News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by objclxt on Monday May 20, 2024 @08:19AM (#40414658)
> They do this on earth every time they fuel the rocket. I understand it will be more difficult in space, but I don’t see why specifically this problem is the real engineering target over say, reuse.

The article goes into this in some detail. In particular:

* You have to get the propellant into space. This is going to take a large number of flights (~15) at a pace that has not been done before for a vehicle of that size (a launch every six days)

* You need to launch at pace because otherwise the propellant will boil off, which is another issue - you need to shade or insulate the propellant for a much longer period of time in much harsher conditions

* There is no gravity: whereas on earth the propellant separates relatively cleanly into liquid and gas this isn't the case in space

Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by exe34 on Monday May 20, 2024 @12:53PM (#40417442)
> There is no gravity: whereas on earth the propellant separates relatively cleanly into liquid and gas this isn't the case in space

can you use a plunger, instead of a pump? more like a syringe?

Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by imglorp on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:22PM (#40417767)
Yeah, a 9 meter diameter one, which adds mass and volume and complexity and detracts from the payload.

Instead what they do is use thrust to accelerate the whole vehicle a little, which presses all the liquid into one end of its tank where it can be pumped out. Instead of carrying special settling thrusters, they originally planned to use ullage gas for this but it's not clear that can work.

deeper discussion with math: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60124.60

Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by exe34 on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:41PM (#40417980)
plastic balloon?
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by tyjo99 on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:52PM (#40418095)
Most plastics are very brittle at the cryogenic temperatures. Also if you are using that method for a liquid oxygen tank, you need to make sure that the plastic you choose doesn't spontaneously combust on contact with LOX.
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by chasd00 on Monday May 20, 2024 @02:14PM (#40418356)
pretty much everything, including and especially plastic, becomes a fuel when it comes into contact with liquid oxygen. With liquid oxygen in contact with a fuel you're virtually guaranteed a fire at some point as it takes very little heat to start the combustion. This is why when rockets tip over it's an explosion and not just a broken airframe with fuel/oxidizer leaking out.
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by pantalaimon on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:51PM (#40418076)
What plastic is elastic at those temperatures? (-182 °C)
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by Qworg on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:52PM (#40418094)
Something much like this is used for wells - both simple and effective. I wonder why it wouldn't work here (or if just hasn't been tried).
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by tyjo99 on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:57PM (#40418150)
Cryogenic temperatures make most materials more brittle, hard to get a material that works at a wide enough range of temperatures to make a balloon to work correctly.

If you go for a narrower range of temperatures (ie. not structurally stable above 0C), it would need to be manufactured, transported, stored, tested and installed at seriously low temps which probably negates the possible advantage with the added technical complexity.

Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by imglorp on Monday May 20, 2024 @01:54PM (#40418120)
Yes and they would be called bladders, but then you need to carry a gas to compress the bladder.
Re:The Lunacy of Artemis by geertj on Tuesday May 21, 2024 @08:45AM (#40427710)
Yes, the article lists a few reasons, none of them convincing. Specifically:

> You have to get the propellant into space. This is going to take a large number of flights (~15) at a pace that has not been done before for a vehicle of that size (a launch every six days)

SpaceX has done 2 Falcon 9 launches in 1 day, and they would have done 3 if the third one had not have been scrubbed [1]. I really don't think that launching Starship is going to be any different, especially as it was specifically designed for reuse, unlike Falcon 9.

> You need to launch at pace because otherwise the propellant will boil off, which is another issue - you need to shade or insulate the propellant for a much longer period of time in much harsher conditions

First part is same argument as above. Second part (shading) - again, I don't see why it is harder than other hard things. Just add more insulation. Possibly do some passive or active cooling.

> There is no gravity: whereas on earth the propellant separates relatively cleanly into liquid and gas this isn't the case in space

Very similar problem to how you feed liquid propellant into a rocket engine when it relights in zero gravity. You use a small ullage thruster for this.

[1] https://news.satnews.com/2024/03/31/spacex-enjoys-two-out-of...