal direction yields a simple closed form solution for the contour shape the catenary curve (hyperbolic
cosine function). For the contour associated with the full linear model, a polynomial solution is presented.
It is here taken for granted that the newly derived contour shapes, Greschiks parabolic approximation [5] assumed
when he proposed this architecture to LGarde [6, 7], or the contour calculated by Derbes [8] dont lead to dramatically
different performance metrics. The new, rigorous, solutions are nevertheless offered to illuminate the underlying
mechanics and to provide a justiable basis for future analytical studides. The latter objective is of acute interest since
the next reincarnation of this architecture, the Sunjammer solar sail, is currently under development by LGarde for a
technology demonstration space mission.
II. Solar Radiation Force Models
P
HOTONIC propulsion models of two broad types are summarily reviewed in the following. First, a brief overview
of formulations representative to common system, structural, and trajectory studies is provided to offer insight
into the gamut of most commonly used approaches. Second, a couple of examples of attempts to achieve more
faithful representations of solar thrust effects are touched upon to highlight some effects commonly ignored, and to
call attention to the complexities implied in faithfully recognizing them.
As common studies generally use thrust formulations that can be seen as simplied derivatives of the nominal
optical force model, discussion begins with the nominal model. Representative examples are cited next for its use and
that of some of its simplied variants. One of the latter is the formulation herein termed the linear thrust model. It as
argued that this approach represents a generally satisfactory yet attractive compromise between simplicity and rigor in
the context of the nominal model.
Examples of more sophisticated modeling attempts are cited next. By highlighting their complexity and illustrating
the signicance of thrust effects ignored by the common approaches reviewed before as well as by the sophisticated
models in their mutual contexts. the realm of photonic modeling is seen as far from mature.
2 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
light: rad.
pressure P n
p
n
p
t
t

Figure 1: Surface normal

and in-plane radiation pres-
sure components p
n
and p
t
.
No attempt is made to be exhaustive in the examples cited. The purpose of this
section is to simply illustrate variability, differences, and approximations.
Underlying the discussion is the notation illustrated in Fig. 1. In particular: the
radiation pressure of the photon ow is denoted with P (4.563 N/m
2
at 1 AU from the
Sun), the surface normal and tangential directions are n andt, the illumination incidence
angle is , and the thrust pressure (force divided by area) exerted on the surface is p
n
in the surface normal direction and p
t
in the tangentially. The direction of illumination
is assumed to be co-planer with n and t.
A. Common Models: Variations on the Nominal Optical Force Model
The basis of the most common thrust propulsion models is the nominal optical force
formulation which derives the pressure with simple geometric assumptions from a few
standard optical surface parameters. Most often, this rule is cited in the form used
by Write [9, Appendix A, Eqs. A.6, A.7] and McInnes [10, Section 2.6.1, Eqs.2.57a,
2.57b]. Cast in terms of the surface normal and tangential thrust pressures the expressions are
p
n
= P
_
(1 +rs)cos
2
+B
f
(1 s)r cos +(1 r)

f
B
f

b
B
b

f
+
b
cos
_
(1)
p
t
= P [(1 rs)cos sin] (2)
with r the reection coefcient (the fraction of all incident photons reected, as opposed to absorbed), s the fraction
thereof reected specularly,
f
and
b
the lm front and back side emissivities, and B
f
and B
b
coefcients quantifying
the extent to which these surfaces are non-Lambertian radiators (their value is 2/3 for a Lambertian surface, which
appears to be equally bright from any viewing direction.
Nota that this law is also used in disciplines other than solar sail design. An example is the study of the movement
of dust, debris, comets and other small objects in the solar system [11, 12].
An alternative form of the nominal optical law is
p
n
= 2P cos(a1cos +a2) (3)
p
t
= 2P cosa3sin (4)
in which the optical parameters of Eqs. 1 and 2 have been combined in the resultant coefcients a
1
through a
3
.
The full optical model is used, for example by Quanta and Mengali in a recent orbital study [13]. Another example
for the use of the nominal optical model is the study [14, 15] by Rios-Reyes and Scheeres in which a tensor formulation
is developed to map irradiation to thrust in the context of an entire solar sailcraft regardless of the topology and
geometry of the latter as long as structural shape can be assumed constant.
Simplifying the nominal optical law to the extreme with r=s=1, the model for perfect specular reectance results:
p
n
= 2P cos
2
(5)
p
t
= 0 (6)
This formulation, obviously oversimplied, is rarely used. Two examples are a recent paper [16, Eq. 2] on the UltraSail
architecture and a study of a spinning membrane disk under photonic pressure [17, Eqs. 12 and 13].
An approximation slightly more rened than the ideal specular model, however, is very common. This is the normal
thrust approximation by which thrust in the surface normal direction only is accounted for, and the non-ideal reective
efciency of the surface is characterized by a single parameter 0< <2.
The normal thrust model corresponds to keeping only the rst term of Eq. 1, and altogether dropping the other
terms there as well as Eq. 2.
p
n
= P (1 +rs)cos
2
= cos
2
(7)
p
t
= 0 (8)
This model very widely used. Examples include the recent study of the mm-scale Sprite sailcraft by Atchin-
son [18] (where the thrust coefcient used corresponds to =1.7 in the present nomenclature); Bolles work on sail
3 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
attitude control methodology [19] (with =1.8), and Circis study of regular spacecraft attitude control augmented
with sail elements [20].
In the rst part of his 2004 review of attitude control and dynamics Wie [21] reviews, without references, possible
derivatives of the nominal optical formulation. In addition to the models already discussed in the previous paragraph,
he mentioned in Eq. 4 a model which can be derived from the nominal law by dropping the diffuse reectance and
thermal radiation terms. This model is herein termed the linear thrust model and is described in the following subsec-
tion.
However, before moving on, note that the photonic thrust assumptions are not always consistently used and commu-
nicated in the literature. One example is Burtons paper [22] introducing the UltraSail architecture: four radial ribbon
arms with tip satellites spinning about a hub. In Eqs. 2 and 3 this publication cites the nominal optical force model
and consequently applies it to estimate the load on a ribbon arm. However, a few paragraphs later, Section III already
opens with the statement that As with all solar sails, the normal of the sail points in the direction of acceleration,
which implies the surface normal model a model clearly used later in Eq. 9.
Another example for underdocumented approximations is Ewings 2007 study [23] of the LGarde solar sail thrust
prole, where the type of propulsion model is not revealed. Yet another example is Derbes paper [8] on photonic
thrust itself, in which some key assumptions behind the nominal optical model are documented to fail, but enough
data is provided neither to justify the alternative modeling framework there proposed, nor to enable the reader to
meaningfully judge the quantitative results presented.
1. The Linear Photonic Thrust Model
Yet another derivative of the nominal optical lawis obtained if, fromEqs. 1 and 2 the terms related to diffuse reectance
and thermal radiation are removed. The resulting formulation is
p
n
=
n
P cos
2
(9)
p
t
=
t
P cos sin (10)
with

n
= (1 +rs) (11)

t
= (1 rs) (12)
This formulation is able to capture both in-plane and normal thrust, yet it is very simple. Indeed, its two material
coefcients,
n
and
t
, are linearly interdependent

t
= 2
n
(13)
so the formulation, in fact, is a single parameter approximation. The model is named linear in the present paper in
reference to the linearity of Eq. 13.
Note that the linear model is not just a qualitatively attractive simplication of the nominal optical law. It is also
a very good quantitative approximation of the full optical formulation because the terms of the latter dropped have
only a minor contribution to the photonic thrust. This can be seen by substituting realistic values for the lm optical
parameters in Eqs. 1 and 1. Such values are presented by Wright [9, p. 228] in the context of a particular design. Given
are, in particular, r=0.88, s=0.94, B
f
=0.79, B
b
=0.55,
f
=0.05, and
b
=0.55. The substitution of these values into the
full nominal formulas reveals that about one half of one percent of the thrust in the surface normal direction has been
ignored, while the tangential component is still fully accounted for. While different optical values will yield different
results, the order of magnitude of the terms is clearly revealed by the cited example. The linear thrust model, therefore,
is here deemed a both qualitatively and quantitatively attractive approach to photonic thrust modeling.
Despite these advantages, this approximation is relatively rarely used. The author has been able to nd only few
examples for its application in publications [24, 25, 26]. Examples of hybrid application with the linearity of Eq. 13
violated can be found in the writers earlier work [27, 7].
Within the family of formulations related to the nominal optical law, the linear thrust model is deemed to be the
most attractive. Accordingly, the billowanalysis of the LGarde sail architecture in Section IVbelowwill be performed
in the context of this law.
4 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
B. Better Approximations of Reality
While the nominal optical force model and its derivatives clearly dominate the literature, their typical implementation
entirely ignores a number of effects that may inuence thrust magnitude and direction more signicantly than the
selective application of optical modeling terms. Some attempts to quantify a few of these effects are touched upon in
the following paragraphs.
The complex nonlinear dependence (and interdependence) of the nominal optical models parameters on the sail
temperature, in the context of other coupled effects such as surface roughness, solar irradiation angle, and solar distance
have been investigated by Mengali, et. al. [4]. Their study reveals a very signicant interplay between the considered
effects. For example, at 1 AU solar distance, the incidence angle via the lm temperature can produce variations of
surface reectance and specular reectance in the r[0.8731, 0.9224] and s[.7853, 1.0] ranges variations of 5%
and 21%, respectively. This study also relies on previous work by Vulpetti [2] who studied non-predictable variations
including thermo-optical dependence, and effects by light polarization and wavelengths.
Rachwald, et. al. in 2006 studied [3] how material degradation in the space environment may effect optical per-
formance. As irradiation doses increase, they chart up to 20% degradation of the reectance and specular reectance
coefcients r and s, and front side emissivity
f
, of the nominal optical model.
Yet another example of highlighting gross approximations in the nominal optical force model is Derbess 2006
paper on propulsive reectivity [8], reporting results from an experimental reectance study. The distribution of
the reected light Derbes recorded didnt match basic assumptions on specular and diffuse reectance inherent in
the classic optical model. Accordingly, he proposes a modied semi-empirical framework for illumination thrust
modeling, and studies the LGarde sails trough geometry (which is solved in the present paper with mathematical
rigor for the linear optical thrust model). However, Ref. [8] reveals few critical aspects of the testing. While it relies
on bi-directional reectance tests standard in optics, it does not discuss details of setup, calibration, control tests,
and the identication and elimination of random and systematic errors possibly associated with sample selection,
placement, and orientation. The number of lm samples remains unclear and data for only one value of the incidence
angle are presented insufcient for the establishment of a practicable thrust model of the proposed form. The paper
also remains silent on the quantitative specics of the proposed model as applied to obtain the presented billow shapes,
leaving the reader unable to critically review the results.
Nevertheless, Derbes publication well serves to highlight the possibility of real reectance patterns signicantly
differing from those assumed in the classic model, The most profound practical impact of the paper, however, remains
to be the documentation of high propulsive reectance for slack lms. This observation justied the use of virtually
unstressed sheets for solar sailing and, in turn, enabled Greschik to develop the architecture [5] that became the
structural backbone of the Encounter sail [28] and its heirs [29, 30].
Figure 2: Grooved sail surface [30, Fig. 14].
5 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
III. The LGarde Solar Sail Architecture
T
HE landmark LGarde sail is distinguished by a structure like no other square sailcraft. The lm surface in each
of its quadrants is constituted by troughs dened by an underlying array of boom-to-boom cords, to which the
reective sheet is loosely attached, Fig. 2. The lm sags (more accurately, billows) between the pairs of adjacent
cords, and the cords sag between the booms.
This architecture was proposed by Greschik [6, 7, 5] for the Encounter 2001 mission [28] as a practicable approxi-
mation of the theoretical square sail performance limit earlier investigated [27]. With the Encounter effort abandoned,
incremental adjustments to the design were made to t the needs of subsequent NASA In-Space Propulsion Technol-
ogy programs [31, 29, 30]. Most recently, the architecture was selected [32] by NASA as one of three crosscutting
ight demonstrations due to their potential to provide tangible, near-term products and infuse high-impact capa-
bilities into NASAs future space operations missions. Within the framework of this program, the LGarde sail, under
the program name Sunjammer, will soon be own, deployed, and maneuvered in space.
Despite the highlight this design has received, the thrust characteristics of its inherently non-at surface and how
they impact navigation and trajectory planning received little public attention. The present work aims at contributing
to lling this gap by a rigorous analysis of the billow shapes between the cords.
b
z

p
, N

= 0
N = p w / (8 )
= N / t
q = N

cords
strip
billow: b
w
q

p
m
n

x'
y

cord sag: d
boom
boom
w
1
w
2
d
m
45
o
Q=
m
x
F
perspective
view
plan
view
l
(a) Force ow to the cords from the billow. (b) Sail quadrant and force ow from cords to boom.
Figure 3: Schematic of hierarchical force ow in LGarde solar sail quadrant.
IV. The LGarde Sail Trough Shape
A
S illustrated in Fig. 3, the cords in each sail quadrant transform the surface from a largely smooth geometry into
a multitude of troughs. Therein, the photonic pressure load p billows the sheet in the z

direction as shown
and, via the catenary action of the billow in direction , loads the cords. A tension F results in the latter which, in
turn, transfers the loads in the edge-parallel zeta direction to the booms loading the latter with a set of concentrated
forces globally equivalent to a traction m. This well dened hierarchical force ow in the context of the parallel cord
geometry (only nearly parallel for the outermost, cambered, cord [5]) renders membrane mechanics two dimensional
across each trough. Accordingly, the contour shape is solved below as a two dimensional problem.
The solution only of the basic contour problem, the mathematical form of the billow shape, is derived below. The
formulas for this prole are not placed in the greater structural context that of the cord gap w and the physical
contour length (strip width) in the direction, Fig. 3, and of the overall sail surface and boom deformation pattern.
The latter step, necessary for a sailcraft performance analysis but beyond the scope of this paper, can be performed
by numerically embedding the shape functions here presented into the global geometric framework. While software
to properly dene and orient contour shapes for any lm strip width across any cord gap under any irradiation has
already been written and tested, these results are not reported herein.
The question of the most elegant and efcient quantitative treatment of the irradiation components in the trough
direction, in Fig. 3, is also left unaddressed. While the numerical tool mentioned in the previous paragraph properly
6 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
accounts for this thrust component via numerical integration, the search for an elegant symbolic solution for trough-
axial loads according to the linear radiation pressure model hasnt concluded yet.
Finally, note that the computer program developed can produce and orient the trough contour and the membrane
forces for any radiation force model, once the latter is coded in a separate module a simple exercise. Thus this
software can serve either as a module of a higher level analytical tool for performance analysis or ight simulation
relying on the assumptions of any solar radiation force model, or as a stand-alone tool for the selective study of
illumination models. For the work herein reported, it has been used to numerically verify theoretical results on which
alone the present paper focuses.
A. Formulation
n
t
v
A'
A B
P
O
u
s

z
incident
light
light
z

n
P

p
n
p
t
t
w
Figure 4: Trough contour geometry and variables for formulation.
Consider a trough cross section illumi-
nated in the cross section plane. In addi-
tion to the quadrant surface coordinates
xi and z (from cord to cord and rising
from the surface, Fig. 3), dene a trough
contour Cartesian frame with its v axis
pointing towards the light source and its
origin O on the contour where the sur-
face tangent and normal directions align
with u and v as shown in Fig. 4. As il-
lumination arrives with a angular off-
set from the quadrant surface normal z
(i.e., the u and z axes subtend a angle),
origin O will not be at the center of the
contour between its endpoints A and B
(the support cords), nor will the contour possess a z axis-symmetry.
As the contour shape in the quadrant surface coordinates is given by a z() function, the contour slope angle in the
z, frame at a generic point P, Fig. 4, is

z
= arctan z

(14)
z

= dz/d (15)
and the local light incidence angle there is
= +
z
(16)
With this variable denition, therefore, Eqs. 9 and 10 can be directly applied to express the thrust pressure components
at P normal and tangent directions.
As is the contour slope angle in the u, v frame, the symmetry of Eqs. 9 and 10 in terms of implies symmetric
lm loading about the v axis. Consequently, the contour shape itself will be symmetric about v, tracing a curve and its
mirror image in the positive and negative directions starting from origin O and dened by the lm loads and tension.
In recognition of this symmetry, let the origin O be referred to as the contour shape apex and select the u, v frame as
the basis of the shape derivation. (The billow between cords A and B will be a section of a symmetric function of a
greater domain, shown between points A and B in Fig. 4.)
Denote membrane tension, the product of the skin stress and the lm thickness t
f
, along the contour with N,
N = t
f
(17)
The equilibrium in the n and t directions of an innitesimal contour section at any generic P location implies
p
n
= N (18)
p
t
=

N (19)
with the dot denoting differentiation with the arc length s, Fig. 4. The division of Eq. 18 with , subsequent
differentiation with respect to s to produce

N, and the substitution of this result into Eq. 19 yields
p
n
= p
n
p
t

2
(20)
7 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Substituting functions Eqs. 9 and 10 into this relation nally gives
0 = +A
2
tan (21)
A = 2 +
t
/
n
(22)
which is the governing differential equation of the billow shape dened via the slope angle from the +u direction as a
function of the arc length: =(s). As the solution of this equation is dened solely by the A material constant, the
latter is here named the trough contour shape parameter.
Dividing Eq. 21 with , then integrating both sides in terms of s gives an alternative form which can be written as
_
1
cos
A

d = c
1
s (23)
where another, add-on, integration constant on the right hand side is not shown since it is implied in the indenite
integral on the left. While this relation is geometrically more eloquent than Eq. 21, it still gives the contour shape
implicitly, by revealing how the slope angle is coupled with the arc length s. An explicit Cartesian solution if
derived next.
B. Solution
A simple closed form solution for Eq. 23 can be easily obtained when
t
=0 when the in-plane photonic pressure
component is taken as zero. In this case, A=2 and the left hand side of Eq. 23 becomes (tan+c
2
) so
= arctan(c
1
s+c
2
) (24)
The c
2
constant disappears by virtue of the symmetry of (s) about s =0, and c
1
can be shown to be equal to the
curvature at s=0. Accordingly,
= arctan(s/R
0
) (25)
with R
0
the apex radius of curvature. Finally, symbolically obtaining the denite integrals
u =
_
s
0
cos(s)ds = R
0
cosh
1
1
R
0
+ c
3
(26)
v =
_
s
0
sin(s)ds = R
0
_
1 +s
2
/R
2
0
+ c
4
(27)
eliminating the constants and combining the results yields
v(u) = R
0
_
cosh
u
R
0
1
_
(28)
The billow shape, therefore, is the classic catenary curve bi-directionally scaled with the apex radius of curvature. The
latter, in turn, can be expressed with the apex lm tension and the lateral photonic pressure there as
R
0
= N
0
/(P
n
) (29)
which can be used to express the billow shape Eq. 28 with the apex lm tension.
In the general case when A>2 (when
t
=0 in the linear thrust model and, therefore, an in-plane thrust component
also emerges under non-perpendicular illumination), no such a simple exact solution with elementary functions can be
derived. Instead, a series approximation can be applied which, expanded to three terms for very high accuracy in the
range of realistic variables, gives the shape as
v(u) = R
0
_
1
2
_
u
R
0
_
2
+
_
1
8

A
24
__
u
R
0
_
4
+
_
A
2
72

A
15
+
19
240
__
u
R
0
_
6
_
(30)
This general solution approaches Eq. 28, the special case for A=2, as the latter substitution transforms its polyno-
mial terms into the rst four terms of the power series expansion for the hyperbolic cosine function less 1:
v(u)
a=2
= R
0
_
1
2
_
u
R
0
_
2
+
1
24
_
u
R
0
_
4
+
1
720
_
u
R
0
_
6
_
R
0
_
cosh
u
R
0
1
_
(31)
8 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
V. Numerical Verication
T
HE shape equations presented above in Section IV have been numerically veried; this is illustrated here with
results for a trough (lm billow) problem for the extreme geometry of the billowed lm contour being 12% longer
than the trough span (the distance between the two suspension points). The associated billow sag is much greater than
what is usually considered in practice, in order to accentuate the differences between the results compared. Irradiation
perpendicular to the trough sag has been considered for both problem.
Illustrated in Fig. 5 is the comparison of the closed form theoretical prediction Eq. 28 with numerically precise
results for the normal thrust model A=2.00 in Eq. 22. The numeric result cannot be distinguished from theory.
Figure 5: The numerically precise contour shape and theoretical prediction Eq. 28 overlap for
n
=2.0 illumination
perpendicular to trough span, billowed contour 12% longer than span. Drawn to scale, normalized to the billow span.
Illustrated in Fig. 6 is the comparison of the theoretically developed polynomial solution Eq. 30 with numerically
precise results for the general linear thrust model with the r reectance parameter set to r=1.2 (this means A=1.67 in
Eq. 22, an unrealistically extreme value for a solar sail, to accentuate differences). The numerically exact solution,
shown in red, overlaps with the polynomial prediction and they both clearly differ from the pure cosh shape
(green).
Figure 6: The numerically precise contour shape (red), the hyperbolic cosine approximation with Eq. 28, and the
polynomial expression Eq. 30 precisely overlapping the former for
n
=1.2 illumination perpendicular to trough
span, billowed contour 12% longer than span. Drawn to scale, normalized to the billow span.
If, however, the surface reectance is chosen to be a value typical for solar sails, r=1.8 (the parameter A=1.11 in
Eq. 22), all three curves become indistinguishable, illustrated in Fig. 7. Therefore, in the realistic context of a real
solar sail, the trough shape be generally well approximated with a simple cosh function. The higher order errors
associated with this approximation (differences in the support forces which imply differences in propulsion) are yet to
be examined.
The numerically precise solutions cited have been produced with a spreadsheet program. The algorithm used for
an iteratively rened shooting method with 300 steps in each direction from the apex out, with additional numerical
measures taken to further increase accuracy.
9 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
Figure 7: The numerically precise contour shape (red), the hyperbolic cosine approximation with Eq. 28, and the
polynomial expression Eq. 30 overlap for
n
=1.8 illumination perpendicular to trough span, billowed contour 12%
longer than span. Drawn to scale, normalized to the billow span.
VI. Conclusion
A
review of representative solar radiation force models has been conducted, and an formulation to strike an at-
tractive middle ground between simplicity and accuracy has been identied. This model, along with the simple
surface normal thrust approximation, has been consecutively used for the rigorous solution of the trough contour ge-
ometry of the LGarde solar sail surface troughs. For the surface normal thrust model, the trough contour obtained is
the classic hyperbolic cosine function. The contour solution for the linear thrust model, in turn, has been obtained as
a polynomial approximations.
Solutions only of the basic contour problem, the mathematical form of the billow shape, have been presented. The
shapes derived can be placed in the greater structural context that of the gap between the trough edge cords, the
physical contour length (strip width) therein, and the surface orientation by numerically embedding the contour
shape functions into the global geometric framework. While software to properly dene and orient contour shapes for
any lm strip width across any cord gap under any irradiation has already been written and tested, these results are not
reported herein.
The question of the most elegant and efcient treatment of the irradiation components in the trough direction has
also been left unaddressed. While the numerical tool mentioned in the previous paragraph properly accounts for this
thrust component numerically, the search for an elegant symbolic solution for trough-axial loads according to the linear
radiation pressure model continues.
VII. Acknowledgments
T
HE author thanks Rudolf Csikja of the Department of Mathematics at the Technical University of Budapest for de-
riving the approximate polynomial solution of the trough contour differential equation associated with the general
form of the linear thrust model.
References
1
Greschik, G., Solar Sail Scalability and a Truly Scalable Architecture: the Space Tow, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 44, No. 4,
JulyAugust 2007, pp. 831839.
2
Vulpetti, G. and Scaglione, S., The Aurora Project: Estimation of the Optical Sail Parameters, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 44, No. 24,
JanuaryFebruary 1999, pp. 123132.
3
Dachwald, B., Mengali, G., Quarta, A., and Macdonald, M., Parametric Model and Optimal Control of Solar Sails with Optical Degradation,
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 5, SeptemberOctober 2006, pp. 11701178.
4
Mengali, G., Quarta, A. A., Circi, C., and Dachwald, B., Rened Solar Sail Force Model with Mission Application, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 2, MarchApril 2007, pp. 512520.
5
Greschik, G., Derbes, B., Veal, G., and Rogan, J., The Cord Mat Sail Concept, Mechanics, And Design Example, AIAA-2005-2049.
6
Greschik, G., Preliminary Assessment of Boom Loads for the Encounter 2001 Solar Sail Slack Design, Interim report, LGarde, Inc., 15181
Woodlawn Ave, Tustin, CA 92780-6487, February 6 2002.
7
Greschik, G., ROSS NRA Cycle 1 LGarde Solar Sail General Structural Design and Analysis, LGarde Structural Report 2003/3,
10 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
LGarde, Inc., 15181 Woodlawn Ave, Tustin, CA 92780-6487, November 21 2003, Revision 1 of the March 25, 2003, original report.
8
Derbes, B. and Lichodziejewski, D., Propulsive Reectivity and Photoexibility: Effects on Solar Sail Performance and Control, AIAA
2006-4520.
9
Wright, J. L., Space Sailing, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Overseas Publishers Association, 1079 LHAmsterdam, the Netherlands,
1st ed., 1992.
10
McInnes, C. R., Solar Sailing: Technology, Dynamics and Mission Applications, Springer-Praxis series in space science and technology,
Springer, London, UK, 1st ed., 1999, Published in association with Praxis Publishing, Chichester, UK.
11
Scheeres, D. J., The Dynamical Evolution of Uniformly Rotating Asteroids Subject to YORP, Icarus, Vol. 188, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 430
450.
12
McMahon, J. W. and Scheeres, D. J., New Solar Radiation Pressure Force Model for Navigation, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 5, SeptemberOctober 2010, pp. 14181428.
13
Quarta, A. A. and Mengali, G., Semi-Analytical Method for the Analysis of Solar Sail Heliocentric Orbit Raising, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 2012, pp. 330335.
14
Rios-Reyes, L. and Scheeres, D. J., Applications of the Generalized Model for a Solar Sail, AIAA 2004-5434.
15
Rios-Reyes, L. and Scheeres, D. J., Generalized Model for Solar Sails, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 42, No. 1, January-February
2005, pp. 182185.
16
Woo, B., Ertmer, K. M., Coverstone, V. L., Burton, R. L., Benavides, G. F., and Carroll, D. L., Deployment Experiment for Ultralarge Solar
Sail System (UltraSail), Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 48, No. 5, September-October 2012, pp. 874880.
17
Okuizumi, N., Deformations and Vibrations of a Rotating Circular Membrane under Distributed Loads, AIAA 2007-1803.
18
Atchison, J. A. and Peck, M. A., A passive, sun-pointing, millimeter-scale solar sail, Acta Astronautica, Vol. 67, No. 12, JulyAugust
2010, pp. 108121.
19
Bolle, A. and Circi, C., Solar sail attitude control through in-plane moving masses, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Proc. IMechE: Part
G, Vol. 222, No. 1, January 2008, pp. 8194.
20
Circi, C., Three-axis attitude control using combined gravity-gradient and solar pressure, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Proc. IMechE:
Part G, Vol. 221, No. 1, January 2007, pp. 8590.
21
Wie, B., Solar Sail Attitude Control and Dynamics, Part 1, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 27, No. 4, JulyAugust 2004,
pp. 526535.
22
Burton, R. L., Coverstone, V. L., Hargens-Rysanek, J., Ertmer, K. M., Botter, T., Benavides, G., Woo, B., Carroll, D. L., Gierow, P. A.,
Farmer, G., and Cardin, J., UltraSail - Ultra-Lightweight Solar Sail Concept, AIAA Paper 2005-4117.
23
Ewing, A. and Moore, J., Propulsion Sensitivity Study on NASAs Proposed ST9 Evolved Design Solar Sail using the Solar Vectoring
Evaluation Tool (SVET), AIAA Paper 2007-1825.
24
McInnes, C., Articial Lagrange Points for a Partially Reecting Flat Solar Sail, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 22,
No. 1, January 1999, pp. 185187.
25
Molostov, A. A. and Shvartsburg, A. A., Heliocentric halos for a solar sail with absorption, Soviet Physics Doklady, 1992.
26
MacNeal, R. H., The Heliogyro - An Interplanetary Flying Machine, Tech. Rep. ARC-R-249, ASTROResearch Corporation, Santa Barbara,
CA, March 13 1967, NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR-84460.
27
Greschik, G. and Mikulas, M. M., Design Study of a Square Solar Sail Architecture, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 39, No. 5,
SeptemberOctober 2002, pp. 653661.
28
Derbes, B., Veal, G., Rogan, J., and Chafer, C., Team Encounter Solar Sails, AIAA 2004-1577.
29
Lichodziejewski, D., Derbes, B., Slade, K., Mann, T., and Reinert, R., Vacuum Deployment And Testing Of a 4-Quadrant Scalable Inatable
Rigidizable Solar Sail System, AIAA-2005-2122.
30
Lichodziejewski, D., Derbs, B., Sleight, D., and Mann, T., Vacuum Deploymentand Testing of a 20m Solar Sail System, AIAA 2006-1705.
31
Lichodziejewski, D., Derbes, W., Reinert, R., Belvin, K., Slade, K., and Mann, T., Development and Ground Testing of a Compactly Stowed
Scalable Inatably Deployed Solar Sail, AIAA-2004-1507.
32
Steitz, D. E., Communications, Navigation And In-Space Propulsion Technologies Selected For NASA
Flight Demonstration, August 22 2011, Press Release 11-272. NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.,
www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/aug/HQ 11-272 TDM Selections.html.
11 of 11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2013 by Greschik. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.