NASA studying ways to make 'tractor beams' a reality

October 31, 2011

NASA studying ways to make 'tractor beams' a reality

Enlarge

NASA Goddard laser experts (from left to right) Barry Coyle, Paul Stysley and Demetrios Poulios have won NASA funding to study advanced technologies for collecting extraterrestrial particle samples. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Debora McCallum

Tractor beams -- the ability to trap and move objects using laser light -- are the stuff of science fiction, but a team of NASA scientists has won funding to study the concept for remotely capturing planetary or atmospheric particles and delivering them to a robotic rover or orbiting spacecraft for analysis.

The NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) has awarded Principal Investigator Paul Stysley and team members Demetrios Poulios and Barry Coyle at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., $100,000 to study three experimental methods for corralling particles and transporting them via to an instrument -- akin to a vacuum using suction to collect and transport dirt to a canister or bag. Once delivered, an instrument would then characterize their composition.

"Though a mainstay in science fiction, and in particular, laser-based trapping isn't fanciful or beyond current technological know-how," Stysley said. The team has identified three different approaches for transporting particles, as well as single molecules, viruses, , and fully functioning cells, using the power of light.

"The original thought was that we could use tractor beams for cleaning up ," Stysley said. "But to pull something that huge would be almost impossible -- at least now. That's when it bubbled up that perhaps we could use the same approach for sample collection."

With the Phase-1 funding from OCT's recently reestablished NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program designed to spur the development of "revolutionary" space technologies, the team will study the state of the technology to determine which of the three techniques would apply best to sample collection. OCT received hundreds of proposals, ultimately selecting only 30 for initial funding.

Replace Current Sample-Collection Methods

Currently, NASA uses a variety of techniques to collect extraterrestrial samples. With Stardust, a launched in 1999, the Agency used aerogel to gather samples as it flew through the coma of comet Wild 2. A capsule returned the samples in 2006. NASA's next rover to Mars, Curiosity, will drill and scoop samples from the Martian surface and then carry out detailed analyses of the materials with one of the rover's many onboard instruments, including the Goddard-built Sample Analysis at Mars instrument suite.

NASA studying ways to make 'tractor beams' a reality
Enlarge

Goddard technologists are studying different techniques for corralling particles and transporting them via laser light to instruments on rovers and orbiting spacecraft. Credit: Concept image courtesy Dr. Paul Stysley

"These techniques have proven to be largely successful, but they are limited by high costs and limited range and sample rate," Stysley said. "An optical–trapping system, on the other hand, could grab desired molecules from the upper atmosphere on an orbiting spacecraft or trap them from the ground or lower atmosphere from a lander. In other words, they could continuously and remotely capture particles over a longer period of time, which would enhance science goals and reduce mission risk."

Team to Study Three Approaches

One experimental approach the team plans to study -- the optical vortex or "optical tweezers" method -- involves the use of two counter-propagating beams of light. The resulting ring-like geometry confines particles to the dark core of the overlapping beams. By alternately strengthening or weakening the intensity of one of the light beams -- in effect heating the air around the trapped particle -- researchers have shown in laboratory testing that they can move the particle along the ring's center. This technique, however, requires the presence of an atmosphere.

Another technique employs optical solenoid beams -- those whose intensity peaks spiral around the axis of propagation. Testing has shown that the approach can trap and exert a force that drives particles in the opposite direction of the light-beam source. In other words, the particulate matter is pulled back along the entire beam of light. Unlike the optical vortex method, this technique relies solely on electromagnetic effects and could operate in a space vacuum, making it ideal for studying the composition of materials on one of the airless planetary moons, for example.

The third technique exists only on paper and has never been demonstrated in the laboratory, Poulios said. It involves the use of a Bessel beam. Normal laser beams when shined against a wall appear as a small point. With Bessel beams, however, rings of light surround the central dot. In other words, when seen straight on, the Bessel beam looks like the ripples surrounding a pebble dropped in a pond. According to theory, the laser beam could induce electric and magnetic fields in the path of an object. The spray of light scattered forward by these fields could pull the object backward, against the movement of the beam itself.

"We want to make sure we thoroughly understand these methods. We have hope that one of these will work for our purposes," Coyle said. "Once we select a technique, we will be in position to then formulate a possible system" and compete for additional NIAC funding to advance the technology to the next level of development. "We're at the starting gate on this," Coyle added. "This is a new application that no one has claimed yet."

Provided by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center search and more info website

4.3 /5 (21 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Isaacsname
Oct 31, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Bessel beams and X-waves sound pretty interesting. The optical vortex method sounds really dang cool too. I wonder could they vaporize material with the inner beam as well ?
kaasinees
Oct 31, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I hope the Bessel beam works out, it could be adapted to so many things.
CapitalismPrevails
Oct 31, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (9)
The closest thing we have to a tractor beam today is quantum levitation. Look at this cool video:
http://www.youtub...pp_video
xznofile
Oct 31, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
that's fine for dust in a vacuum but will it work on a Klingon vessel under power.
_nigmatic10
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Create a cylindrical laser and create a vacuum in the center... just an idea. Could be something for space based application.
electrodynamic
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
You could collect the surrounding dust, perhaps melting that material together to make small pellets, you could then launch these small pellets at space junk knocking it out of orbit.
A solar powered motor could launch the little pellets etc.
hush1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (9)
Congratulations. Kudos.
What a wonderful way to clear all the debris from all the orbitals. What a wonderful way to fulfill any and all Design for Demise requirements.

What a wonderful way to dupe the public with faux science and still place anything to your heart's desire in orbit without a single successful plan to deal with the demise.

What a wonderful way to appease to buy time until the 'project' is declared not doable. Duping a la NASA.
MarkyMark
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Hush1 come back when you have evidence for your whacky conspiracy thories concerning the secret Stalin controlled world goverment or whatever it is you belive in.
hush1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
MarkyMark
It is impossible to give you a reply to whatever you stated.
You have to make sense first.
powerup1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
@hush1. I don't understand why someone with a world view like the you have would bother to come to a site like this in the first place. You should be watching a Alax Jones video or something. :-D
Arx_Ferrum
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
The insults and attacks on this website are horrible. Why do we do this to complete strangers? Why are we forcing laws to restrict free speech on the internet?
hush1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
Powerup1
I never owned or had a video recorder or TV.
I will conjecture that is why you don't understand.
Anything.
:P
arri_guy
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
I check physorg every morning (except Sunday) along with CNN, BBC, etc., and I depend on it to stay abreast of developments in the sciences. I have to agree with Arx Ferrum about the insults and attacks: totally unnecessary and inapropriate. Since I also agree about the internet as an uncensored public forum, I suggest that the nut cases go to craigslist/rants and raves instead of here. Please.
bluehigh
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (15)
Then read the articles and ignore the comments, you thin skinned, narrow minded twit. Do you think you have a monopoly on sanity and what constitutes a 'nutcase' or not. In the real world people do disagree, sometimes strongly and you might be better off using the nature of the comments to assess the character of the contributors. Me? I just don't like your morally superior attitude. Piss off.

bluehigh
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
I do like the word 'abreast' though. It sounds so enticing and may be related to 'attractor' beams.
hush1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
lol
Curves or bust for me.
Although someone had the initiative to correct me:
Curves and bust.
At that point, I ask for a draw and we were drew in agreement.
hush1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
"...we drew in agreement" (Without the typo "were".)
It's chess (chest?) talk - for the uninitiated.
bluehigh
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
The FSM says ..

'Use a narrow directed curvature intensity beam (or give the curve potential a twist) and stuff comes to you. All this mucking about with photons, how quaint.'

'.. and the Unicorn wants a word with Ethelred about God'.

I plead with it to stop confusing me.

The FSM grunts and tells me 'don't doubt just because you don't understand, after all you still believe the Universe can be quantified'.

'Who moved my cheese'.
Ethelred
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
The insults and attacks on this website are horrible
I agree. They are SO badly done. No skill at all. Completely without style or wit.

Why do we do this to complete strangers?
Why ask a question when already know the answer.

Why are we forcing laws to restrict free speech on the Internet?
We aren't. And such a law would have no effect in the US. The Supreme Court would knock it down as it has done many times already.

Sorry I am presently unable to produce a worthy insult. Perhaps if you were to make a much stupider post I would be inspired. This is the best I can do:

For a first post that was mediocre. No passion, only a boring rant coupled with an unneeded question. First posts should have some passion. Many first posts have been directed at me for savaging deserving Cranks so I know passion when I see it. There was no spittle, no self-contradictory statements, no bizarre non-sequitors just one silly question which contained the answer.

Ethelred
Ethelred
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (6)
Unicorn wants a word with Ethelred about God'.
The Unicorn can stand in line. Right behind Ken Hamm.

Now that post had non-sequitors anyway. I wasn't even on this thread when it was written.

I think that Hush is causing brain damage.

Ethelred
SteveL
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I can't help but wonder how much energy in is required to get how much "attractive" force out, and additionally: What is the maximum potential "attractive" force anyhow? Will it be strong enough to counter 1G, 1.5G? or what?
hush1
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
lol Ethelred
An overreaching conclusion. It pains me to read some comments. I take pains to understand. Painstaking are the attempts to understand you all. The attempts harm me not. I remain unscathed. No self damaged done. Besides, in an imperfect world, healing makes sense.

lol Bluehigh.
Bill Nemo
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Everyone gets so excited about these potential SF to actual effect articles.

Just because you can demonstrate some effect at a quantum level doesn't mean it will scale up to a real life level.
ProfessorDJinn
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (5)
Bill, while I may agree in part with your sentiment, things like optical tweezers have been around almost 20 years. Laser manipulation of atoms and molecules continues to progress. It is possible to trap and manipulate dust sized particles.

However the engineer in me would like to see a cost/benefit analysis. The article makes the point that a system like this could be used continuously, the 'infinite ammo' argument. But is it really better than say, a scoop, on the Martian surface? Or for instance an aerogel trap in the vacuum of space? Perhaps the specific targeting of individual dust particles is desirable. But it feels unnecessarily complex.
Nerdyguy
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
The insults and attacks on this website are horrible. Why do we do this to complete strangers? Why are we forcing laws to restrict free speech on the internet?


Exactly which laws would those be? And, btw, I agree with everything else you said.
Gawad
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
Then read the articles and ignore the comments, you thin skinned, narrow minded twit. Do you think you have a monopoly on sanity and what constitutes a 'nutcase' or not. In the real world people do disagree, sometimes strongly and you might be better off using the nature of the comments to assess the character of the contributors. Me? I just don't like your morally superior attitude. Piss off.

While it's true that one could just go about reading the articles and ignoring the comments, arri_guy's comment isn't completely without merit as the comment section does, in theory, have the *potential* to provive readers with additional, useful insights into the content of the articles. However, as the % of posts of dubious value increases in any forum, it becomes harder and harder to justify spending time to fish out interesting posts, leading a lot of worthwhile contributors to drop out, in turn leading to a network effect where the signal to noise ratio goes to almost all noise.
Gawad
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
It's not just about various people vigourously expressing strong differences of opinion. Lord knows physics is full of researchers treating each other like assholes (though this seems to have gotten much worse since the rise of string theory, but I digress). It's about the problem of "equal time" being given to notions that really are insane and without merit (no evidence). And at some point, if no one in charge puts their foot down to curb the worst abuses /the only things left on these forums are going to be the ones contributed by the nutcases and the insane./ I think it's especially worth bringing up because over the last few months Physorg admins seem to have completely abdicated the enforcement of their own rules regarding cranking and religous & creationist postings.

Of course, contenting ourselves with just reading the articles remains an option, but what a pity that someone 'reasonable' might avoid interations with other readers because the forum has become so acidic in tone.
Bill Nemo
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Prof:

You misconstrue.

As an engineer, my objection is to making a jump from a small advance in technology to these Star Trek technologies as being very presumptuous.

I will admit that there have been some advances that are not beyond possibility, like the personal communicator (cellphone), medical scanner (MRI, CATSCAN, et al), data tablet (i pad), etc. All these are were advances that logically would seem to be predictable in some form or other.

Occasionally, you get a surprise - like transparent aluminum.

However, there is a great difference between gathering space dust and locking on to a 2 ton defunct satellite.

Much as many of us like Star Trek, what I object to are huge editorial jumps from lab parlor tricks to hard technology, very early in the game.

freflyte
Nov 01, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
We already have this tractor beam technology fully developed... it is called Washington DC.
SteveL
Nov 03, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
We already have this tractor beam technology fully developed... it is called Washington DC.

It sucks in money and and resources and extrudes crap.
Bill Nemo
Nov 04, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
On the macro level, you would need to use some combination of tractor and "pressor" beams to handle objects safely and with stability, as pointed our by Robert Heinlein (who was an engineer, in his 1941 novel, The Day After Tomorrow (Sixth Column).

If you didn't have this combination, you would draw the object you were manipulating right into the tractor beam projector.

So even if you could come up with a tractor beam to use on a macro level, it would also be necessary to develop a "pressor" beam to use the tractor beam properly.

It would be the "negative feedback" required for a stable system.

This would be mandatory for "towing" an object instead of merely drawing in (or collecting) objects.

hush1
Nov 05, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Built 'only' for 'draw in', take the air fiction and/or resistance for granted as a "negative feedback". Not accurate at all with varying density - just enough to get the orbital junk intact back.
MorituriMax
Nov 05, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
So, basically our planet will only ever be able to develop technology described in the better science fiction stories?
hush1
Nov 05, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
If that were true, then 'junk' never had a meaning.
CHollman82
Nov 05, 2011

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
Then read the articles and ignore the comments, you thin skinned, narrow minded twit. Do you think you have a monopoly on sanity and what constitutes a 'nutcase' or not. In the real world people do disagree, sometimes strongly and you might be better off using the nature of the comments to assess the character of the contributors. Me? I just don't like your morally superior attitude. Piss off.


In the real world decent people don't act like you because they would never be taken seriously by anyone or in any line of work and would end up in poverty due to their inability to productively correspond with others of differing opinion.
bluehigh
Nov 05, 2011

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (12)
@CHollman

Again you choose to be negatively combative. Among my many failings is that I can hold a grudge indefinitely.

Perhaps if you stop framing your opinions as fact and ceased just being contradictory then you might acquire some social skills in your sad lonely little life.

As for poverty and inability to be productive - once again, these are things of which you would be familiar.

CHollman82
Nov 05, 2011

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (11)
@CHollman

Again you choose to be negatively combative. Among my many failings is that I can hold a grudge indefinitely.

Perhaps if you stop framing your opinions as fact and ceased just being contradictory then you might acquire some social skills in your sad lonely little life.

As for poverty and inability to be productive - once again, these are things of which you would be familiar.



I was merely pointing out how juvenile your behavior is and that it was ironically a perfect example of what the poster you were replying to was talking about in the first place.

You've demonstrated my point yet again, and for that I thank you.
SteveL
Nov 07, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I suppose to some calling another a "thin skinned, narrow minded twit" is not in their perception "negatively combative" - as long as it is them directing such comments towards another.

Personally I'd also prefer to see a bit more civility on open forums. But as we are only accountable for our own actions not those of another the ability to ignore some posts can be useful.
Rank 4.3 /5 (21 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Water flow question
    created3 hours ago
  • [Drift velocity] Factors affecting velocity
    created6 hours ago
  • does cold gasoline have less energy
    created7 hours ago
  • distribution of molecules throughout the atmosphere
    created9 hours ago
  • The Global Positioning System !
    created10 hours ago
  • A Question relating Power
    created11 hours ago
  • More from Physics Forums - General Physics

More news stories

Is a classical electrodynamics law incompatible with special relativity?

(Phys.org) -- The laws of classical electromagnetism that were developed in the 19th century are the same laws that scientists use today. They include Maxwell’s four equations along with the Lorentz la ...

Physics / General Physics

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 4.7 / 5 (17) | comments 43 | with audio podcast feature

Landmark calculation clears the way to answering how matter is formed

(Phys.org) -- An international collaboration of scientists, including Thomas Blum, associate professor of physics, is reporting in landmark detail the decay process of a subatomic particle called a kaon – ...

Physics / General Physics

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (22) | comments 51 | with audio podcast

Lying in wait for WIMPs: Researchers seek to dramatically increase sensitivity of Large Underground Xenon detector

Although it's invisible, dark matter accounts for at least 80 percent of the matter in the universe. No one knows what it is, but most scientists would bet on weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.

Physics / General Physics

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 4 / 5 (7) | comments 15 | with audio podcast

Hawaii lab turns laser-powered bubbles into microrobots

(Phys.org) -- A team of scientists from the University of Hawaii are working on microrobots created from bubbles of air in a saline solution. The bubbles take on their title of “robots” as a laser ...

Physics / General Physics

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (4) | comments 2 | with audio podcast weblog

Sound increases the efficiency of boiling

Scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology achieved a 17-percent increase in boiling efficiency by using an acoustic field to enhance heat transfer. The acoustic field does this by efficiently removing vapor bubbles ...

Physics / Soft Matter

created May 24, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 2


'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries

Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...

T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows

By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...

Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture

When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases – and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if – it will be an expensive undertaking.

Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study

At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...

Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy

Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...

Same gene that stunts infants' growth also makes them grow too big: research

UCLA geneticists have identified the mutation responsible for IMAGe* syndrome, a rare disorder that stunts infants' growth. The twist? The mutation occurs on the same gene that causes Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, which makes ...