Subscribe to rss feed

Preliminary OHKLA design | Rocket body discussion | 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

Preliminary OHKLA design

print
small tagNo Tags
UserPost

7:22 am
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
61
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Here is a poster (it's only a Google HTML cache of a pdf file, unfortunately, the pdf file itself seems to have vanished) about a N2O/paraffin hybrid sounding rocket that can carry a 5 kg payload to 100 km altitude – it is basically another OHKLA!  There are some figures on there to do with length, radius, and combustion chamber pressure, which may be a help to us.

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

7:23 am
February 9, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 348

offline
link
print
62
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Luke Maurits said:

Is it easy enough in your Pro/E model to specify different material densities for different parts of the rocket?  E.g. could we set the combustion chamber to aluminium, the nose and fins to fibreglass and the rest to steel, or something like that?  Or do you have to set the density of the entire thing as a whole?


It's incredibly easy. In fact, that is one aspect of my actual job, to update and add to the Pro/E material library. Basically, I can create a material in the system, I just need the material's properties, which can be easily found from http://www.matweb.com. If you find a good material for me to use in one part of the rocket, send me the url.

I will try to update these for you by tomorrow and see the new mass value.

7:41 am
February 9, 2010


Rocket-To-The-Moon

Altus, Oklahoma, USA

Member

posts 685

offline
link
print
63
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Luke Maurits said:

As for fuel, we were initially quite keen on paraffin, because it is very cheap, very safe, and very familiar, so easy to cast our own grains with.  Gary Schnyder commented that he was not a fan of paraffin (or hybrids in general, really), giving two main reasons.  One was that it is tricky to cast because it expands while drying.  I think that, for our purposes, this is a moot point since Copenhagen Suborbitals have clearly figured out a way to do it and they should be more than happy to show us how.  Gary's other reason was that paraffin, especially when hot, has very little structural strength.  Accelerate it too hard and it is likely to slump, potentially closing off combustion ports and causing other problems.  This seems like a valid concern – I note that CS appear to have only done static tests of their paraffin motors, so they wouldn't necessarily know how to deal with this.  Considering OHKLA is going to involve very high acceleration, paraffin slumping could be a very real concern.  Still, we may not want to rule it out entirely.


One method that I have seen for casting paraffin fuel grains is to have them rotating (on a lathe or similar device) while it cools off. One option would be to spray liquid paraffin from a nozzle in a mist on the inside of the rotating drum. The thickness of the wall would slowly get larger and larger and the slow cooling (and constant centrifugal acceleration) would hopefully keep the fuel from cracking.

Also to help alleviate the problem of the fuel grain slumping while under acceleration we could consider something new like mixing glass fiber into the paraffin to help give it more structural integrity.

Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering

8:52 am
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
64
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Rocket-To-The-Moon said:

Also to help alleviate the problem of the fuel grain slumping while under acceleration we could consider something new like mixing glass fiber into the paraffin to help give it more structural integrity.


Gary did say something about an effort he made along these lines, but I can't remember exactly what it was off the top of my head, I will have to check out the emails again.

I certainly do not mean to discount the possibility that paraffin could be made to work.  In fact, I am certain it could.  But any extra complexities involved in casting and supporting it need to be justified by other gains over other fuels, and I suspect that this may quickly cease to be the case.  I don't know how expensive HTPB is or how hard it is to come by, but if it isn't much more expensive or difficult to find then paraffin, then the fact that we wouldn't have to worry about all of paraffin's complications would seem to make it the better option.

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

8:54 am
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
65
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

rpulkrabek said:

It's incredibly easy. In fact, that is one aspect of my actual job, to update and add to the Pro/E material library. Basically, I can create a material in the system, I just need the material's properties, which can be easily found from http://www.matweb.com. If you find a good material for me to use in one part of the rocket, send me the url.

I will try to update these for you by tomorrow and see the new mass value.


That's great news, I look forward to seeing the new figures.  I think that even after replacing the combustion chamber (and maybe also the oxidiser tank?) with Al and the nose/fins with fibreglass, the mass will be way too high.  We must have over-the-top size parameters in a few places.

Oh, another thing – maybe we should also change the material of the nozzle itself.  Graphite might be a sensible choice for that.

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

9:35 am
February 9, 2010


brmj

Rochester, New York, United States

Member

posts 402

offline
link
print
66
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Graphite is definitely a sensable nozzle material. Good thought.

Back to the thrust calculation issues: I am begining to suspect that the gases are a critical part of the problem. As has been mentioned previously, the densities will be off because of the composition. If by any chance the gas coming out of the engine was modelled at room temperature through some oversight, I expect that would have significant effects as well.

Main work groups: Propulsion (booster), Spacecraft Engineering, Computer Systems, Navigation and Guidance (software)

11:30 am
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
67
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Post edited 11:37 am – February 9, 2010 by Luke Maurits


Okay, so numbers on propellant mass.

I had to hack USOFS a bit to do it, but by modelling the flight as a single, impulsive delta v which happens instantaneously at altitude zero and computing the final altitude, taking drag into account, I have found that the miminum delta v which would get us 100 km up is about 1400 m/s (around 5000 km/h – this is around Mach 5 which is the figure CSXT quote for their rocket, a good sanity check).

Now, if the unfuelled rocket has a mass of 50 kg and the payload mass of 5 kg, the total fuelled mass would be 97.4 kg if we got an Isp of 250 s, and 91.6 kg if we got an Isp of 280 s (not much of a differene!).  If the empty mass was 100 kg we'd be looking at about 185 or 175 kg for those Isps.  These figures feel about right – if we can get the rocket light, the whole lot should be around 100 kg fuelled.

So this tells us how much propellant mass we will need.  Once we choose actual propellants, the O:F ratio and some densities will give us a better idea of the size we are looking at.

Note that merely having this mass of propellant won't guarantee we break the Karman line, it also needs to burn sufficiently fast.

Of course, we should add safety margins on top of these figures to ensure we get there.

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

6:20 pm
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
68
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

More support for the figures above.  The Wikipedia article on suborbital spaceflight says: "If one's goal is simply to "reach space", for example in competing for the Ansari X Prize, horizontal motion is not needed. In this case the lowest required delta-v is about 1.4 km/s, for a sub-orbital flight with a maximum speed of about 1 km/s".  This matches exactly with the 1400 m/s I calculated using a modified version of USOFS!  So this is definitely a reliable figure for minimal delta-v (and makes me feel pretty good about USOF's usefulness!).

In order to guarantee success, we should probably aim for 1500 m/s total delta-v.

To go any further with this, we really need to decide on some propellants.

I am starting to feel better about N2O again.  OHKLA is no longer intended to lead on to developing huge hybrid clusters, at least not in the forseeable future, so we probably won't be needing LOX-related experience any time soon (not until the CLLARE PM, which is very far down the road).  This is a challenging enough project as it is, we may as well use the simplest approach we can.

As for a fuel, maybe we should ask the Copenhagen folks what their "epoxy grain" is actually made out of, how easy it is to work with, etc.  Maintaining the ability to cast our own grains would be really nice, and if their option removes many of the problems with paraffin then we might as well follow it.  They should be able to tell us how it compares with paraffin performance-wise.

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

6:28 pm
February 9, 2010


Rocket-To-The-Moon

Altus, Oklahoma, USA

Member

posts 685

offline
link
print
69
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

This sounds promising. If I am doing the math correctly, that comes out to a 15.3 second burn time with an average acceleration of 10g.

Is rpulkrabek still planning on vising the Copenhagen Suborbital team? Networking with them would be a big step on the path to our flight.

Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering

6:34 pm
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
70
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

How did you get the 15.3 second figure?

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

6:37 pm
February 9, 2010


Rocket-To-The-Moon

Altus, Oklahoma, USA

Member

posts 685

offline
link
print
71
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

1g = 9.8m/s/s

10g = 98m/s/s

1500m/s 98m/s/s = 15.3s

Of course this is a simple calculation based on a hypothetical average acceleration.

Main Workgroups: Propulsion & Spacecraft Engineering

6:43 pm
February 9, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
72
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Ah, right.  Yes, that looks correct.  10g is probably a good upper bound on acceleration, I think, so we should be looking at a burn time of not less than 15 seconds.

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

2:48 am
February 10, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 348

offline
link
print
73
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Luke Maurits said:

That's great news, I look forward to seeing the new figures.  I think that even after replacing the combustion chamber (and maybe also the oxidiser tank?) with Al and the nose/fins with fibreglass, the mass will be way too high.  We must have over-the-top size parameters in a few places.

Oh, another thing – maybe we should also change the material of the nozzle itself.  Graphite might be a sensible choice for that.


I am going to trim down the materials as much as possible and then reassign the materials. For one, I don't think the oxidizer tank needs to be 4cm thick, also, the nozzle can have the material shaved off near the throat. It might be until tomorrow before we can get an estimate on the mass.

2:59 am
February 10, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
74
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

I am not an engineer so I could be way off, but my gut agrees that 4 cm is way, way too thick.  I would think that 5 mm would be the closer to the mark, and 1 cm certainly an upper bound.  I don't think the oxidiser will be stored under particularly great pressure.

The combustion chamber will likely need to be a little bit sturdier, due to higher pressures and temperatures.  I still think 4 cm would be overkill for that too, though.

I look forward to hearing your new mass estimate whenever you find the time to compute it.  I'm starting to feel like OHKLA is really progressing solidly.

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

4:33 am
February 10, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 348

offline
link
print
75
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

brmj said:

Back to the thrust calculation issues: I am begining to suspect that the gases are a critical part of the problem. As has been mentioned previously, the densities will be off because of the composition. If by any chance the gas coming out of the engine was modelled at room temperature through some oversight, I expect that would have significant effects as well.


You are correct. The temperature for the gas was set to 25 C. I was under the assumption that if this is considered a combusted gas that everything would fall into place. With that said, the correct gas should be used. There is a long list of things that can be changed. I don't know where to begin, so I will just give the options and what I have chosen or were by default are in red.

For the domain:

Morphology

-Option: Continuous Fluid, Dispersed Fluid, Dispersed Solid, Particle Transport Fluid, Particle Transport Solid, Polydispersed Fluid or Droplets (Phase Change)

- Minimum Volume Fraction: Enter a value. I have it unchecked

Reference Pressure: I have set to 1 atm

Buoyancy

-Option: Non Buoyant or Buoyant

Domain Motion

-Option: Stationary or Rotating

Mesh Deformation

-Option: None or Regions of Motion Specified

Heat Transfer

-Option: Isothermal, Thermal Energy or Total Energy

- Fluid Temperature: 25 deg C

Turbulence

-Option: none (laminar), k-Epsilon, Shear Stress Transport, BSL Reynolds Stress or SSG Reynold Stress

-Wall Function: Scalable

-Advanced Turbulence Control: Eddy Viscosity, BC TKI Factor, Cmu Coefficient, Compressible Production, Limit Turbulent Timescale, Curvature Correction, K Coefficients, Epsilon Coefficients, Production Limiter

Combustion

Option: None {That's all I can choose}

Thermal Radiation

Option: None, Rosseland, P 1, Discrete Transfer, Monte Carlo

Electromagnetic Model - I have unchecked

Domain Initialization – I have unchecked

For the material N2O:

Basic Settings:

Option: Pure Substance, Fixed Composition Mixture, Variable Composition Mixture, Homogeneous Binary Mixture, Reacting Mixture or Hydrocarbon Fuel

Material Group: Gas Phase Combustion, Air Data, CHT Solids, Calorically Perfect Ideal Gases, Constant Property Gases, Constant Property Liquids, Dry Peng Robinson, Dry Redlich Kwong, Dry Steam, IAPWS IF97, Interphase mass Transfer, Liquid Phase Combustion, Particle Solids, Peng Robinson Dry Hydrocarbons, Peng Robinson Dry regrigerants, Peng Robinson Dry Steam, Peng Robinson Wet Hydrocarbons, Peng Robinson Wet Regrigerants, Peng Robinson Wet Steam, Real Gas Combustion, Redlich Kwong Dry Hydrocarbons, Redlich Kwong Dry Refrigerants, Redlich Kwong Dry Steam, Redlich Kwong Wet Hydrocarbons, Redlich Kwong Wet Refrigerants, Redlich Kwong Wet Steam, Soot, User, Water Data, Wet Peng Robinson, Wet Redlich Kwong, Wet Steam

Material Description: Nitrous Oxide N2O

Thermodynamic State:

Thermodynamic State: Gas, Liquid, Solid

Coord Frame: I have unchecked

Material Properties:

Option: General Material or State

(Thermodynamic Properties) ->

Equation of State:

Option: Value, Real Gas

Molar Mass: 44.01 [kg kmol^-1]

Density: This is blank

Specific Heat Capacity:

Option: NASA Format, Value or Zero Pressure Polynomial

(Temp Limits) ->

lower temperature: 300 [K]

Midpoint Temperature: 1000[K]

Upper Temperature: 5000 [K]

(Upper Interval Coefficients) ->

NASA a1: There is a number value here

NASA a2: There is a number value here

NASA a3: There is a number value here

NASA a4: There is a number value here

NASA a5: There is a number value here

NASA a6: There is a number value here

NASA a7: There is a number value here

(Lower Interval Coefficients) ->

NASA a1: There is a number value here

NASA a2: There is a number value here

NASA a3: There is a number value here

NASA a4: There is a number value here

NASA a5: There is a number value here

NASA a6: There is a number value here

NASA a7: There is a number value here

Reference State:

Option: NASA Format

Ref. Temperature: 25 [C]

Table Generation: unchecked

Transparent Properties:

(Dynamic Viscosity) ->

Option: Value, Kinetic Theory Model, Non Newtonian Model

Dynamic Viscosity: 13.5E-06 [kg m^-1 s^-1]

(Thermal Conductivity) ->

Option: Value, Kinetic Theory Model

Thermal Conductivity: 151E-04 [W m^-1 K^-1]

(Radiation Properties) ->

Refractive Index: Checked

Option: Value

Refractive Index: 1.0[m m^-1]

(Absorption Coefficient) ->

Option: Value

Absorption Coefficient 1.0 [m^-1]

(Scattering Coefficient) ->

Option: Value

Scattering Coefficient: 0.0 [m^-1]

(Buoyancy Properties) -> Unchecked

(Electromagnetic Properties) ->

Electrical Conductivity: Unchecked

Magnetic Permeability: Unchecked

Then, I have the option to add a reaction, but I am unsure how to use this.

The only way I can see moving forward is to either change the temperature or the molar mass.



4:39 am
February 10, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 348

offline
link
print
76
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Rocket-To-The-Moon said:

Is rpulkrabek still planning on vising the Copenhagen Suborbital team? Networking with them would be a big step on the path to our flight.


Yes, I am still planning this. I unfortunately couldn't make it for the static test due to time constraints, but the actual launch in June I plan on attending. It seems like too good of an opportunity to pass up!

4:41 am
February 10, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
77
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

I'm a little over my head here too.  All I can say is that a temperature of 25 C is obviously very off and this may explain our super high thrust figures.  The real temperature will be much higher – hence the density will be much lower, and the thrust will be a lot lower too due to the decreased mass flow.

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

4:44 am
February 10, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 348

offline
link
print
78
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Luke Maurits said:

I am not an engineer so I could be way off, but my gut agrees that 4 cm is way, way too thick.  I would think that 5 mm would be the closer to the mark, and 1 cm certainly an upper bound.  I don't think the oxidiser will be stored under particularly great pressure.

The combustion chamber will likely need to be a little bit sturdier, due to higher pressures and temperatures.  I still think 4 cm would be overkill for that too, though.

I look forward to hearing your new mass estimate whenever you find the time to compute it.  I'm starting to feel like OHKLA is really progressing solidly.


I agree, I think 4cm is overkill too. I had only modeled it this way as a starting point. I once wrote a Matlab application that analyzed pressures inside a vessel. I will open it back up to see if it will help determine an appropriate thickness.

4:45 am
February 10, 2010


Luke Maurits

Adelaide, Australia

Admin

posts 1483

offline
link
print
79
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

rpulkrabek said:

Yes, I am still planning this. I unfortunately couldn't make it for the static test due to time constraints, but the actual launch in June I plan on attending. It seems like too good of an opportunity to pass up!


Incidentally, the static test had to be delayed due to bad weather (it was scheduled for a few days ago now).  The new test date is 17 days away.  I'm really looking forward to seeing how it turns out.

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

5:26 am
February 10, 2010


rpulkrabek

Member

posts 348

offline
link
print
80
0
ratedowngrey
rateupgrey

Luke Maurits said:I'm a little over my head here too.  All I can say is that a temperature of 25 C is obviously very off and this may explain our super high thrust figures.  The real temperature will be much higher – hence the density will be much lower, and the thrust will be a lot lower too due to the decreased mass flow.


I am starting to wonder if the 25 C is meant only for the heat transfer aspect. The density is left blank, though, so maybe it is calculating: rho=MP/(RT).

I will change the temperature to something like 1000 C and see if there is a change right now.

small tagNo Tags

About the CSTART – Collaborative Space Travel and Research Team Forum

Forum Timezone: UTC -6

Most Users Ever Online: 59

Currently Online:
9 Guests

Currently Browsing this Topic:
3 Guests

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4
Forums: 36
Topics: 512
Posts: 3809

Membership:

There are 1133 Members

There are 2 Admins

Top Posters:

Rocket-To-The-Moon – 685
brmj – 402
rpulkrabek – 348
DenisG – 69
antinode – 64
J. Simmons – 46

Recent New Members: jmwright, uhwuggawuh, seikialice88, bishvabis, alijayadv, harris

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



 
share save 120 16