Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rocketdyne F-1 engine from the Saturn V first stage (NASA, (n.d.). Saturn V
News Reference.) [image] Available at:
http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/documents/F-1_Engine.pdf
[Accessed 9 Feb. 2016].
By Sean Pick
kept at sub zero temperatures. This causes major design issues on the
spacecraft itself, firstly the fuselage of the rocket must be insulated from
any sources of heat including the extremely hot exhaust fumes of the
rocket itself and heat produced from the friction between the rocket and
the air. The technical issues do not end in the atmosphere with the
spacecraft having to be protected from solar radiation from the sun that
can warm the low density fuel. When it is heated both gases expand
within the confined space of the fuselage which results in an increase in
pressure and potentially an explosion. To prevent this the rockets must be
vented to release excess pressure and welds must be done with
meticulous precision to prevent the gases escaping (Derek Lowe 2008).
Hypergolic Fuel
Hypergolic fuels are fuels that ignite instantly when the two substances
(almost always the oxidiser and propellant) come into contact with each
other. This has the added benefit that it makes the ignition sequence at
take off extremely simple and easy compromising on the fact they usually
produce less thrust and have a lower specific impulse than their cryogenic
and semi-cryogenic counterparts resulting in an increase in the amount of
fuel needed compared and thus a more massive spacecraft. This ease of
the ignition is also safer reducing the risk of a hard start, in larger
spacecraft helium is pumped into the propellant tank through safety
valves and then into the combustion chamber where the inert noble gas
prevents the oxidiser and propellant mixing and instantly igniting. This
system has a much higher safety record than other propellants (George P.
Sutton et al 2004).
Another advantage however is that they can be stored as a liquid at room
temperature making the movement and safety of these otherwise
extremely toxic and corrosive nature. This is an advantage that cryogenic
fuels lack as they can only be used in launch vehicles where they are
stored briefly. Hypergolic fuels on the other hand are not limited to launch
vehicles and are in fact extremely useful in the upper stages of a
spacecraft where spacecraft must manoeuvre into the correct orientation
for a geosynchronous orbit by doing correct retrograde burns to modify its
speed and thus reducing its orbital radius (John Clark 1972).
A popular and most frequently used hypergolic fuel mixture is
unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (N2H4) mixed with dinitrogen tetroxide
(N2O4). This has an excellent fuel to weight ratio and is also shock
resistant increasing its safety rating. It has a specific impulse of 230Ns-1,
although this is significantly less than the kerosene and liquid oxygen the
excellent fuel to weight ratio results in a less massive spacecraft so less
thrust is needed to achieve a geosynchronous orbit velocity (W. G
Andrews 1991).
Comparatively the hypergolic fuel chlorine triflouride with hydrazine has a
specific impulse of 270Ns-1(Paul M. Ordin et al 1949). This is significantly
higher than the specific impulse of hydrazine with other oxidisers,
however this substance developed by Nazi scientists is only stable in
quartz containers at 180 degrees Celsius due to the fact is more oxidising
than oxygen making this an extremely difficult and dangerous substance
to store. It initiates combustion with materials otherwise classified as nonflammable such as TeflonTM or asbestos. Quartz has very strong
intermolecular forces and bonds making it unlikely for chlorine triflouride
to form potentially explosive oxides with it. All equipment that comes into
contact with the oxidiser must be emphatically cleaned making this
oxidiser extremely unlikely to be used. A case study in 1950 exemplifies
this fact when one ton of the substance was spilled and it burnt through
0.3m of concrete and 1m of sand and gravel beneath (Derek Lowe 2008)
Solid Fuel
Solid fuels are exclusively used during the 1st stage of space flight at liftoff where the vessel needs the maximum amount of thrust possible to
become airborne with all the rockets mass. They achieve this by being
used immediately and then when the fuel supply has been used in its
entirety the tanks that stored the fuel are jettisoned increasing the
momentum and efficiency of the spacecraft (M.D Black 2010). A huge
advantage to using a solid rocket booster (SRB) is that they are easy to
store and the mechanism by which they achieve thrust is relatively simple
in comparison to other propellants. This decreases the risk of catastrophic
disassembly of the vessel with a failure rate of only 1% (M.D Black 2010).
By being cheaply manufactured they are extremely useful for budget
spacecraft especially in the commercial space flight industry with Space X
and Virgin Galactic adopting solid fuel boosters in their launch sequence.
However, there are some negative qualities involving solid rocket fuel
boosters, firstly it is notoriously hard to terminate the exothermic reaction
occurring in the combustion chamber of a solid rocket fuel booster. This
can be overcome at the expense of destroying the tank that would
normally be reused after splashing down in the ocean reducing
Hybrid Fuel
Hybrid fuels overcome the issues of solid fuels such as an ammonium
perchlorate booster by using a liquid oxidiser with the solid fuel. This
allows the engine to be throttled up or down which solid fuel boosters
alone cannot perform, in addition to this the motor can also be restarted
because the supply of oxidiser can sealed stopping the reaction in an
emergency such as a structural failure or if the spacecraft is moving too
fast in the atmosphere and wasting fuel because it has reached the
terminal speed for its design.
An example of a hybrid fuel is hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB)
and nitrous oxide. The HTPB binds the nitrous oxide (which is the oxidiser)
into an elastic solid which can also be mixed with traditional ammonium
perchlorate fuel and aluminium powder in the ratio 3:17:5 allowing the
There are many different types of nuclear propulsion that have been
proposed and some have even been developed such as Project Orion
which takes advantage of a series of nuclear explosions at a set frequency
behind the spacecraft to propel it. If the problems of nuclear propulsion
are overcome they will be significantly more powerful than traditional
chemical rocket fuel and will enable for manned deep space missions (C. J
Everret et al 1955). The problems engineers face depends on the type of
nuclear propulsion. A fusion rocket will produce the highest specific
impulse of any rocket but achieving nuclear fusion on a fast moving
platform is currently far beyond any current technology. Nuclear fusion is
only just being developed as a means of generating electricity for the
public. A nuclear propelled rocket that undergoes catastrophic
disassembly would spread radioactive material across a large area
contaminating the surroundings.
Fusion rockets are spacecraft that are propelled through the energy
released by the combining of light nuclei to produce a specific impulse in
abundant excess of 6000Ns-1 and specific impulses in a vacuum
theoretically possible in the magnitude of 100,000Ns-1 (R.B Adams et al
2003). This huge specific impulse would allow a geosynchronous orbit to
be achieved using very little fuel and would be extremely efficient; fusion
rocketry would also produce less radiation than fission propelled rockets
resulting in less mass being constrained by shielding the rocket from the
ionising effects of the radiation. The mass of the fusion reactor must be
considered, current fusion reactors would weigh more than the fuel
needed to accelerate the spacecraft to escape velocity.
Fusion rockets can be split into two categories: direct propulsion or ion
propulsion. Direct propulsion is not currently being developed due to the
Partial Test Ban Treaty signed in the 1963 that prohibits the detonation of
nuclear bombs in the earths atmosphere. Some studies suggest
radioactive fallout from each launch could harm one in ten people
however other studies state a rather more conservative number (R.B
Adams et al 2003). Even so detonation of nuclear bombs in the upper
atmosphere such as in the ionosphere where there is a high concentration
of charged particles from the sun can be seen as undoubtedly worse. Due
to the lack of oxygen to support combustion and a lack of a medium for
heat to transfer into, all energy from the blast is converted to more charge
particles, otherwise known as an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that would
disable electronic devices such as satellites, a similar affect to that of a
solar flare.
Ion propulsion is now more viable; one concept is the magneto-inertial
fusion driven rocket or MSNW. Its mechanism of operation would involve
large metal rings made from an alkaline metal such as lithium due to its
likelihood to donate its one s shell electron to become more stable being
exposed to a powerful magnetic field. A consequence of this would be the
collapse of these metal rings around a low density plasma which would
increase the pressure such that it enters a fusion state. As a result this
volatile scorching metal would be propelled out of the vessel to produce
specific impulses in the range of 1600Ns-1 to 5770Ns-1 depending on
whether in the spacecraft is in a gravity assist or not. The process would
be repeated every set interval of time, approximately 1 minute to
continue accelerating the rocket (R.B Adams et al 2003). The MSNW is
also not sustainable; requiring electrical energy to start the fusion process
which means electrical energy must be attained from other sources such
as solar panels.
Conclusion
Due to the unlikelihood of nuclear propulsion technology being developed
extensively in the not so distant future I do not think they are the best
propulsion method to achieve a geosynchronous orbit however if there
was a high probability of this being achieved soon they would be classified
without a doubt as the most effective way to achieve said orbit. Solid fuel
boosters while being extremely cheap relative to cryogenic and hypergolic
fuels present themselves with a number of disadvantages when compared
to their counterparts. Firstly their inability to effectively stop the
exothermic reaction posses the problem that if the spacecraft in the
atmosphere is already going its terminal speed trying to accelerate it
more would waste a lot of fuel energy in the form of thermal energy. This
lack of control does not end in the atmosphere; the fine control needed to
achieve a geosynchronous orbit would not be possible with a solid fuel
booster because, waiting for the spacecraft to reach its apoapsis before
starting its retro burn would not be a possibility. For this reason solid fuel
boosters are not the most effective means to achieve a geosynchronous
orbit.
The inefficiency of hybrid fuels and the engineering challenges faced to
overcome them can be said to be too complicated for the fuel's benefits.
While hypergolic fuels do have their advantages over cryogenic fuels
taking into consideration data alone cryogenic fuels almost always have a
higher specific impulse. This is especially true if super high energy
bipropellants are being used for propulsion. A huge advantage of
hypergolic fuels though is there storage conditions. Large amounts of
energy is used to ensure that the cryogenic fuels remain liquid, this also
increases the complexity of the rocket motor and spacecraft design to
avoid catastrophic failure of the vessel. This complexity makes cryogenic
10
rocket motors a lot more prone to failure and human life is something that
cannot be compared with specific impulse. This factor compared with the
relatively primitive design of hypergolic engines would suggest hypergolic
fuels are the best; however the advantages of cryogenic fuels far
outweigh the advantages of hypergolic fuels.
Using cryogenic fuels have been determined as the best rocket propulsion
method to achieve a geosynchronous orbit but there are many cryogenic
fuels. Liquid oxygen and kerosene was used in the most powerful rocket
engines ever made by man on the Apollo missions but technology has
advanced since then and a combination of liquid hydrogen and liquid
oxygen always supports a higher specific impulse and therefore using the
cryogenic fuel liquid oxygen with liquid hydrogen is the best method to
achieve a geosynchronous orbit. Liquid hydrogen and fluorine and other
such more reactive reagents produce a higher specific impulse but, due to
their high toxicity and huge issues storing them because of their
instability and tendency to explode this means they are not suitable as
fuels to use when attempting a geosynchronous orbit.
It must be taken into consideration however that all modern spacecraft
use a plethora of these fuels during different stages of their journey to
achieve maximum possible thrust and to use fuels flourish in the
environment that they are performing in. During lift-off for example large
amounts of thrust are needed to accelerate a very heavy object to escape
velocity so solid rocket boosters are used in conjunction with the first
stage cryogenic engines. Due to all mass adding to the force needed to
attain escape velocity once the solid rocket boosters have expired they
are jettisoned. When in orbit though fine adjustments are needed to
ensure they are at the correct attitude and eccentricity. To make these
corrections a less powerful fuel such as a cryogenic monopropellant or
hypergolic mixture are used. All rockets have their purpose but choosing
the correct fuel for the mission is paramount.
References
MARSHALL C. BURROWS (June 1968). Mixing and reaction studies of
hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide using photographic and spectral
techniques p. 6-18.
GEORGE C. MARSHALL (April 1968) Saturn V Flight Manuel p. 21-31
R.B. ADAMS, R.A. ALEXANDER, J.M. CHAPMAN, S.S. FINCHER, R.C.
HOPKINS, A.D. PHILIPS, T.T. POLSGROVE, R.J. LITCHFORD, AND B.W.
PATTON (November 2003) Conceptual Design of In-Space Vehicles for
Human Exploration of the Outer Planets p. 6-19
11
Propellant combinations
Low-energy monopropellants:
-Hydrazine
- Ethylene oxide
-Hydrogen peroxide
High-energy monopropellants:
- Nitromethane
Low-energy bipropellants:
-Perchloryl fluoride
-Analine-Acid
-JP-4-Acid
-Hydrogenperoxide-JP-4
Isp
Range(Ns-1)
160 to 190
190 to 230
200 to 230
12
Medium-energy bipropellants:
-Hydrazine-Acid
- Ammonia-Nitrogen tetroxide
High-energy bipropellants:
- Liquid oxygen-JP-4
- Liquid oxygen-Alcohol
- Hydrazine-Chlorine trifluoride
Very high-energy bipropellants:
- Liquid oxygen and fluorine-JP-4
-Liquid oxygen and ozone-JP-4
-Liquid oxygen-Hydrazine
Super high-energy bipropellants:
- Fluorine-Hydrogen
- Fluorine-Ammonia
- Ozone-Hydrogen
- Fluorine-Diborane
230 to 260
250 to 270
270 to 330
300 to 385