The present invention relates generally to the field of spacecraft launch, in particular the problem of cost per kilogram of mass delivered to orbital heights.
Generally, to get mass into orbit a large, expensive spacecraft is employed, at costs of at least $10,000 USD per kilogram of mass delivered into orbit.
An alternative called the space elevator was proposed at the end of the 19th century. This concept uses a cable or tether anchored to the surface of the earth and extending into space. This permits payloads to attain orbit without the use of large rockets. The competing forces of gravity, which is stronger at the lower end, and the outward/upward centrifugal force, which is stronger at the upper end, would result in the cable being held up, under tension, and stationary over a single position on Earth. With the tether deployed, climbers could repeatedly climb the tether to space by mechanical means, releasing their cargo to orbit. Climbers could also descend the tether to return cargo to the surface from orbit.
Early designs used tall structures in compression, which are conceptually identical to extremely tall buildings. In contrast modern designs for space elevators have focused on purely tensile structures, with the weight of the system held up from above by centrifugal forces. In the tensile concepts, a space tether reaches from a large mass (the counterweight) beyond geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like an upside-down plumb bob. In both cases (compression and tension) extreme materials requirements have relegated the space elevator to the realm of intriguing fantasy; no known materials can hold their own weight at the required height, for either case.
The invention is an implementation of the space elevator wherein an inflatable tube is held up by the force of wind rushing through it from surface to height, in the manner of the ‘inflatable dancer’ used for advertisments. Since the device is neither in tension nor compression, the materials requirements are relaxed. The force of the internal air stream against the interior wall of the tube keeps it from falling, and thus the extreme and practically unattainable requirements of other designs are avoided.
Other embodiments of the invention employ a variation of the principle of ‘David's Sling’ whereby a rotating body may accumulate rotational velocity over a long time period, eventually achieving sufficient velocity to significantly offset the requirements for orbital insertion. In this variation bodies along and at the radial end of a cable are provided with an aerodynamic profile adapted to produce lift, such that as the body rotates around a central axis the radial end is lifted. As the cable and body rotate about the central axis, the cable is paid out thereby reducing centrifugal acceleration to an arbitrary degree. Meanwhile the lifting body will rise higher and higher as its tangential velocity increases. In this manner the lifting body may be raised to an arbitrary height despite the axis being located on the ground.
The foregoing embodiments of the invention have been described and illustrated in conjunction with systems and methods thereof, which are meant to be merely illustrative, and not limiting. Furthermore just as every particular reference may embody particular methods/systems, yet not require such, ultimately such teaching is meant for all expressions notwithstanding the use of particular embodiments.
Embodiments and features of the present invention are described herein in conjunction with the following drawings:
The present invention will be understood from the following detailed description of preferred embodiments, which are meant to be descriptive and not limiting. For the sake of brevity, some well-known features, methods, systems, procedures, components, circuits, and so on, are not described in detail.
The invention consists of a system and method for sending objects into orbit by means of a ‘space elevator’ or tower upon which objects may be lifted into orbit. The elevator in this case consists of an inflatable tube. To lift objects, they may for instance crawl up the outer surface of the tube. Since the propulsion in this case is simple mechanical travel and not a chemical rocket, the speeds may be minimal and the wasted energy minimal as well; in the case of a chemical rocket a large proportion of the mass to be lifted is simply fuel, while in the case of a crawler nearly all the mass may be payload.
One common application is to put objects into low-earth orbit LEO , for instance at a height of 100 km. In the following we examine some aspects of the invention.
As the velocity of a fluid increases, its pressure decreases, all other things being equal. As the height increases the sum of pressure and a function of velocity decrease, all this being summed up in the Bernoulli equation.
Conservation of mass at steady state means that
ρ1V1A1=ρ2V2A2
for any two points along the length of the tube.
For h=100 km and assuming A1=A2:
and using conservation of mass ρ1V1=ρ2V2and assuming zero pressure at the outlet, P2=0
A relation between density and pressure is given through the ideal gas law
P=ρRT
which gives
If we further assume there is negligible velocity at the outlet, we have
The definition of force is:
F
total
/v
mol
=ρa=F
g
/v
mol
+dP/dh=dP/dh−ρg
where v_mol is the average volume per molecule. from which the barometric formula for density of the earth's atmosphere is derived, by setting F_total=0.
Either the velocity must change, or the factor P/rho must change with height, or some combination. Lets take the first two cases:
In the first case, where velocity is changing, the skin friction on which the system relies will change with height.
The velocity difference is:
If the outlet (top) velocity is negligible then the inlet (bottom) velocity is ˜1400 m/s or mach 4. The top velocity is not negligible, and this may be used to impart orbital speed to the cargo. At these heights there is little to no air friction, only mechanical friction, so the orbital velocity that can be imparted is considerable.
An example of one embodiment for imparting angular or rotational motion to object is shown in
To continue with examination of the tower itself:
The shear from skin friction is
while shear stemming from viscosity is
where mu is viscosity and dV/dx is the change in velocity with distance towards the center of the tube.
If the diameter of the tube is d, the tube material density is rho (e.g. 1.5 g/cm3 for plastic) and wall thickness is t (for example 5 mm) then the mass relates to area as m=A*t*ρ and thus the force required is
If we take a skin friction coefficient C then this fixes the velocity, eg for C=0.005
V
2=2/0.005*0.005m*1500kg/m3*10m/s2=30000→V=173m/s
This doesnt fit the initial ground velocity but a. we could vary the surface roughness and b. we could change the pipe diameter, large at ground and small at 100 km.
In the following table we show a set of required flow velocities for different surface roughnesses, to attain a constant force per area on the tube surface such that it is held in place.
This requires an unreasonably low friction factor at the bottom of the tube and therefore the velocity would have to be decreased, for instance by increasing the diameter at the bottom.
Assuming the problem above can be addressed there is another practical problem namely the ‘side force’ from winds on the tube. One standard used in wind engineering is the Hellman formula (a polynomial)
V(h)=V10(h/h10)α
The total force on a column of height H will then be
F=ρA*C
d
*V
2
Using the drag coefficicent perpendicular to a cylinder of 0.3 we get , using A=d*dh for a cylinder of diameter d and height element dh:
F
tot=∫10100000ρd*Cd*V2dH
the air here is the external air which varies with height according to ρ=ρ0exp(−h/H) with H=10.4 km. Solving this we get
Note however that the wind speed formula is probably valid only for relatively low heights, and jetstreams at ˜10 km may have to be taken into account.
In any case the side force of at least 10 tons would have to be resisted by the device.
To deal with this side force, there are several possible approaches.
One possibility is to use a noncircular profile for the tube, as shown in
An illustration of one possible solution to the problem of side force is shown in
The initial velocity, which will apparently be somewhere 170 m/s and 1400 m/s, has to be supplied by forcing air into the tube, which will require a minimum of energy proportional to the mass flow. The diameter of the tube and initial density will determine the mass flow,
m/t=ρV A
The power required to get this mass to speed is
P=½m/tV2=½ρV3A
If for instance we take the lower figure of 140 m/s for velocity, a tube diameter of 10 m, and atmospheric air density of 1 kg/m∧3, this comes to 100 MW.
The power to get a kilogram into orbit will depend on how fast it needs to get there. An energy of mgh is required to get the mass to height h, so for 1kg at 100 km this is 10∧6 J. If a day's journey is ok then this only takes 11 W, negligible compared to the power required to keep the tube inflated.
To achieve a significant insertion velocity, cables may be paid out from the central tower of the device as shown in
Other embodiments of the invention employ a variation of the principle of ‘David's Sling’ whereby a rotating body may accumulate rotational velocity over a long time period, eventually achieving sufficient velocity to significantly offset the requirements for orbital insertion. In this variation a body at the radial end of a cable is provided with an aerodynamic profile adapted to produce lift, such that as the body rotates around a central axis the radial end is lifted. As the cable and body rotate about the central axis, the cable is paid out thereby reducing centrifugal acceleration to an arbitrary degree. Meanwhile the lifting body will rise higher and higher as its tangential velocity increases. In this manner the lifting body may be raised to an arbitrary height despite the axis being located on the ground. Such an embodiment is shown in
In
The foregoing description and illustrations of the embodiments of the invention has been presented for the purposes of illustration. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the above description in any form.
Any term that has been defined above and used in the claims, should be interpreted according to this definition.
The reference numbers in the claims are not a part of the claims, but rather used for facilitating the reading thereof. These reference numbers should not be interpreted as limiting the claims in any form.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/IL2021/051040 | 8/25/2021 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
63069743 | Aug 2020 | US |