4 ms·
By no means am I an engineer, but the first thing that comes to mind to me is those little toothpaste keys, and I wonder if you could perhaps just reduce the si
by CobrastanJorji 3y ago
By no means am I an engineer, but the first thing that comes to mind to me is those little toothpaste keys, and I wonder if you could perhaps just reduce the size of the canister as it empties. I sort of imagine a board with a spring on the top end of the canister that is held compressed under pressure but pushes towards the other end as the fuel is used up. Perhaps the pressure is so great when full that this is very difficult?
- positr0n 3y agoIf that were possible with the fuels rockets use (liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen, liquid methane, etc.) it is still probably way cheaper on every axis to just make the tank 3% bigger and ignore the waste. Common axes they care about in rocket design are weight, cost in money, reliability/complexity, and lately reusability.
- mohaine 3y agoThese are not cryogenic so something is probably possible but this would add extra weight/mass. You do not want extra weight on your rocket. Every bit of non-fuel weight you add means you have to add extra fuel, and the extra fuel to carry the extra fuel along with any extra tank needed for the extra fuel. It gets bad fast. It just isn't worth it when you can just add that weight as fuel that normally doesn't get used. Ideally would dump in the ocean (which you cleared) so it didn't matter (much).
- krisoft 3y agoThey do that for smaller engines. Absolutely. They call it a bladder tank. Here is an article about it: https://www.space-propulsion.com/spacecraft-propulsion/hydrazine-tanks/hydrazine-tank-overview.html https://www.space-propulsion.com/spacecraft-propulsion/hydra... > I sort of imagine a board with a spring on the top end of the canister You are better off doing it with gas pressure instead of a spring, but yeah absolutely. Very good thinking.