2 ms·
Sort of. The promise of on-orbit refueling is three-fold; First, you can have several tankers in orbit which would allow for an "any day of the week / time of
by ChuckMcM 5y ago
Sort of. The promise of on-orbit refueling is three-fold;
First, you can have several tankers in orbit which would allow for an "any day of the week / time of day" launch schedule from Earth for a payload satellite, that then rendezvoused with the tanker in the orbit it found itself in, fueled up, and then did a transition burn to the orbital plane it wanted to be in.
That "wins" because the satellite can go up with empty tanks for its orbital maneuvering thrusters, (so more mass can be allocated to the satellite), and the insertion 'tug' can ride along like an unfueled third stage. That eliminates things like "instantaneous launch windows" which keep satellites grounded if everything doesn't come together at exactly the right time.
Second, station keeping lifetime can be extended (most common value) and that means you can amortize the satellite's costs over a longer lifetime. Many geosynchronous satellites are "retired" not because they don't work, but because they are about to run out of fuel for keeping their place. If you can refuel a $5M satellite and get another 10 years of life out of it, that is a pretty big deal.
And third is the ability to gain fuel post launch as part of a retro-propulsive return profile. The heat shielding of all spacecraft is there because they use "friction" return profiles where they use the atmosphere to slow them down. That is fine but limits the amount of mass you can return because the more mass you displace, the more heat you generate in the return.
If you could fill up on fuel on orbit and use that to cancel your orbital velocity, you could do a return to earth that would stay within the heat limits of ordinary steel which would be safer and easier on the spacecraft.
ULA was circulating design ideas for a cryogenic fuel depot on orbit that were pretty neat.
These are but a few of the limitations that are imposed by having to carry all of the fuel you will ever need on every flight. On orbit refueling would make it much easier to work in space.
- hinkley 5y agoRefueling a satellite in orbit presupposes that the satellite actually made it to orbit. The flip side of amortizing the cost of the satellite over a longer mission is being able to cut your losses a bit in the event that the duration turns out to be 0.
- ChuckMcM 5y agoI don't disagree but I also don't understand what you're trying to say here. All satellites are insured and if they don't make it into orbit the insurance claim reimburses the builder for the cost.