Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit

31 July - 03 August 2011, San Diego, California

AIAA 2011-5936

Design and Analysis of a CMC Radiation Cooled


LOX/Densified Propylene Engine
Anthony T. Hartman,1 Jos R. Torres,2 and Jessica L. Rasmussen3
California State University, Long Beach, CA, 90840
Eric Besnard4
California State University, Long Beach, CA, 90840

The paper presents the design and performance analysis of an 800 lbf LOX/propylene
rocket engine, designed to power the upper stage of a Nanosat Launch Vehicle (NLV). A
precursor version of this engine with relaxed requirements was static fire tested twice and
has undergone the first recorded flight test of a LOX/propylene engine by a team at
California State University, Long Beach back in 2009. The revised engine has an expansion
ratio of 70 with a targeted specific impulse of 342 s, and combustion and nozzle efficiencies
of 95% or greater. The injector features a LOX-centered split triplet with a center-mounted
TEA-TEB igniter. A single piece Cf/SiCm ceramic matrix composite is used for radiation
cooling of the thrust chamber. Fuel film cooling (FFC) is added to lower the chamber wall
temperature to the 2200-2400C range near the throat, maintaining the C/SiC structural
integrity and minimizing throat erosion. Computational Fluid Dynamics analyses indicate
that 10% FFC is sufficient to achieve this goal while almost meeting the targeted specific
impulse. A proof-of-concept version of this engine with relaxed requirements designed for
near sea-level testing is presented.

Nomenclature

c*

CMC
Cf /SiCm
CNC
GHe
GN2
Isp
L*
LOX
MC
O/F
PC
TEA/TEB

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

nozzle expansion ratio


nozzle efficiency
combustion efficiency
ratio of specific heats
ceramic matrix composite
carbon-fiber-reinforced silicon carbide matrix
computer numerically controlled
gaseous helium
gaseous nitrogen
specific impulse (s)
characteristic chamber length (m)
liquid oxygen
Mach number in the combustion chamber
oxidizer to fuel ratio
chamber pressure
triethylaluminum and triethylborane

1,2,3
4

Student, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, AIAA Student Member


Professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, AIAA Associate Fellow
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

I. Introduction

everal launch vehicles currently used to launch large satellites into orbit typically cost up to hundreds of million
dollars. Since the size of scientific
instruments continues to shrink with
improvements in technology, there is a
rapidly increasing interest in nanosatellites,
small satellites weighing 10 kilograms or
less. Recent US military focus on
Operational Responsive Space shows a
demand for more responsive launch
vehicles to deliver smaller payloads to low
earth orbit for a cost much less than that of
traditional launch vehicles. Instead of
relying on secondary or tertiary payload
opportunities, a dedicated Nanosat Launch
Vehicle (NLV) can provide the needed
flexibility in operations and targeted orbit.
The NLV being developed by Garvey
Spacecraft
Corporation
(GSC)
in
partnership
with
California
State
University, Long Beach would provide a
method of flying nanosatellites at a fraction
of the time and cost of a typical launch
program. Figure 1 shows the layout of the
proposed GSC NLV.1,2,3 The initial Nanosat
Launch Vehicle concept was proposed to
use LOX/propane or LOX/methane as
propellants, however recent trade studies
show that the use of LOX and chilled, or
Figure 1. NVL Baseline design (dimensions in cm.)
densified, propylene offers an increase in performance over ethanol and methane1.
The envisioned NLV will utilize key technologies such as composite propellant tanks, ceramic matrix
composites, or CMC, for thrust chambers and densified propylene as fuel2. One way to increase performance in a
liquid rocket engine is the choice of high energy propellant. While some recent research has shown testing and
development of engines using LOX/methane4,5,6 the NLV baseline design uses LOX/ densified propylene because
recent trade studies7 have shown that it offers an 11% increase in performance over methane, and a 4% increase over
propane. While the specific impulse of propylene is slightly lower than that of methane, by chilling the propylene
thus densifying it, smaller propellant tanks can be used to achieve the same required performance, ultimately
allowing the NLV to lift a greater payload mass.
Several static fire engine tests have been conducted and flight tests have been conducted of several full scale,
low to medium fidelity, first stages3;4;5;6. Initial ambient-temperature static fire tests and flight tests have been
conducted using propylene8. A design for an enhanced upper stage engine of the NLV is presented in this paper. The
requirements and constraints of the upper stage engine are driven by the baseline NLV requirements which include
the use of LOX and densified propylene as propellants, to fit within the 60 cm diameter interstage of the NLV, and
the ability to mount a thrust vector control unit to the engine, while providing 3560 N (800 lbf) of thrust at a targeted
specific impulse of 342 s.
The next section gives an overview of the engine design and engine sub-systems.

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

II. Engine Description


A. Overview
The engine is designed for the upper stage of the NLV and is comprised of three main sub-components; a thrust
chamber, an igniter and an injector (Figure 2). As noted above, the engine utilizes LOX and chilled propylene as
propellants with a design thrust of 3560 N (approximately 800 lbs). Trade studies yielded a chamber pressure, P c, of
1.03MPa (150psi). The thrust chamber is a CMC chamber with an expansion ratio of 70. For ignition, the engine
uses Triethylaluminum and Triethylborane (TEA/TEB) that ignites in contact with oxygen, allowing for reliable
ignition as soon as the TEA/TEB comes in contact with the LOX. The engine injector is an assembly of welded
plates that will be brazed to the thrust chamber. The flat head injector utilizes a set of split triplet impinging jets to
inject both the propellants and hypergolic TEA/TEB into the combustion chamber. The optimum Oxidizer to Fuel
ratio, O/F, was determined to be 2.610% fuel film cooling is used to keep the CMC thrust chamber below 2,4732,673 K (2,200-2,400 C) during the burn.

Figure 2. Upper Stage Engine Assembly


A graphical representation of the top down engine design process for this engine is presented in Figure 3. The
inputs for the engine design, shown in the red boxes, are O/Feng (oxidizer to fuel ratio of the engine), Pc (chamber
pressure), (expansion ratio of nozzle), P a (atmospheric pressure), F (thrust), fuel film cooling percentage, A t (area
of throat), c* (combustion efficiency), and (nozzle efficiency). Based upon the type of propellant used, there is an
optimum O/F ratio that corresponds to a maximum theoretical I sp. Using NASAs CEA (Chemical Equilibrium with
Applications) program15, the optimum theoretical Isp of propylene was determined to be 373 s, with a nozzle
expansion ratio of 70 and a chamber pressure of 1.034 MPa7. This O/F ratio is then taken and used to determine the
thermochemical properties of the resultant combustion gas, (ratio of specific heats), (molecular weight), T c
(combustion temperature), and c* (characteristic exhaust velocity). This thermochemical analysis is based on the
assumption of equilibrium combustion gas properties in the thrust chamber. This analysis was performed with a tool
developed by CSULB. After the thermochemical analysis is performed, the theoretical vacuum I sp can then be
calculated and the assumed efficiencies can be applied to get the actual vacuum Isp. The resulting nominal engine
performance is seen in Table 1.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 1. Nominal Engine Performance Parameters


INPUTS
Vacuum Thrust

3,560 N (800 lbf)

1.03 MPa (150 psia)

Engine O/F

2.6

At

0.0017 m3

70
PERFORMANCE

Figure 3. Top-Down Design Process

Theoretical Vacuum Isp

373.1

Combustion Temperature

3470 K (6270 F)

Targeted *
c

0.95

Targeted

0.98

Fuel Mass Flow Rate

0.291

LOX Mass Flow Rate

0.756

Real Vacuum I (w/o FFC


sp

losses)

346.3

The mass distribution of the engine components is summarized in Table 2. The estimated and calculated masses of
each of the subsystems/components and margin are applied based on AIAA standards.19 A growth factor of 15%
was applied to calculated category components which were calculated with various analysis tools and a 30% growth
factor was applied to components whos mass were estimated. The LOX/chilled propylene engine with mass margin
weighs 4.32 kg and has a thrust to weight of 84.
Table 2. Mass Breakdown
Component
Mass (kg)
Growth Category
Growth Factor
Chamber
1.86
Calculated
15%
Injector
1.89
Calculated
15%
Igniter
0.01
Estimated
30%
Engine Thrust-to-Weight Ratio = 86
Total

Mass w/ Growth
2.14
2.17
0.01
4.32

B. Injector
To account for injector losses, a single discharge coefficient is applied to characterize the combination of various
losses and is assumed to be 0.8. The pressure drop across the injector is set to be 20% of the 1.03MPa chamber
pressure (0.206 MPa) which is between the upper and lower bound of the desired pressure drop for this type of
injector based on experimental engines.13
In order to maintain high performance and minimize weight, an impinging jet design which is relatively simple
to manufacture and is well characterized from previous experiments is selected. This design has been characterized
from previous tests and missions to provide good overall propellant mixing and atomization, and thus higher
efficiencies. A split triplet configuration was chosen for this impinging injector because the increase in number of
orifices allows for smaller diameter of orifices providing better mixing and atomization of the propellants while
4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

allowing film cooling orifices in the outer plenum The injection angles were calculated such that the resultant
momentum directs the impingement of the streams to converge just above the throat. This convergence is a critical
aspect in CMC engine design to minimize chamber burn through and hot spots. 14
The flat head injector body is fabricated from Inconel 625. The injector has 36 sets of split triplet orifices that
create an impingement pattern that converges just upstream of the throat. The triplet geometry consists of two sets of
straight LOX jets being impinged by outer and inner fuel jets, with fuel film cooling orifices along the outer
diameter to cool the chamber wall. Figure 4 shows the flow of propellants and mixing patterns in the injector. The
plenums in the injector are sealed by welding a top plate which will also serve as the brazing surface to the chamber
wall. The injector also utilizes film cooling orifices which inject fuel along the thrust chamber wall, creating a
gaseous layer of unmixed fuel that serves as a cooling barrier. This further protects the CMC chamber from the
intense heat of combustion which will reach 3470 K. The distance between the outer fuel, outer LOX, inner LOX,
and inner fuel is 4.331, 3.657, 2.793, and 1.928mm. The distance between the film cooling orifices are 15.959 mm.14
Figure 5 shows the configuration of the split triplet, film cooling, and TEA/TEB igniter orifices on the injector face.

Figure 4. Injector Cross Section and Propellant Flow

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 5. Injector Orifice Configuration


For the unlike impinging jets, a 60 degree impingement angle is commonly used as a baseline to achieve
satisfactory flow characteristics. When the impingement angle is increased, the risk for propellant backlash
dramatically increases, potentially causing damage to the injector face. Impingement angles are driven by the mass
flow rate and momentum of the propellant.14
The aforementioned baseline impingement angles were then modified for our engine configuration. As noted
above, the impingement angles were optimized by evaluating the angles of the injector orifices with respect to the
chamber geometry. The optimized outer, inner, and resultant angles are 21.67, 6.21, and 8.86 as seen in Figure 6.
The length-to-diameter ratio of the orifices is between 7 and 10 to ensure adequate flow of the propellants upon
injection into the thrust chamber.

Outer
Angle
= 21.67

Inner
Angle
= 6.21

Resultant
Angle
= 8.86

Figure 6. Optimized Impingement Angles into Thrust Chamber


6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

C. Thrust Chamber
The engine thrust chamber features a bell-shaped nozzle produced from carbon-fiber-reinforced silicon carbide
matrix (Cf /SiCm). The C/SiC can withstand temperatures up to 2,473-2,673 K (2200-2400 C) without much
ablation/erosion. The chamber is
made by forming carbon fiber to the
chamber geometry and using
chemical vapor infiltration where
gases are diffused into the molded
carbon. The C/SiC CMC material
also has great tensile strength and
its density is less than that of
typically used refractory metals.
The C/SiC combustion chamber
and throat sections are 3 mm in
thickness and are primarily
radiatively cooled. The nozzle is
tapered in thickness from 3 mm to 1
mm since the nozzle is subjected to
less internal pressure; shedding
weight off the engine. The 3 mm
chamber thickness is designed to
withstand the structural strains
Figure 7. Thrust chamber top down design
resulting from the chamber
pressure as well as the temperatures of the hot combustion gasses.
The key design parameters for the combustion chamber are the characteristic length, L* and the chamber Mach, M c.
For LOX/hydrocarbon engines, a common L* is between 0.8 and 1.0 meters. The efficiency of the vaporization,
burning, and mixing also depends on the propellant choice. Engines with larger L* values have greater mixing
efficiencies, but are larger in size and have greater pressure and heat losses, however engines with L* values too low
poorly mix and burn propellants. Here the L* was selected to be a slightly aggressive at 0.75 m, just below the
common range. When selecting a design chamber Mach number, the goal is to design the combustion chamber
pressure as close as possible, ideally equal, to the stagnation pressure. A smaller Mach number is ideal because the
low velocity allows more time for the propellants to mix and chemically react. Here a chamber Mach number, Mc, of
0.15 was selected.13 Figure 7 shows the process for the design of the thrust chamber geometry following design
methods from Space Propulsion Analysis and Design13.
Due to the composite CMC chamber, interfacing the injector is difficult and is a critical process which will
consist of brazing the two components using Cusil-ABA.18 This braze will consist of a 10 micron braze foil that will
be heated in a vacuum furnace to a temperature above the liquid temperature of the braze foil and create a seal and
join the CMC chamber to the injector
D. Igniter
The ignition method uses triethylaluminum/triethylborane (TEA/TEB), a pyrophoric liquid combination, to react
with LOX starting combustion. This system features a cartridge that injects the TEA/TEB into the chamber through
the center of the injector; this method is a lightweight system and provides the TEA/TEB with direct impingement
of the LOX for more reliable combustion. This is done independently of the propylene feeds because TEA freezes at
-50 C20, and TEB freezes at -93 C21, and the densified propylene is at -150 C.

III. Thermal Analysis


Based Despite their high temperature capabilities, radiatively cooled CMCs still require film cooling when used
with high performance bipropellants. A preliminary Computational Fluid Dynamics analysis was performed to
estimate the amount of film cooling required to keep the CMC below 2,473 K (2,200 C) in most locations, allowing
for localized temperatures up to 2,673 K (2,400 C).

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A. CFD Model Setup


A commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics program from Metacomp Technologies, CFD++, is used
primarily to verify that the FFC percentage will be sufficient to keep the chamber cool during operation. The CFD
model uses an axisymmetric configuration, consisting of three different groups of meshes; one for the flow of the
core engine combustion gas, one for the pure propylene film cooling, and one for the solid CMC thrust chamber
thickness. The model assumes no reaction or combustion; instead it models a single combustion gas injected at the
combustion temperature, corresponding to the O/F and chamber pressure. The FFC is injected as pure gaseous
propylene at the point where the film cooling impinges with the chamber, and this gaseous layer mixes with the
combustion gas through the entire length of the chamber. The inlet conditions inject the combustion core
combustion gas and FFC at their corresponding temperatures and mass flow rates. Convective heat transfer in the
core and FFC is assumed, with conduction through the CMC, and radiation on the outer boundary of the chamber.
The radiative outer surface models the space thermal environment and uses an emissivity of 0.9 for the CMC. 16 The
solution is steady state.
B. Preliminary CFD results
Figure 8 shows the computed Mach number distribution in the nozzle for a solution run with 12.5% FFC. The
calculated exit Mach number from the CFD model is 4.3, very close to the exit Mach of 4.26 calculated from the 1D analytical top down engine analysis mentioned above. The thrust calculated at the exit of the engine proved to be
close to the 1-D analytical analysis as well. A detailed quantitative analysis, however, is not performed to verify the
model since CFD++ assumes perfect combustion and is based on a frozen chemistry at combustion chamber
conditions while the analytical model with NASA CEA is based on shifting equilibrium conditions. Figure 9 shows
the temperature distribution across the chamber and Figure 10 shows a comparison of results with varying FFC
levels in with the mass flow rates were varied in the model to reflect the amount of propylene injected. The
maximum throat temperatures seen in the results over a range of FFC levels from 5% to 15% range from 2880 K to
2420 K. The results for FFC level between 12.5% and 15% yields a chamber wall temperature within the acceptable
range of the CMC material.

Figure 8. 12.5% FFC solution: Mach


Number Distribution

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 9. 12.5% FFC solution, Temperature


Distribution

Figure 10. CMC Throat Wall temperatures


at 5%, 10%, 12.5% and 15% FFC (in
degrees Kelvin)
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

C. Isp Losses from FFC


The actual vacuum Isp calculated from the top down engine design does not take into account the slight
performance losses associated with diverting fuel away from the combustion to be used as liquid fuel film cooling.
In order to characterize the losses associated with the FFC, we use Equation 1, where W is mass flow rate, the
subscript g is for the core gas, and the subscript c is for the gaseous propylene film cooling. 17

Isp=(WIsp)g + (WIsp)c/(Wg + Wc)

(1)

To calculate the Isp of the coolant gas, a hot propylene temperature of 2200K was assumed from the CFD model
to find the characteristic exhaust velocity, c*, which was then used to determine its corresponding Isp knowing its
thermochemical properties at engine operating conditions described in earlier sections. The Isp of the core gas was
calculated taking into account a mixing efficiency from the split triplet injector of 97%, based on test data from
similar style injectors.14 With these two calculated specific impulses, and the corresponding flow rate, Equation 1
was used to obtain the actual Isp of the engine with associate losses due to FFC show in Table 3.

Table 3. Isp Losses for various FFC %

FFC %
5%
10%
12.5%
15%

Isp with FFC losses (s)


351
341
337
333

Since FFC levels between 10.0% and 12.5% yield a CMC temperature at operating conditions mostly well below
2,473 K (2,200 C) and only very locally near 2,673 K (2,400 C), the Isp of the engine would be between 337 and
341s which just falls short of the targeted Isp of 342 s. Since this analysis is based on preliminary CFD results,
further analysis with a more refined model that takes into account combustion of propellants to better capture the
real physics and heat transfer of inside the engine.

IV. Proof-of-Concept Engine


A. Overview
In addition to the engine presented above, a proof-of-concept engine is developed for sea level testing to verify
critical engine interfacing. The proof-of-concept test engine will have relaxed requirements that will be used for a
sea level static fire test. These requirements differ because the engine will be tested in an atmospheric environment
with propylene fuel at ambient temperature rather than being chilled (densified) like the primary design. Since the
proof-of-concept engine nozzle is truncated much sooner (expansion ratio of 8 instead of 70) the chamber pressure
will be increased and the thrust requirement will be relaxed to 2,225 N. Also, since the test will use ambient
temperature propylene as fuel, its vapor pressure will be higher than that of cryogenic propylene. 7 This leads to the
requirement of higher chamber pressure than the primary design, such that the pressure of the fuel does not drop
below its vapor pressure, causing what is known as cavitation, which can place extra stresses on the injector and
negatively impact performance.
Table 4 below shows the characteristics of both the primary and proof-of-concept test engines. The combustion
chamber will be a customer supplied chamber with a set geometry and thus the injector was designed around its
geometry, while still utilizing a similar split-triplet injection method and interfacing with a high temperature braze
between the injector and CMC chamber.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 4. Engine Characteristics


Characteristic
Reference engine Proof engine
Chamber Pressure, Pc
1.03
2.07
Fuel Temperature
Cryogenic
Ambient
Fuel Vapor Pressure at Operating <0.01
1.0-1.65
Conditions
Thrust, F
3560
2225
Fuel Mass Flow Rate, fuel
0.291
0.278
Oxidizer Mass Flow Rate, OX
0.756
0.722
Combustion Efficiency, *
0.95
0.90
c

Fuel Film Cooling %

10%

10%

Units
MPa
MPa
N
kg/s
kg/s
-

The engine uses a convergent-divergent bell nozzle that has been previously manufactured and will be furnished
by the customer. The diameter of the combustion chamber, and thus the injector face is 7.6 cm, 2 cm smaller than
that of the reference engine. The injector is made of aluminum 7075 to reduce cost and improve the
manufacturability of the injector over Inconel 625 ; however, there will be an Inconel 625 ring that seals the
plenums and will be used to verify the brazing chamber integration. The main valves on the engine will control the
feed of both the propellants will be mounted to the injector with standard Army-Navy, AN-6 fittings. A small
commercial off the shelf (COTS) solid grain rocket motor will be used as an igniter that will be center mounted and
ignited by an electric match. The engine configuration can be seen in Figure 11 below and compared with the
general size of the designed engine.

Figure 11. Engine Configuration Size Comparison

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 12.Proof of Concept Engine Chamber and Injector


B. Water Flow Testing
After manufacturing of the injector has been completed, the injector is then subjected to a waterflow test. Water
is flowed though the injector into both the fuel and oxidizer ports to visually inspect the impingement of the
propellants (Figure 13). Water is also flowed separately through each propellant orifice set (LOX and fuel) to
determine the mass flow rate for a set time interval. This is used to determine the injectors discharge coefficient,
which helps characterize all the pressure losses across the injector as well as verify the O/F.

Figure 13. Representative


Water Flow Test of Injector

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

C. Static Fire Testing


Static fire testing is conducted to verify the structural integrity of the engine, verify engine meets its required
performance and to ensure all engine components work properly as a system. Several static fire test stands built and
used by students at California State University, Long Beach utilize a regulated pressure system to conduct tests of
engines that range in size from 130 lbf to 4,500 lbf. During testing, data is recorded from pressure transducers at
several different locations in the propulsion system and chamber, with thermocouples used to analyze heat transfer
rates and combustion temperatures. A load cell connects the engine assembly to the static fire test stand to measure
the amount of thrust that the engine produces. Figure 14 shows the configuration of the test stand and a hot fire test
of a sea level prototype LOX/propylene rocket engine7.

Figure 14. Sea Level LOX/Propylene Static Fire Test Conducted by CSULB Students in Nov. 20087

V. Conclusion
With technology constantly growing, the demand for small nanosatellites to be launched is increasing while only
expensive large launch opportunities exist in the market. The development of high performance rocket engines, such
as the upper stage rocket engine designed here, using LOX and chilled propylene as propellants provides the
opportunity to launch satellites at a fraction of what launches would cost.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank their peers in the Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering department at CSULB and
their colleges in the CALVEIN rocket program for all their help.

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

References
1

J. Garvey and E. Besnard, "LOX-Propylene Propulsion testing for a Nanosat Launch Vehicle,"AIAA Paper No. 05-4294,
presented at the Joint Propulsion Conference, Tucson, AZ, July 2005.
2
J. Garvey and E. Besnard, "Ongoing Nanosat Launch Vehicle Development for Providing Regular and Predictable Access
to Space for Small Spacecraft," Paper No. SSC05-X-2, 19th AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites, Logan, UT, Aug. 2005.
3
J. Garvey and E. Besnard, "Initial Results of Nanosat Launch Vehicle Developmental Flight Testing," AIAA Paper
2005-6641, presented at the Space 2005 conference, Long Beach, CA, Aug. 2005.
4
J. Garvey and E. Besnard, "Initial Results from the Demonstration and Analysis of Reusable Nanosat Launch Vehicle
Operations," presented at the 54th
5
A. Delamata, E. Besnard and C. Bostwick, "Fuel Trade Study for a Nanosat Launch Vehicle Upper Stage,"
presented at AIAA Student Conference, unpublished.
6
J. Garvey and E. Besnard, "RLV Flight Operations Demonstration with a Prototype Nanosat Launch Vehicle," AIAA
Paper 2006-4787, presented at the 42nd Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, July 2006.
7
K. Gemba, D. Verma and E. Besnard, "Development and Testing of a Prototype LOX/propylene Upper Stage Engine,"
AIAA Paper No. 2008-4839, July 2008
8
K. Gemba, and D. Verma, "Flight Testing of a Prototype LOX/propylene Upper Stage Engine," February 2009
9
Judd, D. Craig, et al. "Development Testing of a LOX/Methane Engine for In-Space Propulsion." 42nd
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit. Sacramento: AIAA 2006-5079, 2006.
10
Melcher IV, John C., and Jennifer K. Allred. "Liquid Oxygen / Liquid Methane Test Results of the RS-18 Lunar Ascent
Engine at Simulated Altitude Conditions at NASA White Sands Test Facility." 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference & Exhibit. Denver: AIAA 2009-4949, August 2009.
11
A. Wilson, C. Bostwick, E. Besnard, & R. J. Shinavski (2009). Ceramic Matrix Composite as Liners for Improved
Ablative Chambers. 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit . Denver, Colorado: AIAA 20095478
12
Hunzel, Dieter K. (1992). "Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines."Volume 147, Washington
DC: AIAA
13
Humble, Ronald W. (1995) "Space propulsion Analysis and Design" 1th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
14
NASA SP-8089 (1976) "Liquid Rocket Engine Injectors" NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria (Chemical Propulsion)
15
"NIST Chemistry Web Book". 19 January, 2010 http://webbook.nist.gov
16
Olhurst, Craig, Wallace Vaughn, Ronald Lewis, and Alvaro Rodriguez. "Emissivity Results On High Temperature Coatings
for Refractory Composite Materials." N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar 2011.
17
R. Carl Stechman,Design Criteria for Film Cooling for Small Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines February 1969
18
American Welding Society, Brazing Handbook Miami, Florida 4th Edition, 1991
19
Brown, Charles D., Elements of Spacecraft Design 1st Edition, AIAA 2002
21
Triethylaluminum MSDS, Sigma-Aldrich
22
Triethylborane MSDS, Sigma-Aldrich

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen