Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The high-altitude endeavor, undertaken by the orbital servicing enterprise Astroscale U.S., is slated to occur in the summer of 2026, the company announced this week. This Department of Defense-funded mission will see Astroscale's 660-pound craft refuel a satellite with the propellant hydrazine, then maneuver to a fueling depot to fill up with more fuel, and then refuel another asset. (All the involved assets haven't yet been revealed by the Space Force.)
It will be the first time a Space Force craft is refueled in orbit. Such a fuel shuttle could keep missions in space longer and eliminate the need for any craft to suspend its mission to retrieve thruster propellant. It's a novel type of full-service gas station.
"This changes fundamentally how we do things in space," Ian Thomas, Astroscale U.S.' Refueler Program Manager, told Mashable.
After launching, the refueled craft will travel to a region called geostationary orbit, which is a unique place around Earth where spacecraft orbit at same rate Earth is rotating — meaning they stay locked in the same position relative to our planet. There, Astroscale's craft will carefully approach its first Space Force satellite target, called Tetra-5, and transfer fuel. The refueler will then thrust away and inspect the scene with a specialized camera to ensure no valuable fuel is leaking. Then, the refueler will fly to a nearby fuel depot, or gas station, and attach and pull fuel from the depot before traveling to its second refueling target.
"The point of the mission is to make sure all the different parts are viable and work," Thomas explained. "You have a fuel depot, a client, and us."
[...] This isn't Astroscale's first orbital rodeo. In a separate mission intended to deorbit large pieces of space debris (called Active Debris Removal by Astroscale-Japan), the company has already closely approached a large rocket stage to test close proximity maneuverability and reconnaissance; next up, an Astroscale spacecraft will use a robotic arm to bring the large 36-foot-long spent rocket stage down to Earth, in 2028.
But before then, the company may prove that running a fuel depot in Earth's orbit isn't just feasible; it could redefine how expensive orbiting spacecraft — whether used for national security, communications, or science — operate in space.
"If you run out of fuel, you run out of life," Thomas said.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday April 13, @01:23PM (7 children)
How are they getting the fuel up there? Or can they make Hydrazine in space? Otherwise we still need to get it up there with rockets. Or is the station going to lower a really really long hose down to earth when it needs to refill? Sure in the long run it might be better since you don't need to take off with so many craft carrying all the fuel. But still then they need like giant fuel rockets that can go up and refuel the space fuel depot. So how much benefit will there really be overall?
Perhaps they could turn ISS into a space gas station when the replacement is ready. It could be the International Fuel Station instead.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Sunday April 13, @01:45PM
The White *cough*Christian*cough* Nationals will pray to Nazi God to refill it for them.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Sunday April 13, @02:26PM (2 children)
Long term, you probably do want to be making the hydrazine somewhere in a shallower gravity well than Earth's to improve overall efficiency of the re-fueling system, but that means finding somewhere with all the necessary raw materials to setup and run the production line and launch facilities from. This could also be really useful at scale for in-orbit assembly and fueling of the spacecraft that would be needed for any manned missions to other planets or the asteroid belt since it's going to be really cramped going all that way in even the largest capsule a Falcon Heavy might be able to lift in a single go. Bolting a few modules together in orbit, akin to the way the ISS was put together, is going to make for a lot more room for both passengers and equipment/experiments.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Sunday April 13, @04:07PM
A Falcon Heavy full of hydrazine? What could possibly go wrong?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday April 14, @02:28AM
Nah, it's gone beyond that, they've already issued contracts for the BX and PX, and are figuring out how to get bulldozers up there to dig out the burn pit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday April 13, @04:10PM
They would indeed launch from the Earth's surface for now. Let's consider some of the whys. It allows you to use relatively cheap bulk launch to supply the propellant station. You don't need a specialized super rocket to launch everything in one or two goes. For example, consider the Apollo missions. They needed the Saturn V because they were launching a lot of mass direct to lunar orbit (somewhere around 45 metric tons fully fueled). But with a Saturn 1B, which was the Apollo rocket with a payload comparable to a Falcon 9, they could have launched the unfueled vehicles in two launches, and the fuel in another two or so launches. More launches, but substantially lower cost. It also allows for a significant decrease in various sorts of risks - particularly, crew going up with low value propellant on that exotic, low launch frequency, high risk super rocket.
On that last bit, propellant payloads are easily replaceable, but crew aren't. So you could accept a riskier launch profile for propellant and a safer profile for crew. Propellant doesn't need an escape option at any phase of the launch (the only abort you need is a self-destruct) and can be launched at higher acceleration safely. You can also launch it from a cheaper pad that doesn't have the infrastructure (like a massive lift and pad escape systems) for crew access.
Finally, down the road, there's other places to get propellant than Earth. You won't get serious hydrocarbons from the Moon, but it has massive oxygen content.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday April 13, @06:23PM
Two logistics things to think about:
At some point its cheaper to refuel. A really big hybrid road truck could probably haul a lifetime of fuel in a tanker behind it, at least if it has a short enough lifespan LOL, but the MPG of hauling all that fuel is incredibly inefficient. So expect smaller, cheaper, smaller fuel tank comms satellites and similar. Or military sats that are more maneuverable for better or worse.
Another strange logistical thing to think about is launching a satellite with a full tank of gas is wasted mass. Launch a bigger antenna larger transmitter heavier batteries more solar panels with an empty fuel tank into orbit, and if it makes it to orbit instead of crashing into the sea along the way, THEN and only then, fuel it up in orbit, probably annually, instead of spending all that satellite launch mass on a decade-sized fuel tank.
(Score: 2) by corey on Sunday April 13, @11:09PM
When I think of this stuff, I can’t help but to think that we (humans) need to figure out a better way to move around in space. Ion thrusters are a small step. But some sort of solar powered thing with more specific thrust would be better.
The current way is to dig molecules from our earth, use energy processing them into something more toxic then expend a whole lot more molecules (converting them into others that contribute more to climate change) to throw them up into space. We’re so infantile at this. So at the stage of using Newton’s second law (throw some mass or the back to push ourselves forward). Be nice to be able to grab onto gravity fields and move around that way.