Main Page: Difference between revisions
(cryogenic engineering book) |
(typos) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=N-Prize reflections= | =N-Prize reflections= | ||
This web site aims to gather to gather my researches in the field of astronautics, rocketry and other launch technologies that can be used for the N-Prize competition. It is not an official web site for the [[N-Prize]]. The official web site is here: http://www.n-prize.com/ . The goal of the competition is roughly to reproduce the great achievement of the Sputnik in 1957, but for a 20g satellite and less than £1000. I'm not part of a team, nor did I register a team, because I don't really have the expertise to actually build it in time before the deadline of the project in september 2011. | This web site aims to gather to gather my researches in the field of astronautics, rocketry and other launch technologies that can be used for the N-Prize competition. It is not an official web site for the [[N-Prize]]. The official web site is here: http://www.n-prize.com/ . The goal of the competition is roughly to reproduce the great achievement of the Sputnik in 1957, but for a 20g satellite and with less than £1000. I'm not part of a team, nor did I register a team, because I don't really have the expertise to actually build it in time before the deadline of the project in september 2011. | ||
==How to escape from Earth?== | ==How to escape from Earth?== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
sufficient speed before falling back on Earth. | sufficient speed before falling back on Earth. | ||
Rocket trajectories generally | Rocket trajectories generally tend to form a square angle, with the beginning of the flight being orthogonal | ||
to Earth and the final direction | to Earth and the final direction being parallel to Earth's surface. The reason is that since | ||
they achieve ultra-sonic speeds very quickly, the air pressure on their body | they achieve ultra-sonic speeds very quickly, the air pressure on their body | ||
(mainly the fairing) | (mainly the fairing) becomes quite important. It is more efficient to first escape | ||
the atmosphere and then change trajectory to gain the horizontal speed needed | the low atmosphere, with its 85% of its whole mass below 11km altitude, and then change trajectory to gain the horizontal speed needed for orbital injection without being slowed down by atmospheric friction. | ||
for orbital injection without being slowed down by atmospheric friction. | |||
[[Image:Rocket_trajectory.png|center|Rocket trajectory: initial vector is vertical, final is tangent]] | [[Image:Rocket_trajectory.png|center|Rocket trajectory: initial vector is vertical, final is tangent]] | ||
| Line 28: | Line 27: | ||
times</b> greater than the Isp of a rocket engine, since it uses oxygen from the | times</b> greater than the Isp of a rocket engine, since it uses oxygen from the | ||
atmosphere to burn its fuel, and not some embedded oxidizer. The fact that it | atmosphere to burn its fuel, and not some embedded oxidizer. The fact that it | ||
uses a | uses a turbine design also has a great impact on the improvement of efficiency. For the N-Prize, the cost of the aircraft could be deducted from the overall price since it would be reused. | ||
I started searching and I found out that Orbital already has developped an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_launch_to_orbit air-to-orbit] launch vehicle, called the [http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Pegasus/ Pegasus]. It is able to push onto Low Earth Orbit a payload up to 1,000 lbs (450 kg), and it is launched from a full-sized airplane. My goal is thus to study the | I started searching and I found out that Orbital already has developped an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_launch_to_orbit air-to-orbit] launch vehicle, called the [http://www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Pegasus/ Pegasus]. It is able to push onto Low Earth Orbit a payload up to 1,000 lbs (450 kg), and it is launched from a full-sized airplane. My goal is thus to study the feasibility of something similar, at very low price, even for the aircraft. A rocket would still be used for air-to-orbit link because nothing else is able to achieve a speed around 9 km/s before falling back on Earth. Some specific technologies can be used to improve efficiency, we'll see them below in the [[#The rocket|rocket]] section. | ||
Several teams are working on using Helium or Hydrogen balloons ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon rockoons]) to get to the high atmosphere, around 35km and then launch a rocket. It is a nice solution too, and maybe less expensive in the overall, but balloons are not reusable, suffer from imprecise trajectory due to winds, and provide no initial speed. | Several teams are working on using Helium or Hydrogen balloons ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockoon rockoons]) to get to the high atmosphere, around 35km and then launch a rocket. It is a nice solution too, and maybe less expensive in the overall, but balloons are not reusable, suffer from imprecise trajectory due to winds, and provide no initial speed. This latter point is questionable, since the initial speed of such a plane would still be quite low. | ||
Single stage to orbit (SSTO) are also a promising research field for low cost orbiting. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esgc5W_Ufng This one], here captured at SpaceUP, doesn't even allow attitude control out of atmosphere to avoid expensive guidance actuators. The main idea of SSTO is that the launch system (rocket) is the payload. It does not aim to insert a smaller satellite into orbit. | Single stage to orbit (SSTO) are also a promising research field for low cost orbiting. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esgc5W_Ufng This one] (SpaceX guys), here captured at SpaceUP, doesn't even allow attitude control out of atmosphere to avoid expensive guidance actuators. The main idea of SSTO is that the launch system (rocket) is the payload. It does not aim to insert a smaller satellite into orbit. | ||
==The aircraft== | ==The aircraft== | ||
Some aircrafts have been exploring the high atmosphere, around 30km high. | Some aircrafts have been exploring the high atmosphere, around 30km high. | ||
Contrary to what one would assume, high flight speeds are not needed. The [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html Helios] for example, autonomous solar powered aircraft, flights at this altitude at 20km/h. John Powell [http://www.jpaerospace.com/] is also researching on high altitude propellers and plans to make it to space using a high altitude base for payload transfer to a bigger plane. He describes it well in this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7LQuVfDwFQ video] interview. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 U-2] is a manned reconnaissance aircraft flying at 21km altitude, but | Contrary to what one would assume, high flight speeds are not needed. The [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html Helios] for example, autonomous solar powered aircraft, flights at this altitude at 20km/h. John Powell [http://www.jpaerospace.com/] is also researching on high altitude propellers and plans to make it to space using a high altitude base for payload transfer to a bigger plane. He describes it well in this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7LQuVfDwFQ video] interview. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 U-2] is a manned reconnaissance aircraft flying at 21km altitude, but cruising at relatively high speeds (690km/h). Those planes are designed with a very long wingspan, and low weight, similar to gliders. Nevertheless, we would benefit from speed of the aircraft, speed that wouldn't be needed by the rocket to reach. It is low speed compared to orbital speed though. | ||
Can electricity energy be considered for that kind of mission ? If not, what fuel should be used, | Can electricity energy be considered for that kind of mission ? If not, what fuel should be used, kerosene, alcohol, E85? | ||
Anyway, the main issue with the aircraft is: [[Build a cheap turbofan|how to build a £100 turbofan?]] | Anyway, the main issue with the aircraft is: [[Build a cheap turbofan|how to build a £100 turbofan?]] | ||
| Line 53: | Line 52: | ||
===Guidance=== | ===Guidance=== | ||
GPS can probably be used in the plane for position tracking. Other sensors should be shared with the rocket's | GPS can probably be used in the plane for position tracking. Other sensors should be shared with the rocket's embedded computer. | ||
Sun position can be a very good and easy indicator of attitude, as well as earth curve recognition. Video camera is likely to be the main sensor, since it can provide lots of information for very low cost. | Sun position can be a very good and easy indicator of attitude, as well as earth curve recognition. Video camera is likely to be the main sensor, since it can provide lots of information for very low cost (but for high processing power). | ||
See the page on the [[EmbeddedRocketComputer|embedded computer]]. | See the page on the [[EmbeddedRocketComputer|embedded computer]]. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 61: | ||
===Fuel=== | ===Fuel=== | ||
Propellants represent the most important part of the weight of what we have | |||
to launch. It should thus be chosen carefully regarding to its cost. | to launch. It should thus be chosen carefully regarding to its cost. | ||
Alcohol has been used in the early ages of rocketry, in the | Alcohol has been used in the early ages of rocketry, in the German V-2 for | ||
examples. It has the advantages to be cheap, and burns quite well. It is not | examples. It has the advantages to be cheap, and burns quite well. It is not | ||
pure, generally used between 75 an 90 percent of volume ratio with water for the | pure, generally used between 75 an 90 percent of volume ratio with water for the | ||
rest. The loss of weight due to that water is often a good thing because it | rest. The loss of weight due to that water is often a good thing because it | ||
burns producing so much heat that the water can keep the engine cool enough to | burns producing so much heat that the water can keep the engine cool enough to | ||
survive. Rocket-grade | survive. Rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) has been introduced later to replace | ||
alcohol, providing a | alcohol, providing a better volume efficiency. | ||
To my eyes, alcohol seems to be a very good low cost solution. RP-1 is still | To my eyes, alcohol seems to be a very good low cost solution. RP-1 is still | ||
| Line 83: | Line 82: | ||
===Oxidizer=== | ===Oxidizer=== | ||
Liquid Oxygen (LOX) is the obvious/best choice for high Isp. However, it has | Liquid Oxygen (LOX) is the obvious/best choice for high Isp. However, it has lots of drawbacks because of the need for cryogenics storage, cautious manipulation, and engine design, that make it quite expensive and much complicated. See the [http://books.google.fr/books?id=1OC8zeol7uMC cryogenic engineering book]. | ||
Other leads should then be explored, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Rocket_motors Nitrous oxide]. | Other leads should then be explored, like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrous_oxide#Rocket_motors Nitrous oxide]. | ||
| Line 90: | Line 89: | ||
===Engine=== | ===Engine=== | ||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine Aerospike] engines should be seriously considered, although they are more efficient than bell shaped nozzles at low altitudes and that we want to launch from high altitude. | [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine Aerospike] engines should be seriously considered, although they are more efficient than bell shaped nozzles at low altitudes and that we want to launch from high altitude. See web page on [http://www.k-makris.gr/RocketTechnology/Nozzle_Design/nozzle_design.htm nozzle design]. | ||
For the cooling, I | For the cooling, I see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regenerative_cooling_(rocket) regenerative cooling] as the only option. | ||
The pump is also a major concern, especially for cost and chamber pressure capability. Xcor has created in 2003 a [http://filespump.info/piston_pumps.html piston pump] for LOX, which is used on a 1,500 lb-thrust LOX/kerosene engine. | The pump is also a major concern, especially for cost and chamber pressure capability. Xcor has created in 2003 a [http://filespump.info/piston_pumps.html piston pump] for LOX, which is now used on a 1,500 lb-thrust LOX/kerosene engine. | ||
===Trajectory=== | ===Trajectory=== | ||
| Line 105: | Line 104: | ||
two possibilities, as fins won't have any impact in the vacuum of space: the | two possibilities, as fins won't have any impact in the vacuum of space: the | ||
rocket engine has to be directionally controllable or control jets must be used | rocket engine has to be directionally controllable or control jets must be used | ||
to control the attitude of the rocket. Both | to control the attitude of the rocket, as does SpaceX with the Merlin engine. | ||
the rocket's hardware. | Both cases imply complications on the rocket's and engine hardware, but seem mandatory. | ||
==The satellite== | ==The satellite== | ||
Lots of strategies for the tracking of the satellite have been exposed: | Lots of strategies for the tracking of the satellite have been exposed: | ||
flashing device, radioactive, | flashing device, radioactive, EM emitting, mirrors... The ground segment will have to be developed from scratch since I don't think anybody would mind tracking 20g 100miles away. | ||
Revision as of 21:15, 26 July 2010
N-Prize reflections
This web site aims to gather to gather my researches in the field of astronautics, rocketry and other launch technologies that can be used for the N-Prize competition. It is not an official web site for the N-Prize. The official web site is here: http://www.n-prize.com/ . The goal of the competition is roughly to reproduce the great achievement of the Sputnik in 1957, but for a 20g satellite and with less than £1000. I'm not part of a team, nor did I register a team, because I don't really have the expertise to actually build it in time before the deadline of the project in september 2011.
How to escape from Earth?
Rockets have been used for 50 years to escape the gravity of earth. They are good for three things: create an important thrust, go fast, and burn a lot of ergols. Indeed, the efficiency of a propulsion engine is measured with a specific impulse (I_sp), and for rocket engines, it is quite low. However, they are the only engines that provide the sufficient thrust to climb up with large speeds and to tear of Earth's gravity.
Besides altitude, speed is the most important factor when trying to put an object into orbit. Without it, satellites would fall back down on Earth, even if you climb up at 200 miles. Once again, rocket engines, with their high thrust power can achieve sufficient speed before falling back on Earth.
Rocket trajectories generally tend to form a square angle, with the beginning of the flight being orthogonal to Earth and the final direction being parallel to Earth's surface. The reason is that since they achieve ultra-sonic speeds very quickly, the air pressure on their body (mainly the fairing) becomes quite important. It is more efficient to first escape the low atmosphere, with its 85% of its whole mass below 11km altitude, and then change trajectory to gain the horizontal speed needed for orbital injection without being slowed down by atmospheric friction.
That particular point of the cost of escaping the atmosphere made me thought about using an aircraft to launch a rocket from the upper atmosphere, reducing considerably the air pressure, the drag, and improving trajectory and efficiency. Moreover, the specific impulse of a turbofan is around ten times greater than the Isp of a rocket engine, since it uses oxygen from the atmosphere to burn its fuel, and not some embedded oxidizer. The fact that it uses a turbine design also has a great impact on the improvement of efficiency. For the N-Prize, the cost of the aircraft could be deducted from the overall price since it would be reused.
I started searching and I found out that Orbital already has developped an air-to-orbit launch vehicle, called the Pegasus. It is able to push onto Low Earth Orbit a payload up to 1,000 lbs (450 kg), and it is launched from a full-sized airplane. My goal is thus to study the feasibility of something similar, at very low price, even for the aircraft. A rocket would still be used for air-to-orbit link because nothing else is able to achieve a speed around 9 km/s before falling back on Earth. Some specific technologies can be used to improve efficiency, we'll see them below in the rocket section.
Several teams are working on using Helium or Hydrogen balloons (rockoons) to get to the high atmosphere, around 35km and then launch a rocket. It is a nice solution too, and maybe less expensive in the overall, but balloons are not reusable, suffer from imprecise trajectory due to winds, and provide no initial speed. This latter point is questionable, since the initial speed of such a plane would still be quite low.
Single stage to orbit (SSTO) are also a promising research field for low cost orbiting. This one (SpaceX guys), here captured at SpaceUP, doesn't even allow attitude control out of atmosphere to avoid expensive guidance actuators. The main idea of SSTO is that the launch system (rocket) is the payload. It does not aim to insert a smaller satellite into orbit.
The aircraft
Some aircrafts have been exploring the high atmosphere, around 30km high. Contrary to what one would assume, high flight speeds are not needed. The Helios for example, autonomous solar powered aircraft, flights at this altitude at 20km/h. John Powell [1] is also researching on high altitude propellers and plans to make it to space using a high altitude base for payload transfer to a bigger plane. He describes it well in this video interview. The U-2 is a manned reconnaissance aircraft flying at 21km altitude, but cruising at relatively high speeds (690km/h). Those planes are designed with a very long wingspan, and low weight, similar to gliders. Nevertheless, we would benefit from speed of the aircraft, speed that wouldn't be needed by the rocket to reach. It is low speed compared to orbital speed though.
Can electricity energy be considered for that kind of mission ? If not, what fuel should be used, kerosene, alcohol, E85?
Anyway, the main issue with the aircraft is: how to build a £100 turbofan?
Staging and recovery
Separation from the rocket is a big concern. If wings are directly mounted on the rocket body and jettisoned, they would not need some guidance or attitude control electronics, just a basic parachute system. If the wings are able to fly without the rocket, two guidance systems are needed: one for the rocket and one to get back the aircraft in one piece for future launches.
Guidance
GPS can probably be used in the plane for position tracking. Other sensors should be shared with the rocket's embedded computer.
Sun position can be a very good and easy indicator of attitude, as well as earth curve recognition. Video camera is likely to be the main sensor, since it can provide lots of information for very low cost (but for high processing power).
See the page on the embedded computer.
The rocket
Fuel
Propellants represent the most important part of the weight of what we have to launch. It should thus be chosen carefully regarding to its cost.
Alcohol has been used in the early ages of rocketry, in the German V-2 for examples. It has the advantages to be cheap, and burns quite well. It is not pure, generally used between 75 an 90 percent of volume ratio with water for the rest. The loss of weight due to that water is often a good thing because it burns producing so much heat that the water can keep the engine cool enough to survive. Rocket-grade kerosene (RP-1) has been introduced later to replace alcohol, providing a better volume efficiency.
To my eyes, alcohol seems to be a very good low cost solution. RP-1 is still used nowadays, and is only 20% more efficient than alcohol with a liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer. The next question is thus: should we use some pure alcohol, alcohol/water blend or alcohol/something else blend?
I believe that E85, a 85 percent alcohol and 15 percent gasoline fuel recently used in automotive, is promising. I think that it's efficiency will be slightly better than alcohol, still being very cheap, around £0.5 a liter.
Oxidizer
Liquid Oxygen (LOX) is the obvious/best choice for high Isp. However, it has lots of drawbacks because of the need for cryogenics storage, cautious manipulation, and engine design, that make it quite expensive and much complicated. See the cryogenic engineering book.
Other leads should then be explored, like Nitrous oxide.
Hydrogen peroxide would even be better, since it's more dense, but it seems complicated and expensive to have it manufactured at a high concentration.
Engine
Aerospike engines should be seriously considered, although they are more efficient than bell shaped nozzles at low altitudes and that we want to launch from high altitude. See web page on nozzle design.
For the cooling, I see regenerative cooling as the only option.
The pump is also a major concern, especially for cost and chamber pressure capability. Xcor has created in 2003 a piston pump for LOX, which is now used on a 1,500 lb-thrust LOX/kerosene engine.
Trajectory
The trajectory has to be precise enough to get a launch authorization for a specific orbit. I believe that simple cameras can be used on the rocket to determine position of the sun and the Earth's horizon. Accelerometers, digital gyroscopes and a compass are really cheap nowadays and can be used too.
Anyway, if sensors are available, actuators are different story. I see only two possibilities, as fins won't have any impact in the vacuum of space: the rocket engine has to be directionally controllable or control jets must be used to control the attitude of the rocket, as does SpaceX with the Merlin engine. Both cases imply complications on the rocket's and engine hardware, but seem mandatory.
The satellite
Lots of strategies for the tracking of the satellite have been exposed: flashing device, radioactive, EM emitting, mirrors... The ground segment will have to be developed from scratch since I don't think anybody would mind tracking 20g 100miles away.
