Inflation deployed torus-shaped solar sail accelerated via thermal desorption of coating

Alexander S. Chekashov; Dylan J. Slocki; Olga L. Starinova; Roman Ya. Kezerashvili

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Inflation deployed torus-shaped solar sail accelerated via thermal desorption of coating

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A torus-shaped solar sail that sheds its coating by thermal desorption could escape the Solar System at 20-40 AU per year, the authors claim.

desk verdict The structural work is solid, but the headline velocity gains are an artifact of a miswritten rocket equation; the correct thermal-desorption Δv is a few km/s, not tens of km/s. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06761 v2 pith:GV6TCJM6 submitted 2019-08-15 physics.space-ph physics.comp-ph

Roman Ya. Kezerashvili , Olga L. Starinova , Alexander S. Chekashov , Dylan J. Slocki This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.space-phphysics.comp-ph

keywords solarsailthermaldesorptioninflatablespacecraftvehicletorusradiationpressureKuiperBeltheliocentricescapeorbitmembranevibration

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

The paper proposes an inflation-deployed torus-shaped solar sail whose reflective membrane carries a heat-sensitive coating, and argues that when the sail swoops near the Sun the coating thermally desorbs, delivering a short thrust burst that, together with solar radiation pressure, pushes the sail to 20-40 AU/year. The scenario runs in three phases: deploy the torus at perihelion, accelerate by thermal desorption plus solar radiation pressure for about 1500 seconds, then coast on radiation pressure alone. If the claim holds, Kuiper Belt Objects become reachable in 1-3 years and the Sun's gravity focus at 547 AU in 13-25 years, making a single bus able to deploy many cube-scale sails for multi-target exploration. The quantitative basis is a closed-form speed expression, Eq. (7), whose inputs include perihelion speed, coating mass ratio, and the thermal speed of the desorbed atoms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (7), $v_{\max} = v_p + \left(v_p - v_{\mathrm{th}} + \frac{kA}{r^2 m_0}\right) \frac{M_0}{\sigma A + M_t + M_P}$, which gives the maximum sail speed at the end of the coating's desorption. It combines the perihelion injection speed $v_p$, the thermal speed $v_{\mathrm{th}} = \sqrt{8 k_B T/(\pi m)}$ of desorbed atoms, the solar radiation pressure term $k/r^2$, and the ratio of coating mass to the remaining sail mass. Around this identity the paper wraps a structural analysis of the inflatable toroidal rim, membrane deflection and vibration under the desorption and radiation loads, and hydrogen diffusion through the beryllium shell, all aimed at showing the configuration is mechanically viable for the proposed parameters.

What would settle it

Measure, for any candidate coating at 735-1140 K, the mass of the desorbed species and the desorption rate; if the average molecular mass substantially exceeds 2 amu, the speeds in Table I drop below the quoted 20-40 AU/year and the hyperbolic escape margin at the 0.2-0.3 AU perihelia disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that this sail configuration yields high post-perihelion heliocentric velocities, between 20 and 40 AU/year for perihelion distances of 0.3 to 0.1 AU. For a 10-meter torus with a 300 $m^{2}$ beryllium membrane, 40 nm thick, a 1.5 kg coating desorbing at 1 g/s, and a 1.5 kg payload, Table I lists maximum post-desorption speeds of 133, 166, and 235 km/s for perihelia 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 AU, correspondingly. Those speeds make the post-desorption heliocentric orbit strongly hyperbolic, with eccentricities 1.01 to 5.26. The paper concludes that travel to Kuiper Belt Objects takes less than 1-3 years and the Sun's gravitational focus, at 547 AU, takes 13-25 years.

Load-bearing premise

The whole speed gain rests on the thermal speed of the desorbed atoms, yet the paper names no coating material and no molecular mass for the desorbed species, so reproducing the table's numbers requires the coat to desorb as nearly individual hydrogen atoms at 735-1140 K.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Post-perihelion heliocentric speeds of 20-40 AU/year become available for perihelion distances between 0.3 and 0.1 AU.
Transit to Kuiper Belt Objects drops to under 1-3 years, and the Sun's gravity focus at 547 AU becomes reachable in 13-25 years.
The desorption acceleration is a short burst, about 1500 seconds for 1.5 kg of coating at 1 g/s, so mission design can treat it like a near-perihelion kick.
The Jupiter slingshot is not essential: the paper states that reaching perihelion can be done in several ways.
A single interplanetary bus could sequentially deploy many cube-scale sails at perihelion, enabling multi-target Kuiper Belt exploration.

Reading between the lines

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

The speed formula shows the gain scales with $v_p$ times the coating-to-dry-mass ratio, so the perihelion speed matters as much as the desorption process itself; a close solar pass would help even with a modest $v_{\mathrm{th}}$.
Because no real coating is identified, the headline velocities are parameter envelopes rather than material-specific predictions; anchoring $v_{\mathrm{th}}$ to a measured desorbed-species mass is the most direct way to turn them into an engineering claim.
The membrane vibration analysis implies the sail surface oscillates after the desorption stops, which may affect thrust direction and pointing; a dynamics study coupling sail vibration to attitude would be a natural extension.
A small chip-scale demonstrator with a known coating could measure desorption thrust at 700-1200 K and test whether the assumed hydrogen-atom desorption is physically attainable.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new thing here is the system concept: an inflatable torus rim holding a flat membrane coated with a thermal-desorption material, plus the associated structural analysis. The geometry of the torus, the membrane deflection under combined TD and SRP loading, the vibration modes, the fill-gas pressure requirements, and the hydrogen diffusion loss through the beryllium shell are all standard mechanics treated carefully. That part reads well and would be a useful reference for anyone designing an inflatable torus sail.

The problem is the dynamics. Equation (1) writes F = d/dt(Mv), which is not the correct variable-mass equation of motion for a body ejecting mass. The right momentum balance is M dv/dt = m0 v_th + F_ext; there is no -m0 v term. The paper's Eq. (3) contains that spurious term, and Eq. (7) is its solution. Setting v_p = 0 and turning off SRP makes Eq. (7) predict v_max = -v_th M0/(non-coating mass) < 0. A sail starting at rest that throws mass backwards should accelerate forward. That unphysical limit alone tells you the equation is wrong. With the paper's parameters (v_th ≈ 4-5 km/s for atomic hydrogen at 735-1140 K, M0 = 1.5 kg, mass ratio ~0.8), the correct rocket equation gives Δv = v_th ln(1 + M0/D) ≈ 2.5-3.1 km/s. Table I's 60-106 km/s increments are therefore not real. The 20-42 AU/year cruise speeds and the Kuiper Belt travel times built on them collapse.

The eccentricity column in Table I is also internally inconsistent. The text says e = v_max^2 r_p / μ, but plugging in the first row's v_max = 133.23 km/s and r_p = 0.3 AU gives e ≈ 6, not 1.01. The last row happens to be closer, but the first two are way off. That suggests the e values were not computed from the stated formula.

The coating material is never named, and reproducing v_max requires desorbed species near atomic hydrogen. That is a secondary issue compared to the equation error.

Who is this for? Someone working on inflatable sail structures can still learn from the deployment and membrane analysis. But anyone citing it for the high post-perihelion speeds would be propagating a mistake. I would not bring it to reading group, and I would not cite the performance numbers. If it lands on your desk, send it to review with a request for major revision: the structural sections deserve refereeing, and a competent referee should catch the rocket equation issue. But as it stands, the central claim does not hold up.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a three-stage solar-sail architecture: an inflatable torus-shaped sail is deployed at a close perihelion, accelerated by thermal desorption (TD) of a coating plus solar radiation pressure, and then continues on SRP alone. It derives a variable-mass velocity equation, Eq. (7), and from it tabulates post-desorption speeds of 133–235 km/s for perihelia 0.3–0.1 AU, concluding that Kuiper Belt objects are reachable in 1–3 years and the Sun's gravity focus at 547 AU in 13–25 years. It also presents structural calculations for the toroidal rim, membrane deflection and vibration under TD and SRP, hydrogen fill-gas diffusion losses, and electrostatic-pressure alternatives.

Significance. If the central performance claim were correct, the proposed sail would be a significant step toward fast outer-solar-system access, and the paper's explicit three-stage mission architecture and tabulated predictions are useful for falsifiability. The membrane-deflection, vibration, and hydrogen-diffusion analyses are standard but competently set up, and the paper gives concrete geometry, masses, temperatures, and diffusion parameters. However, the headline velocities and all mission conclusions rest on Eq. (7), whose governing equation is not the correct variable-mass momentum balance; the corrected equation gives only a few km/s of TD gain. With that correction, the paper's main quantitative result and its KBO/gravity-focus claims do not follow, so the positive contribution is limited to the structural-deployment analysis, which is not the paper's central advertised result.

major comments (3)

[Section II, Eqs. (3) and (7)] The central velocity equation is not a correct variable-mass rocket equation. The paper writes F = d(Mv)/dt in Eq. (1), equates this to the desorption force dMc/dt vth plus SRP in Eq. (2), and derives Eq. (3). For a system that sheds mass with relative exhaust speed vth, momentum conservation gives M dv/dt = m0 vth + F_ext, with no term proportional to v; writing F = d(Mv)/dt and equating it to the physical forces double-counts the convective momentum flux of the ejected mass. Solving the corrected equation for the Section IV parameters gives a TD gain Δv = vth ln(1 + M0/(σA+Mt+MP)) of about 3 km/s for vth ≈ 4 km/s, not the 60–106 km/s increments in Table I. The internal inconsistency is visible by setting vp = 0 and F_ext = 0 in Eq. (7): the formula predicts vmax = −vth M0/(σA+Mt+MP) < 0, whereas momentum conservation requires a positive velocity increase. Because Table I and the Conclusions' 20–40 AU/yr and 13–25 yr gravity-focus travel times all rest on Eq. (7), this is a load-bearing error.
[Section IV, Table I] Independently of Eq. (7), the eccentricities in Table I are not consistent with the tabulated vmax and rp under standard orbital mechanics. For a velocity v at perihelion, e = |v^2 rp/μ − 1|. Using the table's values gives e ≈ 5.0 for rp = 0.3 AU (vmax = 133.23 km/s), e ≈ 5.2 for rp = 0.2 AU (vmax = 166.20 km/s), and e ≈ 5.2 for rp = 0.1 AU (vmax = 235.35 km/s), whereas the table lists 1.01, 2.12, and 5.26. The first two rows are therefore inconsistent with the hyperbolic-orbit interpretation, and the column cannot support the claimed escape trajectory as printed.
[Section II, Eq. (6); Section V] The thermal speed entering Eq. (7) is never anchored to a physical coating material. Equation (6) defines vth = sqrt(8kBT/(π m)), but the paper never specifies the coating material or the molecular mass m of the desorbed species. Reproducing Table I for the stated masses and temperatures requires vth values in the atomic-hydrogen range (approximately 4–7 km/s for the 0.3 AU and 0.1 AU rows with Mg = 0.2 kg), and no coating that desorbs as individual hydrogen atoms at 735–1140 K is named or referenced. The Conclusions themselves list 'detailed research on materials for thermal desorption' as future work, confirming that the quantitative performance claim is not tied to a real substance. This is a major missing support, although it is secondary to the Eq. (3) problem because even ideal atomic-hydrogen desorption gives only about 3 km/s under the correct rocket equation.

minor comments (4)

[Section III.A, Eq. (15)] The membrane area is given as A = 4(R−r)^2 in Eq. (15), but the sail is later modeled as a circular membrane of radius R−r, and Section IV uses A = 301.72 m^2 = π(R−r)^2 for R = 10 m, r = 0.2 m. These are inconsistent and affect the quoted membrane mass.
[Section III.B, Eq. (18)] The symbol r is used for both the torus tube radius and the heliocentric distance in Eq. (18) (p = k/r^2 + m0vth/A), which is confusing and makes the heliocentric dependence of the membrane deflection harder to follow.
[Abstract and Section IV] The abstract and introduction state that the stability of the torus-shaped sail and toroidal rim is studied, but Section IV says 'Dynamics of an inflated torus is beyond the scope of the present study.' The stability discussion is limited to comparing gas/electrostatic pressure with material tensile strength, not a modal or buckling stability analysis; the wording should be aligned with what is actually presented.
[Table I caption and Section IV] The definitions of the cruise speeds vc and vsc and of the yearly distances Dy and Dsy are not given; the reader cannot reproduce the AU/year entries from the stated vmax values and the SRP model. A brief formula or reference for the post-TD SRP propagation would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the velocity predictions follow from the paper's stated equations and parameters; the main concerns are physics correctness, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper derives the post-perihelion velocity vmax from a variable-mass equation of motion (Eqs. 1-3, 7). The derivation is algebraically self-contained: Eq. (7) is the solution of Eq. (3) with the stated initial condition v(0)=vp. No parameter is fitted to the headline speed; the input masses, temperatures, and vth are specified or can be inferred consistently from the thermal-desorption model. The self-citations [24-26] are used to justify neglecting solar radiation pressure during the brief desorption phase, a minor simplification that does not control the large velocity increments in Table I. The high vmax values are artifacts of the paper's variable-mass equation, which contains a spurious -Gv term compared to the standard rocket equation; that is a physical-modeling error, not a circular prediction. The coating material is not identified, so vth is not anchored to a real substance, but that is an incompleteness of input, not a circular reduction. No quantity is defined in terms of the predicted result, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing conclusion rests on self-citation alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are design choices for a specific mission scenario; the least supported is the desorbed molecular mass, which is never stated. The axioms are standard mechanical and thermodynamic assumptions, except the Maxwell-speed desorption assumption, which is load-bearing and unvalidated.

free parameters (6)

coating mass M0 = 1.5 kg
Chosen in Sec. IV for the mission scenario; directly sets the desorption time and the mass ratio in Eq. (7).
desorption rate m0 = 1 g/s
Chosen in Sec. IV; sets TD duration tD = 1500 s and the thrust level.
payload mass MP = 1.5 kg
Chosen in Sec. IV; enters the denominator of the velocity gain in Eq. (7).
hydrogen fill gas mass Mg = 0.2-0.5 kg
Varied in Sec. IV; sets torus pressure and membrane tension, and slightly changes the mass ratio.
torus geometry R, r, d = 10 m, 0.2 m, 40 nm
Design choices in Sec. IV; set sail area, mass, and hydrogen diffusion area.
desorbed molecular mass m = not stated; near 1 g/mol implied
Needed for vth in Eq. (6); the paper never names the coating. Table I implies values near the atomic-hydrogen limit.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The gas in the torus obeys the ideal gas law and undergoes an isochoric process.
Sec. III.C, Eqs. (22)-(23). Reasonable for a stiff torus but ignores pressure changes from deformation and diffusion.
domain assumption The torus has large aspect ratio R >> r, thin shell, and negligible deformation.
Sec. III.A, before Eq. (8). Justifies the simple torus geometry but is not verified for the 10 m/0.2 m configuration.
domain assumption The membrane is perfectly flexible, tension q is constant, and deflections are small enough to linearize.
Sec. III.B before Eq. (16). Standard membrane theory; appropriate for preliminary estimates.
domain assumption Desorbed atoms leave normal to the surface with Maxwellian thermal speed vth = sqrt(8 k_B T / (pi m)).
Sec. II, Eq. (6). This is the key propulsion assumption; no material is specified to support it.
domain assumption Fick's first law with negligible temperature gradient describes hydrogen loss through the beryllium shell.
Sec. III.C, Eqs. (25)-(27). The temperature gradient is asserted small without calculation.
domain assumption The Sun and planets are point-like and the post-desorption orbit is described by two-body mechanics.
Sec. IV, first paragraph of the preliminary analysis.
domain assumption The TD acceleration acts instantaneously at perihelion, so gravitational losses during the 1500 s burn are neglected.
Sec. II, Eq. (7) and Table I; vmax is added to vp at the perihelion without trajectory integration.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inflation deployed torus-shaped solar sail accelerated via thermal desorption of coating." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GV6TCJM6

@misc{pith2026190806761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inflation deployed torus-shaped solar sail accelerated via thermal desorption of coating},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GV6TCJM6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06761}
}

read the original abstract

A torus-shaped sail consists of a reflective membrane attached to an inflatable torus-shaped rim. The sail's deployment from its stowed configuration is initiated by introducing inflation pressure into the toroidal rim with an attached circular flat membrane coated by heat-sensitive materials that undergo thermal desorption (TD) from a solid to a gas phase. Our study of the deployment and acceleration of the sail is split into three steps: at a particular heliocentric distance a torus-shaped sail is deployed by a gas inflated into the toroidal rim and the membrane is kept flat by the pressure of the gas; under heating by solar radiation, the membrane coat undergoes TD and the sail is accelerated via TD of coating and solar radiation pressure (SRP); when TD ends, the sail utilizes thrust only from SRP. We study the stability of the torus-shaped sail and deflection and vibration of the flat membrane due to the acceleration by TD and SRP. The stability of the toroidal rim is addressed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06761 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Deflection of the membrane due to solar radiation (left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (Color online) Dynamics of the vibrating membrane. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Color online) 3D dynamics of the vibrating membrane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Temperature dependence of hydrogen fl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

E. N. Polyakhova, Kosmicheskii Polet s Solnechnim Parus om (Space Solar Sailing) ( in Russian) Moscow, Nauka, 1986

work page 1986
[2]

C. R. McInnes, Solar Sailing - Technology, Dynamics and M ission Applications. Springer, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, 1999

work page 1999
[3]

G. L. Matloﬀ, Deep Space Probes: To the Outer Solar System and Beyond. Springer/Praxis Books, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

Vulpetti, L

G. Vulpetti, L. Johnson, G. L. Matloﬀ, Solar Sails - A Nove l Approach to Interplanetary Travel. Copernicus Books, 2008

work page 2008
[5]

J. M. Fernandez, V. J. Lappas, A. J. Daton-Lovett, Comple tely stripped solar sail concept using bi-stable reeled composite booms. Acta Astronautica 69, 78–85 (2011)

work page 2011
[6]

Boschetto, L

A. Boschetto, L. Bottini, G. Costanza, and M. E. Tata, Sha pe memory activated self-deployable solar sails: small-scale prototypes manufacturing and planarity analy sis by 3D laser scanner, Actuators 8, 38 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

Boschetto, L

A. Boschetto, L. Bottini, G. Costanza, and M. E. Tata, A no vel self-deployable solar sail system activated by shape memory alloys, Aerospace 6, 78 (2019)

work page 2019
[8]

G. F. Pezditz, Erectanle space structures-ECHO Satelli tes, NASA N62-12545, 1962

work page 1962

Show all 38 references

[9]

R. E. Freeland, G. D. Bilyeu, G. R. Veal, M. D. Steiner, and D. E. Carson, Large Inﬂatable Deployable Antenna Flight Experiment Results, Acta Astronautica, 41, 267-277 (1997)

1997
[10]

Cadogan, J

D. Cadogan, J. Stein, and M. Grahne, Inﬂatable composit e habitat structures for lunar and mars exploration, Acta Astronautica, 44, 399–406 (1999)

1999
[11]

L. M. Leigh and M. L. Tinker, Dynamic characterization o f an inﬂatable concentrator for solar thermal propulsion, J. Spacecraft and Rocket, 40, 24–27 (2003). 14

2003
[12]

K. B. Smalley, M. L. Tinker, and W. S. Taylor, Structural modeling of a ﬁve-meter thin-ﬁlm inﬂatable antenna/concentrator, J. Spacecraft and Rocket, 40, 27–29 (2003)

2003
[13]

Strobl, The hollow-body solar sail, JBIS, 42, 515–520 (1989)

J. Strobl, The hollow-body solar sail, JBIS, 42, 515–520 (1989)

1989
[14]

Strobl, The hollow-body solar sail as a transporter o f a Radio Telescope, JBIS 47, 67–70 (1994)

J. Strobl, The hollow-body solar sail as a transporter o f a Radio Telescope, JBIS 47, 67–70 (1994)

1994
[15]

G. L. Matloﬀ, The beryllium hollow-body solar sail and i nterstellar travel, JBIS 59 349–354 (2006)

2006
[16]

R. Ya. Kezerashvili and G. L. Matloﬀ, Solar radiation an d the beryllium hollow-body sail: 1. The ionization and disintegration eﬀects, JBIS 60, 169–179 (2007)

2007
[17]

R. Ya. Kezerashvili and G. L. Matloﬀ, Solar radiation an d the beryllium hollow-body sail: 2. Diﬀusion, recombination and erosion processes, JBIS 61 47-57 (2008)

2008
[18]

Genta and E

G. Genta and E. Brusa, The parachute sail with hydrostat ic beam: a new concept for solar sailing. Acta Astronautica 44, 133–140 (1999)

1999
[19]

M. B. Quadrelli and J. West, Sensitivity studies of the s eployment of a square inﬂatable solar sail with vanes, Acta Astronautica 65, 1007–1027 (2009)

2009
[20]

Hayn, The orbital torus solar sail vehicle (ORTOSS: O rbitaler Torus Sonnensegler), Luft und Raumfahrt, 11, 34–36 (1990)

D. Hayn, The orbital torus solar sail vehicle (ORTOSS: O rbitaler Torus Sonnensegler), Luft und Raumfahrt, 11, 34–36 (1990)

1990
[21]

Benford and J

G. Benford and J. Benford, Acceleration of sails by ther mal desorption of coatings, Acta Astronautica 56, 593–599 (2005)

2005
[22]

Benford and J

G. Benford and J. Benford, Desorption assisted sun dive r missions. AIP Conf. Proc. 608, 462–469 (2002)

2002
[23]

R. Ya. Kezerashvili, Acta Astronautica 117, 231–237 (2015)

2015
[24]

Ancona and R.Ya

E. Ancona and R.Ya. Kezerashvili, Orbital dynamics of a solar sail accelerated by thermal desorption of coatings, arXiv:1609.03131(2016) [physics.space-ph]; I AC 67, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2016, Paper ID: 32480

2016 arXiv
[25]

Ancona and R.Ya

E. Ancona and R.Ya. Kezerashvili, Extrasolar space exp loration by a solar sail accelerated via thermal desorption of coating, Advances Space Research 63, 2021–2034 (2019)

2019
[26]

Ancona, R.Ya

E. Ancona, R.Ya. Kezerashvili, and G. L. Matloﬀ, Explor ing the Kuiper Belt with sun-diving solar sails, Acta Astronautica 160, 601–605 (2019)

2019
[27]

Kraus, Thin Elastic Shells

H. Kraus, Thin Elastic Shells. Wiley, New York 1967

1967
[28]

Ruggiero, G

E. Ruggiero, G. T. Bonnema, D. J. Inman, Application of S ISO and MIMO modal analysis techniques on a membrane mirror satellites. In: Proc. of 2003 ASME Int. Mech . Eng. Cong. and Exp., Aerospace Division, Washington, DC, November 2003, pp. 63–69, 2003

2003
[29]

S. C. Gajbhiye, S. H. Upadhyay, and S. P. Harsha, Finite e lement analysis of an inﬂatable torus considering air mass structural element, Advances Space Research 53, 163–173 (2014)

2014
[30]

Liu and W

F. Liu and W. He Eﬀect of internal gas on modal analysis of space-inﬂatable structure, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 52, 1258–1262 (2015)

2015
[31]

Suzuki, I

T. Suzuki, I. Yonenaga and H. O. K. Kirchner, Yield stren gth of diamond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3470 – 3472 (1995)

1995
[32]

Metals Handbook

H. E. Boyer and T. L. Gall, Editors, “Metals Handbook”, A merican Society of Metals, Metals Park, OH, 1985

1985
[33]

Fick, Phil

A. Fick, Phil. Mag., 10, 30 (1855)
[34]

Ancona and R.Ya

E. Ancona and R.Ya. Kezerashvili, Temperature restric tions for materials used in aerospace industry for the near-Sun orbits, Acta Astronautica 140 (2017) 565–569

2017
[35]

P. M. S. Jones and R. Gibson, Hydrogen in beryllium, J. Nu cl. Mater. 21, 353-354, 1967

1967
[36]

I. L. Tazhibaeva, V. P. Shestakov, E. V. Chikhray et al., Proc. 18th Symp. Fus. Technol., 22-26 August, Karlsruhe, Fus. Technol. p.427, 1994

1994
[37]

R. A. Causey, Hydrogen Isotope retention and recycling in fusion reactor plasma-facing components, J. Nucl. Mater. 300, 91–117 (2002)

2002
[38]

A. S. Chekashov, O. L. Starinova, B. Alipova, I. V. Gorbu nova, Modeling of solar sail surface oscillations during interplanetary ﬂight, J. Physics: Conf. Ser. 1096, 012064 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

E. N. Polyakhova, Kosmicheskii Polet s Solnechnim Parus om (Space Solar Sailing) ( in Russian) Moscow, Nauka, 1986

work page 1986

[2] [2]

C. R. McInnes, Solar Sailing - Technology, Dynamics and M ission Applications. Springer, Praxis Publishing, Chichester, 1999

work page 1999

[3] [3]

G. L. Matloﬀ, Deep Space Probes: To the Outer Solar System and Beyond. Springer/Praxis Books, 2005

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Vulpetti, L

G. Vulpetti, L. Johnson, G. L. Matloﬀ, Solar Sails - A Nove l Approach to Interplanetary Travel. Copernicus Books, 2008

work page 2008

[5] [5]

J. M. Fernandez, V. J. Lappas, A. J. Daton-Lovett, Comple tely stripped solar sail concept using bi-stable reeled composite booms. Acta Astronautica 69, 78–85 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Boschetto, L

A. Boschetto, L. Bottini, G. Costanza, and M. E. Tata, Sha pe memory activated self-deployable solar sails: small-scale prototypes manufacturing and planarity analy sis by 3D laser scanner, Actuators 8, 38 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Boschetto, L

A. Boschetto, L. Bottini, G. Costanza, and M. E. Tata, A no vel self-deployable solar sail system activated by shape memory alloys, Aerospace 6, 78 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [8]

G. F. Pezditz, Erectanle space structures-ECHO Satelli tes, NASA N62-12545, 1962

work page 1962