'Near space' similar to Moon?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Boom

New Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm 15 years old and very interested in rockets. My father had a hard time with this one and recommended I ask here.

I notice rockets launching from the surface of the Moon are less substantial than those from Earth. I understand this is because of the reduced atmosphere and gravity.

My question is, how does that compare to Earth's 'near space'? What is the gravity and atmosphere like 60 miles up? The recent RedBull stunt got me thinking.. If it was possible to launch rockets from weather balloons at this elevation, how much smaller could they be? Would the SpaceX Dragon reduce to half or more like one tenth it's size? Is something like that even possible or is there some impossible technical challenge?

Anyway. Thanks for any feedback.
 
Great questions! The effect of gravity on an object does go down as you get further away from the earth. However not by a lot. Even on the international space station which is about 200 miles up the force due to gravity is still pretty close to the gravity on the surface of the earth.

There are rockets which are launched from balloons. The benefit there is more that the balloon has increased your starting height than a reduction in the gravity. There are still technical issues with launching from a balloon, but I would let someone with more experience cover that. All I know is that much helium cost a lot of money...

I hope that helped!
 
The equations for figuring out the force of gravity at various altitudes are pretty easy, and it's kind of instructive to run some numbers. Here's a page giving an example: https://www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/lawsgravaltitude.htm.

Jonny's point about the force of gravity 200 miles up is interesting. Most of your friends, family, teachers and so on probably believe that the reason things float around in the ISS is that "they've escaped the Earth's gravitational field" because they're so far up. But they're NOT that far up, and they haven't even come close to escaping Earth's gravity.
 
The equations for figuring out the force of gravity at various altitudes are pretty easy, and it's kind of instructive to run some numbers. Here's a page giving an example: https://www.mansfieldct.org/Schools/MMS/staff/hand/lawsgravaltitude.htm.

Jonny's point about the force of gravity 200 miles up is interesting. Most of your friends, family, teachers and so on probably believe that the reason things float around in the ISS is that "they've escaped the Earth's gravitational field" because they're so far up. But they're NOT that far up, and they haven't even come close to escaping Earth's gravity.

This may not sound right at first because you've seen the video of the astronauts and cosmonauts in the space station and they are, obviously, "weightless." Yes, and no. Astronauts train in an airplane from time to time (nicknamed the vomit comet) that flies a series of sharp vertical curves (climbing, then diving again) which produce short periods of weightlessness. On the ISS (International Space Station) we see a very similar sort of weightlessness, objects are weightless not because they've escaped the earth's gravity, but because they are going really, really fast (in orbit around the earth) and so, instead of falling "down" they are constantly falling "around" the earth.
 
Things in orbit are constantly falling towards the center of the earth, at the rate of 9.8m/s^2. So in one second, they've fallen 9.8 meters. However, due to their forward velocity and curvature of the earth, in that same second, the earth "falls away" 9.8 meters. Thus, the orbit is maintained. Mind you that this is for LEO, the numbers (but not the principle) are different for higher orbits. I am also ignoring atmospheric effects which are non trivial. Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
I'm 15 years old and very interested in rockets. My father had a hard time with this one and recommended I ask here.

I notice rockets launching from the surface of the Moon are less substantial than those from Earth. I understand this is because of the reduced atmosphere and gravity.

My question is, how does that compare to Earth's 'near space'? What is the gravity and atmosphere like 60 miles up? The recent RedBull stunt got me thinking.. If it was possible to launch rockets from weather balloons at this elevation, how much smaller could they be?

A rather small rocket can reach space if launch from a high-altitude balloon. The main reason is that it doesn't have to fly through all that air below it to get started.

Researchers used "rockoons" (rocket balloons) back when sounding rockets were something new and many amatuer (and some professional) attempts to launch rockets into space are using them now.

But, there are many challenges to launching a rocket from a balloon.

A balloon doesn't provide a very stable platform. It's constantly moving. And, especially at high altitudes, it's hard to determine the orientation of the balloon. It's hard to point the rocket in the correct direction and it's hard to know which way to point it.

Igniting a rocket motor at high altitudes is challenging. The normal methods that that are used on the ground for igniting solid propellant and hybrid motors don't work well in the low pressure environment. Although the igniters are like rocket motors in that they don't need oxygen from the air to burn, the lack of air means that the igniter must be in direct contact with the propellant since there's no air to transfer the heat.

Once the rocket motor is ignited, it's difficult to ensure that the rocket goes the desired direction. At high altitudes, there is not enough air to make the fins of a rocket work effectively. So, a more complicated method must be used to ensure that the rocket travels in the correct direction and is stable.

But, as I said, there are many, mostly amateur, teams exploring this method of launching rockets to high altitudes.

Here are some links to articles about a few of the projects:

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/10/romanian-moon-balloon-gets-fir.html

https://wiki.seds.org/index.php?title=ISU_Rockoon_Project

https://www.jpaerospace.com/rockoons.html

Do an internet search for the word "rockoon" to find more articles about using balloons to launch rockets. You might also search this forum since there have been discussions with people involved in some rockoon projects.

-- Roger
 
Last edited:
A rather small rocket can reach space if launch from a high-altitude balloon. The main reason is that it doesn't have to fly through all that air below it to get started.

Researchers used "rockoons" (rocket balloons) back when sounding rockets were something new and many amatuer (and some professional) attempts to launch rockets into space are using them now.

But, there are many challenges to launching a rocket from a balloon.

A balloon doesn't provide a very stable platform. It's constantly moving. And, especially at high altitudes, it's hard to determine the orientation of the balloon. It's hard to point the rocket in the correct direction and it's hard to know which way to point it.

Igniting a rocket motor at high altitudes is challenging. The normal methods that that are used on the ground for igniting solid propellant and hybrid motors don't work well in the low pressure environment. Although the igniters are like rocket motors in that they don't need oxygen from the air to burn, the lack of air means that the igniter must be in direct contact with the propellant since there's no air to transfer the heat.

Once the rocket motor is ignited, it's difficult to ensure that the rocket goes the desired direction. At high altitudes, there is not enough air to make the fins of a rocket work effectively. So, a more complicated method must be used to ensure that the rocket travels in the correct direction and is stable.

But, as I said, there are many, mostly amateur, teams exploring this method of launching rockets to high altitudes.

Here are some links to articles about a few of the projects:

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/10/romanian-moon-balloon-gets-fir.html

https://wiki.seds.org/index.php?title=ISU_Rockoon_Project

https://www.jpaerospace.com/rockoons.html

Do an internet search for the word "rockoon" to find more articles about using balloons to launch rockets. You might also search this forum since there have been discussions with people involved in some rockoon projects.

-- Roger

Dad here.

Thank you all for your help. I knew about the satellites 'constantly falling', but it never occurred to me the gravity would have changed so little 60 miles up. Now that I think of it, it makes sense considering the size of the planet.

Jadebox - thank you for that information on the atmosphere and rockoons. I'll have to look into that.
 
The phrase "falling around the earth" is also a pretty good description.

Just as an aside, I've had some interesting conversations with people (not rocketeers) adults and kids - that think going into orbit (and experiencing weightlessness) is a function of altitude, when in fact it is more so a function of speed (ie. "escape velocity").....granted getting above most of the atmoshere helps in dealing with the frictional heating produced by speed.

I'm sure you have all heard someone say something like: that thing went so high it must have gone into orbit....

I'm sure you've seen the trajectories of many sounding rockets in various books which kind of explains at a glance the fact that there is more to going into orbit than merely getting altitude.
Many sounding rockets were portrayed in comparative illustrations and graphs showing balloons, X-15s, space capsules etc., with the sounding rockets going very, very high but only achieving a ballistic trajectory and not going into orbit.

It's that velocity thing....got to have that speed to extend that ballistic trajectory and fall all the way out around the earth....
 
Last edited:
The phrase "falling around the earth" is also a pretty good description.

Just as an aside, I've had some interesting conversations with people (not rocketeers) adults and kids - that think going into orbit (and experiencing weightlessness) is a function of altitude, when in fact it is more so a function of speed (ie. "escape velocity").....granted getting above most of the atmoshere helps in dealing with the frictional heating produced by speed.

I'm sure you have all heard someone say something like: that thing went so high it must have gone into orbit....

I'm sure you've seen the trajectories of many sounding rockets in various books which kind of explains at a glance the fact that there is more to going into orbit than merely getting altitude.
Many sounding rockets were portrayed in comparative illustrations and graphs showing balloons, X-15s, space capsules etc., with the sounding rockets going very, very high but only achieving a ballistic trajectory and not going into orbit.

It's that velocity thing....got to have that speed to extend that ballistic trajectory and fall all the way out around the earth....
This has always interested me the fact that it is really a matter of speed, not altitude. You can go as high as you want, but you will just end up coming back down. As you stated, sounding rockets get the altitude, but lack the speed and orientation to enter orbit.

Here is an image of the "Orion" sounding rocket, and its flight path.
SoundingRocketIllus.jpg
 
Thanks everyone. We contacted some dudes in our area that do this kind of thing and we're going to see some of their projects this weekend.

I've been reading some things my dad found on the internet about escape velocity and gravity. Pretty wild that an object could be put 'in orbit' a couple feet off the ground... assuming it had enough power to maintain escape velocity.

From the rocket projects my dad & I have done, I know the less energy needed, the less propellant needed, which means less mass and less energy, etc etc. So it's not a linear relationship.

Does anyone have a good feel for how much smaller rockets could be if they didn't have to go through all that atmosphere? I guess that depends on what percentage of a rocket's energy is used to go through the atmosphere, right? If the rocket has enough energy to put something on the moon, a little air is insignificant. If the rocket is just supposed to get a couple hundred miles up then fall down, the atmosphere is a huge deal, right? What about a rocket trying to put a satellite into orbit? If it's already starting near the edge of our atmosphere I would imagine that's a big portion of the energy requirement eliminated? Maybe a large amount?

Have hobbyists/amateurs ever put something into orbit before?

I just wiki'd "sounding rocket". That's a rocket which is launched and just falls back to earth, right?

ok ok. Sorry for all the questions. I'll call it a night. Thanks again everyone.
 
Back
Top