Subscribe to rss feed

Moving forward with OHKLA | Project planning and misc | Forum

 
You must be logged in to post user permissions login Login register Register


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


searchicon 






Minimum search word length is 3 characters – Maximum search word length is 84 characters
Wildcard Usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

topic

Moving forward with OHKLA

print
small tagNo Tags
UserPost

4:02 am
June 29, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 349

offline
link
print
21
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Post edited 4:04 am – June 29, 2010 by rpulkrabek


I've been investigating the material to be used for the oxidizer tank and for the combustion chamber. I started with the oxidizer tank. The objectives I used were to minimize mass and to maximize the amount of pressure it can hold, tensile strength. I have access to a software that serves as a material database and groups materials together on a plot. See below for the Density Vs. Tensile strength plot.

mouse

http://cstart.org/wiki/images/…..9_2010.PNG

 

Each bubble represents a certain group of materials. For example, I believe the red colored bubbles were materials like different steels or other metals. Each steel bubble was of a certain type of steel. I can plot lines of certain slopes to determine the best choice. For this case, I chose a slope of 1. Here is a zoomed in look.

mouse

http://cstart.org/wiki/images/…..9_2010.PNG

 

With this slope, it basically removes steels from our choices. If we were to go with a slope of 1/2, meaning that we would prefer a higher tensile strength at the cost of having a heavier tank, a steel would be more appropriate.

In my opinion, choosing Al-50%, or as I have more commonly heard of it, Al 6061, is the best choice for this application. More information about this material can be found from here. One benefit of this material is that I know it is widely used, such as higher end bicycles, and is commonly available. One negative about this material is that it is a bit trickier to weld, although, quite many people are familiar with the technique.

All of this analysis is off the basis of objectives and constraints that I am aware of. I would love to hear what other people have to say. Are there any inputs from those that have experience with hybrid rockets and what material they chose?

4:18 am
June 29, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
22
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Thanks very much for doing this work!

I agree that with the oxidiser tank, aluminium makes more sense than steel, since there is no need to worry about melting point.

Perhaps a question we should consider first with the tank is whether we want to build our own (in which case things like weldability are a concern) or buy an industrial tank of appropriate size.  Obviously buying a tank is a lot easier, but I am concerned that:

  1. It may be hard to find tanks with the capacity we want which are tall and thin enough to incorporate into a rocket.
  2. The outlet nozzles (or whatever the word is) on commercial tanks may be too narrow for our purposes, i.e. we may not be able to move N2O into the combustion chamber at the rate that we want.  I don't know if this is likely to be true or not, it's just something that occurred to me.

If we were to build our own tank we could make sure we solved both of these problems.

I did try to do some research on the range of aluminium tanks out there, but I found it very hard – manufacturers advertise the size of these tanks in terms of how many litres of certain gases they can hold, which is completely illogical, since litres are a unit of volume and not a quantity of gas.  Presumably they mean "can contain as much of gas x as would be found in so many litres of space under such-and-such pressure and temperature conditions", but who knows what those conditions are?

Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.

9:08 am
June 29, 2010


joe.haydu

Member

posts 16

offline
link
print
23
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

We may be able to repurpose an automotive NOS tank, like this one http://www.holley.com/14760NOS.asp . We'll have to look at the flow rate, but it might be easier then manufacturing our own tank. I'm assuming that we are using a single tank as opposed to multiple small tanks in parallel.

5:45 pm
June 29, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
24
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

I think a single tank would be a lot simpler, provide a better mass fraction and be much more reliable (fewer valves to need to open at the correct times, etc) than multiple small tanks in parallel, so unless some issues force us down the parallel route, it makes sense to stick with one.

My biggest concern with automotive NOS tanks is that, since they're designed to fit in cars – and probably cars on the small end of the size scale – they are going to be short and squat in shape, which is the exact opposite of what we need.  This probably applies for scuba tanks, too.  Long and thin is probably quite an odd shape for a tank outside of rocketry.

Main CLLARE workgroups: Mission Planning, Navigation and Guidance. I do maths, physics, C, Python and Java.

small tagNo Tags

About the CSTART – Collaborative Space Travel and Research Team Forum

Forum Timezone: UTC -6

Most Users Ever Online: 59

Currently Online:
8 Guests

Currently Browsing this Topic:
2 Guests

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4
Forums: 36
Topics: 516
Posts: 3818

Membership:

There are 1144 Members

There are 2 Admins

Top Posters:

Rocket-To-The-Moon – 685
brmj – 402
rpulkrabek – 349
DenisG – 69
antinode – 64
J. Simmons – 46

Recent New Members: daffodil1003, lejufe, aquariusmediaa91, megasplosion, peterpaul008, Sandra

Administrators: Luke Maurits (1483 Posts), Rizwan (170 Posts)



 
share save 120 16