scholarly journals Performance of a Rotating Detonation Rocket Engine with Various Convergent Nozzles and Chamber Lengths

Energies ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (8) ◽  
pp. 2037
Author(s):  
John W. Bennewitz ◽  
Blaine R. Bigler ◽  
Mathias C. Ross ◽  
Stephen A. Danczyk ◽  
William A. Hargus ◽  
...  

A rotating detonation rocket engine (RDRE) with various convergent nozzles and chamber lengths is investigated. Three hundred hot-fire tests are performed using methane and oxygen ranging from equivalence ratio equaling 0.5–2.5 and total propellant flow up to 0.680 kg/s. For the full-length (76.2 mm) chamber study, three nozzles at contraction ratios ϵc = 1.23, 1.62 and 2.40 are tested. Detonation is exhibited for each geometry at equivalent conditions, with only fuel-rich operability slightly increased for the ϵc = 1.62 and 2.40 nozzles. Despite this, counter-propagation, i.e., opposing wave sets, becomes prevalent with increasing constriction. This is accompanied by higher number of waves, lower wave speed Uwv and higher unsteadiness. Therefore, the most constricted nozzle always has the lowest Uwv. In contrast, engine performance increases with constriction, where thrust and specific impulse linearly increase with ϵc for equivalent conditions, with a 27% maximum increase. Additionally, two half-length (38.1 mm) chambers are studied including a straight chamber and ϵc = 2.40 nozzle; these shortened geometries show equal performance to their longer equivalent. Furthermore, the existence of counter-propagation is minimized. Accompanying high-fidelity simulations and injection recovery analyses describe underlying injection physics driving chamber wave dynamics, suggesting the physical throat/injector interaction influences counter-propagation.

1959 ◽  
Vol 63 (580) ◽  
pp. 221-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. W. Pearce

Ten years ago it seemed that the solid propellant rocket engine could make only a limited contribution to rocketry. Although it was simpler and more compact than its liquid propellant rival it suffered from three serious drawbacks. The nozzle was uncooled and so the burning time had to be short, the entire propellant container was subjected to the full combustion pressure and temperature and therefore the inert weight of the engine was high and, since the specific impulse of solid propellants is in general lower than that of liquid propellants (because solids are partially reacted systems) the engine performance was consequently poor, and finally, no means were available for controlling the magnitude and duration of the rocket thrust. These facts were the foundation of the opinion, still held by some people, that solid propellant engines were only suitable as boosters or short burning time sustainers for small missiles.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett C. Mathews ◽  
Matthew Blaisdell ◽  
Aaron I. Lemcherfi ◽  
Carson D. Slabaugh ◽  
Christopher S. Goldenstein

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandru-Iulian ONEL ◽  
Oana-Iuliana POPESCU ◽  
Ana-Maria NECULAESCU ◽  
Tudorel-Petronel AFILIPOAE ◽  
Teodor-Viorel CHELARU

The paper presents a fast mathematical model that can be used to quickly asses the propulsive characteristics of liquid propelled rocket engines. The main propulsive parameters are computed using combustion surfaces obtained after a nonlinear data fitting analysis. This approach is much more time efficient than using standard codes which rely on frequent calls of the Fuel Combustion Charts and interpolating their data. The tool developed based on the proposed mathematical model can be used separately or it can be integrated in a multidisciplinary optimisation algorithm for a preliminary microlauncher design.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Troy L. Messinger ◽  
Colin D. Hill ◽  
Declan T. Quinn ◽  
Craig T. Johansen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document