Break Away Valves for Launch [duplicate] The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCould fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?Is Asparagus Staging PossibleWhy rockets are not tossed up before launchWhat rocket uses the largest percentage of Fuel/Oxidizer before liftoff?How much fuel would one need to launch a 1kg object from 100,000 feet?How much fuel was used for a Space Shuttle launch?What is a typical energy demand and carbon footprint of a space launch?How do they get up-close views of far away spacecraft after launch?How far away can one see a NASA rocket launch?Good source for launch videosIs the pressurization of propellant tanks necessary for structural integrity?Odor of a rocket launch?Why rockets are not tossed up before launchReaction Drive Launch Catapult

How to compactly explain secondary and tertiary characters without resorting to stereotypes?

Another proof that dividing by 0 does not exist -- is it right?

How to find if SQL server backup is encrypted with TDE without restoring the backup

Find the majority element, which appears more than half the time

Could a dragon use hot air to help it take off?

Man transported from Alternate World into ours by a Neutrino Detector

Prodigo = pro + ago?

What is the difference between 서고 and 도서관?

How can the PCs determine if an item is a phylactery?

Are British MPs missing the point, with these 'Indicative Votes'?

How to coordinate airplane tickets?

Was the Stack Exchange "Happy April Fools" page fitting with the 90s code?

What happens if you break a law in another country outside of that country?

Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers

How dangerous is XSS

Planeswalker Ability and Death Timing

Can I hook these wires up to find the connection to a dead outlet?

Why can't we say "I have been having a dog"?

Does Germany produce more waste than the US?

How to pronounce fünf in 45

How can I separate the number from the unit in argument?

Why did early computer designers eschew integers?

Car headlights in a world without electricity

Would a grinding machine be a simple and workable propulsion system for an interplanetary spacecraft?



Break Away Valves for Launch [duplicate]



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowCould fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?Is Asparagus Staging PossibleWhy rockets are not tossed up before launchWhat rocket uses the largest percentage of Fuel/Oxidizer before liftoff?How much fuel would one need to launch a 1kg object from 100,000 feet?How much fuel was used for a Space Shuttle launch?What is a typical energy demand and carbon footprint of a space launch?How do they get up-close views of far away spacecraft after launch?How far away can one see a NASA rocket launch?Good source for launch videosIs the pressurization of propellant tanks necessary for structural integrity?Odor of a rocket launch?Why rockets are not tossed up before launchReaction Drive Launch Catapult










2












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Could fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?

    5 answers



I forgot to hang up the fuel pump and broke it off and costed around 80 dollars to replace. While there I wandered could this be adapted to a rocket in some way?



How much fuel capacity would be saved if the fuel was fed to the rocket to keep it topped off until it has fully left the launch tower? The length of the fuel line and break away valve would be the height of the launch tower.



Could it be fed through an extended tower with a fuel line that travels aside the rocket not to burden the rocket with the weight of the fuel line or cause a whip in the fuel line?



enter image description here
https://sputniknews.com/science/201812291071085215-soyuz-launch-russia-uk-satellite/










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Russell Borogove, Nathan Tuggy, uhoh, Muze, Steve Linton 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

















  • $begingroup$
    You should consider the amount of fuel feed into the tanks after lift off and compare it to the amount of fuel left in the hose and the weight of the hose itself after disconnection of the hose. If the hose with fuel weighs more than the added fuel, nothing was won.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe that way I put the part about a shorter hose to run up aside it taking away the weight.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    yesterday















2












$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Could fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?

    5 answers



I forgot to hang up the fuel pump and broke it off and costed around 80 dollars to replace. While there I wandered could this be adapted to a rocket in some way?



How much fuel capacity would be saved if the fuel was fed to the rocket to keep it topped off until it has fully left the launch tower? The length of the fuel line and break away valve would be the height of the launch tower.



Could it be fed through an extended tower with a fuel line that travels aside the rocket not to burden the rocket with the weight of the fuel line or cause a whip in the fuel line?



enter image description here
https://sputniknews.com/science/201812291071085215-soyuz-launch-russia-uk-satellite/










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



marked as duplicate by Russell Borogove, Nathan Tuggy, uhoh, Muze, Steve Linton 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

















  • $begingroup$
    You should consider the amount of fuel feed into the tanks after lift off and compare it to the amount of fuel left in the hose and the weight of the hose itself after disconnection of the hose. If the hose with fuel weighs more than the added fuel, nothing was won.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe that way I put the part about a shorter hose to run up aside it taking away the weight.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    yesterday













2












2








2





$begingroup$



This question already has an answer here:



  • Could fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?

    5 answers



I forgot to hang up the fuel pump and broke it off and costed around 80 dollars to replace. While there I wandered could this be adapted to a rocket in some way?



How much fuel capacity would be saved if the fuel was fed to the rocket to keep it topped off until it has fully left the launch tower? The length of the fuel line and break away valve would be the height of the launch tower.



Could it be fed through an extended tower with a fuel line that travels aside the rocket not to burden the rocket with the weight of the fuel line or cause a whip in the fuel line?



enter image description here
https://sputniknews.com/science/201812291071085215-soyuz-launch-russia-uk-satellite/










share|improve this question











$endgroup$





This question already has an answer here:



  • Could fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?

    5 answers



I forgot to hang up the fuel pump and broke it off and costed around 80 dollars to replace. While there I wandered could this be adapted to a rocket in some way?



How much fuel capacity would be saved if the fuel was fed to the rocket to keep it topped off until it has fully left the launch tower? The length of the fuel line and break away valve would be the height of the launch tower.



Could it be fed through an extended tower with a fuel line that travels aside the rocket not to burden the rocket with the weight of the fuel line or cause a whip in the fuel line?



enter image description here
https://sputniknews.com/science/201812291071085215-soyuz-launch-russia-uk-satellite/





This question already has an answer here:



  • Could fuel be “hosed” (pumped) from the ground to a launcher?

    5 answers







launch fuel engines design-alternative






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







Muze

















asked 2 days ago









MuzeMuze

1,3791264




1,3791264




marked as duplicate by Russell Borogove, Nathan Tuggy, uhoh, Muze, Steve Linton 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.









marked as duplicate by Russell Borogove, Nathan Tuggy, uhoh, Muze, Steve Linton 2 days ago


This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.













  • $begingroup$
    You should consider the amount of fuel feed into the tanks after lift off and compare it to the amount of fuel left in the hose and the weight of the hose itself after disconnection of the hose. If the hose with fuel weighs more than the added fuel, nothing was won.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe that way I put the part about a shorter hose to run up aside it taking away the weight.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    yesterday
















  • $begingroup$
    You should consider the amount of fuel feed into the tanks after lift off and compare it to the amount of fuel left in the hose and the weight of the hose itself after disconnection of the hose. If the hose with fuel weighs more than the added fuel, nothing was won.
    $endgroup$
    – Uwe
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @Uwe that way I put the part about a shorter hose to run up aside it taking away the weight.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    yesterday















$begingroup$
You should consider the amount of fuel feed into the tanks after lift off and compare it to the amount of fuel left in the hose and the weight of the hose itself after disconnection of the hose. If the hose with fuel weighs more than the added fuel, nothing was won.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday




$begingroup$
You should consider the amount of fuel feed into the tanks after lift off and compare it to the amount of fuel left in the hose and the weight of the hose itself after disconnection of the hose. If the hose with fuel weighs more than the added fuel, nothing was won.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
yesterday












$begingroup$
@Uwe that way I put the part about a shorter hose to run up aside it taking away the weight.
$endgroup$
– Muze
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Uwe that way I put the part about a shorter hose to run up aside it taking away the weight.
$endgroup$
– Muze
yesterday










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Theoretically yes. However there are concerns:



1) Propellant load is dangerous under the best circumstances. Add in all the vibration loads of an "on" rocket and you have a doozie.



2) Most rockets already have umbilicals that disconnect slightly after liftoff. The recent Rocketlab launch video has a good angle of this



3) It's a bit of added weight and complexity.



These are all surmountable, but then what would you be gaining? I'm sure someone can do a calculation (slightly related to this question) but I suspect it's a negligible amount of payload/mass gain.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    Could you clarify?
    $endgroup$
    – randomUsername
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    2 days ago






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    See also this quote
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    2 days ago


















3












$begingroup$

Throwing some more bits at this alongside randomUserName's answer



The pipe size will be something you could climb up (half meter to meter diameter) so big and inflexible. Large diameter pipe becomes complex quite quickly in terms of the structure needed to support it both under pressure and hard vacuum as it drains.



It will be carrying at least one cryogenic fluid so tend to be inflexible and brittle. Generally pipe flexing at these temperatures are metal rotation joints or bellows rather than just a rubber tube as most flexible materials freeze.



The pressure to pump up 500 meters will be quite exciting, and need to handle what happens when the disconnect happens and the flow needs to stop abruptly.



At disconnect you will have plumbing with both fluids flowing. Stopping it is not really possible since there is going to be hundred of tons of fluid in motion in this pipe system, so it will need to vent. This is going to catch fire and burn off.



At disconnect you have a couple of hundred meters of flexible structure hanging in the air first guess at mass around 500 tonnes, that then falls through the rocket exhaust and lands on the pad. You do not get this back, and probably not the pad (see above)



The above two probably mean you need to purge the system with inert gas before disconnect, which reduces the system weight, flushes the flammables somewhat and maybe even means you could have a gas jet system to 'fly' the hose back down. All of this means that your actual useful fuel flow stops sometime before disconnect though, probably before the rocket has actually cleared the tower so net gain for the system is low.



The mass of the plumbing will be non trivial, off axis and hard to predict. This will make the flight control tricky, and tend to tip the rocket over.



In addition this coupling needs to be physically large to get the needed volumes through, and handle two different fluids. It then needs to disconnect reliably, since rocket is going to 100% crash if it fails to do so. Good rocket design normally involves only releasing the launch clamps once every single other ground interface has retracted, so only the launch hold downs need to be 100% reliable.



The disconnect point also needs to avoid spilling any of the fluids during flight.



This plumbing will need to feed multiple stages, and as noted around asparagus staging, cross feed is a complex beast and in fact a very similar and much simpler method to get the result from this question (rocket clear of tower and at speed with full tanks) would be for a rocket to fly with saddle tanks that jettison at 500 meters.



The actual mass of this assembly plus the fuel inside would need to be lifted by the rocket, so the gains are not 'free'.



It is worth noting that both refueling at sea and air are generally considered amongst the most dangerous things armed forces do that do not involve people shooting at you and this plan will involve many of the worst aspects of both plus cryogenics and operating rocket exhaust.



Fundamentally this becomes a new first stage, which possibly would be simpler as an actual first stage.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



















    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Theoretically yes. However there are concerns:



    1) Propellant load is dangerous under the best circumstances. Add in all the vibration loads of an "on" rocket and you have a doozie.



    2) Most rockets already have umbilicals that disconnect slightly after liftoff. The recent Rocketlab launch video has a good angle of this



    3) It's a bit of added weight and complexity.



    These are all surmountable, but then what would you be gaining? I'm sure someone can do a calculation (slightly related to this question) but I suspect it's a negligible amount of payload/mass gain.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Could you clarify?
      $endgroup$
      – randomUsername
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      See also this quote
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago















    3












    $begingroup$

    Theoretically yes. However there are concerns:



    1) Propellant load is dangerous under the best circumstances. Add in all the vibration loads of an "on" rocket and you have a doozie.



    2) Most rockets already have umbilicals that disconnect slightly after liftoff. The recent Rocketlab launch video has a good angle of this



    3) It's a bit of added weight and complexity.



    These are all surmountable, but then what would you be gaining? I'm sure someone can do a calculation (slightly related to this question) but I suspect it's a negligible amount of payload/mass gain.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Could you clarify?
      $endgroup$
      – randomUsername
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      See also this quote
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago













    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    Theoretically yes. However there are concerns:



    1) Propellant load is dangerous under the best circumstances. Add in all the vibration loads of an "on" rocket and you have a doozie.



    2) Most rockets already have umbilicals that disconnect slightly after liftoff. The recent Rocketlab launch video has a good angle of this



    3) It's a bit of added weight and complexity.



    These are all surmountable, but then what would you be gaining? I'm sure someone can do a calculation (slightly related to this question) but I suspect it's a negligible amount of payload/mass gain.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Theoretically yes. However there are concerns:



    1) Propellant load is dangerous under the best circumstances. Add in all the vibration loads of an "on" rocket and you have a doozie.



    2) Most rockets already have umbilicals that disconnect slightly after liftoff. The recent Rocketlab launch video has a good angle of this



    3) It's a bit of added weight and complexity.



    These are all surmountable, but then what would you be gaining? I'm sure someone can do a calculation (slightly related to this question) but I suspect it's a negligible amount of payload/mass gain.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    randomUsernamerandomUsername

    34118




    34118











    • $begingroup$
      If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Could you clarify?
      $endgroup$
      – randomUsername
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      See also this quote
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      Could you clarify?
      $endgroup$
      – randomUsername
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
      $endgroup$
      – Muze
      2 days ago






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      See also this quote
      $endgroup$
      – Jacob Krall
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    If you think about it it is saved weight need less fuel storage.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    Could you clarify?
    $endgroup$
    – randomUsername
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Could you clarify?
    $endgroup$
    – randomUsername
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    You can off set the onboard fuel needed for the mission saving weight for heavier payload.
    $endgroup$
    – Muze
    2 days ago




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @Muze Let's do some Fermi estimation. It takes a second for the rocket to reach the altitude shown in your diagram. The first stage operates for a hundred seconds. So 1% of the propellant mass could be saved by massively increasing the complexity and danger of launch.
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    See also this quote
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    See also this quote
    $endgroup$
    – Jacob Krall
    2 days ago











    3












    $begingroup$

    Throwing some more bits at this alongside randomUserName's answer



    The pipe size will be something you could climb up (half meter to meter diameter) so big and inflexible. Large diameter pipe becomes complex quite quickly in terms of the structure needed to support it both under pressure and hard vacuum as it drains.



    It will be carrying at least one cryogenic fluid so tend to be inflexible and brittle. Generally pipe flexing at these temperatures are metal rotation joints or bellows rather than just a rubber tube as most flexible materials freeze.



    The pressure to pump up 500 meters will be quite exciting, and need to handle what happens when the disconnect happens and the flow needs to stop abruptly.



    At disconnect you will have plumbing with both fluids flowing. Stopping it is not really possible since there is going to be hundred of tons of fluid in motion in this pipe system, so it will need to vent. This is going to catch fire and burn off.



    At disconnect you have a couple of hundred meters of flexible structure hanging in the air first guess at mass around 500 tonnes, that then falls through the rocket exhaust and lands on the pad. You do not get this back, and probably not the pad (see above)



    The above two probably mean you need to purge the system with inert gas before disconnect, which reduces the system weight, flushes the flammables somewhat and maybe even means you could have a gas jet system to 'fly' the hose back down. All of this means that your actual useful fuel flow stops sometime before disconnect though, probably before the rocket has actually cleared the tower so net gain for the system is low.



    The mass of the plumbing will be non trivial, off axis and hard to predict. This will make the flight control tricky, and tend to tip the rocket over.



    In addition this coupling needs to be physically large to get the needed volumes through, and handle two different fluids. It then needs to disconnect reliably, since rocket is going to 100% crash if it fails to do so. Good rocket design normally involves only releasing the launch clamps once every single other ground interface has retracted, so only the launch hold downs need to be 100% reliable.



    The disconnect point also needs to avoid spilling any of the fluids during flight.



    This plumbing will need to feed multiple stages, and as noted around asparagus staging, cross feed is a complex beast and in fact a very similar and much simpler method to get the result from this question (rocket clear of tower and at speed with full tanks) would be for a rocket to fly with saddle tanks that jettison at 500 meters.



    The actual mass of this assembly plus the fuel inside would need to be lifted by the rocket, so the gains are not 'free'.



    It is worth noting that both refueling at sea and air are generally considered amongst the most dangerous things armed forces do that do not involve people shooting at you and this plan will involve many of the worst aspects of both plus cryogenics and operating rocket exhaust.



    Fundamentally this becomes a new first stage, which possibly would be simpler as an actual first stage.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      3












      $begingroup$

      Throwing some more bits at this alongside randomUserName's answer



      The pipe size will be something you could climb up (half meter to meter diameter) so big and inflexible. Large diameter pipe becomes complex quite quickly in terms of the structure needed to support it both under pressure and hard vacuum as it drains.



      It will be carrying at least one cryogenic fluid so tend to be inflexible and brittle. Generally pipe flexing at these temperatures are metal rotation joints or bellows rather than just a rubber tube as most flexible materials freeze.



      The pressure to pump up 500 meters will be quite exciting, and need to handle what happens when the disconnect happens and the flow needs to stop abruptly.



      At disconnect you will have plumbing with both fluids flowing. Stopping it is not really possible since there is going to be hundred of tons of fluid in motion in this pipe system, so it will need to vent. This is going to catch fire and burn off.



      At disconnect you have a couple of hundred meters of flexible structure hanging in the air first guess at mass around 500 tonnes, that then falls through the rocket exhaust and lands on the pad. You do not get this back, and probably not the pad (see above)



      The above two probably mean you need to purge the system with inert gas before disconnect, which reduces the system weight, flushes the flammables somewhat and maybe even means you could have a gas jet system to 'fly' the hose back down. All of this means that your actual useful fuel flow stops sometime before disconnect though, probably before the rocket has actually cleared the tower so net gain for the system is low.



      The mass of the plumbing will be non trivial, off axis and hard to predict. This will make the flight control tricky, and tend to tip the rocket over.



      In addition this coupling needs to be physically large to get the needed volumes through, and handle two different fluids. It then needs to disconnect reliably, since rocket is going to 100% crash if it fails to do so. Good rocket design normally involves only releasing the launch clamps once every single other ground interface has retracted, so only the launch hold downs need to be 100% reliable.



      The disconnect point also needs to avoid spilling any of the fluids during flight.



      This plumbing will need to feed multiple stages, and as noted around asparagus staging, cross feed is a complex beast and in fact a very similar and much simpler method to get the result from this question (rocket clear of tower and at speed with full tanks) would be for a rocket to fly with saddle tanks that jettison at 500 meters.



      The actual mass of this assembly plus the fuel inside would need to be lifted by the rocket, so the gains are not 'free'.



      It is worth noting that both refueling at sea and air are generally considered amongst the most dangerous things armed forces do that do not involve people shooting at you and this plan will involve many of the worst aspects of both plus cryogenics and operating rocket exhaust.



      Fundamentally this becomes a new first stage, which possibly would be simpler as an actual first stage.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        Throwing some more bits at this alongside randomUserName's answer



        The pipe size will be something you could climb up (half meter to meter diameter) so big and inflexible. Large diameter pipe becomes complex quite quickly in terms of the structure needed to support it both under pressure and hard vacuum as it drains.



        It will be carrying at least one cryogenic fluid so tend to be inflexible and brittle. Generally pipe flexing at these temperatures are metal rotation joints or bellows rather than just a rubber tube as most flexible materials freeze.



        The pressure to pump up 500 meters will be quite exciting, and need to handle what happens when the disconnect happens and the flow needs to stop abruptly.



        At disconnect you will have plumbing with both fluids flowing. Stopping it is not really possible since there is going to be hundred of tons of fluid in motion in this pipe system, so it will need to vent. This is going to catch fire and burn off.



        At disconnect you have a couple of hundred meters of flexible structure hanging in the air first guess at mass around 500 tonnes, that then falls through the rocket exhaust and lands on the pad. You do not get this back, and probably not the pad (see above)



        The above two probably mean you need to purge the system with inert gas before disconnect, which reduces the system weight, flushes the flammables somewhat and maybe even means you could have a gas jet system to 'fly' the hose back down. All of this means that your actual useful fuel flow stops sometime before disconnect though, probably before the rocket has actually cleared the tower so net gain for the system is low.



        The mass of the plumbing will be non trivial, off axis and hard to predict. This will make the flight control tricky, and tend to tip the rocket over.



        In addition this coupling needs to be physically large to get the needed volumes through, and handle two different fluids. It then needs to disconnect reliably, since rocket is going to 100% crash if it fails to do so. Good rocket design normally involves only releasing the launch clamps once every single other ground interface has retracted, so only the launch hold downs need to be 100% reliable.



        The disconnect point also needs to avoid spilling any of the fluids during flight.



        This plumbing will need to feed multiple stages, and as noted around asparagus staging, cross feed is a complex beast and in fact a very similar and much simpler method to get the result from this question (rocket clear of tower and at speed with full tanks) would be for a rocket to fly with saddle tanks that jettison at 500 meters.



        The actual mass of this assembly plus the fuel inside would need to be lifted by the rocket, so the gains are not 'free'.



        It is worth noting that both refueling at sea and air are generally considered amongst the most dangerous things armed forces do that do not involve people shooting at you and this plan will involve many of the worst aspects of both plus cryogenics and operating rocket exhaust.



        Fundamentally this becomes a new first stage, which possibly would be simpler as an actual first stage.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Throwing some more bits at this alongside randomUserName's answer



        The pipe size will be something you could climb up (half meter to meter diameter) so big and inflexible. Large diameter pipe becomes complex quite quickly in terms of the structure needed to support it both under pressure and hard vacuum as it drains.



        It will be carrying at least one cryogenic fluid so tend to be inflexible and brittle. Generally pipe flexing at these temperatures are metal rotation joints or bellows rather than just a rubber tube as most flexible materials freeze.



        The pressure to pump up 500 meters will be quite exciting, and need to handle what happens when the disconnect happens and the flow needs to stop abruptly.



        At disconnect you will have plumbing with both fluids flowing. Stopping it is not really possible since there is going to be hundred of tons of fluid in motion in this pipe system, so it will need to vent. This is going to catch fire and burn off.



        At disconnect you have a couple of hundred meters of flexible structure hanging in the air first guess at mass around 500 tonnes, that then falls through the rocket exhaust and lands on the pad. You do not get this back, and probably not the pad (see above)



        The above two probably mean you need to purge the system with inert gas before disconnect, which reduces the system weight, flushes the flammables somewhat and maybe even means you could have a gas jet system to 'fly' the hose back down. All of this means that your actual useful fuel flow stops sometime before disconnect though, probably before the rocket has actually cleared the tower so net gain for the system is low.



        The mass of the plumbing will be non trivial, off axis and hard to predict. This will make the flight control tricky, and tend to tip the rocket over.



        In addition this coupling needs to be physically large to get the needed volumes through, and handle two different fluids. It then needs to disconnect reliably, since rocket is going to 100% crash if it fails to do so. Good rocket design normally involves only releasing the launch clamps once every single other ground interface has retracted, so only the launch hold downs need to be 100% reliable.



        The disconnect point also needs to avoid spilling any of the fluids during flight.



        This plumbing will need to feed multiple stages, and as noted around asparagus staging, cross feed is a complex beast and in fact a very similar and much simpler method to get the result from this question (rocket clear of tower and at speed with full tanks) would be for a rocket to fly with saddle tanks that jettison at 500 meters.



        The actual mass of this assembly plus the fuel inside would need to be lifted by the rocket, so the gains are not 'free'.



        It is worth noting that both refueling at sea and air are generally considered amongst the most dangerous things armed forces do that do not involve people shooting at you and this plan will involve many of the worst aspects of both plus cryogenics and operating rocket exhaust.



        Fundamentally this becomes a new first stage, which possibly would be simpler as an actual first stage.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 days ago









        GremlinWrangerGremlinWranger

        2,818318




        2,818318













            Popular posts from this blog

            រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

            Crop image to path created in TikZ? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Crop an inserted image?TikZ pictures does not appear in posterImage behind and beyond crop marks?Tikz picture as large as possible on A4 PageTransparency vs image compression dilemmaHow to crop background from image automatically?Image does not cropTikzexternal capturing crop marks when externalizing pgfplots?How to include image path that contains a dollar signCrop image with left size given

            Romeo and Juliet ContentsCharactersSynopsisSourcesDate and textThemes and motifsCriticism and interpretationLegacyScene by sceneSee alsoNotes and referencesSourcesExternal linksNavigation menu"Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–"10.2307/28710160037-3222287101610.1093/res/II.5.31910.2307/45967845967810.2307/2869925286992510.1525/jams.1982.35.3.03a00050"Dada Masilo: South African dancer who breaks the rules"10.1093/res/os-XV.57.1610.2307/28680942868094"Sweet Sorrow: Mann-Korman's Romeo and Juliet Closes Sept. 5 at MN's Ordway"the original10.2307/45957745957710.1017/CCOL0521570476.009"Ram Leela box office collections hit massive Rs 100 crore, pulverises prediction"Archived"Broadway Revival of Romeo and Juliet, Starring Orlando Bloom and Condola Rashad, Will Close Dec. 8"Archived10.1075/jhp.7.1.04hon"Wherefore art thou, Romeo? To make us laugh at Navy Pier"the original10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O006772"Ram-leela Review Roundup: Critics Hail Film as Best Adaptation of Romeo and Juliet"Archived10.2307/31946310047-77293194631"Romeo and Juliet get Twitter treatment""Juliet's Nurse by Lois Leveen""Romeo and Juliet: Orlando Bloom's Broadway Debut Released in Theaters for Valentine's Day"Archived"Romeo and Juliet Has No Balcony"10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O00778110.2307/2867423286742310.1076/enst.82.2.115.959510.1080/00138380601042675"A plague o' both your houses: error in GCSE exam paper forces apology""Juliet of the Five O'Clock Shadow, and Other Wonders"10.2307/33912430027-4321339124310.2307/28487440038-7134284874410.2307/29123140149-661129123144728341M"Weekender Guide: Shakespeare on The Drive""balcony"UK public library membership"romeo"UK public library membership10.1017/CCOL9780521844291"Post-Zionist Critique on Israel and the Palestinians Part III: Popular Culture"10.2307/25379071533-86140377-919X2537907"Capulets and Montagues: UK exam board admit mixing names up in Romeo and Juliet paper"Istoria Novellamente Ritrovata di Due Nobili Amanti2027/mdp.390150822329610820-750X"GCSE exam error: Board accidentally rewrites Shakespeare"10.2307/29176390149-66112917639"Exam board apologises after error in English GCSE paper which confused characters in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet""From Mariotto and Ganozza to Romeo and Guilietta: Metamorphoses of a Renaissance Tale"10.2307/37323537323510.2307/2867455286745510.2307/28678912867891"10 Questions for Taylor Swift"10.2307/28680922868092"Haymarket Theatre""The Zeffirelli Way: Revealing Talk by Florentine Director""Michael Smuin: 1938-2007 / Prolific dance director had showy career"The Life and Art of Edwin BoothRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietRomeo and JulietEasy Read Romeo and JulietRomeo and Julieteeecb12003684p(data)4099369-3n8211610759dbe00d-a9e2-41a3-b2c1-977dd692899302814385X313670221313670221