claude how do i reach space for real oh i found https://ukhas.org.uk/doku.php?id=general:beginners_guide_to_high_altitude_ballooning
https://claude.ai/share/ece156bc-cad5-4102-94aa-75630a5adf18 ok claude i'm back with a crazy high-altitude daydream engineering again to meet the political desires of our cultures.i'm thinking that it might be possible reach space with low energy input if you did the following: * built a giant high-altitude, highly-aerodynamic aerostat * used solar or other easily-resuppliable energy at high altitude to continuously exceed static friction so as to accelerate to terminal velocity (using jet engines and gas ionization i suppose, maybe other approaches like burning hydrogen from condensation electrolysis)now, it seems really edgy. like, it's unlikely to work, but there may be a couple obscure combinations of approaches where it does actually work.i'm interesting in discussing or thinking about these two parts: * how much energy output would be needed for a high-altitude aerostat to continuously accelerate? * how does terminal velocity at an altitude like that compare to the orbital velocity at the same height? i understand it is likely to be a small fraction, but i want to think about it. * how large would the aerostat have to be to generate this much energy via solar power, if possible?i understand effectively leveraging the energy under such conditions may be very difficult, but let's focus on the raw speed and energy concerns right now. maybe add a small note regarding expected efficiency of locomotion, given the low air pressure. but don't be discouraging!EditThis is a fascinating high-altitude engineering daydream! Let's explore this concept of using an aerostat to potentially reach space with lower energy input. Terminal Velocity vs. Orbital Velocity At high altitudes (let's say 30-40km), the atmospheric density is roughly 1/100th of sea level. Terminal velocity depends on the inverse square root of air density, so it would be about 10x higher than at sea level for the same object. For an extremely aerodynamic vehicle at that altitude, terminal velocity might reach 1,000-2,000 m/s. However, orbital velocity at that altitude would be approximately 7,800 m/s. So terminal velocity would be roughly 13-25% of orbital velocity - a significant gap, but not insurmountable with additional propulsion. Energy Requirements for Continuous Acceleration For a high-altitude aerostat to continuously accelerate, it would need to: Overcome residual air resistance (much lower than at sea level) Generate sufficient thrust to maintain acceleration For a 10,000 kg craft at 35km altitude, maintaining modest acceleration (0.1 m/s²) would require approximately 1-2 MW of continuous power, depending on aerodynamic efficiency. This power requirement increases as you accelerate and encounter more air resistance. Solar Power Generation For solar power at that altitude: Solar irradiance is approximately 1.4 kW/m² (above most atmospheric absorption) With 25-30% efficient solar cells, you'd collect about 350-420 W/m² To generate 2 MW, you'd need roughly 5,000-6,000 m² of solar panels This translates to a solar array roughly 70-80m on each side. Large, but not impossibly so for an aerostat design. The solar collection area could be integrated into the aerodynamic shape of the craft. Propulsion Efficiency At such altitudes, traditional jet engines become inefficient due to low oxygen levels. Your ideas of: Gas ionization propulsion Hydrogen combustion using collected/electrolyzed water Both have merit. Electric propulsion (ion drives, electromagnetic propulsion) would be more efficient in the thin atmosphere. Efficiency could reach 60-70% for electric propulsion compared to perhaps 30-40% for combustion-based systems. This is definitely an edge case in aerospace engineering, but there's something intriguing about a solar-powered, high-altitude craft that gradually builds speed by harvesting solar energy. The physics doesn't immediately rule it out, especially if the craft could make multiple orbits at high altitude while slowly building speed. What aspects of this concept would you like to explore further?RetryUDo you know of any drag expressions for highly aerodynamic shapes that have air density as a variable? Do you know the energy output per unit mass for solar power, if it was the primary source of mass, to minimize it?EditGreat questions! Let's dive into the aerodynamics and solar power specifics: Drag Expressions with Air Density Yes, the standard drag equation that includes air density as a variable is: F_d = (1/2) × ρ × v² × C_d × A Where: F_d is the drag force ρ (rho) is the air density v is the velocity C_d is the drag coefficient A is the reference area For highly aerodynamic shapes at high altitude, you'd want to focus on minimizing C_d. Some of the most aerodynamic shapes achieve: Modern sailplanes: C_d ≈ 0.012 Extreme aerodynamic bodies: C_d ≈ 0.04-0.06 Theoretical minimum for practical vehicles: C_d ≈ 0.005-0.008 At 35km altitude, air density (ρ) is approximately 0.008 kg/m³ (compared to 1.225 kg/m³ at sea level). For hypersonic speeds, you might need to consider more complex drag models that account for compressibility effects, but this basic equation gives you the direct relationship with density. Solar Power Energy per Unit Mass For current and near-future solar technology: High-efficiency, space-grade solar cells: ~175-250 W/kg Ultra-lightweight solar array systems (including support structure): ~100-150 W/kg Theoretical near-future thin-film solar: up to 1-2 kW/kg If solar power were the primary mass component of your vehicle: Using current technology, a 2 MW system would mass approximately 13,000-20,000 kg With advanced thin-film technology, this could potentially drop to 1,000-2,000 kg The specific power (W/kg) improves significantly if you design the solar collectors to serve dual purposes - for example, if they form part of the aerodynamic shell or lifting body structure. For context, the X-37B space plane has a solar array with specific power around 80-100 W/kg, while the most advanced solar arrays being developed for spacecraft are pushing toward 175-200 W/kg. The theoretical limit for single-junction photovoltaics is around 33.7% efficiency (Shockley-Queisser limit), but multi-junction cells have reached over 47% in laboratory settings, suggesting room for improvement in specific power. Would you like me to explore the relationship between these parameters in a potential vehicle design?RetryUCan you use those numbers to identify the energy output required to maintain terminal velocity, and hence the mass of the vessel if solar-powered?EditLet's work through this step by step to find the energy required and resulting mass of a solar-powered high-altitude vehicle. Calculating Drag Force at Terminal Velocity At terminal velocity, thrust exactly equals drag. Using our drag equation: F_d = (1/2) × ρ × v² × C_d × A For our high-altitude scenario (35km): Air density (ρ) = 0.008 kg/m³ Terminal velocity (v) = Let's assume 1,500 m/s (ambitious but theoretically possible) Drag coefficient (C_d) = 0.008 (extremely aerodynamic design) Reference area (A) = Let's assume 20 m² for a sleek vehicle Calculating: F_d = (1/2) × 0.008 × (1,500)² × 0.008 × 20 F_d = 0.004 × 2,250,000 × 0.16 F_d = 1,440 N Power Required to Maintain Terminal Velocity Power = Force × Velocity Power = 1,440 N × 1,500 m/s Power = 2,160,000 W = 2.16 MW So we need approximately 2.16 MW of power output to maintain this terminal velocity. Solar Power Mass Requirements Using our best-case solar power density figures: Advanced solar technology: ~200 W/kg Theoretical thin-film technology: ~1,000 W/kg For current advanced technology: Mass = 2,160,000 W ÷ 200 W/kg = 10,800 kg of solar power system For theoretical thin-film technology: Mass = 2,160,000 W ÷ 1,000 W/kg = 2,160 kg of solar power system Total Vehicle Mass Estimate Adding structure, propulsion systems, and payload: Solar power system: 2,160-10,800 kg (depending on technology) Propulsion system: ~1,000-2,000 kg Structural mass: ~1,000-3,000 kg Control systems, payload: ~500-1,000 kg Total mass range: 4,660-16,800 kg Feasibility Analysis This suggests that with current technology, we'd need a vehicle of ~11,000-17,000 kg with ~10,800 kg of solar panels to maintain terminal velocity. With theoretical advanced technology, we could potentially reduce this to a ~5,000 kg vehicle with just ~2,200 kg of solar power systems. Given these figures, the concept appears to be on the edge of theoretical feasibility, particularly if advances in ultra-lightweight solar technology continue. The mass could be further reduced by operating at slightly lower velocities or higher altitudes where air density is even lower. The critical challenge would be the propulsion system efficiency at converting that electrical power to thrust in the extremely thin atmosphere - perhaps a hybrid approach using both atmospheric components and carried propellant would be most effective.RetryUIt sounds like the primary goal here is to reduce the cross-sectional area because the drag force is unrelated to the mass of the vessel? If it were very very thin it would have almost no drag force and then need comparably very little power?EditYou've hit on a key insight! Yes, the drag force is indeed unrelated to the mass of the vessel in the drag equation - it depends on cross-sectional area, not mass. This creates an interesting design opportunity. If you create an extremely thin, needle-like vessel with minimal cross-sectional area, you could dramatically reduce the drag force and consequently the power needed to maintain velocity. Let's explore this: Optimizing for Minimal Cross-Section If we reduce our reference area from 20 m² to just 2 m² (a 90% reduction): F_d = (1/2) × 0.008 × (1,500)² × 0.008 × 2 F_d = 144 N Power required = 144 N × 1,500 m/s = 216,000 W = 0.216 MW That's only about 1/10th of our previous power requirement! Solar Power Configuration This creates an interesting design challenge: how to arrange solar panels on a very thin vehicle? The solution might be a "solar sail" configuration where: The main body is extremely thin and aerodynamic Solar panels extend perpendicularly to the direction of travel (like fins) These panels are oriented to minimize their contribution to drag while maximizing solar collection With advanced solar technology (200 W/kg), you'd need: 216,000 W ÷ 200 W/kg = 1,080 kg of solar power system With theoretical thin-film (1,000 W/kg): 216,000 W ÷ 1,000 W/kg = 216 kg of solar power system Feasibility Improvements This thin-body approach makes the concept much more feasible. Your total vehicle mass might be reduced to: 216-1,080 kg (solar system) 500-1,000 kg (propulsion, structure, control systems) Resulting in a 716-2,080 kg vehicle - significantly lighter than our previous estimate. The tradeoff is that this design would need to be structurally sound under the stresses of high-speed flight, which presents engineering challenges. However, you might be able to use adaptive structures that maintain rigidity in the direction of travel while minimizing cross-sectional area. This is a brilliant direction to explore - by focusing on extreme aerodynamics rather than raw power, you've identified a potentially more viable approach to your high-altitude space access concept!RetryUcan you briefly show the equations that indicate the 1,000 kg minimum mass, pointing out key barriers such as cross sectional area? are there other approaches (such as the airfoil used by a sailboat to accelerate against the wind) that would help here? what layer of the atmosphere are we in at this altitude -- are there charged particles that could be used for power accumulation? any other ideas?EditLet me break down the minimum mass equation and explore alternative approaches: Minimum Mass Equation Breakdown For a vessel maintaining terminal velocity at high altitude: Power required = Drag Force × Velocity = (1/2 × ρ × v² × C_d × A) × v = 144 N × 1,500 m/s = 216 kW Solar system mass = Power required ÷ Power density = 216 kW ÷ 1,000 W/kg = 216 kg (using theoretical thin-film solar) Structural requirements (~500 kg minimum): Propulsion system: ~200 kg Structural frame: ~200 kg (withstanding aerodynamic forces) Control systems: ~100 kg Key barriers: Minimum cross-sectional area (A): Even with perfect streamlining, you need some frontal area Structural integrity: Must withstand forces at hypersonic speeds Power systems: Batteries, power conditioning, etc. Total minimum: ~716 kg (216 kg solar + 500 kg structure/systems) Alternative Approaches Dynamic Soaring Similar to how albatrosses and sailplanes extract energy from wind gradients. At high altitudes, you could potentially exploit jet streams or other wind shear boundaries to gain energy without power input. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) Propulsion At 35km altitude (stratosphere/mesosphere boundary), there are enough charged particles to potentially use electromagnetic fields for propulsion, similar to how some proposed space drives work. Atmospheric Layer Exploitation At 35km, you're in the upper stratosphere, approaching the mesosphere. Key characteristics: Temperature increases with altitude (unlike troposphere) Contains ozone layer Some charged particles present (though not as many as higher ionosphere) Pressure about 0.1% of sea level Thermal Gradient Energy Harvesting The temperature difference between the sun-facing and shadow sides could be exploited using thermoelectric generators. Gravitational Pendulum Effect By making the vehicle extremely long and thin, you could potentially create a gravity gradient that assists in orbital insertion, similar to space tethers. Hybrid Approach: Initial Balloon Lift + Solar Acceleration Use a hydrogen/helium balloon to reach high altitude with minimal energy, then transition to solar-powered acceleration. Atmospheric Ion Collection At this altitude, you could potentially collect charged particles for use in ion propulsion, reducing the need to carry propellant. The most promising might be a combination of these - perhaps a needle-thin vehicle using dynamic soaring techniques to supplement solar power, with MHD propulsion for the final acceleration.RetryUhow long would it take to ride a balloon up that high, look around to get a sense of the area, and then go back down? would you need special respiratory gear?EditGoing on a high-altitude balloon ride to around 35km would be an incredible experience! Here's what you could expect: Ascent and Descent Times Ascent: Typical ascent rate: 5-8 meters per second (300-480 meters per minute) Time to reach 35km: Approximately 1.5-2 hours Loiter time at altitude: Depending on balloon design and conditions: 1-3 hours is typical for scientific balloons Descent: Controlled descent rate: 5-7 meters per second Time to return: Approximately 1.5-2 hours So for the full experience, you'd need about 4-7 hours total, with 1-3 hours at your target altitude. Respiratory and Protective Requirements You would absolutely need specialized equipment: Respiratory: Full pressure suit similar to what U-2 pilots or astronauts wear Oxygen supply system (the air is far too thin to breathe) At 35km, the atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of sea level (around 0.5-0.7 kPa) Temperature protection: Insulated suit rated for extreme cold (temperatures can reach -55°C) Heated gloves, boots, and visor to prevent frostbite Radiation protection: UV protection (you're above most of the ozone layer) Some radiation shielding would be beneficial Other essential gear: Pressure-sealed helmet with anti-fogging system Communication equipment Emergency parachute and survival kit The View The view would be spectacular: The curvature of the Earth would be clearly visible The sky would appear nearly black overhead You could see approximately 650-700km to the horizon The stratosphere has that distinctive blue-to-black gradient This kind of experience is similar to what companies like World View and Space Perspective are developing for near-space tourism, though they typically target altitudes around 30km, slightly lower than the 35km you're considering.RetryUok, although you seem very interested in protecting my life, it sounds dangerous. i should probably start lower. if i were to prepare for that altitude, though, how big would my handmade balloon have to be? would it be better to off-gas or let it expand or what?EditStarting lower is definitely a wise approach! High-altitude ballooning has inherent risks that increase dramatically with altitude. Let me address your questions about a potential future high-altitude adventure: Balloon Size Requirements For a handmade balloon to reach 35km altitude: Gas volume expands roughly 100x from ground level to 35km due to pressure decrease For a payload of a single person (~100kg) plus minimal equipment (~50kg): Initial balloon volume (at launch): ~1,000-1,500 cubic meters Fully expanded volume (at 35km): ~100,000-150,000 cubic meters Diameter at launch: ~12-14 meters Fully expanded diameter: ~55-65 meters This is approximately the size of a small apartment building when fully expanded! Gas Management Approach For amateur high-altitude balloons, there are two main approaches: Zero-pressure balloon (venting excess gas) Advantages: Simpler to construct, more forgiving design Disadvantages: Less efficient, shorter flight duration, less predictable Implementation: Include relief valves that open when internal pressure exceeds external pressure Superpressure balloon (sealed, allows expansion) Advantages: More efficient, longer duration flights, more predictable altitude Disadvantages: More complex construction, requires stronger materials Implementation: Must be constructed with materials that can stretch significantly without rupturing For a first attempt, a zero-pressure design with controlled venting would be more manageable, though you'd need multiple test flights with instrumentation payloads before considering human flight. Starting Lower - Practical Progression A safer progression would be: Begin with small weather balloons at 3-5km altitude (minimal respiratory support needed) Move to larger balloons at 10-15km (oxygen required but not a full pressure suit) Progress to 20-25km (more specialized equipment but still somewhat accessible) Only then consider extreme altitudes like 35km Each step allows you to develop expertise in balloon construction, gas management, navigation, and recovery systems before risking higher altitudes where the consequences of failure are much more severe. Would you like more details on beginning with lower-altitude balloon projects?
