Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Torqued Accelerator using Radiation from the Sun (TARS) for Interstellar Payloads

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Sunlight spin-up sends phone-sized probes interstellar in under a year.

desk verdict A genuinely new solar-sail workaround that deserves a referee, but the headline numbers hinge on a 20 GPa CNT-sheet strength that is not demonstrated and a factor-of-2 discrepancy in the spin-up formula. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17615 v2 pith:2ACP7DHD submitted 2025-07-23 physics.space-ph

David Kipping , Kathryn Lampo This is my paper
classification physics.space-ph
keywords TARSinterstellarpropulsionsolarsailflywheelenergystoragecarbonnanotuberadiationpressuretorquequasiteorbittaperedribbon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces a propulsion concept called TARS that stores solar radiation as rotational kinetic energy in a spinning ribbon, then releases a small sail at high speed. Working through the forces on two paddles with contrasting reflectivities, the spin-up of a tapered ribbon, and the modified orbital dynamics of a sub-Keplerian 'quasite' orbit, the authors derive the attainable release velocities. Their headline example—a 1.6 kg structure built from commercial carbon-nanotube sheets—reaches a release speed that, combined with its orbital motion, just exceeds the Sun's escape velocity after about 351 days of charging. The paper argues that interstellar microprobes are therefore possible using sunlight alone, without kilometre-scale directed-energy systems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the radiation-pressure torque generated by two sail surfaces, one reflective (α) and one absorptive (β), which creates a net spin-up torque rather than only a radial push—an arrangement reminiscent of a Crookes radiometer. The critical velocity of the released sail is set by the material's specific strength, with vcrit = sqrt(2σ/ρ) for a uniform ribbon, and the paper's tapered-ribbon design pushes this higher by shaping the width so every cross-section reaches its tensile limit simultaneously. A sub-Keplerian 'quasite' orbit—one in which radiation pressure partially cancels the Sun's gravity—reduces the orbital speed required for escape, and the release speed adds to the orbital speed at release.

What would settle it

Measure the tensile strength of a commercial 6 µm carbon-nanotube sheet produced at metre scale with the proposed optical coatings; if it is below roughly 19 GPa, the paper's n=50, k=24 design no longer exceeds the Sun's 40.0 km/s escape velocity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a tapered ribbon, spun up by radiation-pressure torque in a quasite orbit, can eject a payload at solar escape speed. For the n=50, k=24 design, the ribbon has a central half-width of 62.7 m, a total mass of 1.6 kg, and a sail area of 0.01 m²; it reaches vcrit = 12.1 km/s, giving vorb + vcrit = 40.4 km/s against a solar escape velocity of 40.0 km/s, after a charge time of 351.1 days. Because the ribbon is made from CNT sheets with a tensile strength of up to 20 GPa, the system would use materials already in widespread production. The authors are explicit that this is an exposition of a concept, not a full feasibility study.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed escape speed assumes commercial carbon-nanotube sheets deliver a tensile strength of 20 GPa at the required metre-wide, kilometre-long, 6 µm scale; if the effective strength is materially lower, the released sail falls short of solar escape velocity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A roughly 1.6 kg, tens-of-metres structure could place 0.1 m microprobes on interstellar trajectories using only sunlight, with a charge time under a year.
  • The system is reusable: after releasing a sail it recharges and can launch further payloads, potentially forming a daisy-chain of probes with timed separations.
  • Because release speed scales with the square root of specific strength, a switch to higher-strength materials such as graphene would directly increase the escape margin or allow higher final speeds.
  • Exploiting the Oberth effect by releasing at perihelion of an eccentric orbit approximately halves the required release speed, with the trade-off of a more demanding launch trajectory.
  • TARS is not a route to relativistic flight; the paper finds practical designs are sub-relativistic, making it a complement to, rather than replacement for, directed-energy concepts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The n=50, k=24 design assumes a 62.7 m wide, kilometre-scale, 6 µm CNT film with vapour-deposited optical coatings; the paper does not address whether such a continuous film can be manufactured at that scale, so the feasibility claim rests partly on an unverified fabrication step.
  • The design's escape margin depends steeply on material strength: if the effective tensile strength of commercial CNT sheet is roughly 19 GPa instead of 20 GPa, the headline system no longer exceeds solar escape velocity, so a single materials measurement could settle the concept's viability.
  • The electrostatic-charging extension in Section 11.2 points to a possible thousand-kilometre-per-second regime, but it uses a rough power-balance estimate and would face substantial engineering hurdles; it is a suggestion, not a result.
  • Because payloads are released in the orbital plane, all probes from one TARS head in approximately the same direction; this suits a stream of probes to a single target but limits the range of accessible trajectories.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the Torqued Accelerator using Radiation from the Sun (TARS), a two-paddle system with contrasting albedos that uses solar radiation pressure to spin up a long ribbon while in a sub-Keplerian 'quasite' orbit, then releases a small payload at high tangential speed. The authors derive equations for the optical fluxes, radiation and thermal forces, spin-up rate, quasite orbital speed, ribbon critical velocity, tapered-ribbon design, and payload release and recharging. They present a numerical example (n = 50, k = 24) in which the released sail reaches v_crit = 12.1 km/s, giving v_orb + v_crit = 40.4 km/s against a 40.0 km/s solar escape speed, after a 351.1-day charge time, using a 1.6 kg structure made of 'commercially available' carbon-nanotube sheets. The paper explicitly states that it is not a feasibility study and that the system is not definitively plausible.

Significance. If the calculations are correct, TARS is a conceptually novel propulsion scheme that stores solar photon momentum as rotational kinetic energy and then converts it to translational kinetic energy, potentially enabling small interstellar probes without directed energy systems. The core physics — radiation-pressure torque, spin-up dynamics, the uniform-ribbon critical velocity v_crit = sqrt(2 sigma/rho), and the tapered-ribbon recursion — is largely standard and internally consistent. The paper provides closed-form expressions that can be checked and falsified, and it is unusually candid about its own limitations. However, the headline claim rests on two load-bearing points that are not currently substantiated: the assumed 20 GPa tensile strength for commercial CNT sheets, and a spin-up speed formula that is off by a factor of two. The manuscript is a worthwhile conceptual contribution, but it does not yet justify the abstract's assertion that interstellar velocities can be reached in less than a year with commercially available materials.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 9.2, Eq. (40); Section 10.3] The 20 GPa tensile strength for commercial CNT sheets is asserted without any citation or measurement, and it is load-bearing. In the n = 50, k = 24 design, the total speed is only 0.4 km/s above the escape speed (40.4 vs 40.0 km/s). Because v_crit scales as sqrt(sigma/rho), reducing the strength to 10 GPa lowers v_crit to about 8.6 km/s and the total speed to about 36.9 km/s, below escape. Measured macroscopic CNT sheets and yarns typically fall in the 1–10 GPa range, so the paper's central 'interstellar with commercially available materials' claim currently rests on an unverified empirical input. Please provide a reference for the 20 GPa commercial-sheet value or, failing that, present a sensitivity analysis over sigma and temper the abstract's claim accordingly.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (14)] The tip-speed formula in Eq. (14) is a factor of two too large. From Eq. (12), the angular acceleration is omega_dot = 3 epsilon_R S/(c Sigma L). The speed of an end mass is v = (L/2) omega, giving v(t) = (3/2) epsilon_R S t/(c Sigma), not 3 epsilon_R S t/(c Sigma). This error doubles all charge times computed from Eq. (14), including Table 1 and the recharging-time estimate in Eq. (35). The proportional relationships (e.g., v proportional to r^-2) are unaffected, but the absolute times are wrong by a factor of two.
  3. [Section 10.3] The headline design requires a 62.7 m wide, 6 um thick CNT sheet with 20 nm optical coatings, and the implied total length is on the kilometer scale (the total area is 164.4 m^2). This is far beyond any demonstrated manufacturing capability for CNT sheets, even if the 20 GPa strength were available. The claim that the system is built from 'materials already in widespread production' conflates the constituent material (CNT sheet) with a product of this specific size, thickness, and coating. The manuscript should either cite a demonstrated manufacturing path for such a structure or explicitly reframe the claim as relying on optimistic but currently unavailable fabrication capabilities.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 9.2] The density of CNT sheets is given as '1.6 g m^-3'; the intended unit is likely g cm^-3 (or 1600 kg m^-3). Also, 'five terms worse' should read 'five times worse.'
  2. [Section 10.2, Eq. (47)] The second term in Eq. (47) writes rho_payload where it should be rho_bulk; the volumetric mixing formula should read rho_S = (t_payload/t_bulk) rho_payload + (1 - t_payload/t_bulk) rho_bulk.
  3. [Eqs. (4) and (5)] The symbol T is used both for the phase-averaged transmission factor in Eq. (4) and for a dimensionless factor in Eq. (5); consider renaming one of them (e.g., call the Eq. (4) factor <T>) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Table 1] All entries in Table 1 will need to be updated after the factor-of-two correction to Eq. (14); the corrected charge times are twice those listed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the TARS derivation is self-contained; the only self-citation (Kipping 2019) is a naming reference and is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The claimed chain—radiation-pressure torque, spin-up, quasite orbit, payload release, escape—is derived from first principles and anchored to external sources. Sections 3–4 compute absorbed/emitted fluxes and force components directly from radiation pressure and thermal emission. The spin-up rate in Equation (12) follows from Singal (2017), an external result. Section 6 adopts the reduced-solar-mass formula (Equation 17) from Kezerashvili & Vázquez-Poritz (2009) and borrows only the term "quasite" from Kipping (2019); the self-citation therefore carries no argumentative weight. Section 7's escape criterion is a standard energy balance using the same effective mass. Section 9.1 derives vcrit = sqrt(2σ/ρ) from the centrifugal tension integral, and Section 10's tapered design is a geometric construction rather than a fit to a target velocity. The headline numerical example (n=50, k=24: vcrit = 12.1 km/s, vorb+vcrit = 40.4 km/s, vesc = 40.0 km/s, charge time 351.1 days) is a computed output from adopted inputs Rα=0.9, Rβ=0.3, Qα=1/2, 6 µm CNT sheets, 20 nm coatings, and 20 GPa CNT strength. Those inputs are empirical design choices, not quantities reverse-engineered from the claimed escape capability. The 20 GPa macroscopic CNT-sheet strength is the most vulnerable input, but vulnerability to an empirical assumption is not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the prediction it is used to support, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is light: no data fitting, no invented entities. The inputs are standard physics constants and design choices. The main burden is carried by domain assumptions: phase-averaged thermal balance, the quasite reduced-mass orbit, cancellation of lateral forces, near-ideal bulk CNT strength, and an external initial spin-up. These are all stated in the paper, but none is validated beyond citation or plausibility. The k-scan selects the reported configuration, so the headline numbers should be read as one favorable point in a design space, not as a robust prediction.

free parameters (1)
  • phase-averaged transmission factor T = (2 - (4/3) exp(-tau_perp)) / pi
    Functional fit to the numerically integrated definite integral in Eq. (3); the authors state 1 percent accuracy for tau_perp > 1.34. It is a mathematical approximation used to close all subsequent force equations, not a physical constant fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Phase-averaged thermal equilibrium: paddle temperature is steady over the rotation period, so thermal emission is treated as phase-independent (Eq. 5 and Section 4).
    The torque and center-of-mass force both depend on this; the authors acknowledge real damped oscillation would occur. Located in Section 4 discussion following Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The sub-Keplerian quasite orbit is well described by a solar mass reduced to M_tilde = M_sun - epsilon_C L_sun / (2 pi c G Sigma) (Eq. 22).
    Taken from Kezerashvili and Vazquez-Poritz (2009) and Kipping (2019); the paper maps its computed force to eta = epsilon_C to apply this model. This is prior published work, but the stability of the spinning quasite over the year-long charge is not derived here.
  • domain assumption Lateral forces on the paddles average to zero over a full rotation, so only normal forces contribute to spin-up (end of Section 4).
    Relies on symmetric phase coverage; at low spin rates the uneven lateral nudges are acknowledged as transient and an external initial spin-up (micro-thrusters or directed energy) is assumed in Sections 2 and 7.
  • domain assumption Bulk carbon-nanotube sheets provide tensile strength up to 20 GPa at the required manufacturing scale (Section 9.2).
    The design speeds scale as sqrt(sigma/rho); this is the upper bound of published values and the paper does not cite a demonstrated bulk-sheet measurement.
  • standard math Radiation pressure and orbital mechanics follow standard Newtonian and Maxwellian physics (P = S/c, Keplerian orbits).
    Used throughout Sections 3 to 6; no exotic physics is invoked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Torqued Accelerator using Radiation from the Sun (TARS) for Interstellar Payloads." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ACP7DHD

@misc{pith2026250717615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Torqued Accelerator using Radiation from the Sun (TARS) for Interstellar Payloads},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ACP7DHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17615}
}
read the original abstract

The concept of exploring space using solar power is energetically appealing, but interstellar solar sails typically require extremely low areal densities (~g/m^2). This work explores an alternative approach: storing solar energy as rotational kinetic energy, which is later released to propel a microprobe beyond the solar system. The proposed Torqued Accelerator using Radiation from the Sun (TARS) consists of two thin surfaces with contrasting albedos that gradually spins up over weeks to months while in a sub-Keplerian "quasite" orbit around the Sun. Though constrained by material strengths, careful design allows a phone-sized payload to reach interstellar velocities in less than a year, using commercially available materials (e.g. CNT sheets). The entire system spans tens of meters and weighs of order of a kilogram. Whilst there is no theoretical limit to the achievable speeds, practical designs grow exponentially in size as velocity targets increase, making interstellar flight feasible but relativistic speeds implausible. Several strategies, including the use of graphene sheets, gravity assists, the Oberth effect, and electrostatic confinement, could further maximise velocity. TARS is an attractive light sail technology when high-powered directed energy systems are impractical, offering a potentially low-cost solution for deploying small, sub-relativistic interstellar probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A simplified version of the TARS system. Here, the system comprises of one tether and two paddles, which together are orbiting around the Sun, with an instantaneous velocity vector along the Yˆ -axis. Incident solar radiation is largely reflected by the α-surface (the reflective surface) of the paddles, but largely absorbed by the β-surface. This leads to a radiation pressure torque that gradually spins up TARS. Not… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Break-down of fluxes incident (coloured solid) and emitted (coloured dashed) by each surface of one of TARS’ paddles. The symbol T is adopted for transmission, R for reflectivity and Qα to describe heat transport. The term T is an effective transmission term defined later in Equation (4). in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Break-down of the various forces acting upon a paddle when the α-side is Sun-incident. The spin-up of TARS is governed by the normal forces, as well as producing the quasite effect on the structure. The inset boxes show the force components more clearly for the incident thermal (top-left), emitted reflected (top-right) and incident reflected (bot￾tom-right) cases. TARS is designed to impose F⊥,α ≥ F⊥,β, such that Rα… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The tapered ribbon design of TARS. Top: The case of a tapered ribbon (n = 6) with no payload and made of a homogeneous material (the bulk). The α and β sides are shaded appropriately. Moving away from the rotation axis, the segments become of ever smaller widths, Wi , …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Black circles and black line depicts the payload’s velocity at release minus the escape velocity from our solar system (left y-axis) as a function of k, a design parameter for the tapered ribbon design. Rust-coloured squares and grey line depicts TARS’s mass as a funct…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    YE=;Hxv8

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt \@twocolumntrue 12pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key o...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    A., Davoyan A

    Atwater H. A., Davoyan A. R., Ilic O., Jariwala D., Sherrott M. C., Went C. M., Whitney W. S., et al., 2018, NatMa, 17, 861. doi:10.1038/s41563-018-0075-8

    doi:10.1038/s41563-018-0075-8 2018

  5. [5]

    doi:10.1063/1.1582119

    Benford J., Benford G., 2003, AIPC, 664, 303. doi:10.1063/1.1582119

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1582119 2003

  6. [6]

    R., Mungan C

    Blanco P. R., Mungan C. E., 2019, PhTea, 57, 439. doi:10.1119/1.5126818

    work page doi:10.1119/1.5126818 2019

  7. [7]

    Dodd S., 2020, AGUFMSH01, 2020, SH019-01

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    P., Kataria D

    Eastwood J. P., Kataria D. O., McInnes C. R., Barnes N. C., Mulligan P., 2015, Wthr, 70, 27. doi:10.1002/wea.2438

    work page doi:10.1002/wea.2438 2015

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    L., 1984, JSpRo, 21, 187

    Forward R. L., 1984, JSpRo, 21, 187. doi:10.2514/3.8632

    1984 doi

  2. [10]

    L., 1993, ``Statite: Spacecraft That Utilizes Light Pressure and Method of Use'', US patent 5183225

    Forward R. L., 1993, ``Statite: Spacecraft That Utilizes Light Pressure and Method of Use'', US patent 5183225

    1993

  3. [11]

    Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Goldstein H., 1980, Classical Mechanics, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    1980

  4. [12]

    Jin W., Li W., Khandekar C., Orenstein M., Fan S., 2022, arXiv, arXiv:2206.05383

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    I., 2021, RNAAS, 5, 61

    Katz J. I., 2021, RNAAS, 5, 61. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/abf124

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Y., V \'a zquez-Poritz J

    Kezerashvili R. Y., V \'a zquez-Poritz J. F., 2009, PhLB, 675, 18. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.03.058

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab2fdb

    Kipping D., 2019, RNAAS, 3, 91. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab2fdb

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    doi:10.1155/2019/1592621

    Kuzminova, K., Solar, P., Kus, P., Kylian, O., 2019, Journal of Nanomaterials, 2019, 1. doi:10.1155/2019/1592621

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Lebedev P., 1901, ``Untersuchungen über die Druckkräfte des Lichtes'', Annalen der Physik, Series 4 6, 433

    1901

  10. [18]

    Lubin P., 2016, JBIS, 69, 40

    2016

  11. [19]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa619b

    Manchester Z., Loeb A., 2017, ApJL, 837, L20. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa619b

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    doi:10.1038/211022a0

    Marx G., 1966, Natur, 211, 22. doi:10.1038/211022a0

    1966 doi

  13. [21]

    M., 1998, Handbook of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Processing, 1st edn

    Mattox D. M., 1998, Handbook of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) Processing, 1st edn. William Andrew Publishing, Norwich, NY

    1998

  14. [22]

    G., 2017, ApJL, 837, L1

    M \'e ndez A., Rivera-Valent \' n E. G., 2017, ApJL, 837, L1. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa5f13

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    E., 1972, JSpRo, 9, 942

    Moeckel W. E., 1972, JSpRo, 9, 942. doi:10.2514/3.30415

    1972 doi

  16. [24]

    F., Hull G

    Nichols E. F., Hull G. F., 1903, ApJ, 17, 315. doi:10.1086/141035

    1903 doi

  17. [25]

    The small launch vehicle survey: A 2021 update (The rockets are flying)

    Niederstrasser, C.G., 2022. The small launch vehicle survey: A 2021 update (The rockets are flying). Journal of Space Safety Engineering, 9(3), 341-354. doi:10.1016/j.jsse.2022.07.003

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Academic Press, San Diego, CA

    Ohring M., 2002, Materials Science of Thin Films: Deposition and Structure, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, CA

    2002

  19. [27]

    Parkin K. L. G., 2018, AcAau, 152, 370. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2018.08.035

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    doi:10.3390/ma8063128

    Patsalas P., Kalfagiannis N., Kassavetis S., 2015, Materials, 8, 3128. doi:10.3390/ma8063128

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    B., Coverstone V

    Powers R. B., Coverstone V. L., 2001, JAnSc, 49, 269. doi:10.1007/BF03546322

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    Z., Dullin H

    Rafat M. Z., Dullin H. R., Kuhlmey B. T., Tuniz A., Luo H., Roy D., Skinner S., et al., 2022, PhRvP, 17, 024016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.17.024016

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    L., 1967, Natur, 213, 588

    Redding J. L., 1967, Natur, 213, 588. doi:10.1038/213588a0

    1967 doi

  24. [32]

    K., 2017, arXiv, arXiv:1708.05062

    Singal A. K., 2017, arXiv, arXiv:1708.05062. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1708.05062

    2017 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    A., Betts B., Bellardo J

    Spencer D. A., Betts B., Bellardo J. M., Diaz A., Plante B., Mansell J. R., 2021, AdSpR, 67, 2878. doi:10.1016/j.asr.2020.06.029

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Chu Y.-J

    Srivastava P. R., Chu Y.-J. L., Swartzlander G. A., 2019, OptL, 44, 3082. doi:10.1364/OL.44.003082

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Starbuck, J. M. & Hansen, J. G., 2009, Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), 975070. doi:10.2172/975070

    2009 doi

  28. [36]

    E., 1968, K

    Tsiolkovsky K. E., 1968, K. E. Tsiolkovsky Selected Works, compiled by V. N. Sokolosky, MIR Publishers (Moscow), English Translation

    1968

  29. [37]

    F., Pirri, A

    Weiss R. F., Pirri, A. N., & Kemp, N. H. 1979, Astronautics and Aeronautics, 17, 50

    1979

  30. [38]

    P., Green W

    Worden S. P., Green W. A., Schalkwyk J., Parkin K., Fugate R. Q., 2021, ApOpt, 60, H20. doi:10.1364/AO.435858

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    doi:10.1016/0039-3681(82)90023-1

    Worrall J., 1982, SHPSA, 13, 133. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(82)90023-1

    1982 doi

  32. [40]

    1964, Problems of flight by jet propulsion: Interplanetary flights, NASA Technical Translation F-147

    Zander F. 1964, Problems of flight by jet propulsion: Interplanetary flights, NASA Technical Translation F-147

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.