![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently I have posted some ideas related to mining the asteroid belt
from Earth. Basically, we proceed as follows; (1) build a reusable multi-stage heavy lift rocket fleet (2) build a production line for payloads (3) build and deploy a communication satellite network (4) build a larger power satellite network (5) upgrade the launcher with laser propulsion (6) expand the power satellite network (7) send an expedition to Ceres (8) mine Ceres and use a rail gun to send materials back to Earth (9) establish orbiting supply center (10) build orbiting factories (11) dispatch materials to Earth The point is step #9 and step #11 can both be aided by aerobraking in the Earth's atmosphere. The issue is, what sorts of pollution effects are there? How do they scale with large numbers of payloads? I am envisioning 4 tons per person per year - and an installed asset base of at least 24 tons per person - and having stock of perhaps 400 tons per person on orbit. Bringing back 400 tons in 10 years - is 40 tons per person per year, falling to 4 tons per person per year. These could hit the atmospher twice if aerobraking is widely used. With 6.6 billion people each collecting 4 tons of materials per year, that's 11 kg per day. per person. A one liter sphere is 12.4 cm in diameter. (4.88 inch) A trajectory from a 1,000 km orbit to the surface along an optimal re-entry path - would arc over half the Earth. This would create a shock tube about 20 million meters long and 120.8 cm2 Thats 241,798 cubic meters of air - per kg of material. 2.7 million cubic meters per day per person. Multiplie by one billion this is 2.7 million cubic kilometers. Multiply by 6.6 and you have 17.82 million cubic kilometers. The entire atmosphere to a depth of 23 km is 11,713,804,000 cubic kilometers - 11,713 million cubic kilometers. This means that following a minimum energy transfer orbit from the orbiting space stations, 0.15% of the atmosphere is shocked each day - Assuming the vehicle itself doesn't contribute any pollutants, what sort of pollution can we expect from atmospheric reactions in the re- entry plasma and how much preferably normalized by the weight of the payload. I have assumed that propellant carried on board the incoming materials from Ceres would be energize by Earth orbiting lasers so as to slow the payloads by rocket action. I was not so generous with respect to payloads entering the Earth's atmospher from orbit. One solution might be to use the rail gun to eliminate the orbital speed of the payloads to zero and let them fall straight down. Falling freely for 950 km would cause them to accumulate around 4.3 km/ sec terminal velocity. While high, this is far lower than the 7.0 km/ sec orbital speeds and the heating effects are reduced by a factor of 2.7 - which would reduce chemical reactions by a factor of 15 or so. Of course if reaction rates are too low to bother with at the outset, this may not be needed. Any pointers to any information would be welcomed. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The very first presidential effort to ever address Light Pollution: AlGore.org Statement on Light Pollution | Ed[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 20 | April 25th 07 12:30 PM |
Where atmospheric Nitrogen comes from? | Protagonist | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | March 26th 07 03:51 AM |
atmospheric entry | Lynndel K. Humphreys | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 19th 05 07:57 PM |
atmospheric seeing in daylight | Anton Jopko | Amateur Astronomy | 26 | February 18th 04 01:17 PM |
Wild Atmospheric Circulation | Mick | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | October 6th 03 03:40 AM |