13 views

Uploaded by Sandeep Ajaykumar

design criteria of a DBN cntr

save

- 19960042495 Experimental Performance of a High-Area-Ratio Rocket Nozzle at High Combustion Chamber Pressure
- Compressible Flow
- ZEHST Broschuere en 2014 V04
- EsercizioDiffusoreAria
- A Review of Gas-Fed Pulsed Plasma Thruster
- 19760003000_1976003000
- Compressible Flow 2016
- My first research article publication
- Thermal Analysis on Plume Heating of the Main Engine
- Nuclear Power Plant Gaseous Waste Treatment System Design
- 19650017046
- Alexey S. Boldarev et al- Soft X-Rays Sources of X-Pinch Type Based on the Supersonic Gas Jets
- 2010
- Rocket Propulsion - Supplement #1
- Tte
- Propulsion Control and Thrust Allocation on Marine Vessels - Ruth
- separator design .xls
- Randolph Laboratories, Inc. v. Specialties Development Corporation Appeal of Randolph Laboratories, Inc. Appeal of Randolph Laboratories, Inc. Appeal of Specialties Development Corporation, 178 F.2d 477, 3rd Cir. (1950)
- 11 - Fan & Field Nozzle
- IES CONV Mechanical Engineering 1986
- Propulsion i
- Art 06
- Test
- Water rockets
- as10-sol
- 01667
- Rocketry Education Pack
- MTS - TECHOP Annual DP Trials and Gap Analysis.pdf
- Tud
- Nijsse Jeff 201211 MASC Thesis
- jigs and fixtures module 2.pdf
- Performance-review-system-mba-hr-project[www.students3k.com].doc
- 1-1.Design Criterion of the Dual-Bell Nozzle Contour.pdf
- cordinate for a DBN

08

Design Criterion of the Dual-Bell Nozzle Contour

Hirotaka Otsu, Masafumi Miyazawa, and Yasunori Nagata

Shizuoka University, Johoku 3-5-1, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 432-8561, JAPAN

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08

E-mail; thootu@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp

Abstract

In this study, we performed a CFD analysis to determine the optimum dual-bell nozzle contour. Especially, we investigated the effect of the deflection angle at the wall inflection on the separation point transition. Based on our present

analysis, we found that the deflection angle at the wall inflection should be larger than the angle determined by a simple

Prandtl-Meyer expansion. Also, the time to accomplish the separation point transition from the wall inflection to the

extension nozzle exit is estimated to be less than 10 ms when our design criterion of the dual-bell nozzle contour is

applied to the booster engine of H-2A launch vehicle. This time interval is considered to be essentially instant from the

practical point of view of the safe nozzle operation.

1 Introduction

The dual-bell nozzle is an advanced rocket engine nozzle

concept with an altitude-adapted capability.1 This nozzle

concept is promising for application to existing and nearterm launch vehicles with a simple modification to the current bell-type nozzle configuration. As shown in Fig. 1, the

dual-bell nozzle has a base nozzle and an extension nozzle

connected at the wall inflection where a forced, steady and

symmetrical separation takes place at low altitudes. The

wall inflection point, therefore, acts as an effective nozzle

exit with a small nozzle area ratio at low altitudes. At high

altitudes, nozzle flow is attached to the wall through the

extension nozzle exit, thereby providing the use of the full

area ratio. When applied to booster engines to be ignited

on the ground, this nozzle is expected to provide a significant overall propulsion and flight performance gains over

the conventional bell-type nozzle. This is due to its capability to adapt the nozzle exhaust flow to ambient pressure

at low and high altitudes during the ascent flight.

In our previous studies,2, 3 we analytically evaluated the

propulsion and flight performance gains of the dual-bell

nozzles with taking account of weight penalties of dualbell nozzles.2 In that analysis, theoretical-optimum performance gains are obtained by utilizing the flow separation

model in the nozzle proposed by Romine.4 In this model,

the flow separation inside the nozzle is controlled by the

nozzle flow adjustment to ambient pressure, not by the wall

boundary layer. Using this model, we calculated the separation pressure and location through a triple-point shock

Fig. 1: Sketch of the dual-bell nozzle

**structure, resulting in good agreements with experimental
**

data. Figure 2 shows the gain of the trajectory-averaged

specific impulse for LE-7A (LOX/LH2 engine) and RD180 (LOX/kerosene engine). From this figure, we can see

that the trajectory-averaged specific impulse for both LE7A and RD-180 increases by about 10 [s] with the area

ratio of 100.

From the point of view of practical application, we need

to assess the design issues to assure safe and reliable nozzle operations during the launch vehicle ascent phase. A

forced, steady, and symmetrical separation has to take place

at the wall inflection point of the dual-bell nozzle during

the low altitude mode operations. On the other hand, at an

1

1.5

LE-7A (Equilibrium)

LE-7A (Frozen)

RD-180 (Frozen)

12

Radial Distance Y [m]

Trajectory-averaged Isp gain [s]

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08

14

10

Wall Inflection

1.0

θip

θB

0.5

Extension

Nozzle

Base Nozzle

8

0.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Axial Distance X [m]

6

**Fig. 3: Dual-bell nozzle contour for α = 1.0
**

4

2

0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

**Area Ratio of Extension Nozzle
**

Fig. 2: Estimated gain of the trajectory-averaged specific impulse for LE-7A and RD-180 (Ref. 2)

altitude where the separation criterion is cleared, the separation point must jump to the extension nozzle exit within

a sufficiently short period of time to avoid unfavorable side

loads and/or vibration hazards. Also, the separation conditions have to be uniquely determined for the safe operation

of this nozzle.

To resolve the above issues on the dual-bell nozzle,

we analyzed the dual-bell nozzle flow with a NavierStokes CFD code applied to laminar axis-symmetric nozzle

flows.3 Especially, we focused on the effect of the deflection angle at the inflection point on the dual-bell nozzle

flow. According to our CFD analysis, it was found that

the deflection angle should be larger than the angle evaluated using a simple Prandtl-Meyer expansion theory and

the time to complete the separation point transition was estimated to be less than 0.1 [s]. Additionally, the theoretical

separation criteria to be applied to the dual-bell nozzle were

also assessed.

In the present study, we tried to narrow down the overexpansion level at the wall inflection through our CFD

analysis. Additionally, the effect of the nozzle length on

the separation point transition was also investigated.

**2 Design of Dual-Bell Nozzle Contour
**

In this section, we describe how to design the dual-bell nozzle contour in the present study. The area ratio at the inflection point is set to be 37.5, which is same as that of LE-7A.

At the extension nozzle exit, the area ratio is set to be 100.

The contour of both the base nozzle and the extension nozzle is a parabola. The detail is as follows.

• The base nozzle length and the total length of dualbell nozzle are assumed to be 80% of a conical nozzle

with a half-angle of 15 [deg.].

• The parabola for the base nozzle is determined using

the coordinates of nozzle throat and inflection point

along with the deflection angle θB at the base nozzle

exit.

• The parabola for the extension nozzle is determined

using the coordinates of inflection point and extension

nozzle exit along with the deflection angle θip at the

inflection point.

• The deflection angle at the inflection point, θip , is determined using the Prandtl-Meyer function.

θip = θB + α (νE − νB )

(1)

,where Prandtl-Meyer angles, νE and νB , are calculated using one-dimensional isentropic flow relation as shown below.

√

√

γ+1

γ−1

−1

ν =

tan

(M 2 − 1)

γ−1

γ+1

√

− tan−1 M 2 − 1

The magnitude of the inflection angle is expressed in terms

of over-expansion factor, α, defined as the multiple factor with respect to the constant extension nozzle designated

wall pressure case in which the inflection angle equals the

difference of Prandtl-Meyer angles between the base and

extension nozzle exits. This factor corresponds to the degree of over-expansion at the inflection point. In the present

analysis, this factor, α, is selected to be 0.8, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2,

1.25, 1.5, and 2.0 to determine the effect of θip on the

behavior of the shock-induced flow separation. Figure 3

shows the dual bell nozzle contour with the over-expantion

factor of 1.0.

**3 CFD Analysis and Conditions
**

The governing equations for the present CFD analysis

are the full Navier-Stokes equations for laminar axis-

2

**For our CFD code, we selected AUSM-DV scheme with
**

MUSCL technique to obtain a higher order accuracy.5 The

governing equations are discretized using the finite volume

method and integrated in time by the Euler explicit method.

Radial Distance Y [m]

**The viscosity coefficient and thermal conductivity are
**

calculated using Sutherland’s formula. Although this formula is valid for pure air, the effect of viscosity on the

shock-induced flow separation inside the nozzle is expected

to be negligible. In fact, we investigated the effect of viscosity on the flow separation with varied viscosity coefficients from 1% to 10000% of the original value. The results indicated no significant difference. The conditions in

the combustion chamber and the exhaust gas are taken from

Table 1.

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0

1

2

3

4

Axial Distance X [m]

**Fig. 4: Computational grid inside the dual-bell nozzle
**

40

Radial Distance Y [m]

30

20

10

0

0

25

50

75

100

Axial Distance X [m]

**As for boundary conditions, along the nozzle surface,
**

the adiabatic wall is assumed and the inflow condition is

imposed on the nozzle throat. The physical properties at

the nozzle throat are calculated from the combustion chamber conditions using the isentropic relations with the Mach

number of 1.0. On the axis of symmetry, the symmetric

condition is applied. At the end of the computational domain, 0th order extrapolation is used for all physical properties. In order to determine the pressure where the separation point transition takes place, the ambient pressure

ranges from 100 [kPa] to 1 [kPa] and the pressure was determined to an accurary of 0.01 [kPa]. Figure 6 shows the

applied boundary condition on each boundary of the computational domain.

**Table 1: Combustion chamber conditions for LE-7A
**

Mixture Gas Molecular Mass [g/mol]

Heat Ratio

Chamber Pressure [kPa]

Chamber Temperature [K]

13.0

1.24

12,258

3,600

**Fig. 5: Computational grid for the whole computational
**

domain

0th order Extrapolation

Adiabatic Wall

Non-slip Condition

0th order Extrapolation

**The computational domain is separated into two areas:
**

one is inside the nozzle and the other is outside the nozzle

as shown in Fig. 4 and 5. Inside the nozzle, the computational grid has 300 points along the nozzle wall and 100

points along the line normal to the nozzle centerline. Outside the nozzle, the computational grid has 150 along the

line of symmetry and 130 points along the line normal to

the line of symmetry. The computational grid is shown in

Fig.4 and 5.

Non-slip Condition

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES on May 2, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-05-C4.2.08

symmetric flow. The exhaust gas inside the nozzle is assumed to be perfect gas.

M=1

Throat㧔ޓޓ㧕

Symmetric Condition

Fig. 6: Applied boundary condition on each boundary

**4 Results and Discussions
**

Flow features inside the dual-bell nozzle

Figure 7 shows the Mach number distribution inside the

nozzle for both low and high altitude modes. When the

ambient pressure is relatively high, which corresponds to

the low altitude mode, the flow separation occurs at the inflection point. In the low altitude modes, the effective area

ratio is limited to the area ratio at the inflection point, in

other words, the base nozzle exit. Additionally, the normal

shock and the triple point occur near the extension nozzle

exit. When the ambient pressure is relatively low, which

corresponds to the high altitude mode, the flow separation

occurs at the extension nozzle exit. This means that the effective area ratio is the area ratio at the extension nozzle

exit in the high altitude modes.

From this figure, we can see that the flow pattern inside

3

Inflection Point

LE-7A Dual-Bell Nozzle

2

Nozzle Exit

55

Mach Number

Pa = 50 [kPa]

50

1

Triple Point

0

Wall Pressure [kPa]

Radial Distance [m]

45

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

**Low Altitude Mode
**

Pa = 100 [kPa]

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

Pa = 25 [kPa]

25

20

Pa = 19 [kPa]

15

10

Pa < 15 [kPa]

-1

5

1.5

High Altitude Mode

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Axial Distance [m]

Pa = 19 [kPa]

Inflection Point

Nozzle Exit

55

-2

Pa = 50 [kPa]

50

45

1

2

3

Axial Distance [m]

4

5

**Fig. 7: Mach number distribution inside the dual-bell
**

nozzle for both low and high altitude modes. The overexpansion factor, α, is 1.0.

Wall Pressure [kPa]

0

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

Pa = 25 [kPa]

25

20

Pa = 20 [kPa]

15

10

Pa < 15 [kPa]

5

1.5

**Effect of over-expansion factor on transition
**

As expected, the over-expansion factor, α, the degree of

over-expansion at the wall inflection, should be larger than

1.0 to ensure sufficiently fast transition. However, excessively large factors may introduce difficulty in manufacturing the nozzle wall near the inflection point. Based on this

considereation, we tried to look for the optimum range of

this factor that provides a sufficiently fast transition without

any problems in design and manufacture.

Figure 8 shows pressure distributions along the nozzle

wall with varied ambient pressure for α = 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, and

1.5. In all cases, the separation point moves from the inflection point to the extension nozzle exit with decrease in

the ambient pressure.

For α = 0.8, the separation point starts to move from

the inflection point at the ambient pressure of 30 [kPa].

The separation point reaches the extension nozzle exit at

the ambient pressure of 20 [kPa]. Therefore, in this case,

the ambient pressure where the separation point transition

starts, pa1 , is 30 [kPa] and the ambient pressure where the

separation point transition ends, pa2 , is 20 [kPa]. Thus, the

pressure difference between pa1 and pa2 is relatively large.

For α = 1.0, the trend is almost similar to that for α =0.8.

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Axial Distance [m]

Inflection Point

Nozzle Exit

55

Pa = 50 [kPa]

50

45

Wall Pressure [kPa]

**the nozzle changes drastically according to the change of
**

the ambient pressure due to the shock-induced flow separation. This indicates that the ambient pressure where the

flow pattern changes is one of the key properties to estimate

the dual-bell nozzle performance gain.

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

25

Pa = 23.31 [kPa]

20

Pa = 23.30 [kPa]

15

10

5

1.5

Pa < 15 [kPa]

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Axial Distance [m]

Inflection Point

Nozzle Exit

55

Pa = 50 [kPa]

50

45

Wall Pressure [kPa]

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

25

Pa = 22.61 [kPa]

20

Pa = 22.60 [kPa]

15

10

5

1.5

Pa < 15 [kPa]

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Axial Distance [m]

**Fig. 8: Pressure distribution along the nozzle wall for α
**

= 0.8, 1.0, 1.2, 1.5 (top α=0.8, bottom α=1.5, LD =80%)

On the other hand, in the case of α=1.2 and 1.5, the pressure difference between pa1 and pa2 is less than 0.01 [kPa],

4

55

Table 2: Effect of the over-expansion factor on the transition time for LD = 80%

Inflection Point

Nozzle Exit

Pa = 50 [kPa]

50

45

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

0.80

30

19

9.1869

12.170

6767

1.00

25

20

10.389

11.912

3360

1.20

23.31

23.30

10.865

10.866

3.111

1.50

22.61

22.60

11.114

11.115

3.114

Wall Pressure [kPa]

α

pa1 [kPa]

pa2 [kPa]

H1 [km]

H2 [km]

ttr. [ms]

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

Pa = 25 [kPa]

25

20

Pa = 20 [kPa]

15

Pa = 15 [kPa]

10

Pa = 10 [kPa]

5

0

1.6

55

H-2A Nominal Flight

Transition Start

Transition Complete

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

11.5

3.0

α=1.2

α=1.0

10.0

Nozzle Exit

Pa = 50 [kPa]

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

10.5

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

25

Pa = 20 [kPa]

20

Pa = 17 [kPa]

15

Pa = 12 [kPa]

10

9.5

5

**Transition Time for α=0.8
**

9.0

47

2.8

45

α=1.5

11.0

Inflection Point

50

Wall Pressure [kPa]

Flight Altitude [km]

0

1.6

48

49

50

51

52

53

Flight Time from Liftoff [s]

54

Pa < 5 [kPa]

1.8

2.0

55

2.2

**which is very small compared to that in the case of α = 0.8,
**

1.0. This indicates that in the case of α= 1.2 and 1.5 the

time necessary to switch from low altitude mode to high

altitude mode is expected to be much shorter than that in

the case of α = 0.8, 1.0.

Next, we estimated the transition time from low altitude

mode to high altitude mode. From our CFD analysis, we

detected the ambient pressures where the separation point

transition starts and ends. These pressures, pa1 and pa2 , can

be related to corresponding altitudes, H1 and H2 . H1 is the

altitude where the separation point transition is estimated to

start and H2 is the altitude where the separation point transition is estimated to end. The results are shown in Fig. 9

and Table 2. From the results, we observe that the transition time for α=1.2 and 1.5 is about 3.0 [ms]. This value is

much smaller than that for α = 0.8 and 1.0. Therefore, from

a viewpoint of transition time, the over-expansion factor α

should be at least 1.2.

**Mechanism of the instant transition
**

The trend about the separation point transition can be characterized by the pressure gradient inside the extension nozzle. When the over-expansion factor is less than 1.0, the

2.6

55

Inflection Point

2.8

3.0

Nozzle Exit

Pa = 50 [kPa]

50

Fig. 9: Effect of the over-expansion factor on the transition time for LD = 80%

2.4

Axial Distance [m]

45

Pa = 40 [kPa]

40

Wall Pressure [kPa]

1.8

Axial Distance [m]

12.5

12.0

Pa < 5 [kPa]

35

Pa = 30 [kPa]

30

25

Pa = 20 [kPa]

20

15

Pa = 13.14 [kPa]

10

Pa = 13.13 [kPa]

5

0

1.6

Pa < 10 [kPa]

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.0

Axial Distance [m]

**Fig. 10: Pressure distribution along the nozzle wall for
**

α = 1.2, 1.5, 2.0 (top α=1.2, bottom α=1.5, LD =70%)

pressure gradient is negative, in other words, the pressure at

the inflection point is higher than that at the extension nozzle exit. The typical shock-induced flow separation criteria

are represented by the pressure ratio between the ambient

pressure and the pressure at the shock. This means that the

pressure at the shock decreases with decrease in the ambient pressure. Therefore, when the pressure gradient is

negative, the location where the criterion is satisfied moves

from the inflection point to the nozzle exit with decrease in

the ambient pressure and the separation point moves from

the inflection point to the exit with decrease in the ambient pressure, as a result, the separation point transition can

not complete instantly. On the other hand, when the pressure gradient is positive, the prssure at the inflection point

5

4

10

5

L = 80%

Conclusions

D

Transition Time [ms]

L = 70%

D

3

10

2

10

1

10

0

10

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Over-expansion factor, α

2.0

Fig. 11: Effect of the nozzle length on the transition time

**is lower than the pressure at the nozzle exit. This means
**

that the separation criterion is satisfied at the nozzle exit

before the criterion is satisfied at the inflection point. This

is why the separation point moves from the inflection point

to the nozzle exit instantly.

**Effect of the nozzle length
**

Finally, we investigated the effect of the nozzle length, LD ,

on the separation point transition. In this case, the total

nozzle length, LD , is set to be 70% of the conical nozzle of

the half angle of 15 [deg.] Other parameters for the dualbell nozzle contour was fixed.

Figure 10 shows the pressure distribution along the nozzle wall for α = 1.2, 1.5, 2.0. From this figure, it was

found that the pressure gradient inside the extension nozzle is negative even for α =1.2 and 1.5 and the gradient is

positive for α = 2.0. Thus, in the case of LD = 70 %, the

preffered over-expansion factor seems to be greater than

2.0.

Figure 11 shows the transition time for LD = 70%

and 80%. Although the preffered over-expansion factor

is greater than 1.2 for LD = 80%, the preffered overexpansion factor is expected be greater than 2.0 for LD =

70% to complete the separation point transition within 10

[ms]. The difference of the over-expansion factor is significant. This indicates that the shorter nozzle length may

require the larger over-expansion factor at the wall inflection. Thus, on design of the dual-bell nozzle contour, we

should pay attention to both the over-expansion factor and

the nozzle length.

**In order to resolve design issues for the dual-bell nozzle
**

contour, we performed a CFD analysis of dual-bell nozzle

flows. From our present CFD calculations, we found that

essentially instant separation point transition takes place

when the over-expansion factor is greater than 1.2. The

transition takes place during the time interval well under

10 [ms] at the altitude of about 10 [km] for a simulated

H-2A boost flight.

Hence, we conclude that the over-expansion factor for

instant transition should be greater than 1.2 for LD = 80%.

But it was also found that the over-expansion factor needs

to be greater than 2.0 for LD = 70%. This means that

the nozzle length also has a significant impact on separation point transition and estimation of the preffered overexpansion factor for the dual-bell nozzle. On design of the

dual-bell nozzle contour we need, therefore, to pay attention to both the deflection angle and the nozzle length for

preffered features of the dual-bell nozzle.

References

[1] Hagemann, G., Immich, H., Nguyen, T. V., and Dumnov, G. E., “Advanced Rocket Nozzles,” Journal of

Propulsion and Power, Vol. 14, No. 5, 1998, pp. 620–

633.

[2] Miyazawa, M., Takeuchi, S., and Takahashi, M.,

“Flight Performance of Dual-Bell Nozzles,” AIAA

Paper 2002-0686, Jan., 2002.

[3] Miyazawa, M., and Otsu, H., “An Analytical Study

on Design and Performance of Dual-Bell Nozzles,”

AIAA Paper 2004-0380, Jan., 2004.

[4] Romine, G. L., “Nozzle Flow Seperation,” AIAA

Journal, Vol. 36, No. 9, Sep. 1998, pp. 1618–1625.

[5] Wada, Y. and Liou, M.-S. “A Flux Splitting Scheme

with High-Resolution and Robustness for Discontinuities,” AIAA Paper 94-0083, January, 1994.

6

- 19960042495 Experimental Performance of a High-Area-Ratio Rocket Nozzle at High Combustion Chamber PressureUploaded bywizz33
- Compressible FlowUploaded byMohan Raj
- ZEHST Broschuere en 2014 V04Uploaded byKemploe
- EsercizioDiffusoreAriaUploaded byAfzalul Karim Nirvick
- A Review of Gas-Fed Pulsed Plasma ThrusterUploaded byBrian
- 19760003000_1976003000Uploaded byssiillaass
- Compressible Flow 2016Uploaded byAnonymous hIyPZZtu
- My first research article publicationUploaded byYerranagu Ashok Reddy
- Thermal Analysis on Plume Heating of the Main EngineUploaded byPaul Ying
- Nuclear Power Plant Gaseous Waste Treatment System DesignUploaded byJQuest
- 19650017046Uploaded byRohit
- Alexey S. Boldarev et al- Soft X-Rays Sources of X-Pinch Type Based on the Supersonic Gas JetsUploaded byImsaa4
- 2010Uploaded bynilu
- Rocket Propulsion - Supplement #1Uploaded byMoltKee
- TteUploaded byAjay Vishwakarma
- Propulsion Control and Thrust Allocation on Marine Vessels - RuthUploaded byleandro_soares2000
- separator design .xlsUploaded bysondung4ver
- Randolph Laboratories, Inc. v. Specialties Development Corporation Appeal of Randolph Laboratories, Inc. Appeal of Randolph Laboratories, Inc. Appeal of Specialties Development Corporation, 178 F.2d 477, 3rd Cir. (1950)Uploaded byScribd Government Docs
- 11 - Fan & Field NozzleUploaded bySiti Saibah Dahalan
- IES CONV Mechanical Engineering 1986Uploaded byGURURAJ C
- Propulsion iUploaded byPavan Kishore
- Art 06Uploaded bySamanta De Jesus Ferreira
- TestUploaded byaytihda
- Water rocketsUploaded byShubham Maurya
- as10-solUploaded byWahyu Wijanarko
- 01667Uploaded byWoei Tding Chong
- Rocketry Education PackUploaded bynoragarcia76
- MTS - TECHOP Annual DP Trials and Gap Analysis.pdfUploaded bysathiaselanpasskeren
- TudUploaded bymalikscribd
- Nijsse Jeff 201211 MASC ThesisUploaded byCarlos Américo