RocketEngines

Rocket Engine

The general principle may be simple, but there are numerous ways of achieving it. Different features and properties differ between existing rocket engines, and they all have consequences on complexity of manufacturing, complexity of operation, cost and weight for example.

We gather in this table the main properties of existing rocket engines.

Rocket engines features

Company	Rocketdyne	NPO Energomash	XCOR	XCOR	Armadillo
Model	SSME	RD-107 series (Soyuz)	XR-4A3 (EZ-rocket)	XR-5K18 (Lynx)	LOX/methane (no name)
Combustion
Propellants	LOX & LH2	LOX & Kerosene	LOX & Alcohol	LOX & Kerosene	LOX & LCH4
Tank pressurization	Yes, with O2 and H2 gases	Yes, with Nitrogen (same pump than propellants)	No	No	Yes, with Helium
Fuel pump	Turbopump	Turbopump driven by gaz generator using hydrogen peroxide decomposition (8300rpm)	Piston pump	Piston pump	No
Cooling	Regenerative w/ LH2 in three stages	Regenerative w/ kerosene (5 mm deep channels milled in the inner wall) and film of kerosene	Regenerative (w/ Alcohol?)	Regenerative w/ Kerosene	?
Injector	?	337 swirling/mixing injectors, ring of kerosene only for film cooling - view cut	?	?	?
Chamber metal	Copper or iron?	6 mm thick chromium bronze alloy inner wall, steel outer wall	Copper	Copper	?
Ignition system	?	Pyrotechnic, soon hypergolic	?	?	?
Actuators
Energy	Hydraulic				Electric
Provided by	Engine's turbopumps				?
Actuator	Six hydraulic servoactuators	Static engine, control by vernier engines	None	None	Servo-motor
Others
Valves	Hydraulically or pneumatically (helium) actuated	?	?	?	?

Pumps and tank pressurization

In order to get fuel from the tanks into the combustion chamber, the tanks must be either pressurized or the fuels pumped. In some cases, both techniques are used. The choice for this concern has a large impact on the design of the engine's hardware, and the complexity of manufacturing and operations.

Historically, only turbo pumps have been able to feed the engine at a large enough rate (high pressure chamber). Reciprocating pumps have been used in the past, but provided lower pressure and probably more weight. Innovative solutions appeared in research projects or private space projects, like the use of piston pumps for LOX or simple pressurization using liquid helium.

Several possibilities exist for tank pressurization:

• vaporization of liquid propellants back into their own tanks
• external vaporization of inert gas like Helium (can Nitrogen be used for that?)
• smoke generator, that basically react fuel and oxidizer and use the resulting smoke for pressurization.

The tank design is by itself complicated and now has a specific page.

Cooling

There are four known ways to cool a rocket engine:

• Film cooling (aka the cooling curtain) takes place inside the chamber, generally using a ring fuel injector at the periphery of the injector plate, and acts both by cooling the chamber walls by contact and by isolating the walls from the combustion
• Regenerative cooling is most widely used in rocket engines, since it is the most efficient way to have the chamber not being destroyed by heat. The general principle is to use the fuel, or sometimes the oxidizer, to cool the chamber walls before injecting those propellants into the chamber. The coolant flows into a series of pipes or milling into the external or intermediate walls of the engine, either around the nozzle, the chamber or both of them.
• Ablative cooling is based on materials that provide cooling by being gently destroyed, like the heat-shield of spaceships, or the carbon fiber composite nozzle of SpaceX Merlin 1A engine.
• Radiative cooling uses the natural capacity of materials to radiate (in infrared light for example) when they are hot. Doing this, they lose energy, and thus cool. This is efficient in the void of space, and is used as the nozzle cooling method for the SpaceX's Merlin Vacuum nozzle (with regenerative cooling for the chamber).

Cooling for a LOX/E85 engine

For our rocket engine, based on LOX and a cheap fuel like E85 or JP-A, we will consider the use of LOX as the coolant, and not fuel, since cheap fuel polymerizes into cooling pipes, resulting in obstruction and engine cutoff. LOX as coolant already has been studied by NASA:

LOX cooling at chamber pressures to 1500 psia was demonstrated by in-house testing at the NASA Lewis Research Center in the late 1980s. Chambers were fired with cracks to demonstrate wall integrity at elevated LOX mixture ratios. See AIAA paper 89-2739 or NASA TM 10211 3.

and by Rotory Rocket and seems feasible as stated here by Doug Jones (Rotary Rocket):

"Jet A is a lousy coolant, we have 2.9x the mass of LOX as of fuel available for cooling, and (most important), the LOX has more pressure available for cooling. Bear in mind that flowing through the coolant passages requires a substantial pressure drop, and since the LOX is denser than the fuel, it reaches higher pressure in the centrifugal pumping of the wheel. Thus it is the logical choice for coolant- and it does not foul, no how no way."

Moreover, LOX and cheap fuels are readily available.

Pneumatic and hydraulic pressure for actuators and valves

As we can see in the table at the top, different possibilities exist for actuating. The SSME uses hydraulic in nominal mode and pneumatics using He for backup. In satellites, lots of valves are pyrotechnically actuated.

Obtaining the pressurization in the system is not easy and is generally done by the fuel pump. SpaceX provided an elegant solution to hydraulic pressure by using the fuel (RP-1) as hydraulic fluid for the launcher, fuel pressurized by the main fuel turbopump.