5

Could a “solar gravitational synchrotron ” use solar thermal steam rockets to launch spacecraft out of the solar system?

Solar thermal steam rockets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_rocket have appeal due to potentially large amounts of propulsive energy with little associated rocket engine mass. If In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) could supply launch-free reaction mass (such as water from a comet-core near-Earth asteroid), then solar thermal rockets could potentially provide frugal propulsion (free mass + free energy) inside the inner solar system.

Solar thermal rockets have limited application outside the inner solar system because the intensity of solar radiation falls with the square of the distance from the sun. Attempts to achieve greater thrust by using a larger collector yield diminishing returns due to the square/cube relationship of structural mass to surface area.

enter image description here

A different strategy for using solar thermal steam rockets for access to the outer solar system is to accumulate velocity while remaining in the inner solar system until the target velocity is achieved. It is analogous to a synchrotron, with velocity increasing, and orbital period decreasing, each orbit.

The orbital period (and therefore velocity) of a satellite is related to the square root of the centripetal acceleration at that orbital radius. Higher centripetal acceleration (e.g.: larger central mass) means higher orbital velocity and shorter period. But this additional centrepital acceleration could also be supplied by thrust. In this case, by a solar steam rocket.

Ordinarily, the centripetal acceleration is provided solely by the gravitational attraction of the central body. But if the satellite has a thruster aligned radially with the orbit, thrust acceleration is added to the gravitational acceleration. Thrust of the same magnitude as the sun’s gravitational acceleration would result in an orbital period 29% shorter and an orbital velocity 41 % greater.

At an orbital radius of 1AU, a 41% increase in orbital velocity exceeds the solar system escape velocity.

The Earth’s orbital velocity is 29.9km/sec.
The solar escape velocity (at 1AU) is 42.1km/sec. The sun’s gravitational acceleration at 1AU is 0.0059m/sec^2 (0.0006G) https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/1063#:~:text=In%20metric%20units%2C%20on%20Earth,273.7%20meters%2Fsec%5E2

enter image description here

Note that the direction of thrust changes as the orbital velocity increases over the years. Initially it is tangential so all thrust is accelerating the spacecraft.. Eventually the thrust becomes radial so all thrust is being used to confine the orbital radius. At this time, the spacecraft has reached the maximum velocity attainable with this thrust and radius. Note also that the reaction mass is consumed over the period of the burn, so maximum thrust is attained at departure.

So, according to my calculator (which is, admittedly, making errors as it gets older), a satellite launched from Earth on a prograde heliocentric orbit and capable of 0.0006G acceleration could achieve solar escape velocity in less than a decade. Higher thrust would attain escape velocity sooner. or allow for higher velocity at departure.

It is interesting to note that the entire 10 year burn is an Oberth maneuver. The spacecraft is at a perpetual "perihelion" in that it is travelling faster than orbital velocity at that radius. The faster the orbital velocity, the more efficient the rocket.

The maximum velocity attainable with a “solar synchrotron” is limited by the centripetal thrust which the spacecraft can generate. The design will not allow crewed interstellar travel, but could be suitable for launching probes out of the solar system.

Are there physical (as opposed to engineering) factors prohibiting this strategy?

Woody
  • 21,532
  • 56
  • 146
  • 2
    I'm not sure I'm understanding the idea correctly, but I'm nearly positive that thrusting only radial-in is not the most efficient way to apply your thrust. Have you compared it with thrusting locally-horizontally? (That might be more of an "engineering consideration" come to think of it though) – Erin Anne Mar 05 '23 at 23:57
  • 1
    This plan would seem to be 'spending' reaction mass for 10 years to hold the orbit in the region where solar intensity is high enough to be useful which seems wasteful? And if you are using refueling to do this, getting the refuel mass onto this unnatural orbit will be DV expensive. – GremlinWranger Mar 06 '23 at 00:05
  • @ErinAnne ... I'm sure you are correct in terms of chemical rockets, especially if the fuel for energy and reaction mass must be launched from Earth. The elegance of solar thermal is that the energy is free of launch cost. If the reaction mast is also free of launch cost (as in a comet core) the thrust cost is very low as long as thrust is generated close to the sun. – Woody Mar 06 '23 at 01:13
  • @GremlinWranger ... good point. The idea is to grab a comet core of adequate mass which is already in near-Earth orbit. Apparently 9% of NEO objects are comet cores. The comet core would be gradually used up during the thrust phase. In the diagram I tried to show it getting smaller. – Woody Mar 06 '23 at 01:17
  • 3
    @woody your reaction mass is still finite, so the maths optimal solution would be to do repeated Oberth burns on increasingly eccentric orbits. The cost of this is the last passes would take decades in dead coasts, while this power slide approach can spend all its time engine running. – GremlinWranger Mar 06 '23 at 01:28
  • @GremlinWranger ... true, But "engine running" costs are based on launch cost and usually assume energy comes from burning chemical fuel. This assumption couples energy expenditure and propulsion mass expenditure. In the case of Solar Thermal Propulsion, energy and propulsion mass are decoupled. Energy is "free" of launch cost. If propulsion mass is supplied by ISRU, it is also free of launch cost. – Woody Mar 06 '23 at 02:29
  • @ErinAnne ... think of David and Goliath. The majority of the acceleration on the stone is centripetal, yet the sling achieved adequate velocity . – Woody Mar 06 '23 at 02:35
  • 1
    Oh! I finally understand. It's a gravitational synchrotron not a cyclotron. The radial force which bends the trajectory into its closed circular path increases with time during the accelerating process, the ramping in radial force being synchronized to the increasing speed of the spacecraft. Or you could perhaps call it a "solar SpinLaunch" but then you might be infringing on some patents. This is cool! I think it needs a mathematical or computer simulation answer rather than prose. – uhoh Mar 06 '23 at 07:31
  • 1
    @uhoh ... I like GremlinWranger's term: "Powerslide". – Woody Mar 06 '23 at 15:47
  • 1
    @GremlinWranger ... you are correct that Oberth burns are efficient. With the proposed maneuver, the entire 10 year burn is an Oberth maneuver. The spacecraft is at a perpetual "perihelion" in that it is travelling faster than orbital velocity at that radius. It is the spacecraft velocity which makes Oberth maneuvers efficient. – Woody Mar 06 '23 at 16:29
  • 1
    If uhoh's comment is correct I think an edit to the question that indicates that the thrust is steadily increased to keep the orbit radius/apsides constant-ish is in order. I was really getting confused about how this orbit would evolve over time, because the paragraph beginning with "The orbital period" made me think the intended radial acceleration was constant (double the solar gravitational acceleration). – Erin Anne Mar 07 '23 at 00:52
  • 1
    also my comment was getting long but I find the idea fascinating (and maybe more broadly applicable to something like solar-electric ion propulsion too). +1 – Erin Anne Mar 07 '23 at 00:53
  • 1
    @ErinAnne ... you are right: this strategy is also applicable to other low-thrust solar powered thrusters. I'm a booster for ISRU of comet-core water because it doesn't need to be launched. And I get the shivers at the $3000/kg cost of Xenon. – Woody Mar 07 '23 at 01:17
  • 1
    There are water ionic thrusters too, e.g. the Cubesat Ambipolar Thruster, though all the standard tradeoffs apply. Presumably it'd be lower thrust than solar-thermal and an even longer dwell time in the synchrotron orbit. – Erin Anne Mar 07 '23 at 05:05

0 Answers0