What is the potential of tethers for space exploration and satellite propulsion?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential of tether systems for space exploration and satellite propulsion, particularly focusing on theoretical aspects of satellite orbits, tether mechanics, and the implications for science fiction narratives. Participants explore the physics of orbital and escape velocities, the feasibility of low-altitude orbits, and the practical applications of tethers in reducing space debris.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the velocity required for a satellite to maintain an orbit at 30 miles above sea level, using gravitational equations.
  • Another participant challenges the claim that orbital and escape velocities are the same, providing distinct formulas for each.
  • A participant mentions that their fictional satellite maintains speed through a tether system that connects to a buoy in a higher orbit.
  • Some participants propose that tether systems could be fuel-efficient by allowing a satellite to be pulled by a buoy in a higher orbit, likening it to waterskiing.
  • Concerns are raised about the stability of a tethered system at low altitudes, questioning whether gravitational forces would affect the satellite's motion.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the feasibility of maintaining a tethered satellite at 32 miles due to atmospheric drag.
  • Another participant notes the historical context of NASA's experiments with tethers, mentioning the challenges faced in their development.
  • Discussions about the materials used for tethers, such as Kevlar and carbon nanotubes, highlight the limitations of current technology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility and mechanics of tether systems, with no consensus reached on the practicality of low-altitude orbits or the effectiveness of tether technology. Disagreements exist regarding the physics of tethered systems and the implications for satellite motion.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding of tether systems, including the varying altitudes of the ozone layer and the challenges in producing long tethers. There is also uncertainty regarding the historical success of tether experiments conducted by NASA.

Entropist
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
How fast would a satellite need to travel to mantain an orbit of 30 statue miles above sea level?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
REALLY fast!
 
v=(2gr)^.5
g=Gm/r^2

30 miles = 4.828032e5 meters

m = 5.9742e24 kilograms
r = 6.378e6 + 4.828032e5 = 6.8608032e6 meters

( 2 * (6.673e-11 * 5.9742e24 / 6.8608032e6^2) * 6.8608032e6) = 1.078e4

which is roughly 1 km less per second than what the surface requires.

remember orbit and escape velocity are the same. escape velocity can be in one direction away from body to never return from that bodies gravity. which is what you are doing when you orbit, otherwise it would fall to Earth eventually.
 
I understood the first response, but not the second.
Sorry, I'm just a science fiction writer.

1.078e4 is what in miles per hour?
Thank you graciously.
 
autisticmoose said:
remember orbit and escape velocity are the same.

Erm. No.

The formula for orbital velocity (circular orbit):
v_{orbital}=\sqrt{\frac{GM}{r}}

The formula for escape velocity:
v_{esc}=\sqrt{\frac{2 G M}{r}}

For normal numbers I get an orbital velocity at 30 miles of 7.89 km/s (sea level is 7.92 km/s , not much higher at all).
 
Thanks a million. That's very helpful.

FYI, the satellite is able to mantain that speed by a tether system that terminates somewhere in Low Eath Orbit.

Please don't tell me it is impossible becasue I've already written it and I don't want to go back.
 
It's ... tethered to something above it? to make it... yay for fiction!
 
Tether systems have real potential that scientists are working on right now.
Basically, the satellite is tethered to a buoy higher up in orbit. Becasue higher orbits are slower, the higher bouy pulls on the lower satellite like a waterskier behind a boat. Very fuel efficient.
They can also be used to pull a satellite out of orbit to reduce space junk.

My main source is a Scientific American volumn that did a cover story on tethers a couple years ago.

My story pushes the design limits of the technology, however, becasue I need a satellite to orbit as low as 32 miles. Not sure if this is theoretically possible, but ... you know.. fiction.
 
If something is connected to a tether, then it likely isn't orbiting in a normal way. Something tethered to a buoy higher up in orbit would not be orbiting at all, but hanging from the tether. It would then move at the speed of the buoy. 32 miles would be the top of the stratosphere, likely enough drag to pull your buoy down in time.

I'd also wonder if such an arrangement would be stable. Would gravitational forces cause the object to fling around in a big circle around the bouy? You might actually want this to happen. Aircraft could latch on to the tether when it was lowest/slowest, and be flung into high orbit!
 
  • #10
Purely to satisfy my own curiosity, why 32 miles?

Anyhow, I don't see how this system could be very fuel efficient unless the buoy is in an orbit of ~71,955km (that's one hell of a long and strong cable).
 
  • #11
I needed an ozone-making machine inside or just above the Ozone layer.

I stay a bit foggy about how far up the tethers go into orbit, in hopes that the reader doesn't care.

Tethers can be miles long. The ones that have already been made are simply cables of Kevlar.
 
  • #12
Entropist said:
I needed an ozone-making machine inside or just above the Ozone layer.

Works for me. Are you compensating for the varying heights of the ozone between polar and tropical regions? :wink:
Tethers can be miles long. The ones that have already been made are simply cables of Kevlar.

There's a bit of a difference between "miles long" and 45,000 miles long (71,950km).

And what do you mean "already been made"? I'm not aware of us having any orbital tethers - nor the capability to produce them. Something to do with carbon nanotubes and their lack of availability. Kevlar just won't cut it I'm afraid.
 
  • #13
Thanks for the tip. I did not know that the Ozone Layer had different alltitudes. Is it lower at the Poles, or higher?

NASA has been experimenting with tethers since the 60s. Granted most of the experiemtns were not successful, and the tethers weren't very long.

The Scientific American article was published in August 2004. It may be on line.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K