News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by ChuckMcM on Monday February 27, 2017 @08:17PM (#13750298)
Yes but as the ULA whitepaper pointed out there are some challenges to doing so in orbit. For one, the lack of gravity makes it hard to pump fuel. You can spin the tanker to achieve fuel settling but now you are both spinning bodies. Then there is handling cryogenic propellants in space, you get nominal bleed off from warming and again ULA had a really interesting design of an internal combustion engine using the bleed off of Hydrogen and Oxygen as a chiller pump. But suffice it to say, its not as easy as it is flying a jet behind a slow re-purposed jetliner, and doing that is already difficult.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by skookumchuck on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @12:21AM (#13751464)
> the lack of gravity makes it hard to pump fuel

Evidently this problem is solved, because liquid fuel rockets have been working fine in space since the 60s. (Liquid fuel rockets have their propellants pumped into the chamber.)

> nominal bleed off from warming

Launch the tanker just beforehand. There won't be time for the fuel to bleed off.

Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by NickNameNick on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @01:00AM (#13751618)
Liquid fuel rockets use Surface tension against the slosh baffles to hold fuel in partially full fuel tanks in place.

Ullage motors are used to settle the fuel at the bottom of the tanks, so the main motor pumps can get to it.

Once the main motor starts providing acceleration, the ullage motors are no longer required.

For cross tanking, keeping the ullage motors running for long enough to transfer all the fuel, without the main motors running might be prohibitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor

Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by skookumchuck on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @01:14AM (#13751682)
I didn't know about ullage motors, thanks for the link. The link also says that only very tiny accelerations are needed - so this shouldn't be a big problem for a tanker. Like I hypothesized, the problem has been solved.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by NickNameNick on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @01:58PM (#13756642)
Bearing in mind that the ullage motors need to be of a type that won't suffer from ullage problems. That implies they cant use the main motor fuel.

The saturn 5 used small solid rockets as ullage motors. Alternatively you could use externally pressurised bladder tanks for a range of non-cryogenic fuels. Cold gas or possibly h2o2 as a monopropellant come to mind. Either option has a comparatively low specific impulse, so even running them at very low overall accelerations for extended time periods is likely to be cost-prohibitive.

I like the suggestion elsewhere of spinning the tank. You could also dock, then spin the whole combination ship. If you abandon the fuel station idea, you could just take the extra fuel tank with you, transferring fuel to your internal tank during a main engine burn, then abandoning the empty tank in a wierd orbit.

Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by baq on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:33AM (#13752979)
it's only been solved if it's demonstrated, which it wasn't.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by mulmen on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @01:02AM (#13751625)
Do the fuels have to remain in a cryogenic state in space? Can much larger containers with warmer fuel be used once the fuel is in orbit? I have no idea if this makes any sense.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by rtkwe on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @09:39AM (#13753995)
A major problem is pressure. As the fuel heats up and boils off the pressure increases and the tanks have to bleed it off or they'll burst eventually. Also the engine design for cryogenic stages assume a liquid fuel and moving enough gaseous fuel and oxidizer isn't in the current designs.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by imglorp on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @07:35AM (#13753284)
That's a good question. A big bag of fuel hanging outside is a fine place to store it if you don't care about temperature or pressure. You would need some kind of mechanical means to squish the bag to get the fuel out though, so maybe an accordion with a motorized retractor?
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by robryk on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @12:02PM (#13755202)
I think you are underestimating expansion ratios (ratio of volume of liquid and gas at reasonable pressure). The ratio for water vapour at sea level is ~1000x. The "large bag" might end up being so large that it's weight is a significant fraction of the weight of the fuel it contains.
Re:SpaceX to Send Privately Crewed Dragon Spacecraft Beyond ... by gozur88 on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @06:39PM (#13759402)
Even if you brought up a bag large enough to contain gaseous fuel and oxydizer, before you could actuall use the fuel you'd have to compress it again.