Is it possible that the atmosphere is losing less of its "shield" capabilities due to more and more jets/rockets puncturing it daily?

[Nuckles56]

Australians get extra UV and it makes them stronger to fend off the unnatural predators.

It's also why Australians have one of the highest rates of skin cancers.

That explains Mussels.

That too...

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm just going to leave this here, and ask the question once again, are we sure we know what we are doing? Hubris and Ego cocktails are one helluva party, just saying.

Whoopsie, SpaceX Blew Up Two Rockets and Punched a Massive Hole in One of Earth's Layers

We learned something, though.

www.popularmechanics.com

Whoopsie, SpaceX Blew Up Two Rockets and Punched a Massive Hole in One of Earth's Layers

Luckily for us, these atmospheric holes aren’t nearly as dire as the ozone hole that rattled the world in the 1990s (and will slowly heal itself by mid-century), as the scientists report that this Starship-induced ion hole caused by “catastrophic phenomena” closed up after 30 or 40 minutes. But these kinds of interactions are still poorly understood, and that’s concerning considering how central the ionosphere is to global technologies—not to mention human health.

The section from the article above I find troubling, because of the key words I highlighted in bold.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

AI vs my question of the day: long story short, I still don't have an answer, why is steel used to make rocket ships like Starship, but not Inconel? I guess its just not needed is my takeaway.

however this does answer my original question, Inconel, the item that fell from ISS, can resist insanely high temps. neat. I wonder why ISS uses this though if they know it can fall to Earth and hit people lol


Inconel and stainless steel are both remarkable materials, but their specific properties make them suitable for different applications in rocketry. Let’s delve into the reasons behind their usage:

1. Stainless Steel:
   • Advantages:
     • Cost-Effective: Stainless steel is relatively inexpensive compared to specialized alloys.
     • High Thermal Conductivity: It efficiently dissipates heat.
     • Corrosion Resistance: Stainless steel resists rust and oxidation.
   • Challenges:
     • Strength: Stainless steel has lower tensile and yield strength compared to alloys like Inconel 718.
     • Temperature Limitations: At extremely high temperatures, stainless steel may lose strength and become less reliable.
   • Application:
     • SpaceX’s Starship: Elon Musk’s decision to use stainless steel for the Starship is groundbreaking. Its cost-effectiveness and ease of manufacturing are key factors.
2. Inconel:
   • Advantages:
     • High-Temperature Performance: Inconel excels at elevated temperatures.
     • Oxidation and Corrosion Resistance: It withstands aggressive environments.
     • Creep Resistance: Ideal for sustained high-temperature applications.
   • Challenges:
     • Cost: Inconel is expensive.
     • Density: It’s denser than stainless steel.
   • Application:
     • Rocket Engines: Inconel 718 is commonly used in rocket nozzles and combustion chambers due to its robustness under extreme conditions 1.

In summary, while stainless steel offers advantages in terms of cost and thermal conductivity, Inconel’s superior high-temperature performance makes it a preferred choice for critical components in rocket engines. Each material serves a specific purpose, balancing trade-offs between strength, cost, and temperature resistance

I'm just going to leave this here, and ask the question once again, are we sure we know what we are doing? Hubris and Ego cocktails are one helluva party, just saying.

Whoopsie, SpaceX Blew Up Two Rockets and Punched a Massive Hole in One of Earth's Layers

We learned something, though.

www.popularmechanics.com

Whoopsie, SpaceX Blew Up Two Rockets and Punched a Massive Hole in One of Earth's Layers

Luckily for us, these atmospheric holes aren’t nearly as dire as the ozone hole that rattled the world in the 1990s (and will slowly heal itself by mid-century), as the scientists report that this Starship-induced ion hole caused by “catastrophic phenomena” closed up after 30 or 40 minutes. But these kinds of interactions are still poorly understood, and that’s concerning considering how central the ionosphere is to global technologies—not to mention human health.

The section from the article above I find troubling, because of the key words I highlighted in bold.

To the former quote...inconel's primary issue is that it work hardens even worse than stainless steel. It's very difficult to machine inconel into complex shapes, and even more so to have multiple complex processes happen to it.


Regarding the supposition of the atmosphere being a shield, what? Let me ask you if the atmosphere on Jupiter is considered a shield...because when stuff hits it it burns up just as easily as Earth (assuming similar kinetic energy differences). The "shield" I think you mean is that when floating space debris hits the atmosphere it burns up...but that is due to the presence of atmosphere, not some shielding effect. If you want a practical demonstration drive a car at 30 mph, roll down a window, and stick your arm outside it. The car is traveling in a direction, the atmosphere around you resists that motion, so your arm will be pushed back in the opposite direction of travel. On the same car, come to a dead stop, and feel the air around your brake disc. I say around, because all of the friction required to be generated by the disc and pad to bring you to a stop is dumped into heat (exactly like re-entry).

If the above statements are true, which is reasonable to assume, then the only way to lose the "shield" would be to have less atmosphere or a less dense one. You are looking at a NASA article that states chunks of debris in the thermosphere (yes, the ISS is in the Earth's atmosphere) managed to make it to the ground. Big deal.



Regarding you ripping on SpaceX for what they are... They have taken all of the tech from when we still cared about space flight, huge government grants, and have imposed government contracts. Despite this they are less cost efficient than we were in the 90's. They have had more stuff blow-up than NASA has in decades. They managed to scatter debris where we don't traditionally do it by stubbornly requiring a Texas launch facility. The Russians flying ancient rockets have a better safety track record...I say while watching their equipment being cannibalized on the battlefield because they can't put the funds into maintaining it. Musk is a dreamer, who got lucky with money. Tesla and all ventures thereafter are not healthy, and this includes SpaceX. It should be obvious when a vacuum tube train was "not that complicated" and he wanted to graduate to rocketry.
This said, unless it's boiling off atmosphere there's no "shield" decrease.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Is it possible that the atmosphere is losing less of its "shield" capabilities due to more and more jets/rockets puncturing it daily?

While there is some theoretical validity to that idea, in reality, the simple answer is no. The reason? Gravity and the Magnetic field. Gravity keeps escape velocity high enough the nothing but free hydrogen and helium can escape and then only in very trace amounts. The reason the Solar wind doesn't strip away the atmosphere is the Magnetic field of Earth. The Magnetic field nearly completely deflects the Solar wind because the Solar wind is made up of highly charged particles. Almost nothing coming out from the Sun has a neutral charge or anything close to neutral.

 

[Space Lynx]

To the former quote...inconel's primary issue is that it work hardens even worse than stainless steel. It's very difficult to machine inconel into complex shapes, and even more so to have multiple complex processes happen to it.


Regarding the supposition of the atmosphere being a shield, what? Let me ask you if the atmosphere on Jupiter is considered a shield...because when stuff hits it it burns up just as easily as Earth (assuming similar kinetic energy differences). The "shield" I think you mean is that when floating space debris hits the atmosphere it burns up...but that is due to the presence of atmosphere, not some shielding effect. If you want a practical demonstration drive a car at 30 mph, roll down a window, and stick your arm outside it. The car is traveling in a direction, the atmosphere around you resists that motion, so your arm will be pushed back in the opposite direction of travel. On the same car, come to a dead stop, and feel the air around your brake disc. I say around, because all of the friction required to be generated by the disc and pad to bring you to a stop is dumped into heat (exactly like re-entry).

If the above statements are true, which is reasonable to assume, then the only way to lose the "shield" would be to have less atmosphere or a less dense one. You are looking at a NASA article that states chunks of debris in the thermosphere (yes, the ISS is in the Earth's atmosphere) managed to make it to the ground. Big deal.



Regarding you ripping on SpaceX for what they are... They have taken all of the tech from when we still cared about space flight, huge government grants, and have imposed government contracts. Despite this they are less cost efficient than we were in the 90's. They have had more stuff blow-up than NASA has in decades. They managed to scatter debris where we don't traditionally do it by stubbornly requiring a Texas launch facility. The Russians flying ancient rockets have a better safety track record...I say while watching their equipment being cannibalized on the battlefield because they can't put the funds into maintaining it. Musk is a dreamer, who got lucky with money. Tesla and all ventures thereafter are not healthy, and this includes SpaceX. It should be obvious when a vacuum tube train was "not that complicated" and he wanted to graduate to rocketry.
This said, unless it's boiling off atmosphere there's no "shield" decrease.

Well, I was using the shield as a metaphor, small asteroid comes in, shield protects, just a basic concept. I know it's not like an actual shield. Sometimes metaphors just help me think it through, that's all.

While there is some theoretical validity to that idea, in reality, the simple answer is no. The reason? Gravity and the Magnetic field. Gravity keeps escape velocity high enough the nothing but free hydrogen and helium can escape and then only in very trace amounts. The reason the Solar wind doesn't strip away the atmosphere is the Magnetic field of Earth. The Magnetic field nearly completely deflects the Solar wind because the Solar wind is made up of highly charged particles. Almost nothing coming out from the Sun has a neutral charge or anything close to neutral.

Makes sense, I just worry about possible chain reactions occurring from a single event. During the Cold War, when the nuclear countries were testing them, didn't they realize they were launching too big of ones at one point and stopped for a similar fear with the atmosphere?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Makes sense, I just worry about possible chain reactions occurring from a single event.

If you think about it, that just wouldn't or it would have already. Remember that the Earth, and thus the atmosphere, get hit multiple times a day by meteors & meteorites and it has been for billions of years. We just don't notice it until something big happens.

Worry not my friend, we're fine! As small as Earth is compared to other objects out in the Solar System and the Universe at large, it's still big enough to take a daily beating and not be effected much, if at all.

 

[Space Lynx]

If you think about it, that just wouldn't or it would have already. Remember that the Earth, and thus the atmosphere, get hit multiple times a day by meteors & meteorites and it has been for billions of years. We just don't notice it until something big happens.

Worry not my friend, we're fine! As small as Earth is compared to other objects out in the Solar System and the Universe at large, it's still big enough to take a daily beating and not be effected much, if at all.

I actually had not thought of it from that perspective, that does make a lot of sense. I guess my brain was just thinking the physics of going out outward from inside the Earth might treat the "shield" differently, BUT I am starting to realize now there is no logic in that. It's literally going to be the same from either direction. I think maybe that is where I was getting hung up, I think my shield metaphor ended up being a double edged sword in this case...

SEE WHAT I DID THERE?! i still got it... sort of,

 

[Caring1]

Shouldn't the title say More, and not less?
If it loses less, it's actually getting stronger

 

[Space Lynx]

Shouldn't the title say More, and not less?
If it loses less, it's actually getting stronger

I think you are right, and the title never fully conveyed my entire fear anyway. I just didn't know how to word it. In my brain I just kept thinking of little punctures happening over and over, well what if say a rocket blows up like the Spacex on that tore a hole in the atmosphere for 48 hrs or w.e it was, and then like 4 more rockets did the same thing, could it cause an unexpected chain reaction that unraveled the atmosphere?

As lex pointed out to me though, this is just a lack of understanding of physics and the materials that make up the atmosphere, so I am already considering this thread dead as its really more of a misunderstanding on my end.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I think you are right, and the title never fully conveyed my entire fear anyway. I just didn't know how to word it. In my brain I just kept thinking of little punctures happening over and over, well what if say a rocket blows up like the Spacex on that tore a hole in the atmosphere for 48 hrs or w.e it was, and then like 4 more rockets did the same thing, could it cause an unexpected chain reaction that unraveled the atmosphere?

As lex pointed out to me though, this is just a lack of understanding of physics and the materials that make up the atmosphere, so I am already considering this thread dead as its really more of a misunderstanding on my end.

It was an interesting and good thought, worthy of a moments discussion.