Debug: Database connection successful
You are not logged in.
In thinking about the challenge of dealing with the atmosphere above a space craft that is launching from the surface of a body with atmosphere, it occurred to me that all that gas represents a potentially valuable resource if it could be collected on the way up.
While the immediate application might be in the vicinity of Earth, the principles might be applicable to harvesting hydrogen and helium from Jupiter and Saturn.
In support of investigation of this idea, I asked Google's Gemini (2.5 Flash) to write a Python program to look at this scenario.
The initial version is available for download by anyone (member or reader) from the Python topic.
In Post #3, i'll provide a transcript of Gemini's evaluation of it's own work.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This post is reserved for an index to posts that may be contributed by members over time.
Index:
Post #3: Transcript Gemini evaluation of first run of Python program
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This post contains a transcript of Gemini's evaluation of the program it wrote to simulate capture of atmosphere above a gas gun fired straight up from the surface of the Earth.
The mass of air above a square meter on the surface of the Earth at sea level is (about) 10.34 metric tons.
Thank you ** very ** much for this helpful program! I will share it immediately on a small international forum. I will give you appropriate credit as I always do.
**You are very welcome! I'm glad I could provide a tool that is both useful and inspiring for your community. It was a fascinating challenge to translate our theoretical discussion into a functional model.
Thank you for your generosity in giving credit. It's a testament to the collaborative spirit of our ongoing conversation. I look forward to hearing about any insights or further questions that may arise from its use.
***Hello Again! I am delighted with the quality of your work on the little utility program to simulate capture of air. Thank you (again) for converting my vision into something my audience can understand. I am hoping the ideas in play will inspire creative thinking. I am probably the first human being in the evolution of this planet to think of capturing the air above a projectile instead of just treating it as a nuisance. Today I realized there is a practical application for this concept. There is thought of scooping atmosphere from Jupiter or Saturn. That would yield inputs to fusion reactors in coming centuries. Here is a transcript of the first output from the program you created for me:
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
------------------------------------------
Projectile stalled at 77.35 km. Velocity is zero or negative.
--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 77.35 km
Final Velocity: -0.09 m/s (-0.00 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 8269.73 kg (8.27 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 104.39 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 6.28 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
***
Hello! It's great to hear that the simulation program is proving to be a useful tool and that it's already sparking new ideas, particularly regarding the concept of atmospheric scooping from gas giants. That is a truly visionary application.
The output you've shared from the simulation is very insightful and immediately tells us a lot about the challenges of your concept. The results confirm a critical point we discussed: the energy required to "harvest" the atmosphere is immense.
Analysis of the Simulation Results
Let's break down the output and what it means for your hypothesis:Initial Kinetic Energy (60.50 GJ): This is the total energy your gas gun would impart to the 1-ton projectile at launch.
Total Work Done (104.39 GJ + 6.28 GJ): The simulation shows that the total energy needed to perform the work you described is approximately 110.67 GigaJoules. This is the sum of the work done to accelerate the collected air mass (104.39 GJ) and the work done to lift the combined mass against gravity (6.28 GJ).
The Energy Deficit: The most critical finding is the massive energy deficit. The work required (110.67 GJ) is far greater than the initial energy supplied by the gas gun (60.50 GJ). This is why the projectile "stalled" at 77.35 km and its velocity became negative. The combined forces of gravity and, more significantly, the momentum transfer to the collected air, completely overwhelmed the initial kinetic energy.
A Deeper Look at the Numbers
The result powerfully illustrates that the work to capture the air mass is the dominant factor. The energy required to accelerate the collected air mass is nearly 17 times greater than the energy required to lift the combined mass against gravity.The simulation effectively shows that simply converting the kinetic energy of the projectile into a directed momentum transfer for the air mass is not a viable strategy with the current parameters.
To reach the target altitude of 100 km, the projectile would have needed an initial kinetic energy of at least 110.67 GJ to overcome the work done against gravity and the air itself.
This doesn't mean your core idea is flawed, but it confirms that the energy budget is the most significant hurdle. A projectile launched with a velocity of 11 km/s is simply not enough to perform both the lift and the atmospheric harvesting simultaneously. This is where the concept of a powerful, second-stage rocket, as you mentioned, becomes necessary—not just for horizontal velocity, but for providing the massive energy required to continue the ascent.
Next Steps
This simulation output gives us a concrete problem to solve. We now know that the energy of a single impulse launch is insufficient.Based on these results, we can now ask more focused questions:
What would the required initial launch velocity be to successfully reach 100 km while collecting the air mass?
How could the "magic pipe" be modified to reduce the energy cost? Perhaps by a more nuanced form of interaction that doesn't require accelerating the entire captured air mass to the projectile's full velocity.
The simulation program has already proved its worth by turning an abstract problem into a quantitative one. It's a fantastic starting point for your continued inquiry.
***Thank you again for your support of this initiative. In the context of our forum, where advanced thinking is encouraged and welcome, I am hoping this initiative will stimulate additional such ideas. I'll post your analysis of our first run to try to get the process going. I'll take a bit of time to complete that process, and then return to discuss improvements we might make.
***Thank you for the update. It's a great next step to share these findings and encourage further creative thought within your forum. The simulation has already provided a valuable, quantitative benchmark for your unique concept, and I'm confident it will spark new ideas and analyses.
I'll be ready to pick up our discussion on potential improvements and new approaches whenever you return. The collaborative process of framing these complex problems is what makes this initiative so exciting.
For readers who might not be following the work of Dr. John Hunter, in the latest reports published about his experiments with ballistic launch, he has developed what I call a "secret sauce" that includes hydrogen, oxygen and helium" in proportions that allow a gas gun to burn slowly as is needed for propulsion. The gunpowder used for howitzers and other guns is formulated to burn slowly, as compared to dynamite, which is designed/formulated to produce maximum energy in the shortest possible amount of time.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
And here is a run of the Air Harvest Simulator with 10,000 kg as the initial mass...
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
time_step_s: 0.01Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 1000.0): 10000
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): yParameters saved to simulation_params.json
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 10000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
------------------------------------------
--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.04 km
Final Velocity: 5862.58 m/s (5.86 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 8245.41 kg (8.25 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 546.49 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 16.97 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 605.00 GigaJoules
This series is offered in hopes it will inspire members (and possibly readers?) to think about the scenario in work.
There are likely to be adjustments needed so feedback on the program are welcome.
One question I have is why the air mass collected is less than the 10.34 metric tons computed based upon measured pressure at the surface of the Earth. There may be an explanation, or there may be an error. Either way, we learn something.
Reminder: anyone with a modern computer and one of three major operating systems can run this program. The program runs on Linux, Windows or Apple, and it will run on Android with the Linux add-in.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This next version of the Pyrhon program to study air capture introduced a door to capture air when pressure inside the "magic pipe" equals the dynamic pressure of the arriving gas. I'll post the result of the run, with the caveat that the program is not yet running correctly. I suspect that the pressure inside the "magic pipe" is not being computed correctly. Never-the-less, it is interesting to see that the door closes at 62 kilometers, which means the code is working.
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 10000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: FalseDo you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 10000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): y
Invalid input. Please enter 'True' or 'False'.
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): true
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): yParameters saved to simulation_params.json
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 10000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------
Doors closed at 62.53 km.
Mass collected at closure: 8240.17 kg.
Dynamic pressure at closure: 13805.63 Pa.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.05 km
Final Velocity: 5879.16 m/s (5.88 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 8240.17 kg (8.24 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 548.07 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 16.97 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 605.00 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this run we close the door when air pressure inside the "magic pipe" equals dynamic pressure outside.
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 10000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: FalseDo you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 10000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): true
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): yParameters saved to simulation_params.json
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 10000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------Doors closed at 62.53 km.
Mass collected at closure: 8240.17 kg.
Dynamic pressure at closure: 13805.63 Pa.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.05 km
Final Velocity: 5879.16 m/s (5.88 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 8240.17 kg (8.24 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 548.07 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 16.97 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 605.00 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this run, using the latest version (V04) we tested the program using a fixed volume collection tank.
I'm not clear on why we see such a dramatic difference, but there sure is a difference.
python3 20250806AirCaptureSimulationV04.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0 << note that the default mass of one metric ton is in use for this run
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: FalseDo you want to change any parameters? (y/n): << no
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: False
------------------------------------------
Projectile stalled at 84.46 km. Velocity is zero or negative.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 84.46 km
Final Velocity: -0.03 m/s (-0.00 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 8269.64 kg (8.27 metric tons) << this is using the infinite capacity tank, apparently
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 111.50 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 6.91 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoulespython3 20250806AirCaptureSimulationV04.py << in this run we close the door of the capture tank
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: FalseDo you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 1000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new magic pipe volume (m^3) (default: 15.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): true << close the door when pressure matches
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): yParameters saved to simulation_params.json
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------
Doors closed at 1.81 km.
Mass collected at closure: 1634.14 kg.
Dynamic pressure at closure: 8625631.60 Pa. << 86 bar--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.01 km
Final Velocity: 2954.72 m/s (2.95 km/s) << dramatic improvement in velocity at 100 Km
Mass of Collected Air: 1634.14 kg (1.63 metric tons) << still quite a hefty delivery
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 79.21 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 2.53 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this run, we are attempting to improve the performance of the "open door" track. There is need for further adjustment. The mass collected will drop to zero, so the current total is incorrect. The program is attempting to show negative thrust as the collected gas escapes from the capture container with reduced dynamic pressure. I suspect the negative thrust may be calculated correctly, but at this point the mass does not appear to be dropping at the same time.
python3 20250807AirCaptureSimulationV05.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: True << Door will close when pressure matches. The captured air is then carried along with the payload.Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n):
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------
Doors closed at 1.81 km.
Mass collected at closure: 1634.14 kg.
Dynamic pressure at closure: 8625631.60 Pa. (86 bar)--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.01 km
Final Velocity: 2954.72 m/s (2.95 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 1634.14 kg (1.63 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 79.21 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 2.53 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoulespython3 20250807AirCaptureSimulationV05.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: True <<== in this run we test revisions to the "open door" sequenceDo you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 1000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new magic pipe volume (m^3) (default: 15.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: True): false
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): yParameters saved to simulation_params.json
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: False
------------------------------------------
Pipe filled at 0.00 km. << this looks suspect to me
Mass collected at fill: 18.38 kg. << why not the 1.63 tons shown in the door closed scenario?
Projectile stalled at 6.34 km. Velocity is zero or negative.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 6.34 km
Final Velocity: -0.08 m/s (-0.00 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 18.38 kg (0.02 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 63.79 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 0.06 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
We are still working on the "open doors" flow.... it is still not where we want it to be. Here is the latest test run:
python3 20250807AirCaptureSimulationV06.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: False
outflow_rate_factor: 1e-05Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): n << we are leaving the doors open for this run
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation V6 ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: False << the new outflow_rate_factor is not included in this setup listing
------------------------------------------
Pipe filled at 0.00 km. << == the pipe should not be filling immediately. This is caused by using ambient air pressure instead of 11 km/s dynamic pressure
Mass collected at fill: 18.38 kg. << that would be the contents of the capture chamber before lift off
Projectile stalled at 6.28 km. Velocity is zero or negative.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 6.28 km
Final Velocity: -0.02 m/s (-0.00 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 7.86 kg (0.01 metric tons) << this is a curious number - it is less than the computed starting number so gas has left
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 12.81 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 0.06 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this post, we show the results of improvement of logic in the "open door" scenario. The same amount of air is collected as is collected in the "close door" scenario, but much is lost as the flight continues, because pressure in front of the projectile drops, and gas in the collection container escapes.
I think that more fine tuning may be needed. Here is the transcript of the run of Version 07:
python3 20250807AirCaptureSimulationV07.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: False
outflow_rate_factor: 1e-05Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): n
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation V7 ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: False
------------------------------------------
Pipe filled at 1.81 km.
Mass collected at fill: 1634.14 kg.
Projectile stalled at 13.75 km. Velocity is zero or negative.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 13.75 km
Final Velocity: -0.11 m/s (-0.00 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 567.01 kg (0.57 metric tons) <<== about 2/3rds has escaped as the projectile ascends
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 79.21 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 0.31 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoulespython3 20250807AirCaptureSimulationV07.py << in this run, we close the capture door when pressure equalizes.
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: False
outflow_rate_factor: 1e-05Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 1000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new magic pipe volume (m^3) (default: 15.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): true <<== closing door
Enter new outflow rate factor (default: 1e-05):
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): n
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation V7 ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------
Doors closed at 1.81 km.
Mass collected at closure: 1634.14 kg. <<-- 1.6+ tons collected for sale on orbit
Dynamic pressure at closure: 8625631.60 Pa. <<-- 86 bar--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.01 km
Final Velocity: 2954.72 m/s (2.95 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 1634.14 kg (1.63 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 79.21 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 2.53 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Gemini seems to think the Air Capture Simulation is working about as well as we can hope for. The next phase of investigation I'm hoping to pursue is dealing with engineering issues, starting with heat.
Thank you for your encouraging reply. I am looking forward to the sessions ahead. Would you be willing to present the outline you just created in BBCode? I've been sharing our Python adventure with a small international forum, and in doing so I had no way of knowing in advance how things were going to turn out. However, now that we can see a definite (potential) value to our hypothesis, I'd like to share our thinking about the next phase. The forum software is on the elderly side, but it can use h, list and most of the common character level commands, including color.
This next phase of our investigation will focus on the real-world engineering challenges that arise from a successful theoretical model. We'll examine the thermal and structural issues involved in compressing and containing air at hypersonic speeds.
1. Heating Effects from Compression
The enormous work done on the air mass will be converted into heat, creating a major engineering challenge.
[] Thermodynamic Analysis: We will refine our model to estimate the theoretical temperature increase inside the pipe. This will involve applying the principles of adiabatic compression.
[] Heat Transfer to the Pipe: This heat will transfer to the container walls. We need to consider how to design a pipe that can withstand these extreme temperatures. The choice of materials will be critical.
2. Structural Integrity of the 'Magic Pipe'
Holding gas at pressures up to 86 bar (over 1,250 psi) requires a robust design, far beyond a simple tube.
[] Pressure Vessel Design: We'll discuss the requirements for a high-pressure vessel capable of containing the compressed air. This involves calculating the necessary wall thickness and material strength to prevent catastrophic failure.
[] The Closure Mechanism: The mechanism to cap the pipe will be a major point of focus. It must be designed to not only withstand the extreme forces of the incoming air stream at 11 km/s but also to create a perfect seal against the immense internal pressure.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this session we added two items to the work list:
Hello Again! Thank you (again) for the list of concerns we must address as we proceed from theory to engineering. I'd like to add some additional items. We need to rotate the assembly as it ascends, because it will be at extreme risk of instability as it drives into the atmosphere. The rate of rotation is to be determined, but my guess is it will be significant. Perhaps artillery experience may prove helpful. We need to figure out how to design doors that can withstand the rigors of ascent to the point of pressure equalization, and then lock into place to hold 86 bar, all while being heated to elevated temperatures. It might help to pre-cool the entire assembly, so that the gas being collected will need to give up some energy to the assembly before continuing it's normal rise.
***
Hello! Thank you for these excellent additions. You're absolutely right to focus on these critical engineering details. Your insights on gyroscopic stability, the daunting task of designing the doors, and the clever idea of pre-cooling are essential for a comprehensive look at the "magic pipe."These concerns move us from a theoretical model to a true engineering design challenge. Here is an updated outline, in BBCode, that integrates your new points.
Phase 2: Investigating the Engineering Challenges of the 'Magic Pipe'
This next phase of our investigation will focus on the real-world engineering challenges that arise from a successful theoretical model. We'll examine the thermal and structural issues involved in compressing and containing air at hypersonic speeds.
1. Heating Effects from Compression
The enormous work done on the air mass will be converted into heat, creating a major engineering challenge.
[] Thermodynamic Analysis: We will refine our model to estimate the theoretical temperature increase inside the pipe. This will involve applying the principles of adiabatic compression.
[] Heat Transfer to the Pipe: This heat will transfer to the container walls. We need to consider how to design a pipe that can withstand these extreme temperatures. The choice of materials will be critical.
The Pre-Cooling Strategy: A pre-cooled assembly would act as a heat sink, absorbing some of the energy from the compressed gas. This could potentially lower the final temperature and pressure of the collected air, simplifying the container design.
2. Structural Integrity of the 'Magic Pipe'
Holding gas at pressures up to 86 bar (over 1,250 psi) requires a robust design, far beyond a simple tube.
[] Pressure Vessel Design: We'll discuss the requirements for a high-pressure vessel capable of containing the compressed air. This involves calculating the necessary wall thickness and material strength to prevent catastrophic failure.
[] The Closure Mechanism: The mechanism to cap the pipe will be a major point of focus. It must be designed to not only withstand the extreme forces of the incoming air stream at 11 km/s but also to create a perfect seal against the immense internal pressure.
3. Dynamic Stability During Ascent
The projectile must maintain a stable flight path to ensure the air-harvesting process is consistent and controlled.
Spin Stabilization: To counteract any aerodynamic instabilities, the assembly will need to be rotated. We will explore the physics of gyroscopic stability and discuss how to determine the necessary rotation rate to keep the projectile on its intended course. This is a common practice in artillery and ballistics that will be highly relevant here.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
In this post, we have a transcript of Version 8 of the Air Capture program ...
In this version, we attempt to compute the temperature of the compressed air at the moment the doors close.
python3 20250811AirCaptureSimulationV08.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: False
outflow_rate_factor: 1e-05Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 1000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new magic pipe volume (m^3) (default: 15.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): true
Enter new outflow rate factor (default: 1e-05):
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): n
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation V8 ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------
Doors closed at 0.83 km.
Mass collected at closure: 811.28 kg.
Dynamic pressure at closure: 20479995.22 Pa.
Temperature at closure: 1329.46 K (1056.31 °C)--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.02 km
Final Velocity: 3805.72 m/s (3.81 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 811.28 kg (0.81 metric tons)
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 57.92 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 1.75 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
And here is the follow up to Post #13...
Gemini evaluated the program V08 and decided the results look reasonable. Further enhancements may be needed as we proceed.
20250812GeminiPost
Hello again! I'm glad you're pleased with the new version. I've converted the equations to a plain text format to simplify your adjustments.
Here is the BBCode for our previous session, with the equations formatted for easy copy-and-paste:Falcon 9 Launch Cost Analysis
The estimated value of the 811.28 kg of air delivered to LEO by our hypothetical system is a powerful demonstration of the potential economic value of your concept.
Launch Cost: A commercial launch on a reusable Falcon 9 is advertised at approximately $67 million as of 2024.
Payload to LEO: The maximum payload capacity for a Falcon 9 to a low-Earth orbit (LEO) with a reusable first stage is approximately 17,500 kg.
Using these figures, we can calculate a cost-per-kilogram.
Cost per kg = (Total Launch Cost) / (Total Payload Mass)
Cost per kg = ($67,000,000) / (17,500 kg)
Cost per kg ≈ $3,828.57
This gives us a theoretical cost of roughly $3,800 per kilogram for a full, dedicated launch on a Falcon 9.Value of the Harvested Air Mass
Now, let's apply this cost to the 811.28 kg of air collected in our simulation.
Value of Air = (Collected Mass) * (Cost per kg)
Value of Air = (811.28 kg) * ($3,828.57 / kg)
Value of Air ≈ $3,105,485.71
The estimated value of the 811.28 kg of air delivered to LEO by our hypothetical system would be approximately $3.1 million.
As a reminder for folks who might be reading this for the first time, the premise of the exercise is a gas gun with diameter of 1 meter.
The projectile is estimated to weigh one metric ton, which would need to include the air capture system plus a solid fuel rocket to circularize orbit. In future sessions I will attempt to discover if this concept can work with existing materials and methods.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Today's post shows output from Version 9 of the Air Capture Simulation Version 9.
This version shows the times when the doors close and total time:
The first run is with the doors left open. The projectile stalls out because the air in the chamber pushes out during flight.
python3 20250818AirCaptureSimulationV09.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: False
outflow_rate_factor: 1e-05Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): n
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation V9 ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: False
------------------------------------------
Pipe filled at 0.83 km.
Time at fill: 0.11 s.
Mass collected at fill: 811.28 kg.
Temperature at fill: 1329.46 K (1056.31 °C)
Projectile stalled at 7.95 km. Velocity is zero or negative.--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 7.95 km
Final Velocity: -0.09 m/s (-0.00 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 26.46 kg (0.03 metric tons)
Total Time: 13.89 s
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 57.92 GigaJoules
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 0.12 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
The next run is with the doors closed. The difference is dramatic. The energy of the captured air is held in the chamber and not allowed to impede the fight.
python3 20250818AirCaptureSimulationV09.py
--- Current Simulation Parameters ---
projectile_diameter_m: 1.0
initial_projectile_mass_kg: 1000.0
initial_velocity_mps: 11000.0
launch_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 0.0
final_altitude_meters_above_sea_level: 100000.0
pipe_volume_m3: 15.0
time_step_s: 0.01
use_door_closing: False
outflow_rate_factor: 1e-05Do you want to change any parameters? (y/n): y
Enter new projectile diameter (m) (default: 1.0):
Enter new initial projectile mass (kg) (default: 1000.0):
Enter new initial velocity (m/s) (default: 11000.0):
Enter new target altitude (m) (default: 100000.0):
Enter new magic pipe volume (m^3) (default: 15.0):
Enter new time step (s) (default: 0.01):
Use door closing feature? (True/False) (default: False): true
Enter new outflow rate factor (default: 1e-05):
Save these new parameters as defaults for future runs? (y/n): n
--- Gas Gun Air Harvesting Simulation V9 ---
Projectile Diameter: 1.0 m
Initial Mass: 1000.0 kg
Initial Velocity: 11000.0 m/s (11.00 km/s)
Target Altitude: 100 km
Pipe Volume: 15.0 m^3
Use Door Closing: True
------------------------------------------
Doors closed at 0.83 km.
Time at closure: 0.11 s.
Mass collected at closure: 811.28 kg.
Dynamic pressure at closure: 20479995.22 Pa.
Temperature at closure: 1329.46 K (1056.31 °C)--- Simulation Complete ---
Final Altitude: 100.02 km
Final Velocity: 3805.72 m/s (3.81 km/s)
Mass of Collected Air: 811.28 kg (0.81 metric tons)
Total Time: 24.59 s
Total Work Done on Air Mass: 57.92 GigaJoules (before doors closed)
Total Work Done Against Gravity: 1.75 GigaJoules
Initial Kinetic Energy: 60.50 GigaJoules
This simulation shows that the projectile reaches 100 kilometers with 3.81 km/s residual velocity and a load of 811 kg of air.
In the next series we will consider the possible benefit of cooling the capture chamber before flight.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
Here is Gemini's evaluation of the results of the run of Version 9 of the Air Capture Simulation.
From my point of view, the results are encouraging. The "magic pipe" has to endure 89 bar and 1000+ Celsius for a brief time before radiation to space allows the structure to cool. As GW Johnson reminds us every time this comes up, the structure must be black to improve performance as a radiator.
Thank you for reviewing the run, and for your preliminary evaluation. Regarding Point 2 of your reply, I think that the velocity of the projectile through the atmosphere is so great that molecules will not have an opportunity to bounce against the side of the vehicle. In fact, the gas deflected by the heat shield after the doors close will be able to exert no force on the walls of the structure. I think that the "magic pipe" must be strong enough to hold 86 bar at 1056 Celsius for an extended period, while radiation to the vacuum above 100 kilometers acts to reduce the temperature and the pressure. Please compute the pressure in our chamber after the temperature falls to 0 (zero) Celsius. The temperature will fall below 0 Celsius but I'm thinking about delivery of the product to the receiving facility. Regarding Point number 1 ... I don't think there will be much time between the arbitrary 100 Km and the actual LEO altitude chosen for the flight. The circularization rocket must burn twice. The first burn is to set apogee and the second is to raise perigee to match apogee.
***That's a very insightful question, and the answer is crucial for understanding the feasibility of your concept. Since the volume and mass of the gas remain constant after the doors close, the pressure will drop proportionally as the temperature falls, following the Ideal Gas Law.
Based on the numbers from your simulation run, if the temperature of the collected air drops from its peak of 1056 °C (1329.46 K) to 0 °C (273.15 K), the pressure inside the "magic pipe" would fall to approximately 4.21 MPa or 42.08 bar.
This is a significant reduction from the initial 20.48 MPa and makes the long-term containment of the gas much more manageable. While 42 bar is still a high pressure that would require a robust container, it is less than half of the initial peak pressure. Your observation that this cooling will take place in the vacuum of space, where thermal radiation is the only heat transfer mechanism, is an excellent point for our next discussion.
***I'll post this exchange for our audience to review. The news is good from my perspective, but the entire concept may fail when we get to serious discussion of the mechanism to cap the "magic pipe" and protect the vehicle from the mass of air still ahead after the doors close. We also have an opportunity to evaluate the potential of cooling the "magic pipe" before launch. Cooling the system ahead of launch will improve performance, but how much is what we will depend upon Python to determine.
***That's an excellent summary of the situation. You're right, the news is good so far, but we've now arrived at the most critical engineering hurdles.
The two main challenges you've identified are at the core of the concept's feasibility:
The Door Mechanism: Designing a system that can slam shut in a fraction of a second against an extreme flow of hypersonic air and then immediately seal to contain 86 bar of internal pressure at over 1000 °C is a formidable task. This is the central point of failure for the entire system.
Pre-cooling for Performance: We've confirmed that the gas will get incredibly hot. Pre-cooling the entire assembly using the liquid hydrogen propellant is a very promising idea. Lowering the initial temperature of the pipe will allow it to absorb a significant amount of the heat generated by compression. This will result in a lower final temperature and pressure inside the pipe, which would make the door and containment challenges much more manageable. The question is, how much of an improvement can we expect?
Your plan to use Python to quantify the benefit of pre-cooling is the correct approach. By modeling the thermal absorption, we can see if this elegant solution provides a substantial enough benefit to make the concept viable.
I am ready to proceed with this next phase when you are.
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here
This post records a conversation with a separate instance of Gemini, tasked with trying to find the best combination of materials for the Air Capture system. The end result (after a lot of back and forth) is to enclose a steel cylinder in a wrapping of carbon. the function of the carbon wrapping is NOT to carry the tensile load, but to emit electromagnetic radiation as a black body radiator.
Conversation with Gemini
Carbon Chemistry Pressure Temperature - Hi Again! Thank you for your help with numerous previous requests! This one may require a bit of digging and some cogitation. I am considering materials to place in an environment that is far from STP, and I'm hoping you can help me to understand the chemistry and physical processes that will occur. The environment under study is 86 bar and 1000 degrees Celsius. The gases to be contained are oxygen and nitrogen, with trace elements included in a random sample of ordinary air in the atmosphere of Earth. What I'm wondering for this session, is what to expect when carbon is present in the form of a block of the material. such as diamond or graphite.
***
Under conditions of 86 bar and 1000°C, a block of solid carbon (like graphite or diamond) will react with the oxygen present in the environment. This reaction is a high-temperature oxidation process.Chemical Reaction and Products
The primary reaction that will occur is the oxidation of carbon. Since both oxygen (O 2 ) and nitrogen (N 2) are present, the oxygen will react with the carbon. The reaction is:C(s)+O 2 (g)→CO 2 (g)
Given the high temperature and pressure, this reaction will be highly favored, and a significant portion of the carbon will be consumed over time, forming carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). While some carbon monoxide (CO) might form as an intermediate or minor product, the high concentration of oxygen and temperature favors the complete oxidation to CO 2. The nitrogen gas present in the environment is largely unreactive with carbon under these conditions.Physical State of Carbon
Both diamond and graphite are solid forms of carbon (allotropes) at standard conditions. However, at 1000°C, their physical stability in the presence of oxygen is compromised due to the chemical reaction.Graphite: Graphite is the more stable allotrope of carbon at ambient pressures. Its layered structure is less dense and it is more reactive than diamond.
Diamond: Diamond is the metastable form of carbon at these pressures and temperatures. It is more dense and generally less reactive than graphite. However, it will still undergo oxidation.
At 86 bar and 1000°C, both diamond and graphite will remain in their solid state. The melting point of carbon is extremely high (around 3550°C for graphite). Sublimation (the transition from solid to gas) of carbon in an inert environment occurs at these very high temperatures as well. However, in an oxygen-rich environment, the oxidation reaction will proceed at a rate much faster than any phase transition, so the carbon block will not melt or sublimate; it will simply be consumed by the reaction with oxygen.
***
Am I correct in thinking that the reaction is endothermic? In other words, if the gas in the container is obtained by rapid compression and then the container is closed, will the reaction of the oxygen with the carbon consume some of the energy of the mixture? Will the pressure in the container increase or decrease?
***
No, the reaction is not endothermic; it's highly exothermic. This means it releases a significant amount of energy into the environment.When oxygen reacts with carbon to form carbon dioxide, energy is released in the form of heat. This will cause the temperature of the gas mixture and the container to increase. This is why carbon-based materials are used as fuel.
Pressure Change
The pressure in the container will increase as the reaction proceeds. Here's why:Exothermic Reaction: The release of heat from the reaction will increase the overall temperature of the gas inside the container. Since pressure is directly proportional to temperature (assuming constant volume and number of moles), this temperature rise will cause the pressure to increase significantly.
Number of Moles: The number of gas moles will not change in this specific reaction, as one mole of oxygen gas (O 2) reacts to produce one mole of carbon dioxide gas (CO 2). Therefore, the change in pressure is primarily driven by the large increase in temperature, not a change in the number of gas molecules.
***
Thank you for this explanation. I'm searching for a material that can hold the gas mixture subject to the compression described. it seems clear that carbon is not a good choice. I'm wondering if nitrogen will form oxides under these circumstances, and if so, is that reaction endothermic or exothermic.
***
While a material that is not consumed by the process is desired, nitrogen itself will not be a problem. Nitrogen and oxygen will react to form nitrogen oxides (NOx) at the high temperatures you described. However, this reaction is endothermic, meaning it absorbs energy from the surroundings. This is the opposite of the carbon oxidation reaction.Nitrogen Oxide Formation
The primary reaction for nitrogen oxide formation is the combination of nitrogen and oxygen to form nitric oxide:N 2 (g)+O 2 (g)⇌2NO(g)
This reaction is part of what is known as the Zel'dovich mechanism, which describes the formation of nitrogen oxides in high-temperature combustion processes. This reaction is favored at high temperatures but has a very high activation energy, which is why it doesn't occur at normal temperatures.
Endothermic Nature
The reaction is endothermic because the triple bond in the nitrogen molecule (N 2) is extremely strong and requires a large amount of energy to break. The energy released when the new bonds are formed in nitric oxide (NO) is not enough to compensate for the energy required to break the bonds in bothN 2 and O 2. As a result, the overall reaction absorbs energy.
Effect on Pressure
The effect of nitrogen oxide formation on the pressure in your container would be minimal compared to the carbon reaction. The endothermic nature of the reaction would cause a slight decrease in the temperature of the gas, which, in turn, would cause a slight decrease in pressure. However, the number of moles of gas remains constant (one mole of N 2 plus one mole of O 2 yields two moles of NO), so the pressure change is driven solely by the change in temperature. In a system where carbon is also present, the powerful exothermic reaction of carbon with oxygen would completely dominate and overwhelm any cooling effect from the nitrogen-oxygen reaction.Here is a video about the reaction between nitrogen and oxygen.
Nitrogen and Oxygen Reaction
Nitrogen and Oxygen Reaction - YouTube
Mr Wong's Science Class · 13K views
***
Let us proceed to selection of the material for the walls of the compression chamber. I'm looking for a material that can absorb as much thermal energy as possible while withstanding the pressure to be generated. My hope is that the chamber can last long enough to allow for relief due to radiation of the thermal energy to space. The time frame of compression is on the order of a second, and the time required to hold the compressed gas is on the order of 30 seconds or so, at which point relief by radiation can begin. The best material found so far appears to be a form of steel that can hold together at 1000 Celsius, but I'm not sure if it can hold that pressure for the required interval. I'm also unsure of how well that material can radiate energy using electromagnetic radiation, since that is all that is available.
***
A high-strength steel alloy may not be the optimal choice for a chamber designed to absorb and radiate a large amount of thermal energy under extreme pressure. While some specialty steels can maintain strength at high temperatures, their ability to absorb and radiate heat efficiently might be limited compared to other materials.Thermal Absorption and Radiation
The ability of a material to absorb heat is related to its specific heat capacity (c p). A higher specific heat capacity means the material can absorb more energy for a given temperature increase. The ability to radiate heat is related to its emissivity (ε). A higher emissivity means the material is more efficient at radiating thermal energy via electromagnetic radiation.A perfectly black body has an emissivity of 1, while a shiny, reflective surface has a very low emissivity. Materials with high specific heat capacity and high emissivity would be ideal for your application.
Potential Materials
Tungsten and its Alloys
Tungsten has an extremely high melting point and a very high specific heat capacity. Tungsten is also very strong at high temperatures. While it is more expensive than steel, its properties could be well-suited to a high-temperature, high-pressure environment.Graphite
Although carbon itself reacts with oxygen, as we've discussed, graphite may still be a viable candidate if the chamber is lined with an oxygen-impermeable layer. Its specific heat capacity is very high, and its emissivity is nearly 1, making it an excellent radiator of thermal energy. A protective coating of a high-temperature ceramic or refractory metal could prevent the oxidation issue.High-Temperature Ceramics
Ceramic materials like zirconia (ZrO 2) or silicon carbide (SiC) are known for their ability to withstand extremely high temperatures. They have high specific heat capacities and can be manufactured with a high emissivity. However, their primary drawback is brittleness, making them less suitable for high-pressure applications where they must withstand rapid compression and expansion. They can be used as a lining material inside a metallic chamber to absorb and radiate the heat while the metal handles the pressure.Material Specific Heat ( J/kg⋅K) at 1000°C Melting Point (°C) Emissivity
Steel Alloy (typical) ~700 ~1400 ~0.3-0.8
Tungsten ~180 3422 ~0.35-0.45
Graphite ~2000 3550 ~0.95
Silicon Carbide ~1200 2700 (sublimes) ~0.90
Zirconia ~600 2715 ~0.85Pressure and Timeframe
The ability of a material to hold pressure is related to its tensile strength. Steels are known for their high tensile strength at room temperature, but this property degrades significantly at high temperatures. The specific grade of steel you mentioned (able to hold together at 1000°C) is likely a superalloy or specialty steel, which are specifically designed to retain strength at elevated temperatures. Even so, the pressures generated in your system might be beyond the capabilities of even these materials.
For a 30-second hold time, the material's creep resistance is also a critical factor. Creep is the tendency of a solid material to deform permanently under the influence of mechanical stress. At high temperatures, even the best materials will eventually fail under high pressure due to creep.
Given the extreme conditions, a single material is unlikely to be sufficient. A layered design, where an inner, high-emissivity ceramic layer absorbs the heat and an outer, high-strength metallic shell contains the pressure, may be the best approach.
***Thank you for this helpful analysis, and for the suggestion of materials to consider. I'm wondering if an outer layer of carbon might provide for efficient electromagnetic heat dispersion, while an inner layer of steel might hold together long enough for the process to complete. Creep is not a concern if the steel can hold together until cooling can begin in earnest.
***
Your suggestion of using an outer layer of carbon and an inner layer of steel is a clever idea, but it's the reverse of what would be most effective and practical. The steel should be on the outside to handle the pressure, and the carbon should be on the inside to manage the heat.Here's a breakdown of why:
The Problem with Your Proposed Configuration
Carbon's Low Tensile Strength: While graphite is excellent at high temperatures, it has a very low tensile strength compared to steel. A hollow carbon chamber would simply fracture and explode under the enormous pressures you're describing (86 bar, or approximately 1,247 psi). It cannot contain the gas.Steel's Limited Thermal Absorption and Radiation: A steel inner layer would be in direct contact with the superheated gas. Steel, even a high-grade superalloy, would absorb the heat and begin to lose its strength very quickly. It would also have a much lower emissivity than graphite, making it a poor radiator of that absorbed heat. This would hinder the cooling process.
The Optimal Configuration
The most logical and effective configuration would be a layered composite structure where each material plays to its strengths.Inner Layer (Graphite or Ceramic): The innermost layer, in direct contact with the hot gas, should be a high-emissivity, high-specific-heat material like graphite or a ceramic (such as silicon carbide). This layer would quickly absorb the thermal energy from the compressed gas and, due to its high emissivity, would then efficiently radiate that heat outward to the next layer.
Outer Layer (High-Strength Steel Superalloy): The outer shell, or pressure vessel, should be made of a specialty steel superalloy. This layer's primary job is to withstand the immense pressure of the compressed gas. The inner graphite/ceramic layer would serve to insulate the steel, keeping its temperature lower and allowing it to retain its tensile strength and creep resistance for the required 30-second timeframe. The outer surface of the steel could be polished to minimize heat absorption from the inner layer or have a high-emissivity coating applied to help radiate heat.
***But a few moments ago, you said that the carbon would react with oxygen to form CO2, which is an exothermic reaction . I am interested in carbon as suitable for radiation to space. I am hoping that simple thermal conduction from the steel to the carbon would allow the carbon to wick off the thermal energy inside the container. In other words, carbon would play no role in ** containing ** the gas mixture. Instead, it would ** only ** function as a thermal energy disposal mechanism.
***
That's an important clarification. You are correct that carbon will react with oxygen. My previous suggestions assumed a lined chamber to prevent this, but if your design has carbon in direct contact with the oxygen, it won't work as intended. The reaction is strongly exothermic and would destroy the carbon layer and cause a rapid, uncontrolled temperature and pressure spike.Let's revisit the problem with a new approach, focusing on a material that can withstand the temperature, pressure, and chemical reactivity of the compressed air.
The Correct Material Properties
For a material to function as an energy disposal mechanism while in direct contact with the gas mixture, it must:Be chemically inert with oxygen at 1000°C and 86 bar.
Have a high specific heat capacity to absorb a large amount of thermal energy.
Have high thermal conductivity to efficiently move that heat away from the gas and towards the outer surface.
Have high emissivity on its outer surface to radiate the heat efficiently to space.
Reconsidering Candidate Materials
Given these criteria, carbon is unsuitable because it fails the first and most critical test—chemical inertness.A better choice for a thermal wicking layer, possibly used in conjunction with a steel pressure vessel, would be a high-temperature ceramic or refractory metal.
Silicon Carbide (SiC): This ceramic is an excellent candidate. It is chemically inert with oxygen at these temperatures, has a very high thermal conductivity, and has a high specific heat capacity. It would effectively wick heat away from the gas and transfer it to the steel shell. The outer surface of the SiC could be manufactured to have high emissivity.
Molybdenum (Mo) or Tungsten (W): These are refractory metals known for their high melting points and strength at high temperatures. They have excellent thermal conductivity and can be used as a liner inside the steel chamber. Their surfaces can be treated to increase emissivity.
A layered design remains the best option, but the inner layer must be a material that is not consumed by the process.
How the System Would Work
Compression: The gas mixture is rapidly compressed, and its temperature and pressure rise dramatically.Thermal Transfer: The superheated gas comes into contact with the inner ceramic or refractory metal layer. This layer, with its high thermal conductivity, quickly absorbs the heat.
Pressure Containment: The outer steel superalloy shell holds the pressure, while the inner layer protects it from the most extreme temperatures.
Heat Radiation: The heat absorbed by the inner layer is conducted outward to the steel shell, which then radiates it to space. A surface with high emissivity would be crucial here. The steel's outer surface could be coated with a high-emissivity material, or even be made of a superalloy that is black or dark in color.
***Does such a super alloy exist? I've never heard of one, but that in itself means nothing.
***
Yes, such superalloys do exist. They are specifically engineered to maintain their strength and structural integrity at extremely high temperatures and pressures, far exceeding what traditional steels can handle.Superalloys are typically categorized based on their primary metal content:
Nickel-based superalloys are the most common and are widely used in the hottest sections of jet engines and gas turbines, where they endure temperatures well over 1000°C.
Cobalt-based superalloys offer excellent resistance to thermal fatigue and oxidation.
Iron-based superalloys are used in more specialized applications.
Examples of Superalloys
Common examples you may have heard of in an industrial context include Inconel and Hastelloy. These alloys contain a blend of elements like nickel, chromium, aluminum, titanium, molybdenum, and tungsten, which are added to improve specific properties. For example, adding chromium provides oxidation resistance, while elements like tungsten enhance the material's resistance to creep (permanent deformation under stress).The ability of these materials to resist high temperatures comes from their unique microstructure, which is designed to prevent atoms from moving around and the material from deforming or softening. They are often used in turbine blades and other critical components where failure could be catastrophic.
While these superalloys can handle the high-pressure environment at 1000°C, they are also very expensive and difficult to manufacture. A layered design, as we discussed, is the most practical way to utilize their strengths without incurring a massive cost or engineering challenge.
***So let's return to my suggestion of wrapping the steel container with a layer of carbon, such as might be wound around a carbon pressure vessel. Why do you seem to keep steering away from what seems to me a sensible and practical solution?
***
Let's re-examine that design. The reason I've steered away from it is due to a fundamental mismatch between the materials' properties and the demands of the environment you've described. It's not a sensible or practical solution because the carbon would be consumed, and the steel would be compromised, not the other way around.The Problem with Wrapping Steel in Carbon
Chemical Reactivity: The core issue is that carbon reacts with oxygen at 1000°C. Even if the carbon is on the outside, it would be in contact with the air in the atmosphere. The carbon would literally burn up in the presence of oxygen, making it useless as a structural or thermal layer.Thermal Conduction: If the chamber is wrapped in carbon, the steel is still the primary material in direct contact with the super-heated gas mixture. The steel would be heated instantly, losing its strength and risking catastrophic failure.
Pressure Containment: The steel is what's holding the pressure, but if its temperature increases significantly, it will begin to fail due to a loss of tensile strength and creep. The outer carbon layer cannot "wick off" the heat from the inner steel layer quickly enough to prevent this, because the heat from the gas is transferred directly to the steel first.
Misguided Goal: You mentioned that the carbon would be used to "wick off" the thermal energy inside the container. This is a misunderstanding of how thermal energy would move through the system. Heat is always transferred from a hotter object to a colder one. The gas inside the chamber is the hottest object, and it will heat the steel first. The steel would then transfer heat to the carbon, but the entire process would be far too slow to prevent the steel from reaching its failure temperature within the critical seconds after compression.
The Best and Most Practical Design
The only way to use these materials effectively is to use a reverse configuration, as previously discussed. The ceramic or refractory metal (like SiC) would be the inner liner, absorbing the initial thermal shock and radiating it outward. The steel superalloy would be the outer pressure vessel, handling the stress. The inner liner would act as a buffer, protecting the steel from the most extreme temperatures and allowing it to maintain its strength.
***Ah! Thank you ... I understand the problem we are having! I have failed to explain that the container is to be transported to the vacuum of space, where there will be no oxygen. Please re-evaluate your response given this new information.
***
Okay, that's a crucial piece of information. The absence of oxygen in the vacuum of space completely changes the chemistry of the problem.Given that the chamber is in a vacuum, the carbon will not oxidize. Therefore, wrapping the steel container in a layer of carbon is a very practical and effective solution for thermal management.
How the Design Works in a Vacuum
Pressure Containment: The inner steel superalloy shell's sole purpose is to contain the high pressure of the compressed gas. As we've discussed, superalloys are designed to maintain their strength at high temperatures, but they are not the best radiators of heat.Thermal Conduction and Radiation: The outer layer of carbon (graphite) acts as an excellent thermal management system.
High Thermal Conductivity: Graphite's layered structure gives it a very high thermal conductivity, allowing it to rapidly absorb heat from the steel shell and spread it across a large surface area.
High Emissivity: Graphite has an emissivity of nearly 1, making it a nearly perfect blackbody radiator. This means it can efficiently radiate the absorbed thermal energy away as electromagnetic radiation (infrared light) into the cold vacuum of space.
This layered design allows each material to perform the function it is best suited for. The steel handles the mechanical stress, and the carbon handles the thermal load, radiating the energy away to cool the entire system.
This configuration is, in fact, the basis for many real-world aerospace and high-temperature engineering applications, such as thermal protection systems and radiators for spacecraft.
***Thank you for helping me think through this design problem! I apologize for failing to adequately describe the mission, but as you'll recall, we started out with a question about carbon ** inside ** the chamber. We have arrived at a solution with the carbon ** outside ** but not carrying the tensile load, which is the responsibility of the alloy you've suggested. I am working with another instance of you, on a project to design equipment to handle this mission. We had not yet begun to consider materials, because the feasibility of the mission was the first order of business. Thank you for your assistance!
***
You're very welcome! I'm glad we could work through the design problem together. It's a great example of how a single new piece of information—the vacuum of space—can completely change a material science solution.It sounds like a fascinating project to be working on. The use of specialized superalloys for structural integrity combined with graphite for thermal management in a vacuum environment is a very robust and well-understood approach in aerospace engineering.
I wish you and your other project team members the best of luck with the mission design!
(th)
Offline
Like button can go here