Could a spacecraft refuel from the atmosphere?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of a spacecraft refueling from the atmosphere, particularly through the use of air-breathing electric thrusters. Participants explore the implications of using atmospheric gases as reaction mass for propulsion during space travel, considering both theoretical and practical aspects of such technology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that a spacecraft could dip into the atmosphere on an elliptical orbit to gather air, which could then be stored for long flights or used for refueling on other celestial bodies.
  • Others argue that the technology discussed in the linked article relies on a continuous atmospheric flux for operation, raising questions about its applicability to the idea of storing oxygen.
  • A participant mentions that the thrust motor collects low-density gas, suggesting that some of it could be stored in a pressure vessel during atmospheric dips.
  • Concerns are raised about the energy source required to rebuild velocity and reposition the spacecraft after atmospheric dips.
  • One participant references the Bussard Ramjet concept, noting that it would require sufficient power to counteract drag, questioning where this power would come from.
  • There is a discussion about the practicality of using solar power for energy, with some suggesting that solar panels may not survive atmospheric entry.
  • Another participant suggests that larger solar panels could still be effective further out in the solar system, proposing a method of collecting power during high phases of orbit before atmospheric dips.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the terminology used, with participants distinguishing between "fuel" and "reaction mass." One participant explicitly states they meant reaction mass.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the feasibility of the proposed concepts, particularly regarding the reliance on nuclear power or the practicality of solar panels in thin atmospheres.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the feasibility of using atmospheric gases for spacecraft propulsion and the practicality of the proposed methods. Participants express differing opinions on energy sources, the effectiveness of the technology, and the definitions of key terms.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to energy requirements, the effectiveness of atmospheric gathering, and the structural integrity of solar panels during atmospheric entry. There is also uncertainty regarding the operational parameters of the proposed thruster technologies.

Physics news on Phys.org
Al_ said:
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-world-first-air-breathing-electric-thruster.html

If it dipped into the atmosphere temporarily on an elliptical orbit, could the air gathered be stored for a long flight? Then maybe get more fuel from another planet's atmosphere or moon for the return trip?
Pretty neat article, thanks. But it doesn't seem to match your thread title, or your question about dipping into the atmosphere to "store" O2. The technology in the article appears to rely on a continuous high-velocity, low-density atmospheric flux to operate at low thrust values, no?
 
Yes, but the thrust motor, AFAIK, collects the molecules into a chamber as a low density gas as part of the process. At this point, some could be pumped off into a pressure vessel.
The thrust values are low, but if the orbit was a high elliptical one, there would be time to rebuild velocity and re-position for each skimming dip into the outer edge of the atmosphere.
 
Al_ said:
to rebuild velocity and re-position
Using what energy source?
 
Al_ said:
Yes, but the thrust motor, AFAIK, collects the molecules into a chamber as a low density gas as part of the process. At this point, some could be pumped off into a pressure vessel.
The thrust values are low, but if the orbit was a high elliptical one, there would be time to rebuild velocity and re-position for each skimming dip into the outer edge of the atmosphere.
I'm still confused. You used the word "fuel" in your title and the article is about reaction mass. Which one do you actually mean? By posting the article you imply your idea is similar, but it looks to me like it isn't.
 
Well, this idea is actually a basic Bussard Ramjet without fusion (and due the less effective 'gather' part it would rely on an atmosphere).

As long as you can give it enough power to counter the drag, it'll fly. But where would the power come from?
 
The original article relies on solar power for the actual energy. If you dip into the atmosphere with solar panels of any significant size, they will fall off, or burn off.

You pretty much end up with a low-power solar-powered space plane (aerodynamically shaped solar "wings") with an ion engine that is only usable around Earth and Venus (no atmosphere on Mercury, not enough sunlight further out unless your wings are enormous) - or you end up with a flying nuke. And not an RTG kind of nuke, but a real nuclear reactor. Because, with current tech:
- a 24 kW (24 thousand Watt) HiPEP produces 460 mN of thrust (half a Newton), ie 1/20th of Earth acceleration for a kilogram of payload.
- An RTG (radio-thermal generator) produces maybe 5 Watt of electricity per kilogram.
- So you need a 4800 kg machine for 1/20th kg of thrust.
(Yes, GOCE used solar, but it had 20 mN of Thrust.)

As for the nuclear option, I guess I will refer you to this thread: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=104814 . They end up with a 500kg reactor for 1MW power. That enables very high-power electric propulsion that reaches chemical propulsion forces. But you end up with an actual nuclear fission reactor on your ship.
 
Last edited:
Yaro said:
... for 1/20th kg of thrust.
...
Newtons?
The kilogram is not a unit of thrust.
 
russ_watters said:
I'm still confused. You used the word "fuel" in your title and the article is about reaction mass. Which one do you actually mean? By posting the article you imply your idea is similar, but it looks to me like it isn't.
Sorry to be vague. I mean reaction mass.
 
  • #10
Yaro said:
If you dip into the atmosphere with solar panels of any significant size, they will fall off, or burn off.
Ah, yes, but if you look at the article, they have dealt with that already. The atmosphere is extremely thin, and the panels are on the sides of the craft. It's essentially orbiting in space, with just a little drag from a very tenuous gas.
 
  • #11
Yaro said:
only usable around Earth and Venus (no atmosphere on Mercury, not enough sunlight further out unless your wings are enormous) - or you end up with a flying nuke.
I wasn't thinking about nuclear. The craft in the article uses solar.
Solar can still work further out - the panels need to be bigger. They could collect power during the high phase of the orbit, it gets stored, then fold up the panels, dip into the atmosphere, run the pump on a little battery power, and go round again. And I think Mercury does have a very thin atmosphere. Maybe it's the right density for this to work?
 
  • #12
Rive said:
Well, this idea is actually a basic Bussard Ramjet without fusion (and due the less effective 'gather' part it would rely on an atmosphere).

As long as you can give it enough power to counter the drag, it'll fly. But where would the power come from?
From photovoltaics, like in the article in the link.
As I understand it the Bussard Ramjet has not yet been built. But this thruster has, although it's not yet flown. I'm just thinking about a next-step innovation.

Perhaps, without the need to carry reaction mass for the return trip, a Mars return mission could be faster? Using Hall thrusters, that is.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
4K